Some reservations with regards to David Cronenberg's A History of Violence (Warning--plot discussed in detail):
1) Everyone is too cheerful about Viggo Morentensen's character getting all that press; if you live in a small town, I imagine the attention would be more annoying. Mortensen is guarded; I'd have thought he'd be more freaked out, maybe even panicky. And I'm not sure such an incident would reach national news; it probably would have to be an extremely slow news night.
2) Looking out your window after being accosted by a news crew and seeing a black sedan outside, I'm not sure I would assume that's yet another news crew (in a black sedan?), and I'm not sure I would be so complacent about it. People see these reports, they tend to get crazy ideas; the people here should be more aware of that.
3) The sheriff expresses skepticism that gangsters from Philadelphia would show their hand so completely unless they have the wrong man, but expresses NOT ONE WORD about him being able to dispatch three men singlehandedly, or almost. Also, that for a small-town man he seems to end up in the hospital with some regularity.
4) I suspect the movie follows the graphic novel pretty closely (as closely as the fight sequences?). The fact that the film seems to dwell more on the violence than on the consequences of living with it, I think this tendency come from the novel. It's the most entertaining way to go, but not necessarily the most thoughtful, useful, or even interesting.
That said, it's probably one of the best mainstream films of the year, right up there with The Constant Gardener, Land of the Dead, and Corpse Bride. This isn't a great year for films, I think, from the few I've seen, but it seems to be shaping up to be better than last year, anyway, qualitywise.