The Kevin we need to talk about is the demon child born to young Eva and Franklin played by Tilda Swinton and John C. Reilly. From the beginning, he torments his mother and acts like the angel when his dad is around. And so of course, Dad doesn’t believe Mom when she speaks ill of her child. Kevin manipulates Eva and revels in her pain, but he’s not a horror movie character like Damien in The Omen. Instead, this is a more nuanced character and the story unfolds in flashback. As the film begins Eva is struggling to cope with her post-catastrophe life. Someone has thrown red paint on her car and her house and she is heading out to interview for a menial job at a travel agency. In bits and piece we learn that Kevin killed a bunch of his schoolmates in a Columbine-style massacre, and as much as Eva knew how damaged her son was, she was powerless to do anything about it.

Watching We Need To Talk About Kevin is like watching a train wreck. You know exactly what is coming and yet it is so well done, you cannot look away. Fortunately, the major part of the violence is off screen. Tilda Swinton is amazing as a mother who is trying everything she can to get through to the son whose psycho inner life only she knows. And the two boys who play the son as a young boy, then as a teenager are scary good at portraying a very smart little monster. It is hard to recommend this to most people because the subject matter is so disturbing, but it has stayed with me. It is unlike anything else I’ve seen. And if you can get past the basic idea of it, it is amazingly good film making.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

First-time actor Thomas Horn (a former Kid’s Week champion on Jeopardy!) plays Oskar Schell, a possibly autistic boy whose father (Tom Hanks) dies in the collapse of the World Trade Center. A year later, still reeling from the loss, Oskar finds a key hidden among his father’s belongings. He’s convinced that his father meant for him to find the key – and the lock it goes to. So Oskar embarks on a mission/journey that takes him through the five boroughs and into the homes and businesses of a vast array of characters who are all struggling in one way or another. It kind of reminded me of Pay It Forward.

Oskar is distant with his mother (Sandra Bullock), but he does allow one person in on his plan: a mute old man (superbly played by Max von Sydow) who lives at his grandmother’s apartment building across the way.

The movie starts off slow – and stays that way for well over an hour – but it packs a powerful emotional punch in the end. If you could judge a movie by the number of tissues I massacre in the final five minutes, then Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close would get a thumbs-up. However, since the first two hours failed to bowl (or bawl) me over, I can only give it an “eh”.

Albert has been living as a man in service since she was 14. We find that a rape was the catalyst for the choice, but that is all we are told. Close’s performance is contained to the point of characterlessness. She plays Albert as if he could be blown away by a wisp of air. He has no friends, no social skills, no personality. He decides to marry to keep up the masculinity ruse, and to that end he sets his sights on the prettiest of the maids (Mia Wasikowska), unaware that she is involved with one of the other servants. There is nothing sexual or even slightly loving about Albert’s way of courting. It is merely a part of his delusional master plan, along with saving up to buy a building where they will live and run a tobacco shop together.

The film’s best scenes arrive with painter Hubert Page who is hired to touch up the hotel. Lacking space, they decide he can share Albert’s bed. Of course, Albert is petrified at the prospect of being discovered, but the lovely surprise is that Hubert is also a woman passing as a man. (I don’t think I am giving anything away here. I knew right off.) If there is an actress in this film who deserves accolades it is Janet McTeer. Her Hubert is warm and deep and shows Albert that is is possible to have a happy existence even in their predicament. She has a wife she loves dearly and a full life. Her story would have made a better film, with an Albert chapter for contrast.

I can’t say I recommend Albert Nobbs. Close’s performance is getting a lot of attention, but I couldn’t see any change in the character from scene one to the end. Nor did I feel like there was anything interesting going on behind that masculine mask. The supporting cast were all quite good and it looked beautiful, but the problem is the title character. I would be interested to read the short story from which it was adapted, but this movie was just kind of hard to watch.

Based on a book and a stage play and a real life story, the film tells the tale of a young Russian woman named Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) who arrives kicking and screaming at the Swiss hospital where Dr. Jung practices in 1904. She is in desperate need of help for a whole slew of severe neuroses. His treatment is the new “talking cure,” and it turns out she is no mere hysteric, but a very intelligent girl who hopes to become a doctor and is very curious about these new techniques in the emerging field of psychoanalysis. After Jung treats and cures her, she heads to the university and an intellectual relationship blossoms, but then sparked by their discussions of Freud’s ideas about sexual repression, it turns into a passionate affair. It is doomed, of course, to fail. He is married with a rich wife and several children, and she is a former patient and a Jew.

And while this relationship is evolving, Jung is developing his most important relationship. As his treatment of Sabina moves forward, he corresponds and debates with his dear friend and mentor in Vienna, the great psychologist Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). He is at first sure that Freud is wrong about every neurosis having a sexual cause. But as he gets to know Sabina he learns that she was not simply abused, but she became aroused by the humiliation. And as the relationship between the two pioneers of modern psychoanalysis develops, a rivalry emerges. Early on Jung refers to Freud as his “father figure.” Freud’s theories were revolutionary and he was happy to have younger doctors taking up his cause, but when Jung begins to assert his own ideas, Freud is at first disparaging, and ultimately unable to sustain the friendship, resulting in a break-up that deeply wounds both men.

David Cronenberg (Dead Ringers, The Fly, Crash) is not known for making restrained movies, but A Dangerous Method possesses a subdued, intelligent elegance. Except for Keira Knightley’s early grotesque histrionics, and a bit of naughty spanking, the film is mostly fascinating conversation and beautiful locations. The performances are all stellar, including a few manic scenes with Vincent Cassel (Black Swan) playing a patient who believes that sexual repression is the greatest sin. With A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, and now this beautifully subtle piece of film making, I think Cronenberg has moved into his intelligent adult period, and I cannot wait for his next one.

[I think we can all be grateful for scheduling conflicts. Christoph Waltz was initially cast as Sigmund Freud, but was replaced by Viggo Mortensen. Christian Bale had been in talks to play Carl Jung, and the role of Sabina Spielrein in the screenplay was written for Julia Roberts.]

As the War breaks out, Albert’s father is forced by circumstances beyond his control to sell Joey to a cavalry officer to use in battle, and from there the horse goes through a series of owners, across battles, from the British to the German side and back again with a sojourn in a little girl’s care. Where we have seen a war through the eyes of many human’s over the years, here it is seen through an equine lens. The film is rated PG-13 for its realistic depiction of the war, and it is horrific. I am sure that many people have no idea how brutal the First World War actually was. And there is something of the same feeling in many of the scenes as in Saving Private Ryan, that brothers in arms camaraderie kind of thing– total carnage beautifully captured by cinematographic genius Janusz Kaminski.

Everywhere the horse goes, he finds a person who recognizes his greatness. There are lots of those triumph of the spirit moments. Joey is the fastest, the most beautiful, smartest, loyalest, etc. And he makes an equine friend early on in the war that stays with him through his many tribulations. Then mid-way through, Albert joins the army and you just know that he and Joey will end up somehow coming together one way or another, because it is a Spielberg film after all, and there just has to be a happy ending.

War Horse is designed to be a total crowd-pleasing, tear-jerker movie — good for the family (not the little ones) or a date — though I didn’t cry as much as I expected. Spielberg can be a little too sappy at times for my taste (especially that ending Steven!) Unfortunately, most of the characters are not all that well-drawn, and the horse, which should have a big personality, really doesn’t. He is just beautiful and brave. And it is a bit long (146 min). Ultimately, it is a throwback to the good old fashioned Disney family film with fairly generic salt of the earth characters. It does have a decent though mostly low-key cast including Emily Watson (Breaking the Waves), David Thewlis (Naked), Niels Arestrup (A Prophet), and Tom Hiddleston (Midnight in Paris). Bonus: My nephew tells me the lead actor who plays Albert (Jeremy Irvine) looks just like a young Tom Brady (as if I knew who that was.)

Damon plays Benjamin Mee, a young widower struggling to raise his two kids, Dylan, 14, and Rosie, 7, in the months following his wife’s death. Desperate for a change of scenery and a fresh start, Mee moves the family out of the city and into a fixer-upper in the country that happens to be situated in the middle of a zoo that also needs some major fixer-uppin’.

The zoo has a small but dedicated group of caretakers led by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johannson). Mee represents their last great hope for restoring the zoo to its original grandeur– or at least bringing it up to code and avoiding closure by an evil (and somewhat cartoonish) state inspector.

Of course, there are many challenges along the way. Mee is still grappling with grief. His teenage son (Colin Ford) is full of angst and anger and oblivious to the doe-eyed advances of Kelly’s niece Lily (Elle Fanning). Mee’s brother Duncan (played with his usual crass wit by Thomas Hayden Church) wants him to cut and run, i.e. “lose the zoo – but keep Kelly”. Time and money are running out. You get the picture.

And then there are the animals – a menagerie that includes a roaming bear, a monkey, an elephant, some snakes, birds, and an aging tiger that has some valuable lessons to impart in his waning days. You can’t help but root for the whole lot of ‘em, even the snakes. And, you can’t help but smile every time young Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) declares “We bought a zoo!!!!” She amps up the movie’s cuteness factor whenever she appears on screen.

Ultimately, as I alluded to before, it is Damon that saves the zoo and the movie. He manages to be adorable and accessible in dare I say, a Clooney-esque sort of way. His portrayal of a journalist-turned-zookeeper is honest and authentic and does great service to a story that is actually based on real-life events. You may even be inspired to quit your day job and go in search of a zoo that needs fixin’. Or at least get a dog.

From a purely visual standpoint, The Adventures of Tintin is rather stunning with its use of motion-capture technology. But the story itself falls a bit flat, even at the direction of the almighty Steven Spielberg.

Here’s the gist: Tintin (voiced by Jamie Bell) buys a model ship at an outdoor marketplace, only to discover that a nefarious dude named Red Rackham (Daniel Craig) wants the ship so badly that he’s willing to kill for it. Turns out the ship, called The Unicorn, is one of a series of three model ships that together will unlock the ancient secret to a hidden treasure. Rather than relinquish the ship, Tintin (who can’t resist the urge to follow a good story) embarks on a dangerous journey on the high seas, where he ends up joining forces with a drunken Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). Haddock holds the key to the entire mystery if he can sober up long enough to figure it out.

The movie, like the comics, is peppered with slapstick humor, social commentary, and quirky characters. In many ways, it feels like an animated version of Pirates of the Caribbean, with a couple of keystone cops thrown in (a pair of detectives named Thompson and Thomson, voiced by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg).

The Adventures of Tintin should appeal to nostalgic fans of the comic series and boys aged 8-12. Beyond that, it could be a tough sell. Then again, family movies are big this time of year, so perhaps Tintin will be able to capitalize on that.

The movie is rated PG for adventure action violence, some drunkenness and brief smoking. And while the motion-capture technology is awesome, the 3D doesn’t add much.

(Interestingly, the Swedish title is Män som hatar kvinnor (Men who Hate Women) – a decidedly more apt description. Warning: There are some extremely raw scenes of sexual violence in the film.) In The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo we are introduced to the two main characters of the series – Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander. Mikael is a journalist who we meet just as he is being found guilty of libel for a story he wrote in the magazine Millennium. Meanwhile, at a classy investigative agency, an older gentleman is asking for background info on him. The Blomkvist dossier is delivered to him by a strange but clearly very bright, and very pierced girl, Lisbeth. Soon Mikael is contacted by Henrik Vanger, a retired industrialist and former head of the Vanger Group. He offers Mikael an intriguing job as an investigative journalist. 40 years earlier Vanger’s 16 year old niece, Harriet, the apple of his eye, disappeared. Every year on his birthday, he receives a reminder that he believes is from her killer. Since he is an old man, he wants to find the murderer before he dies.

Mikael resigns from Millennium and moves up to the remote island where all the Vangers live. Ensconced in a cold little cabin next to the big house, he is given all of the evidence that has been collected over these four decades. Reading through the files, he begins to understand why Vanger included his entire family in the list of suspects. They take dysfunctional to a whole new level; several of them are Nazis, most have stopped speaking to one another and there are too many secrets to name. And they are none too happy about Mikael mucking about in their strange familial past. But as he digs into the evidence, he comes to several dead ends. Then one very important clue is solved by his daughter in passing. This big break spurs him to ask his employers for some investigative help and they tell him about Lisbeth, who signs on once he tells her he needs her to help him catch “a killer of women,” soon joining him in the cottage.

Lisbeth is a brilliant computer hacker, and also one damaged girl. Not that we know what it is about, but she has to report to a state appointed guardian on a regular basis and since her old guardian has just had a stroke, she is set up with a new one who turns out to be a violent, sadistic misogynist. But the tiny wisp of a Lisbeth turns the tables on him in what is the quintessential rape victim’s revenge fantasy.

Together Mikael and Lisbeth make one of the stranger detective couplings out there. She is a 23-year-old Goth/Punk techie genius, and he is a 40-something, pretty normal, divorced journalist. But they click and as screwed up as she may be, he lets her be, even entering into a somewhat strange sexual relationship at her instigation. As the story evolves, clues lead them to multiple gruesome murders of women all over Sweden, and finally back to the island where it all comes together, and the mystery of the missing girl is solved. There is also a thread with Lisbeth taking down the man who sued Mikael for libel. And at the end a few strings are left untied, leaving openings for the next in the series.

Daniel Craig aside, this Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo cannot compete with the Swedish film. This Lisbeth is not as detached or layered, but that is probably a nod to American sensibilities. It is also more polished and I liked the grittiness of the original, but since American audiences can’t seem to appreciate films in foreign languages (unless they are spoken by aliens or Tolkien characters), this will be the one that will be seen by a much bigger audience. It is beautifully shot, has a stellar cast, and will no doubt please many of the readers of the books. I can see it being a decent date film, and the chicks who made it a best-seller will most likely appreciate this semi-faithful adaptation. I can’t help comparing the two, but if you’re subtitle impaired, you’ll probably like this English language version. However, I’d still recommend the Swedish as the better of the two.

First of all, Antonio Banderas is very good in it. He plays the aforementioned “brilliant plastic surgeon,” Robert Ledgard, who lives in a gorgeous mansion in the countryside outside of Toledo (Spain not Ohio.) When we meet him, he is walking through his house, past a number of beautiful paintings of fleshy women, settling finally on a bench before an enormous TV screen, which displays what seems to be another female nude image, but is in fact the surveillance feed of a woman locked in another room in the mansion. And it turns out she has just tried to commit suicide. As Robert rushes to save her, we see that he has a state-of-the-art operating room and research laboratory conveniently downstairs. And the woman, Vera (Elena Anaya), is part of a secret (and highly unethical) research project of his to perfect a flame-proof skin.

Who Vera is and how she got to be the object of his obsession/experimentation is the central mystery of the film. In flashback we see the threads that taken together weave this strangely satisfying story. Robert’s cheating wife is horribly burned in a car crash. His daughter has a fateful meeting with a man named Vincent at a wedding. And though Robert seems well-adjusted, he is in fact a very psychologically damaged man. What is particularly nice about Banderas’s performance is that he plays the mad scientist without acting crazy. He is holding a woman prisoner, experimenting on her, even sharing an opium pipe with her on occasion, but he seems very normal. And when their “relationship” turns romantic, he really seems to care about her.

The story unfolds in a way that keeps you constantly guessing what is going on, not so you are confused, but in a very intelligent manner. At the end with all the puzzle pieces in place, it is all very clear, but getting there, you cannot imagine how it will all come together that might make sense. The Skin I Live In is beautifully shot and the script is really oddly wonderful. I’d recommend this film to anyone who likes a smart psychological drama mystery and is not put off by subtitles. I can see why it is popping up on “Best of the Year” lists. I may just check out a few more Almodóvar movies myself.

Hugo’s dad (Jude Law) was a great tinkerer and before he died he was working on restoring an automaton. It is the only possession Hugo takes with him when he is spirited away by his drunken uncle just moments after hearing about his father’s death. Uncle shows him his new digs within the walls of the station and his new duties taking care of the station clocks and then disappears. From his secret lair, Hugo surveys all the comings and goings, nicks a croissant here and a bottle of milk there, and is mostly able to go about his business. He also takes an item or two from the station’s toy shop, cogs and springs to help him fix the automaton because he thinks that his father has left him a message inside, if he can just get it started again. But Hugo’s quiet life changes one day when the toy shop owner Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley) catches him.

It is this relationship with the shop owner that is the heart of the movie. Hugo is forced to work off his debt fixing toys in the shop and forms a friendship with the shop owner’s goddaughter (Chloë Grace Moretz) He introduces her to the cinema and shows her his automaton, explaining that he needs a special heart-shaped key to start it. And lo! and behold, she has one around her neck! And when the automaton does come to life, it draws a picture that sends them on another quest, finally leading back to the toy shop owner. It turns out that he is a formerly famous silent film director whose fortunes turned during WWI and has now cut himself off from that part of his life. This thread of the story is based on real life silent era director Georges Méliès and is the perfect vehicle for Scorcese, an ardent proponent of film restoration and cinematic history. I won’t spoil it for people who have not read the book, but suffice to say, being a kids movie and all, everything works out.

Hugo is beautifully shot and it is a lot of fun to go behind the walls and see all those big cogs and springs. I am sure in 3D is it even more fun visually, but… The movie is long – 127 minutes, and it seems to have two separate stories. When it focuses on Ben Kingsley’s character, the silent film director, it comes alive, and I think this is what drew Scorsese to the material in the first place. But the kids’ story is kind of cold. Even Sacha Baron Cohen’s character feels subdued. I think it will appeal to people who love 3D and can let a movie get by with less when it is visually and technically outstanding, which it is. It will no doubt get some Oscar buzz, being Scorsese, and I think it should get a few for design and visuals, but in the end I am just not as thrilled as I wanted to be. The sense of wonder that great kids films usually engender just was not there. Having seen it in 2D, I think 3D is definitely the way to go.