The Official Review Thread of 2011

[Sabin]

I have absolutely no idea what happened in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Almost none. Alfredson wants to create a film that is both gorgeously atmospheric and...well, coherent. So he shoots the film in a series of interconnected images that communicate a shit load of information and strings them together. This is very ambitious of him with a plot this confusing. The result is a series of impossibly beautiful and evocative imagery that for me refused narrative cohesion or human connection. This film is maybe the most handsome production of the year, but almost like a Harry Potter flick in what it assumes I understand.

[dws1982]

Certified Copy
The lifespan of a relationship, from the first encounter to the sad end. Don't worry too much about the game it plays with the two lead characters: This is a rumination on love and heartbreak and loss that honestly invites comparison to Journey to Italy. Just beautiful.

[Reza]

I don't think the child is the cliche ''bad seed'' that we appear to see. He only appears that way to us through the mother's eyes. That's how she perceives him. The child is desperate for her attention which, for some reason, she is unable to or doesn't want to give.....the scene where he sits next to her and nuzzles upto her is shown from the child's point of view. His final defiant act is a ''fuck you'' to the mother.

[bizarre]

I can totally buy that, but here I feel the nods to genre (mostly) worked.

Probably my favourite moment was when Eva was approached by the kind paraplegic survivor of the attack, but coulnd't talk to him properly with food in her mouth. That was heartbreaking, and a clever way to outline her inability to either deal sensitively with the survivors and families of victims of the massacre (see her walk down the court steps) or acknowledge her own victimhood.

[ITALIANO]

However while watching the film I don't think we are meant to trust Eva's objectivity as a storyteller until the present-day scenes.?

This is true, and it's certainly the only way to explain the way Kevin is portrayed in the movie. The guilt feelings play an important role and I admit that the movie analyzes those quite carefully. Still, the fact that it's seen from the point of view of a certain character (in this case the mother) doesn't completely solve the problems I have with We Must Talk About Kevin: ok, it's not the movie which sees Kevin as a cliched monster child, it's the mother - but he's still a cliched monster child.

And then yes, there are scenes like the one at the mini-golf and others that are subtle and perceptive - this definitely isn't The Omen, I know, and it's not a movie one should quickly dismiss. But it's still the kind of movie where, when you see Kevin's cherubic little sister caressing her pet hamster, you perfectly know that something terrible will happen soon to the animal, and it happens in the next scene. I understand that even this is seen through the eyes - and the memory - of the mother, but it's still Fatal Attraction territory.

[bizarre]

We Must Talk About Kevin isn't your typical Christmas movie, so probably I chose the wrong evening to see it. But I don't think that's the reason why I'm still not sure that it's a good movie. Intense, yes, and, judging from the reactions of the audience I saw it with, powerful. It worked for them. It worked a bit less for me.
We all know what it's about. It's a fascinating subject, one that would deserve a great movie. I liked that this movie mostly focuses on the complex relationship between the mother and the son who will, at 16, become a mass murderer. And I liked the fact that such a story was told by a woman director - a technically expert, obviously committed woman director.
So it's a pity, I guess, that I found the son, right from the start when he's just a child, too much like the hissable monster of so many minor movies. I know - it's supposed to be seen from the point of view of the mother. And I can also imagine that a teenager that ends up doing such a terrible, senseless act of violence, must have been a difficult child. But this is really right out of The Omen or The Bad Seed, and it makes a potentially devastating movie much less effective than it could have been (and more reassuring than it would have been had the child been more "normal", at least on the surface). And I'm sure that the movie isn't meant to be banal - the mother-son relationship is portrayed with an unusual attention to details, quite subtly even, especially in some brief but telling moments; and most importantly, no movie with Tilda Swinton can be really banal (well, except the ones she makes in Italy maybe). Swinton is, of course, very good. She always is. But if she's nominated for the first time in the Best Actress category for this movie (as she probably will be) and not for others she made before, it's because of the character she plays. A great character, certainly, but one that would have been much less interesting if played by another actress. Swinton makes one forget the flaws of the script - and it's a far from perfect script.
Well, almost forget. For example, two years after the massacre the Swinton character is still persecuted by the people of the small town she lives in - violently, even. This sounds a bit too much, but when, towards the end of the movie, we learn of a certain important fact that we didn't know before, but the town people did (something that happened on the day of the massacre), it becomes downright absurd.
And I'm not sure that the way the teenager kills his victims could have really happened, considering the unusual weapon he uses.
I know, these are small things, and We Must Talk About Kevin is too clearly intended as an "art" movie. (This becomes a bit too obvious at times, for example in a scene in which a character takes a bow in front of an imaginary audience). But it definitely isn't that great movie that its subject deserves.

I saw this on Christmas, too! I had heard a lot about the depiction of the younger Kevin - and Kevin in general - as a cartoon 'evil child'. However while watching the film I don't think we are meant to trust Eva's objectivity as a storyteller until the present-day scenes. As a character she is doomed to eternally repeat a cycle of guilt, desperate reflection and attempted rationalisation - this is reflected in the very structure of the film, and in its sound mix - it is clear that she never wanted Kevin and this was blatantly obvious. As a child he would have been able to understand this even without "mommy was happy until Kevin came along!". The depiction of Kevin in all scenes other than the final one appears to me to reflect a kind of projecting on Eva's part to protect herself from the reality that her grossly extended postpartum depression potentially incited Kevin to join her in a cycle of defiant behaviour that ultimately led to a massacre. I think she gets more honest with herself and with the audience the more recent her memories are, and I'd wager that the truest side of Eva we see is her when she plays mini-golf with Kevin - no wonder her son had problems.

The novel had an unreliable narrator and I think Ramsay adapted that to the screen in quite a rich way. A fair bit of the dialogue was painfully on-point, though, but never once did I feel the film was taking itself that seriously. I do feel like the best way to explore the psychology of this character, with its compulsive self-recriminations and subjective depictions of other characters, is in the kind of exaggerated, somewhat tongue-in-cheek Dark Romantic horror that Ramsay explored.

I do feel like the persecution that Eva endures is highly unrealistic considering that she is just as much a victim of that day as her tormentors. but perhaps Ramsay intended some of these scenes to be Eva embellishing the truth?

[ITALIANO]

We Must Talk About Kevin isn't your typical Christmas movie, so probably I chose the wrong evening to see it. But I don't think that's the reason why I'm still not sure that it's a good movie. Intense, yes, and, judging from the reactions of the audience I saw it with, powerful. It worked for them. It worked a bit less for me.
We all know what it's about. It's a fascinating subject, one that would deserve a great movie. I liked that this movie mostly focuses on the complex relationship between the mother and the son who will, at 16, become a mass murderer. And I liked the fact that such a story was told by a woman director - a technically expert, obviously committed woman director.
So it's a pity, I guess, that I found the son, right from the start when he's just a child, too much like the hissable monster of so many minor movies. I know - it's supposed to be seen from the point of view of the mother. And I can also imagine that a teenager that ends up doing such a terrible, senseless act of violence, must have been a difficult child. But this is really right out of The Omen or The Bad Seed, and it makes a potentially devastating movie much less effective than it could have been (and more reassuring than it would have been had the child been more "normal", at least on the surface). And I'm sure that the movie isn't meant to be banal - the mother-son relationship is portrayed with an unusual attention to details, quite subtly even, especially in some brief but telling moments; and most importantly, no movie with Tilda Swinton can be really banal (well, except the ones she makes in Italy maybe). Swinton is, of course, very good. She always is. But if she's nominated for the first time in the Best Actress category for this movie (as she probably will be) and not for others she made before, it's because of the character she plays. A great character, certainly, but one that would have been much less interesting if played by another actress. Swinton makes one forget the flaws of the script - and it's a far from perfect script.
Well, almost forget. For example, two years after the massacre the Swinton character is still persecuted by the people of the small town she lives in - violently, even. This sounds a bit too much, but when, towards the end of the movie, we learn of a certain important fact that we didn't know before, but the town people did (something that happened on the day of the massacre), it becomes downright absurd.
And I'm not sure that the way the teenager kills his victims could have really happened, considering the unusual weapon he uses.
I know, these are small things, and We Must Talk About Kevin is too clearly intended as an "art" movie. (This becomes a bit too obvious at times, for example in a scene in which a character takes a bow in front of an imaginary audience). But it definitely isn't that great movie that its subject deserves.

[Sabin]

OscarGuy wrote
Really? I found it to be a compelling exploration of the challenging topic of sexual addiction. My review's written, but not posted yet, but I come down heavily on the pro side of the film. Fassbender and Mulligan are simply in a class by themselves this year.

I think what is compelling about Shame is tangential to its topic. I have yet to see Hunger, which by all accounts is a better film, but Shame as directed by Steve McQueen is an intoxicating veneer lacking in any real degree of thought. In all fairness, Steve McQueen doesn't have to create a probing portrait of sex addiction if he doesn't want to. And he doesn't, so it's not. There's no real new understanding of Brandon's plight to to gain from Shame. It's a very obvious spiral of miserablism, but what makes it perhaps seem like a compelling exploration is that we don't get the opportunity to see something this graphic very often. But what really is the film saying about sex addiction? Brandon needs release. Brandon can't help himself. Brandon is ashamed. The film flirts with revealing Brandon's addiction to the world at his job but it's just as quickly abandoned. I think a more interesting film would show that this Perfect Man is in fact a disgusting sex addict and how he reacts to that. Or perhaps it wouldn't be a more interesting film. Perhaps sex addiction just isn't that interesting a subject. In that sense, the best thing you can say about Shame is that it's surfaces are stunning but there's nothing much going on underneath, and perhaps that's the wisest move of all. I dunno.

I think that Michael Fassbender is an incredible actor but this is one of the least impressive performances I've seen him give. He remains a compelling camera study, but it's not like Brandon is a real character like so many other great performances he's given this year. I'd venture to say he's better in X-Men: First Class. This is just more "actorly". Carey Mulligan on the other hand really impressed me. There is a specificity in her performance here that registered more strongly, a history she carries with her like baggage. I'm a fan of hers and I dreaded seeing her reduced to "The Girlfriend" in bigger budgeted films, but Steve McQueen does something very interesting with her little girl looks. I also liked Brandon's sleazebag boss.

It's "brave" content reminds me of the article that William Goldman wrote about Saving Private Ryan for Premiere, where it was a very "brave" choice to show the violence at the beginning and how that couldn't necessarily be attributed to sexual content in the same fashion without it being mildly scoffed at. Well, here we are. Brave nudity. Brave sex. Brave cock. I'm not buying it.

[Damien]

I just can't imagine giving over two hours of my life to witness somebody's sexual addiction. I mean who cares? I'm praying it receives no Oscar nominations so I don't have to sit through it. And Hunger wasn't good enough for me to want to run out breathlessly to see the new Steve McQueen picture.

[OscarGuy]

Really? I found it to be a compelling exploration of the challenging topic of sexual addiction. My review's written, but not posted yet, but I come down heavily on the pro side of the film. Fassbender and Mulligan are simply in a class by themselves this year.

[Sabin]

And surface pleasures.

[Greg]

Now, there are a couple ways to take that.

You do seem to use the word "masturbatory" when talking about movies more than anyone else at this site.

[Sabin]

Now, there are a couple ways to take that.

I liked Shame. I was just always acutely aware that I was watching something that wasn't really about anything. It's still an engrossing thing to watch but there's nothing much going on outside of McQueen's sense of atmosphere.

[OscarGuy]

Of all people, I really thought Sabin would be someone who "got" Shame...pity.

[Sabin]

Shame (Steve McQueen)

Really nothing much to say about this one. It's masturbatory in and of itself: shallow, empty, but certainly not without its surface pleasures. The atmosphere and mood of the film are certainly transfixing, but there's nothing really going on here. Michael Fassbender is certainly a compelling camera study but there is nothing interesting or that specific about his character. It's not a story about sex addiction, but rather about an ashamed man who is addicted to sex, and his odyssey isn't an especially compelling one. Looks pretty great though. McQueen is a real talent as a director.