Precisamos Falar Sobre o Kevin

This movie jumps around in time. Eva Khatchadourian (Tilda Swinton) is a hard-partying drifter in her youth. In the present, she lives a lonely haunted life with a hostile town around her. In between, she marries the permissive Franklin (John C. Reilly) and has a suburban life with two kids. Her first child is the troubled Kevin (Ezra Miller, Jasper Newell). She's not a happy mother and they struggle to get along. Then a troubling incident sends Kevin to prison.

There is a lot of good acting in this. Tilda Swinton is good with her distancing. She shows that she's slightly troubled too. Ezra Miller is cold and scary. The movie doesn't go for the easy emotions. This is a haunted, cold and unsettling story. It's not a fun movie but it is a fascinating watch.

While the idea behind "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is exceptional, I was put off by the direction of this film. While I know that a non-linear way of film making is popular these days, it's often overused--and here it is not used effectively. Too many times, the film jumps about in time and this took me out of the experience. This makes the film too unnecessarily confusing--so I am glad that I knew the plot so I could understand what was happening. Additionally, the film used a very deliberate artsy style--such as the overuse of the color red (the tomato fight, the stack of tomato soup cans, the paint)--resulting in sledgehammer symbolism. For me, the story was very strong on its own and didn't need all these tricks.

Tilda Swinton stars as a mother of a child who is seriously disturbed. However, her husband (John C. Reilly) is in complete denial and inexplicably the kid is never taken to see a therapist (or exorcist). As the film progresses, the child grows from an Oppositional-Defiant child to a cold and ruthless sociopath as a teen. You never ever hear about how he is perceived by teachers and neighbors--an odd omission. However, including the child killing animals, having one of the parents in complete denial, sexually offensive behavior and the hasty behavior towards his sister are all excellent touches--which I noticed since I used to work with folks like this (which would explained why I eventually gave up being a therapist and became a teacher). Unfortunately, as the film is out of sequence, you already know that sooner or later this will all lead to Kevin committing some atrocities.

Overall, this is a very compelling but frustrating film. I already talked about the film style which left me flat, but I also thought it very odd how the only one who seemed to notice anything unusual about Kevin was his mom. Even clever sociopaths are noticeable--perhaps not to everyone but to only be apparent to one person? Odd... The film is worth seeing but it just misses the mark for me--it could have been great.

Just watched this flick, not sure how I've missed it all these years. This is definitely an art house type film shown in a non linear fashion, so it won't be up everyone's alley but I like how it was told.

Now I have to correct some of these other reviews I've seen. As someone who works in the psych field and deals with patients from toddlers to seniors, I'm putting it out there right now that Kevin is not a sociopath but straight up a psychopath...and yes, they are different. Officially he can't be diagnosed under 18 with antisocial personality, so he'd be under some conduct or oppositional defiance disorder until he's 18.

Psychopaths are usually born this way as oppose to sociopaths that are created through childhood trauma. Sociopaths have little empathy but psychopaths have zero empathy and cannot form true bonds with others. Their bonds are strictly superficial and self serving. They are highly cunning, calm, collected, and manipulative which can lead them to be very charming (think Bundy). Sociopaths are more impulsive, erratic, and have angry outbursts. Being a psychopath is how Kevin was able to manipulate everyone into thinking he was a good kid, all the while messing with his mom's head cause he enjoyed watching her squirm.

I've also seen other posters blame Tilda as the mom, saying she never bonded with him. Well, that may make him dislike her, but that won't turn him into a killer. He's a born psychopath, period.

This is quite simply one of the best films of the year. Even the book's author, Lionel Shriver (a woman) praises the film, calling it 'a brilliant 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 as Eva, the mum uninterested in maternity. Gravid when she least wants to be (she's career-minded), out pops Kevin, her little Damien. You know from the moment she refuses skin-to-skin things are not going to bode well.

She has no idea how to deal with a baby. Her idea of subduing him is to stand next to a pneumatic drill to drown out his relentless screaming. Kevin grows up knowing he is unloved and demonstrates this through devilish behaviour towards Eva.

Gradually Eva, if not embraces motherhood, then at least gets better at it. Perhaps this is due to her giving birth to her second child, a girl, who Kevin of course hates with a passion. Or maybe the idea of being a mum sinks in, along with the realisation that a career is not the most important thing in life.

Eva's betterments do nothing to placate Kevin: he gets worse. Eva's attempts to complain are met with ridicule by the father (John C. Reilly), who thinks she is delusional. Years of unintentional, but sometimes intentional, neglect take their toll on Kevin, and the film's tragic conclusion seems inevitable.

The origin for Kevin's behaviour has polarised audiences. Did Eva create a monster by failing to form a bond early on? Should she have sought help from professionals if she felt she wasn't coping? Or was Kevin simply a bad seed; an innately evil child who no one could have cured?

Now that I've had the chance to reflect, I think it's unfair to judge son 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 of a failed relationship and the consequences that has on a family and an entire community.

If Swinton can win an Oscar so easily for her role in 'Michael Clayton', she should be celebrating her second win now. It's one of those performances which needs months of detoxification and psychoanalysis to move on from. Her acting is matched by new-kid-on-the-block Ezra Miller, who plays her lovelorn son. He brings to his role a controlled ferocity we are not used to seeing. His portrayal works, apart from his first-class acting, because he's not the stereotype. To look at him, you would say he was handsome and ingenuous. But looks are deceptive.

It's hard for people to be repulsed by films nowadays, but there are scenes which will shock. So rare is it to see this kind of film. They vanish as quickly as they appear. I implore you to see this if you can. You'll be moved if not entertained.

www.moseleyb13.com

The story of a mother, Eva (Tilda Swinton), attempting to raise her deeply disturbed child, Kevin (Ezra Miller), before he goes on to commit a horrific act at his local high school.

We see her before the act and after, as she attempts to pick up the pieces of her shattered existence.

The narrative jumps through the years multiple times, giving us glimpses of Kevin's twisted, hate-filled relationship with his overworked, underappreciated, emotionally distant mother, Eva.

Each little jab turns into a bigger act of hatred, of defiance. A comment morphs into a slap. A poopy diaper leads to a fight which results in a broken arm.

It's hard to know how to feel. The jumps through time are often confusing, making everything feel like one run-on scene stretched far too long. The timeline is meant to be blurred, as though the passage of time matters little here. Maybe that's the point.

The warning signs regarding Kevin are all there, but Eva can't - or won't, it could be argued - do anything about them. Her husband, Franklin (John C. Reilly), is content in his role as the more "likeable" parent to Kevin, and ultimately he's utterly useless. He doesn't listen to Eva when she says something is wrong. He thinks she's to blame for Kevin's darker moments, or he chooses not to see them at all.

The family's little girl, Kevin's younger sister Celia, gets hurt at home, and Eva *knows* in her bones that Kevin did it on purpose, but she can't call him out because Franklin doesn't support her. Worse, he thinks she's projecting her own traumas onto her son (which may be true to an extent).

The situation is horrifying because we, the audience, know where this is going, but we are powerless to either understand it or stop it.

Would things have been different if Eva had been more loving? I highly doubt it.

Would it have been different if she'd been more disciplinary and authoritative, and forced her hand? Probably not.

It's true that some people should never be parents. It's also true that some children are monsters. Others can be saved. But could Kevin?

Though it's easy to throw around blame *after* a horrific events occurs, the truth is that nobody knew for sure what Kevin had planned. Could they have stopped it if they did?

Ultimately, the film frustrates because there's no easy answer. No conclusion. Everyone is to blame. There is no triumph of right over wrong. Life simply proceeds.