I am not sure I understand this movie. I believe we have built up a linguistic context in movie reviewing that serves as support for empty violence. A way to justify cheap thrills.
I give Cronenberg his due share because he has proven himself to be cinematically aware. But this is clearly some kind of self-denied compromise.
The setup here is too simple to have us be bombarbed with previews 5 months in advance. Someone should learn from Saw I and Saw II.
Viggo picks up from his role in The Deer Runner. The teenage boy is from another movie about troubled teenage boys in High School, the small girl is from another movie about a daughter’s purely innocent relationship to her dad (I am thinking of a Gibson movie), and Maria Bello is wonderful because she understands these archetypes and uses them to conjure up a mother, used to those archetypes, or rather, she conjures up an actor, used to those archetypes, conjuring up a mother part of those archetypes. She plays her character while simultaneously commenting on it.
You have all probably seen this by now. And you know everything was intimately mastered. But did it further something you know about Cronenberg, or cinema?