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.

 Man on a Ledge

Sam Worthington plays Nick Cassidy, an ex-cop who’s sent to prison for stealing a giant diamond from a wealthy and shifty businessman (Ed Harris). When Nick is allowed to attend his father’s funeral, he pulls off a daring escape and plants himself on the ledge of a high-rise hotel in Manhattan and proclaims his innocence. A police psychologist who ‘lost’ her last jumper attempts to talk him down, as a whole other series of events unfolds in a building across the street.

That’s all you’ll get out of me plot-wise.

Man on a Ledge is reminiscent of the 1998 movie The Negotiator with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey. Both involve dirty cops, conspiracies and who-can-you-trust conundrums. The acting in The Negotiator was more intense, but Man on a Ledge does manage to keep you on the edge of your seat, with the constant sensation that you might fall off. So if you have vertigo or a fear of heights, rent The Negotiator instead.

If you’re in the mood for a combination thriller, psychological drama and heist movie that doesn’t cut too deep, then take the leap and catch Man on a Ledge.

A Better Life is the story of an undocumented Mexican father and his teenage son living in East Los Angeles. Single dad Carlos played by Bichir works as a gardener and is struggling to take care of his son Luis (José Julián), though they don’t see all that much of each other. Luis is busy being a teenager, hanging with his friends who are headed towards becoming gang bangers, while Carlos works long hours around rich white people in Beverly Hills and Malibu. When his partner decides he’s ready to retire back in Mexico and sells him his truck with all his tools, Carlos grabs the chance to move up in the world and give his son some real security. But when the truck and tools are stolen, Carlos and Luis are forced to work together to hunt them down.

While the script is at times a bit heavy handed with its message about the the class divide and the injustices of the immigrant experience, the film really belongs to Carlos. His love of his child informs everything he does, and when it seems that he will be separated from Luis, you know he will do whatever he has to to get back to him. A Better Life was directed by Chris Weitz who directed The Twilight Saga: New Moon, but also another touching male bonding film, About a Boy. He knows how to fill very small scenes with meaning. And Demián Bichir’s performance is exceedingly earnest, rivaling Jean Dujardin (The Artist) for expressiveness, though in a much more subtle way. The film definitely has an indie vibe – character driven with a story intimate in scope. It is worth seeing. It may or may not get another life in theaters now that it has the nomination, but for this movie DVD viewing would be fine. Bring tissues.

If you watch Weeds, you will recognize Demián Bichir as Esteban Reyes, mayor of Tijuana, drug boss, and father of Nancy’s baby.

The Iron Lady is one of those flashback retellings of a life that is just a little too constructed and non-contextual for my taste. We meet Maggie Thatcher in her last days as she is suffering from dementia and wandering around talking to her dead husband (Jim Broadbent). As she putters around the house alternately dealing with her many handlers, her grown daughter, and the ghost of Mr. Thatcher, she looks back over her political life, and her rise to become the first and only female Prime Minister of England. She begins as a very working class girl, the proverbial shopkeeper’s daughter who gets into Oxford and then scratches her way into the male dominated political field and all the way to the top. Along the way, she marries and has twins, but mostly they are peripheral. The conspicuously missing piece is what drove this woman and what was really happening around her. Why were they rioting in the streets? Why did she hate unions? What was it about the Falklands that was worth having hundreds of young men die? I think this may be one of those scripts that assumes the audience knows the history. (We Yanks did not.)

There is a scene near the end where she is so over-the-top horrible to one of her long-time political allies that she turns the whole party against her, but we don’t know why. Was it the early onset of dementia or was she drinking? Or maybe she was just a bitch? The film has lots of little moments that don’t quite make sense. You also have no sense of what is historic fact and what is total fiction. I think there is probably a great story to be told about Thatcher. Sure, I hated her politics, but she was charismatic and intelligent enough to make it to the top despite her class and her sex, and to stand among the most powerful people of her time. Sadly, The Iron Lady does not do her justice. Meryl aside, I’d skip it.

As of this writing Meryl Streep has been nominated all over the place and won the Golden Globe for her performance.

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.

(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.