Greg Debniak

(2013-06-13 13:36:25)

Two Hours of My Life Gone Forever

I can't believe I watched the whole thing. Actually, I fast-forwardedthrough the many, many long, slow, drawn-out and pointless scenes whichburned the same expression on Tilda Swinton's face into my mindforever.I don't know what was worse: the excruciating slowness of the movie orthe totally horrible music that had absolutely no place in this film...a complete mismatch.To top it all off, the movie leaves one feeling empty, used, and stupidfor wasting the time to watch it. It's a very ugly, mean movie andreally has no point at all other than to make the viewer suffer likethe main character.

werefox08

(2013-06-13 07:12:34)

Icy Swinton........Is Tremendous

This is a highly disturbing movie about a mother (Tilda Swinton) herson (Ezra Miller) and his father (John C. Reilly) Through out the filmSwinton is like an Arctic wind (icily cold). When a son comes along,she has terrible problems "making contact" with him...in any meaningfulway. It is like...the young boy can see Swinton is faking it when shetries to be motherly. As he grows into a young man..it is he who runsthe show, and he shows signs of sadistic and psychopathic tendencies.When a daughter arrives "he is not amused". Going to school and killingthe students has become almost "normal" for this type ofindividual....and thats what happens here. Millers choice of weapon isa bow and arrows. There are many deep psychological questions thatremain un-answered here. But thats O.K.

f-odds-1

(2013-06-08 16:42:36)

Well made, but too monotone

From the outset, the tone of the film is relentlessly depressing. Thebehaviour of Kevin as he progresses from toddler to teenager (kudos forthe superbly similar-looking actors involved) is bad; he seems to hatehis mum, love his dad, and unless you're living on another planet, youknow he's going to turn into a Columbine high school type of assassin.So what is there to appreciate? The endless flashback/flashforward modeof storytelling works well, because you know from the surroundings andfrom Tilda Swinton's demeanour, costume and house which stage ofKevin's development you're watching. The acting is fine, though I'm notconvinced it takes all that much to play a whole film showing you're amalevolent devil-spawn (Kevin) or a long-suffering, endlessly patientmother (Swinton).The big question is: why should this interest any viewer? Well, youcould argue that you watch the whole development of the Kevincharacter, except that he's a pathological piece of garbage from hisearliest moments in the pram. You could watch the evolution of themother, except that Tilda Swinton doesn't evolve, she just puts onnumber 3 face for the whole movie so you feel the occasional sense ofrelief on the rare occasions she does number 2 and smiles a bit (facenumber 1 is reserved for other movies).The end result is tedium or fascination, depending on your point ofview. With apologies to all who tried so hard to make this a vivid,fascinating account of the psychological background to seriouslydysfunctional teenagers, there's nothing in this film that is novel,revealing, gripping or inspirational. It's not a sleeper, but it'slight years from anything that will make you want to watch it again 2months, 2 years or 2 decades from now: and that's a pretty goodcriterion for judging whether to see a film or spend the time on betterthings.

BlackRoseShelli

(2013-06-08 02:13:16)

More questions than answers

I wish I could remember who told me I had to watch this movie, becauseI'd like to thank them.While this movie started off disjointed and massively confusing, itfinally settled down into something coherent and mind-blowing. Andoff-the-charts frightening! No parent wants to think that their childis capable of doing something so horrendous that it defies allcomprehension. But it happens. Children do things that destroy lives.But how do the parents of these children, provided they survive withtheir lives intact, learn to live with what their child has done? Thismovie examines the point of view of the mother of an insanely disturbedchild, not only after his horrendous crime, but his entire life leadingup to the crime. We see a mother who is at a loss about what to do withher son, and a father who doesn't even see the signs and thinks themother is just blowing things out of proportion.I think of all the parents of headline criminals, and what they must'vegone through, and probably still are. Do we take pity on them, or blamethem for not seeking help for their child? This movie certainly doesn'tanswer that question for the viewer! Major kudos to the 2 actors whoplayed Kevin! The young boy (Jasper Newell) is a phenomenal actor forbeing so young. The older Kevin (Ezra Miller) had just the right mix ofsweet and insane to pull off this character perfectly!

Christian_Dimartino

(2013-06-04 20:22:56)

I would say you do.

Tilda Swinton is a gifted actress, but i'm sure that's old news. It's ashame that her latest film, We Need To Talk About Kevin, was sonotoriously overlooked. i would be putting it on my list of the bestmovies of 2011, but Roger Ebert didn't, and is putting it on his 2012list, so I will too.The film revolves around a woman, played by Swinton, who is trying toadjust to life after her son (the older version is played by anincredibly creepy but terrific young actor named Ezra Miller) has madeit a living hell. They haven't gotten along since he was a baby, andhave been playing head games with each other since.WNTTAK is an excellent movie that makes The Good Son look like Norbit.Sure that kid is a little more evil... no, i'm probably wrong aboutthat. I forgot to mention John C. Reilly, who plays Swinton's cluelesshusband. He is also really good. You will have a hard time tearing youreyes away from this film. It's engrossing, at times chilling, andunique, and acted to perfection.The most interesting moments are between Swinton and her son, bothyoung and old. They hate each other, its obvious. He uses tricks tofool his naiive father, while his mom knows what he's doing, he shedoesn't buy it. Swinton does her best work yet here, as an unfortunatewoman who must regret ever giving birth to his monster.Miller is a promising young talent that I definitely hope to see moreof. It's a good thing that his career started with this film, becausethis will look impressive on his resume. WNTTAK is a haunting andintoxicating drama that will leave you wanting to watch it again thesecond it's over. You know how I know that? I watched it a few hourslater.A

Framescourer

(2013-06-04 02:54:07)

Guilt trip

Lynne Ramsay's film is a tour de force of economy. There's not a singleshot wasted. Not a moment goes by that isn't informing, telling thestory, adding to the cumulative exploration of a dysfunctional mother-son relationship and its purgatorial fall-out. It's also a rathergentle film (dare I say it, a feminine film): the narrative isconstantly split between past and present, the tone moving betweenall-pervasive paranoia, drudge and romance. The movement isn't jerkythough, with regular pacing of the flashing back and forwards,meticulously edited cuts and a very clever original + co-optedsoundtrack that often works in contrary motion to the tone, smoothingit out.This is a film about a mother confronting motherhood across anoverlapping three-act structure: before Kevin's birth, with Kevin,after Kevin's crime. Tilda Swinton is a shoo-in for an Oscar nominationfor her assumption of the role, her selection of uncomprehendingthousand yard stares far removed from the opaque look favoured by manyother actors working to this level. It helps that the three Kevins whoplay the title role are all uniformly superb as well - hideous, sly,handsome.It's the visuals that pulled me up and pressed me back down over andover. The opening 5 minutes or so are worth more than many hours ofmediocre film making that I'm perfectly happy to sit through as ageneral rule in a cinema: the Boschian Tomatina fight, with theequivocal vision of a blissed out Eva buried in the blood red Sartrean-viscous filth is a particularly arresting opening statement (think ofthe bleaching-white flour of Morvern Callar). It's not an easy watch,although there is no sensationalism. It is, however, always poetry.9/10

emandelcorn-1

(2013-05-28 14:03:08)

Strong Directing - Strong Acting - Strong Subject - Off Target

I watched this film with a global audience in Cannes. The theater waspacked and the two people who walked into the screening ahead of mewere already established filmmakers. I was hit by a brilliance of colorand a tableau of events moving back and forth in time. Excellentcasting, excellent metaphors, excellent camera-work, excellent writing,but the story was not only depressing, the bulls eye, the center ofattention, the whole forward motion of the piece, was in the wrongdirection. You knew that you were watching a film and you knew theactors were playing their roles and when the end came, the packed housewas silent and then after a moment the booing started. Finally after alittle thought I joined in. See a much better film on this subject. See"April Showers."

craignorm

(2013-05-28 09:13:12)

A compelling and interesting independent film.

The film is essentially about a Mother coping with the fact that herSon killed many of his fellow high school colleagues in a 'high schoolmassacre' style that we see all too often on the news of a late.It accounts the repercussions suffered by the Mother in the aftermathof the massacre but more so the sons upbringing and the interactionsbetween Son and Mother. The film is presented in a non linear aspect.It starts off a little confusing and disjointed at first but the deeperin to the film I got the more compelling and unambiguous I found it.What I liked about the film is how it managed to slowly build up apicture of why he did it and who's to blame. The whole nature vsnurture argument is kind of the backbone to the film and is put acrossvery well indeed.Overall this film will appeal to some people but not to others. From mypoint of view it is a worthwhile watch which should give the viewer alot to think about.

junkielee

(2013-05-28 06:11:17)

We Need to Talk About Kevin

An almost full room audience in the Febiofest for Lynne Ramsay'shigh-acclaimed drama about immature parenting, with a THE OMEN-esquedemonic boy character who precipitates a ruthless slaughter in theschool. The film dares to strain viewers' bounds of witnessing an agonizingprocess of a vehement duel between an unprepared and neglectful motherand her sociopathic son, and the mother's self- pondering andretribution after the brutal massacre.Ramsay (ends a 9-years hiatus after MORVERN CALLAR 2002) reprises herdirector ego and turns Lionel Shriver's thorny novel into a gutsy andpersonal character study, parading her snappy camera-work with aconstantly blood-red frame-moulding, exaggerating a non-linearnarrative and overstaying freezing-frames to leaves actors (TildaSwinton & Ezra Miller namely) extensive space for their adroitness of aheadstrong interpretation. There are no wanting of dashing shots andtableaux here, the opening scene of carnal intimacy with acarnivalesque immolation splattered with blood hue is singularlystaggering, and what's more extraordinary is that the thrust has neverceased to mitigate until the very last scene. The film is also a formidable platform for veteran Swinton and tyroMiller, they are predominantly capturing all the gaze from beholderswho hold a mixed-feeling of sympathy, empathy, detestation, horror andshock. John C. Reilly has retreated to his usual supporting stereotype,and two young actors plays Kevin's toddler and child periods are alsoprudently picked. The film is without exception a tough bone to chew up, and on the wholeoozes a moderately showiness of its concoction of its sensationalfodder and stows away some sequential detail information in order todemonstrate a chicly elliptical manner. It is a film one may shun awayfrom a second viewing but a first encounter could reside much longerthan its average peers.

Dharmendra Singh

(2013-05-27 12:32:11)

Bad Mother or Evil Seed?

This is quite simply one of the best films of the year. Even the book'sauthor, Lionel Shriver (a woman) praises the film, calling it 'abrilliant adaptation'. Being a first-time dad, the story fascinated me.What happens if you don't love your own child... and they know it? Tilda Swinton, not normally a favourite of mine, is exceedingly good asEva, the mum uninterested in maternity. Gravid when she least wants tobe (she's career-minded), out pops Kevin, her little Damien. You knowfrom the moment she refuses skin-to-skin things are not going to bodewell. She has no idea how to deal with a baby. Her idea of subduing him is tostand next to a pneumatic drill to drown out his relentless screaming.Kevin grows up knowing he is unloved and demonstrates this throughdevilish behaviour towards Eva. Gradually Eva, if not embraces motherhood, then at least gets better atit. Perhaps this is due to her giving birth to her second child, agirl, who Kevin of course hates with a passion. Or maybe the idea ofbeing a mum sinks in, along with the realisation that a career is notthe most important thing in life.Eva's betterments do nothing to placate Kevin: he gets worse. Eva'sattempts to complain are met with ridicule by the father (John C.Reilly), who thinks she is delusional. Years of unintentional, butsometimes intentional, neglect take their toll on Kevin, and the film'stragic conclusion seems inevitable.The origin for Kevin's behaviour has polarised audiences. Did Evacreate a monster by failing to form a bond early on? Should she havesought help from professionals if she felt she wasn't coping? Or wasKevin simply a bad seed; an innately evil child who no one could havecured? Now that I've had the chance to reflect, I think it's unfair to judgeson or mother. I'd be surprised if Ramsay wanted audiences to do that.What would be the point? The film is a starkly brilliant exploration ofa failed relationship and the consequences that has on a family and anentire community. If Swinton can win an Oscar so easily for her role in 'MichaelClayton', she should be celebrating her second win now. It's one ofthose performances which needs months of detoxification andpsychoanalysis to move on from. Her acting is matched bynew-kid-on-the-block Ezra Miller, who plays her lovelorn son. He bringsto his role a controlled ferocity we are not used to seeing. Hisportrayal works, apart from his first-class acting, because he's notthe stereotype. To look at him, you would say he was handsome andingenuous. But looks are deceptive. It's hard for people to be repulsed by films nowadays, but there arescenes which will shock. So rare is it to see this kind of film. Theyvanish as quickly as they appear. I implore you to see this if you can.You'll be moved if not entertained.www.moseleyb13.com

p-stepien

(2013-05-21 09:28:06)

Troublesome failure

Eva Khatchadourian (Tilda Swinton) attempts to deal with troubledevents of her past. Her son Kevin (astounding breakthrough performanceby Ezra Miller) is in jail, locked up for a horrendous crime, while sheherself is being ostracised by the community for the atrocitiescommitted. The events are presented in countless retrospectives, whichfling us in time from the moment of Kevin's conception through hischildhood up until the tragic events, that seem in retrospect aforegone conclusion.The inspirational inventive construction of the movie with the pastintertwining and adding layers of understanding underlines thetechnical, directional and conceptual brilliance of the movie. Flawlessin this regard it also verges on the brink of perfection from the castas Swinton, Miller as well as John C. Reilly (playing the husband andfather) perform stellarly. All in all the packaging is sheerexcellence, so the underlying and a great example of superb filmmaking.So where did it all go wrong? The underlying problem with "We Must TalkAbout Kevin" stems from questions of integrity. After uncoveringseveral layers it does seem like a pretty banal thriller about adevil-child parading around as a psychological analysis of a murderer'supbringing, thus severely hitting the credibility of a movie withsevere artistic inclinations. The psychotic deranged Kevin comes off aspre-fabricated and pre-destined, much like a protagonist better fittingto movies like "Rosemary's Baby" or "Omen", than to a more cerebraltake on the origins of murder, giving the story a resounding falsenote, which deducts from the experience. So despite touching a lot ofemotional strings the distant awkwardness of Kevin's background lowersfeasibility and hi-jacks it into "Scream" territory.The biggest glitch originates from the flimsy portrayal from the earlyyears of Eva's motherhood. Issues are suggested, like Eva's persistingpost-delivery depression and blaming Kevin for the end of her freedom,which result in ambiguity towards motherhood. Nonetheless filming shotsof Eva getting frustrated by her baby crying is rathercounterproductive - it's hard to find a parent out there, who at onetime or another didn't have the urge to throw his endlessly screamingchild out the window. May not be popular dinner conversation, but thatis the reality of parenthood. From this occurrence we jump severalyears forward, where Kevin still uses diapers and persistently ignoreshis mother in an already defiant, almost psychotic, fashion. Only in amoment of weakness (due to sickness) does Kevin open up to his motherand shows her affection. Henceforth the overall credibility of themovie falters, where a five-eight year old with Damien-like eyes iscynical and scheming enough to pretend to have fun with his father,while throwing meaningful evil glances at his mother.Children psychology is all over the place and lack some seriousbackground research or at least further story exposure of the earlyyears, but a child of that age is not developed enough to show suchanti-social, psychotic behaviour, unless you are in horror-movie-land.I understand the relationship may have been dysfunctional, but themental acuity given to a toddler is beyond reason. All in all thebackground story for Kevin's upbringing seems laboured and rushed,overly focused on 'finished product' and his hateful, sadisticbehaviour. Not enough is actually dedicated to causes, while the lovingcaring father figure seems counter-intuitive to Kevin ending up a coldand ruthless sociopath. All in all the whole story seems in slightcontradiction with the premeditated 'bad seed' actions of the son, asin the ultimate break-down the imprisoned Kevin is unable to findreason behind his murderous activities, ergo suggesting that all heessentially wanted was his motherly love. Something that Eva willinglyoffers her son.Overall - despite the directional ingenuity evident on screen - LynneRamsay fails to acknowledge certain traits of film regardingpresentation of reality. The director does attempt to portray thehappenings as part of Eva's memories. But whereas in a book a carefulselection of words make subjective perception indecisive, pictureforces the viewer to accept the flashbacks of the mother as the factualoccurrence. In order to instill uncertainty a counterpoint isnecessary, be it different perspectives of third persons or evenreenacting the same memory several times, but offering variations.Essentially the movie aims to invoke questions about the causality ofsociopathic behaviour. Is it a 'bad seed' or a question of breeding?Eva's ambivalence towards her maternity is suggested as a potential keyreason, however this is indecisive due to how early in life Kevin ispresented as disturbed and unsettled.The movie would have also benefited from actually delivering on thefilm's title and talking about Kevin. Instead we are filled with anoverdose of long shots, gazes and supposedly self-explanatorysequences. All in all a disappointing experience given the immensepromise of the underlying concept, which result in a soulless journey.Shame someone didn't do their homework and just took ill-advised"Psycho" short-cuts.That said - if it didn't pretend to be cerebral and meaningful, itwould have gotten excellent grades from me as a straight-out thriller.

Troye Dchgl

(2013-05-20 21:18:55)

Superb Acting Mixed With Incoherent Story

Here we are again, another movie that may join the Oscars race. I willsay this: Even if "We Need to Talk About Kevin" gets nominated, it willonly be on account of the striking performances. The obvious andeducated explanation is that this is far off the mainstream of filmsthat the Academy often likes to recognize as Best Picture material, butthe more important thing is that, there seems to be a sense ofincoherence throughout.Much of the things not having been explained over the course of theplot development is not the weakness here. The real problem is that ithas a feeling that contents are spread all over and there is difficultyfinding relation between scenes. To be precise, depiction of Kevin'schildhood was no doubt necessary, but what exactly happened? What werethe key events that led to the eventual outcome? And what message wasthe movie bringing? It was not that confusing for me to constantly jumpfrom point to point on the time-line, but as I said, this is not aproblem. The fault is on the contents shown rather than on the means ofdisplaying them.The start of the film produced an initial feeling that everything wouldbe covered and you would comprehend the whole thing when it was over.So you were expecting a lot to help you understand better the two maincharacters as focuses - the mother and the son - which were the core ofthe whole film. But in the end, when you thought you had seen all themissing random (Or were they random? They seemed random to me) memoriesof Kevin's childhood, you still would not understand much. What was theforce that drove him to do what he did? And if the reason behind hisactions was not meant to be revealed, then what was the point of makingit look like it was revealing something? Perhaps this is just me, but speaking of messing with the past and thepresent, this reminds me of "21 Grams". A little disappointed as I waswith that movie, at least the scenes formed a more-or-less completestory.But let's also talk about the good things. The group of actors in thisare incredible. This is not a movie with much long dialogue, which iseven more challenging. But all the actors delivered excellentperformances.Tilda Swinton was amazing and I definitely would like to find her amongthe five nominees as Best Actress in the Oscars. There is not a singleoutstanding scene or particularly intense scene for her but her overallperformance from begin to finish was simply startling.Ezra Miller was equally good for his part as Kevin, and the two youngversions of Kevin by Jasper Newell and Rock Duer were good too. John C.Reilly was, well, his part was relatively minor and he did not appearmuch.I would not be surprised if the actors in "We Need To Talk About Kevin"gain recognition and awards. I would be utterly shocked though if thisturned out to be one of Best Picture nominees, but I guess with all thegems this year it will be highly unlikely. Anyhow, I still think thebest way to describe this movie is that it is a movie with powerfulacting but a weak story.

Matei Clej

(2013-05-20 03:15:56)

where to begin

CONTAINS SPOILERS: A tedious and drawn out misery-flick. It would havebeen a great picture (great subject matter and actors) but for tryingto be all things at once. The father is so absurdly dim, insensitiveand biased as to belong in a comedy sketch. The convoluted plot andmish mash of devices (the red paint, the random guy in a wheelchair,the tomato wrestling at the beginning, the dead father and daughter atthe end, the obfuscation over how the daughter loses her eye) detractfrom the story progression and from the intense Swinton and theunsettling Ezra, who made the film worthwhile to sit through (I nearlywalked out, that tedious was the first half).

pc95

(2013-05-19 12:13:20)

Effectively Disturbing

One of the more disturbing movies I've seen in quite awhile, LynneRamsay's "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is an unsettling and grotesquewatch. The experience of it wears you down and leaves you dismayed overit's runtime. (spoilers) The character Kevin Kachadorian (sp?) haspulled the wool over most everyone's eyes except the one he hatesand/or loves the most in his life: his mother (played by TildaSwanson). Cleverly Ramsay never makes it really clear which one it iseven up until the closing credits. Tilda Swanson's character is left inthe same bewildered agony as the audience. This is the right decisionfor the ending too, leaving confusion and adding to the affect. Thedirector employs a jig-saw puzzle narrative effectively enough and(spoiler) I thought that the scenes and acting of the earlier youngerKevin were actually more disturbing than the violence. The onlyannoying parts of the movie were: 1) several of the soundtrack choices,whichwere out of place, and goofy for the content of the material.Leave montage music for some other lighter genre - this isn'ttelevision. And 2)The character of the Dad who seems to be completelydoosped unbelievably, and treats his Wife like an idiot. Anyway, stillthis is a well made movie that hits the mark, and leaves youdisconcerted. Recommended, but be ready.

cstotlar-1

(2013-05-15 03:42:06)

This Is Not What You Think

I'm rather surprised at some of the reviewers who sought reality inthis film and realistic solutions to the problems. I'ts more like"Eraserhead" than "Days of our Lives" and the child was straight out ofone of the Damien movies. What happened in the film was unspeakablyviolent but what was actually shown? The child's disdain for his motheris everywhere to be found and his radical switch when talking to hisfather of his father is so completely different that it would beimpossible NOT to notice the difference. That's an example of why thescript was never meant to be normal or real. A child who screamsincessantly is a nightmare and nightmares aren't real. What Kevinactually did to his sister isn't shown at all but implied and obliquelyat that. This is a film without answers, certainly not medical ones. Itis a mother's worst dream but it is a dream nonetheless. There aresurprises all over and I, for one, was glued to the screen, trying toout-guess the out-guessable and predict the unpredictable. One goodexample of the film's unreality - the locks Kevin receives and plans tosell to students in his school - is pure Bunuel. This film wasbeautifully made.Curtis Stotlar

horrorfeminista

(2013-05-14 17:33:13)

We Need to Talk About Kevin Provides Real-World Horror

It seems like it's happening more and more these days, but maybe it'sjust that we're more connected now than we have ever been before. Is ittwo or three times a year that we hear about a young person going intoa school or a public place and then going ballistic, killing as manypeople as possible in a short period of time? I think the last timethis happened was this summer when The Dark Knight Rises opened, and aguy dressed like the Joker went into a midnight showing of the movieand started firing. Immediately, everybody knew, and the victims' lasttweets were made public within a day.The movie We Need to Talk About Kevin looks at the events leading up toand after such a horrific event through the eyes of a parent, in thiscase the point of view of Kevin's mother, who has known that there wassomething wrong with her son since birth. Eva Khatchadourian has beenostracized by everybody in the town that she lives in ever since herson went on a rampage at his high school. She struggles with an act ofvandalism that happens at the beginning of the movie, and the red paintthat she removes throughout the movie, as well as the generalrefurbishing of her house, works as a symbol at various times in themovie. There are also scenes comparing Eva's life before and after theevent. She once lived in a sparkling-clean, posh house with lots ofwindows and worked as a travel writer. Now she lives in a dark, rundownhouse with leftover plates of scrambled eggs lying around and works ata travel office where one of her main duties is photocopying. She'sgone from being a confident, put-together woman to one who's fraying atthe edges.Eva is a flawed person and what her son did was incredibly awful, butit's hard to believe all of the abuse that she is subjected to in thecourse of the movie. My biggest question is why did Eva stay in thattown where everybody knew what happened? Maybe she wanted to stay closeto her son who's locked up nearby (she's shown visiting himperiodically during the movie where most of the sessions are silent andshe sits with a blank face). Maybe she just feels like she has topunish herself for being the person who gave birth to such a monster.Throughout his childhood, her son Kevin shows the classic signs of asociopathic personality: he screams constantly as an infant, isincredibly late to toilet train, shows no empathy, and abuses those whoare smaller and helpless under him. (A lot of his behavior reminded meof how Nancy Spungen's mother describes her early childhood in And IDon't Want to Live This Life.) Kevin is also a master manipulator froma very young age and plays his parents off each other perfectly. Daddy(John C. Reilly) is the good guy and only sees the happy faces that hisson puts on in order to get what he wants. It's Eva who sees whatreally lies beneath, but even she can be played by Kevin. When he'ssick and Eva takes care of him, Kevin is entranced by a book that shereads to him, and it is the one moment in the movie where Eva nurturesher son and he allows her to do it, even extending the moment with hismother by locking his dad out. Later, it turns out that this story timeonly served to provide Kevin with his weapon of choice.Both the actors (Jasper Newell and Ezra Miller) who play Kevin as ayoung boy and teenager are wonderful. If you thought Damien was evil inThe Omen, wait until you get a load of Kevin. Tilda Swinton is equallyable as his mother Eva, showing love and hate for her son before thetragedy, but after, her face seems to be a blank slate as she drifts onautopilot trying to put the pieces of her life back together. The onlytime that she seems to react is when she encounters victims of her sonand then her primary emotional response is shame. And I think this ishow a woman in her situation would act.There are visual and sound motifs used in the movie that some mightfind a little heavy-handed, but I really liked them. I thought theygave the movie more texture and made it meaty. Actually this wholemovie could be taken apart as a piece of literature. There's comparisonand contrast, symbols, motifs. But I doubt a high school teacher wouldbe able to get this movie on a syllabus with its dark and twistedthemes. A pity since it would provoke so much discussion.

chasehill13

(2013-05-11 01:23:57)

The best movie that i never want to see again.

This was a fantastic film from start to finish. No shot is wasted intelling this extremely disturbing story of a dysfunctional relationshipbetween mother and son that ends in the inevitable devastation thatensues. Although it is fairly clear from the beginning how the filmwill end i was glued to the screen from the very first scene.The actingis brilliant by all but especially Ezra Miller who plays teenage Kevin.Swinton is fantastic as always and Reilly plays the somewhat dim fatherwhich isn't much of a stretch for him but it works perfectly for thefilm. I was amazed at how convincing the child actors who played Kevinduring his various ages were. Kudos to the film makers for findinggreat child actors who all look very similar. The camera work and musicwere all nearly perfect and combined with great direction and agripping story makes this one the best films i have seen in quite awhile. Expect plenty of Oscar nominations for this one, and watch it ayour earliest opportunity, but be warned it is at times very disturbingand not a movie you will soon forget.

justbritto

(2013-05-10 15:17:32)

Pretentious; shallow; self-indulgent. Refuses to earn the attention it demands from the audience.

The colour red is rammed down your eyes, as though it alone could carrythis flaccid film. The first third of the film is a series ofincomprehensible pre-plot flashback-and-forwards worthy of David Lynchat his most obscurantist and self-indulgent. The entire cast are1-dimensional and their relationships to one another are worthy of anAmerican sitcom.There's nothing subtle or compelling about anything except the finalscene, but that doesn't begin to justify the rest of the movie. Theonly time I really identified with the mother was when Kevinmasturbated defiantly in front of her. Because that's exactly what thedirector was doing to his audience.

ForVirg

(2013-05-03 06:26:25)

Disturbing backwards oedipus complex

Warnings about how disturbing this film is cannot be underestimated. Itseems to me to delve into a horrific oedipus complex turned upside downby Kevin's desire to torture his mother.I rated it 7 out of 10 because, unlike so many films about spreekillers, it takes no moral stand. It simply shows the potential effectsof such psychoses on everyone, but particularly on the immediate,surviving family.I am distressed when viewers feel we should hold the mother partiallyresponsible. I believe this film shows the very real probability thatthe mother merely reacts to the obviously errant development of thechild who becomes a psychotic killer. She does, indeed, seek help. Onlyto be rebuffed by doctors and experts--not to mention her consistentlyself-deluded husband--so labeled as an hysterical mother.As a student of neuropsychology, and a long-term ponderer of thepsychology of those who kill, I have come to understand that thebiology of the brain of some killers is congenital. Genetic? Maybe.Maybe not. But inborn? Positively.This film explores that possibility. Tilda Swinton plays the haplessmother of the congenitally disturbed Kevin, and does so brilliantly.Her character's growing fear of the title character, who plays heragainst her husband's life of denial (Reilly, played perfectly), ispalpable. This grittily realistic woman makes you ponder how you wouldhandle such a difficult reality.Of course, that is exactly the point, in my opinion. My heart breaksfor her, as she lives out the consequences of ignorance in the public,who blame her for her son's evil acts. Personally, my opinion is thatno matter how lurid the childhood of killers, it is nature (in theformation of the physical brain), not nurture (in the rearing), thatcreates a killer such as Kevin.Too many children have been raised with horrors far beyond those thistitle character endures; yet they do not kill. It seems to me this filmpoints out that Kevin was born with no capacity for empathy, and,worse, with a keen appetite for torture. Particularly satisfying to himis the torture of his mother. It is disturbing in the extreme to seehow well he ultimately conquers her completely. And in stealing fromher a peaceful life, he condemns her to a fate worse than his own inprison.In the end, it asks us to ponder how we would feel if it happened tous. Which causes much discomfort, because of the protective mechanismin our minds that leads us to find reasons it could not happen to us.But the point is--it can.

CineCritic2517

(2013-05-02 18:45:56)

A typical art house film recommended for lovers of the genre.

Swinton plays Eva, mother of a son with a devious diabolical mind. Thefilm continuously jumps to other timelines while maintaining an overallchronological story arc. It succeeds on many fronts in displaying thefrustrations of the mother and evilness of the son who plays out hismother against his father. There's a genuine art house feel to the boldway it is filmed and edited which feels very unpolished with continuousvisual hints towards the conclusion of the story using easy to catchsymbolism. Swinton seems to be underplaying her role which, as fan ofher previous work, was a bit disappointing but doesn't hinder the filmin any way. A typical art house film recommended for lovers of thegenre.65/100