Although it is true that “psychopaths probably commit more non-sanctioned violence than any other members of society” and that they “are more likely than other murderers to commit gratuitous and sadistic violence on their victims during sexual homicide,” there exist far more non-violent “successful” psychopaths living in society than violent and incarcerated ones (Porter & Woodworth, 2007, p. 490). As one author explains, “most serial killers are psychopaths or at least exhibit psychopathic characteristics, (and yet) the majority of criminal psychopaths are nonviolent persons” (Hickey, 2010, p. 75). In fact, these “subclinical,” white collar psychopaths have “normal” professions. They are lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, academics, corporate managers, bankers, and more (Hare, 1993).

Psychopaths are relatively rare in modern society: only 1% of the population have this personality disorder. To break it down, it is said that 1 in every 200 persons in the U.K. is psychopathic, and 1 in every 100 Americans is (Purdie, 2000). The media may commonly portray psychopaths as maniacally laughing, mentally deranged people, and yet these people are not legally insane. They know right from wrong, can control their behavior, and are aware of the consequences of their actions, but because they are self-absorbed, impulsive, and callous they choose to do whatever best suits their needs (Hare, 1993). And because they do not empathize with others or experience fear, they are more likely to break the law. “Telling a psychopath that he will go to prison if he acts out only means that he understands the rules of the game and games are meant to be won, not lost” (Hickey, 2010, p. 80).

The term psychopath dates to 1891 and to a monograph written by J.L.A. Koch titled Die Psychopathischen Minderwertigkeiten (Hickey, 2010). The word, which comes from the Greek, translates, literally, to mind (psyche) disease (pathos), and, has often been interchanged with another term, sociopath, however, those with these antisocial disorders are very different individuals. At the risk of oversimplification, the psychopath is born; the sociopath is made. As is evidenced by the IMDB search, the words sociopath and psychopath have entered public consciousness and they are used regularly. That does not, however, mean that they are used correctly. “People often confuse the popular label psycho with psychopath when actually the terms carry different meanings for practitioners … Far more appropriate is applying the term psychopath, or from the DSM perspective, the killer is antisocial” (Hickey, 2010, p. 75).

In his tome The Mask of Sanity (1976), Hervey Cleckley outlined 16 characteristics of psychopaths. Drawing upon Cleckley’s work, four years later, Dr. Robert D. Hare created his own diagnostic tool, the Psychopathy Checklist, which he then revised in 1985. Renamed the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, also as PCL-R, this industry-standard diagnostic tool uses a 40-point scale to determine how psychopathic an offender who is residing in an institutional or community correctional facility, a forensic psychiatric hospital, or a pre-trial evaluation or detention facility actually is. Factor 1 on the “test” “measures a selfish, callous, and remorseless use of others” while Factor 2 “measures social deviance, as manifest in a chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyle” (Hickey, 2010, p. 78). Some of the traits associated with someone who is deemed psychopathic are: glibness/superficial charm, narcissism, pathological lying, conning and manipulative behavior, lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect, lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions, impulsivity, irresponsibility, juvenile delinquency, lack of realistic, long-term goals; parasitic lifestyle, proneness to boredom, promiscuous, criminal versatility, and short-lived relationships (Hickey, 2010). Those being assessed earn a point for each characteristic. A “normal” person will score about 5 points; someone deemed psychopathic will score above 26. A score of 40 is very rare.

True crime aficionados can probably name a handful of incarcerated psychopaths – Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Gilmore, and Dennis Radar (BTK) being the most notorious – but they would probably draw a blank when asked to name a psychopath who was not also a serial killer. (Not surprisingly, the majority of the films and TV shows containing a psychopath are categorized in the thrillers and horror genres.) Experts suspect that many of history’s biggest names “had the ‘talent’ for psychopathy but … did not develop the full syndrome.” Some of  the people included on this list include Winston Churchill, Sir Richard Burton, Chuck Yeager, and Lyndon Johnson. Oskar Schindler, the subject of Steven Spielberg’s 1993 film Schindler’s List, can be found on this list (Lykken, 2007, pp. 11-12).[1] In addition, O.J. Simpson, who is narcissistic, glib/superficially charming, grandiose, impulsive, anti-social, and abusive, demonstrates many psychopathic characters, and, according to Prof. Adrian Raine, exhibited many of the characteristics that would have pointed to him as becoming a “cold-blooded killer” (Purdie, 2000).

Some might consider Adolf Hitler to be the poster child of psychopathy, and yet, whenever he has been put under the psychiatric microscope, he is rarely, if ever, given that diagnosis. In The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler (1979), authors Leonard L. Heston and Renate Heston postulated that the Fuhrer could have been suffering from amphetamine toxicity and could also have been manic-depressive or schizoid (Heston, 1979). In a 2007 study, “Understanding Madmen: A DSM-IV Assessment of Adolf Hitler,” the authors suggest that Hitler was probably a paranoid schizophrenic (Coolidge, David & Segal, 2007). So if Hitler was not a psychopath, how about his closest associates, men such as his chief architect Albert Speer, his deputy Rudolf Hess, and his Gestapo meister Hermann Goring? These individuals and 18 other high-ranking Nazis underwent psychological assessment before the Nuremberg trials. As it is explained in The Quest for the Nazi Personality: A Psychological Investigation of Nazi War Criminals (1995), when those involved in Hitler’s regime were examined, it was discovered that “most … were not the swaggering sadists of the ‘B’ movie genre, but stultifyingly ordinary men who were just doing their jobs or ‘following orders.’” The term coined for this is the “banality of evil.” Furthermore, “No contemporary historian of Nazi Germany would argue for the existence of a psychopathic Nazi personality … the leaders were extremely able, intelligent, high-functioning people” (Zillmer, Harrower, Ritzler, & Archer, 1995, p. 8). In fact, the only real commonality seen amongst those in Hitler’s cadre is that most had above average to very superior intelligence. Seventeen of the 21 men awaiting the Nuremberg trials had IQs in the 95^th percentile and higher.[2] The most remarkable of the group: Hjalmar Schact, Hitler’s finance minister, and Arthur Seyss-Inquart, governor to occupied Poland, Austria and the Netherlands, had, respectively, estimated IQs of 143, which is in the 99.8^th percentile, and 141, which is in the 99^th percentile (Zillmer, Harrower, Ritzler, & Archer, 1995). Without a doubt, Hollywood films depicting caricatured villains will sell more tickets than will ones that are more realistic; portraying history’s “bad guys” as ordinary, yet banal, pen-pushing bureaucrats.

The majority of psychopaths are, as it has been said, not moustache-twirling serial killers, but are, at least on the surface, seemingly “normal” people working in the white-collar world.[3] What makes them different from their incarcerated counterparts? They simply manage to keep up a better, and more consistent, veneer of normalcy. This is not to say that they are benign. Quite the contrary. “These individuals are every bit as egocentric, callous, and manipulative as the average criminal psychopath; however, their intelligence, family background, social skills, and circumstances permit them to construct a façade of normalcy” (Hare, 1993, p. 113 ). Consummate actors, they come off as charming, self-assured, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. They are good imposters, and because these professions give them easy access to vulnerable people, they often pose as financial consultants, ministers, counselors, doctors, and psychologists (Hare, 1993). Adept at convincing others to trust them in so many ways, they swindle people out of their pension funds, vacation homes, and stock certificates. It is not surprising to discover that psychologists have labeled former Enron executives and corporate frauds Kenneth Lay and Andrew Fastow (Hall & Benning, 2007), and Bernard Madoff, a man accused of orchestrating a $50 billion Ponzi scheme, as psychopaths (Kluger, 2008).

Returning to the issue of psychopaths and film and/or TV, Hollywood seems to be more accurate in depicting the white-collar variety. Hall and Benning single out a few “colorful” examples, including Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), the ruthless corporate raider in Oliver Stone’s 1987 film Wall Street and its 2010 sequel Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; J.R. Ewing (Larry Hagman), the Southfork ranch-inhabiting oil magnate of TV’s Dallas, which was a must-watch staple during the 1970s and 1980s; and even Alan Shore (James Spader), a highly skilled but unethical lawyer on TV’s Boston Legal (2004-2008) “… Shore, Ewing, and Gekko are all able to achieve great material and professional successes while avoiding (for the most part) serious antisocial behavior” (Hall & Benning, 2007, p. 461).

Another chilling portrait of a corporate psychopath can be found in J.C. Chandor’s Margin Call (2011). Inspired by the true story of the 2008 financial crisis, it is a tale of greed, narcissism, and unethical business practices at an investment bank, which is loosely modeled on Lehmann Brothers. No one in the film so clearly embodies the ruthless, me-first and callous attitude of a psychopath than the character of John Tuld (Jeremy Irons), the chief executive who must decide how to avert a major financial debacle. At a board room meeting, even after he is apprised of the impending crisis by his long-time manager, Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey), who warns “if you do this, you will kill the market for years. It’s over. And you’re selling something that you know has no value.” – Tuld’s matter-of-fact reply is “We are selling to willing buyers, at a current, fair market price, so that we may survive.” “You will never sell anything to any of those people ever again.” “I understand.” “Do you?” “Do YOU,” Tuld asks sharply. “This is it. I’m telling you, this is it.” Later, while enjoying his meal in a dining room for senior executives, he, again, downplays the decision he has made: “It’s just money. It’s made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it, so we don’t have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It’s not wrong, and it’s certainly no different today than it has ever been” (Chandor, 2011). In these two short scenes, Tuld demonstrates his willingness to lie and manipulate others, he exhibits an appalling lack of remorse or empathy (“it’s just money”), and he downplays his company’s responsibility in the impending crisis. Laughing and calmly eating one’s dinner while Rome burns, so to speak, are clearly not the actions of a “normal” person.

With so many Hollywood films and TV shows misrepresenting and sensationalizing psychopathy, it is no wonder that the general public simply labels anyone who acts in a violent manner as crazy or, more commonly, psycho. “Good” examples of characters suffering from this personality disorder exist – Hare singles out The Bad Seed (1956) and Terrence Malick’s Badlands (1973) as two examples – but more often than not, they are simply distortions.[4] In Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, Hare explains that since the Oscar winning film Silence of the Lambs (1991) came out, reporters have queried him about whether or not Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), the cultured psychiatrist with a penchant for cannibalism, is representative of a psychopath. His reply could be said of most “psychopathic” characters on the big and small screen:

… portrayals that focus on grotesque and sadistic killers such as Lecter gave the public a distorted view of the disorder. In most instances, it is egocentricity, whim, and the promise of instant gratification for more commonplace needs, not the drooling satisfaction of bizarre power trips and sexual hungers, that motivate the psychopath to break the law (Hare, 1993, p. 74).

Shame centers on Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender), a 30-something professional who is living in New York City. On first appearance, he appears to be successful, magnetic, handsome, and well-dressed; a “real catch.” But spend any time with him, and you will discover that he is a deeply damaged human being. His every waking thought is consumed with sex. He partakes of pornography in its many forms: magazines, videos, and on the internet. He obsessively masturbates at home and at work. A night out translates to quick hook-ups in the alleyway. And a ride on the subway is just another opportunity to score an anonymous tryst. As dysfunctional as he might seem to the viewer, Brandon appears to be keeping his sex addiction under “control,” meaning it hasn’t sabotaged his career, his reputation, or his health. Not yet. And then his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), turns up. With no place to live, she manipulates him into letting her move into his apartment. Over time, her presence sends his life, and addiction, into a tailspin.

Directed and co-written by Steve McQueen, Shame is a film that will, no doubt, elicit strong emotions from its audience. When I saw it, at least one person appeared to walk out. It is rated NC-17 for some explicit sexual content.  On IMDB if you scan its plot keywords you find “group sex, masturbation, rear entry sex, lesbian sex, male frontal nudity, blow job, oral sex, penis, masturbating in a shower, threesome, gay sex, outdoor sex, and sex standing up.” If that collection of words causes you gasp, then you probably shouldn’t venture out and see Shame. That said, this isn’t a mindless, titillating porno. Quite the opposite. Raymond engages in sex to numb himself, to distract himself from his emotions, to cure his boredom, and sometimes, to feel something, anything. The sex portrayed in the film isn’t “hot” and “steamy”; it’s actually quite mechanical and depressing. Raymond is unable to truly “connect” with anyone emotionally. It’s as if he’s, to quote Freud, stuck in an infantile phallic stage. His penis is the center of his universe; it controls him and, I’m pretty sure, it will end up destroying him.

We don’t learn much about Raymond – why he has become a sex addict – but if you are perceptive, you can read between the lines. In fact, if I taught an abnormal psychology class, I would screen Shame for class discussion. I don’t have a degree in psychology, just an avid interest, so I could be completely off, but from what I’ve read Sissy seems to be a textbook case of someone suffering from borderline personality. (SPOILERS) When we first encounter her, she is just a voice on Raymond’s answering machine. She is calling him and calling him, begging for him to pick up. In her final message, she confesses that she has cancer of her vulva or something equally dramatic. (She doesn’t.) When we actually see her, we discover a woman whose moods are highly erratic. One minute, she’s tearfully begging and pleading with someone on a phone to be with her. And a bit later, she is nearly manic in her reactions to her brother. She engages in cutting; is promiscuous, impulsive – she sleeps with Raymond’s philandering boss after 20 minutes of having met him – histrionic, and manipulative, and she has no boundaries. At all. Without getting the OK from Raymond, she moves in and makes herself comfortable by taking a shower. (She even has sex with his boss in his bed!) And when he finally kicks her out, she behaves if the world is going to end. “I’ll never see you again.” She’s exhausting.

As emotionally seesawing as Sissy is, Raymond is the complete opposite. He is very controlled, and he chastises his sister for being otherwise. He’s also very aggressive in pursuing anyone he desires. During certain points in the film, I was actually worried that he might rape someone or kill that person. (There is a touch of Patrick Bateman of American Psycho in him.) He’s almost primal in his drive for sex. But whereas he freely engages in everything from oral sex to group sex, he never “connects” with anyone, and it doesn’t even seem as if he’s enjoying the act. It’s more like he’s punishing himself or getting “revenge.” For this and many other reasons, I began to feel sorry for him. I can’t imagine being compelled to do something from which you receive no real enjoyment. It must be like being held hostage; a slave to your sex drive. Sadder still is his emotional immaturity; his complete inability to understand how human relationships work. At one point, he goes on a date with a co-worker (Nicole Beharie). He’s late for their dinner, because he has become distracted in the street by an exhibitionist couple having sex against the window. Naturally, he stops to watch. When he finally arrives at the restaurant, he’s oblivious of how late he is, and I don’t even remember him saying that he was sorry. As their conversation begins, he admits that he has no interest in marriage and sees no point in a long-term commitment. “Then why are we here,” she asks him. His reaction is confusion. A bit later he admits that his longest relationship lasted all of four months. All I could think was “I wonder how it lasted that long?” Raymond goes out with this woman, no doubt, because he’s hoping it will end as have all of his previous encounters– with a furious shag and then never see her again. He just can’t seem to understand that two people could “enjoy” each other in a non-sexual way.

Shame is a movie that you really have to watch closely, because every sequence contains valuable clues to understanding the psychology of Raymond and his sister. Although we don’t know what happened in their childhood, we can draw our own conclusions based on what they say/don’t say; and how they interact. It has been suggested that their past may have involved incest. I think that’s debatable. There are definitely “boundary” issues between them. For instance, it’s not of the norm for adult siblings of the opposite gender to stand around and talk to each other while they are completely nude. It also isn’t “normal” for a sister to crawl into bed with her brother and start snuggling with him. Does this indicate incest? I don’t think it does. It seems that one or both were victims of sexual abuse in childhood. (Her behavior seems to point toward abuse.) Maybe if she was a victim, she developed an inappropriate attachment to him – blurring the line between brother/boyfriend – and in his sexual immaturity, he became confused by this. Could this explain why he has such hostility toward her? As I said, I’m not a psychologist, but I think there might be other explanations than just incest. Whatever happened to them in their childhood, let’s just agree that it was horrible enough to create two highly dysfunctional people. (SPOILERS ENDED).

Abi Morgan and McQueen should be commended on writing such an insightful and non-sensationalistic screenplay. It’s more documentary than anything. I saw McQueen’s previous movie, Hunger (2008), which also starred Fassbender, and I didn’t find it as compelling. He’s definitely improved as a writer and director. Of course, this is only his SOPHOMORE effort, and it’s light years beyond what some directors with 20 films under their belt have accomplished. I know that everyone thinks that Alexander Payne is a cinema god, but he could take some lessons from McQueen. And award-favorite George Clooney should take some acting lessons from Fassbender. I am so in awe of this amazingly talented German-born, Irishman, I can’t tell you. I’ve been a slavish devote to his art since I saw him as Stelios in 300 (2006). From that moment on, I have never missed one of his performances. In Shame, he demonstrates such consummate skill; such understanding of the human psyche – damaged or otherwise – and he just commits to this character. He’s without shame himself, apparently, because many actors would, no doubt, shy away from being so exposed, literally and figuratively. The only other actor – another favorite of mine – who might have been suitable to play this role would have been Ewan McGregor. Check him out in Young Adam (2003) if you doubt me. (Actually, in his youth, Ralph Fiennes might have done a good job.)

Mulligan, too, is such a fine actress, and she matches Fassbender in this film scene for scene. Michelle Williams is getting a lot of praise for her portrayal of Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn, but I can’t help but think that Mulligan could blow her out of the water playing the same role. What an amazing chameleon this Londoner happens to be. I loved her in Never Let Me Go (2010) and Drive (2011).  A while ago, I skimmed through a review of Shame, and in it the reviewer went on and on about how unimaginably long was Mulligan’s rendition of New York, New York. The fact that he made such a big deal out of this created in me quite a bit of anxiety. I half expected to be stabbing out my eyes while I endured it. I have no idea what his problem was, but the song is lovely. OK, so it’s slower than it should be, but Mulligan has such a beautiful voice that I really enjoyed it. I hope she gets another opportunity to sing on film. As for the rest of the songs on the soundtrack, it’s an eclectic mix that includes songs by Blondie (“Rapture”), Tom Tom Club (“Genius of Love”), Chic (“I Want Your Love”), and instrumental music by such artists as Glenn Gould, John Coltrane, Chet Baker, and Harry Escott. Overall, the soundtrack was effective.

It’s a tragedy that by the time Shame came to Omaha – thank you Dundee Theatre – I had already compiled my Best of 2011 film list, because Shame definitely deserves a prominent spot in the Top 5. It’s a film that stays with you. I saw it on Sunday, and it’s still occupying my thoughts. If I don’t see it again in the cinema, I’ll definitely be buying it on DVD. I really hope there is a director’s commentary track!

If you are an open-minded sort who is fascinated by human frailty, and who seeks out, and loves, films such as Young Adam, Requiem for a Dream (2000), and L’Ennui (1998) then you should not miss Shame.

Five out of Five Stars

Unless you are an Anglophile with an interest in serial killers, you probably hadn’t heard of Hindley or Brady before 2006, when not one but two made-for-TV features appeared stateside:

See No Evil: The Moors Murders is a two-part, made-for-Granada-Television program that begins with a woman pushing a pram. She is Maureen Smith (Joanne Froggatt), and she’s paying a visit to the office of her older sister Myra Hindley (Maxine Peake), so that she can show off her baby. The sisters begin spending more and more time together, and because of this, Maureen encourages her husband, David (Matthew McNulty), to get better acquainted with Myra’s live-in lover, Ian Brady (Sean Harris), a strange Scotsman who peppers his conversations with German phrases and who offers existential musings on the nature of god and the soul. When the foursome hangs out, it isn’t uncommon for them to drive up to the Moors, a place where Ian seems to feel most at home.

A series of tragedies befall Maureen and David – their baby dies, and they are threatened with eviction – and these events make David more vulnerable to Ian’s “spell.” At Ian’s suggestion, David begins reading the Marquis de Sade, and he agrees to participate in a bank robbery. When that falls through, they decide to lure a homosexual to Ian and Myra’s flat. The plan is that they will blackmail him for money. But what actually happens is much worse: Ian hacks the young victim to death with an axe. Fearing that he will be next if he doesn’t “play it cool,” David helps clean up the mess. Blood-covered, he returns home after 2 a.m. and confesses what happened to Maureen. Incredulous, she tells him that he has to report the incident to the police, which he does, that next morning. Ian and Myra are arrested, and he admits to the murder. Myra and David, who is also considered a suspect, are eventually released. As you might expect, the rest of the film covers the trial and eventual incarceration of Ian and Myra. But the story doesn’t end there. Instead, it goes on to demonstrate how this couple’s crimes shattered not only the lives of the victims’ families but also the lives of those closest to them, specifically Maureen and David.

If you are unfamiliar with the crimes of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, this 180-minute film is a good place to start. The acting is first rate with everyone delivering fine performances, particularly Harris, who gets the interesting task of embodying an unrepentant killer. Peake keeps you guessing about Myra. Was she a “human being” seduced and corrupted by “evil” incarnate, or was she a manipulative chameleon who fooled even those who “knew” her best? We will never know. At times, See No Evil reminded me of Dance with a Stranger, the 1985 crime biography about Ruth Ellis, another short-haired, peroxide blonde whose obsession with the object of her desire, in this case David Blakely (Rupert Everett), also ended in tragedy. (The difference, of course, is that Ellis was hanged for her murder of her lover.)

If you can find fault with See No Evil, it’s that it tiptoes around what actually happened to the victims. I’m not a person who needs lurid details or who even wants to see children being raped and strangled – one of the girls was forced to pose in pornographic photos – but if you are telling a true crime story, you have to be more forthright with what these people did. The British public was outraged by these murders and many continue to be. Even after Myra Hindley had rejoined the Catholic Church, she was still reviled. And after she had served 30-plus years in prison, only a small percentage of the British public wanted to see her released. But this complaint is coming from someone who didn’t grow up in the U.K., so maybe I would feel differently if I had, especially if I had grown up there during the time when these serial killers were engaging in their nefarious practices.

It’s interesting to note that See No Evil was written by Neil McKay, who also penned the excellent made-for-TV film Appropriate Adult (2011), which tells the story of Fred and Rose West, another notorious serial killing couple in the U.K., and This is Personal: The Hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper (2000), which is about, yes, you got it, Peter Sutcliffe, the notorious prostitute-killing serial killer from Yorkshire. Appropriate Adult was screened in the U.S. on the Sundance Channel; I have no idea if This is Personal was ever screened in the U.S., although I’d love to see it. See No Evil won a number of awards, including a BAFTA TV Award for Best Drama Serial.

After you have immersed yourself in the early years of these killers, it’s time to put in a copy of the three-time Golden Globe-winning Longford (2006). This HBO-produced film centers on Lord Longford (Jim Broadbent), a member of the House of Lords who believed that Myra Hindley (Samantha Morton) deserved a second chance and should be paroled. A Catholic convert, Longford spent much of later life visiting inmates in prison. He became interested in Myra, after she sent him a letter, requesting a visit. Thinking he would meet the hardened bleached blonde from the police mug shot, this politician was surprised to find, instead, a timid, remorseful, brunette waiting for him. Almost immediately, he was drawn to her, and thus began his “campaign” to free her. Of course, this was courting controversy, and his decades-long “friendship” with her negatively affected his career.

Although I watched See No Evil with great interest – those three hours just fly by – the 93-minute-long Longford paints a much more compelling and multi-faceted portrait of Myra. When she is around Longford, she is the very model of a contrite, likable woman, so desperate for redemption, and he is only too happy to champion and embrace her. Actually, until Longford is summoned by Ian Brady (Andy Serkis), I shared the politician’s outrage. Maybe she was just a naïve person who was manipulated into doing ghastly things. And if she were a victim herself, how was it fair that she had remained in prison for as long as she had? My outrage disappeared when Ian began reading excerpts from Myra’s letters and offering his “insights” into Myra’s character. (And what about those damning photos and tape recordings?) I felt suckered; taken in. But then that’s the nature of psychopaths, for you. You have no idea what is real and genuine, and what is an act. They find your weaknesses and exploit them.

As much as I appreciated Harris’s take on Brady, I was positively riveted by Serkis. He commanded such presence and conveyed such menace … seriously, he gave me chills. If evil exists, his performance gives you a glimpse at how it might look. Actually, the interplay between Serkis and Broadbent during those few, very brief, exchanges offer the audience a masterclass on acting. It doesn’t get much better than this, folks. I don’t want to diminish the power of Morton’s acting. She is, as usual, phenomenal. I love her, because she is capable of being someone you want to cuddle one minute and someone who scares the bejesus out of you. Also very good is Lindsay Duncan, who plays Lady Elizabeth Longford, the main character’s intelligent and very devoted wife.

Written by the exceptionally talented Peter Morgan – some of his other credits include Frost/Nixon (2008), The Queen (2006), and The Last King of Scotland (2006) – Longford is yet another jewel in HBO’s crown of accomplishments. At the BAFTA Awards, it received nine nominations and won three, including ones for Best Writer, Best Editing Fiction/Entertainment, and Best Actor (Broadbent). I don’t know who she was up against in the Best Actress category, but I’m sure that Morton was robbed. (Serkis was competing against Broadbent, which is a bit silly as the latter had a lead role and the former, a cameo.) Fans of independent film will recognize Longford’s director – Tom Hooper, who helmed the multi-Academy Award winning The King’s Speech (2010).

If you get these films, watch See No Evil first and then Longford – I made the mistake of doing it the other way around – because it will put the characters and events into better context. Plus, everything will be in perfect chronological order. I can’t think of a more entertaining way to spend your evening. Now, I’m just waiting for someone to make a film called Myra Hindley and Ian Brady: The Early Years. There remain many unanswered questions.

Thanks to Netflix and its Instant Watch option, I’ve been catching up on a ton of movies that were released in 2011. Because my house has turned into a mini film festival – in six days, I’ve already seen 16 movies  – I’ve decided to review them in short capsules. This will be a multi-part series with 10 titles in each. Enjoy!

Part I:

1)       Another Earth – Several things are going on in this subtle sci-fi drama. First, you have the discovery of a planet that is identical in every way to Earth. (Everyone here has a double/doppelganger there.) And second, the main character, Rhoda (Brit Marling), gets into a car accident with university professor John Burroughs (William Mapother) and kills his entire family. For this crime, she goes to prison. Once released, four years later, the aimless and guilt-ridden woman takes a job as a high school janitor. As a way to heal her psyche, she becomes a maid to the utterly despondent John. Their relationship is therapeutic for both, but Rhoda hasn’t been completely honest with the professor. Will her secrets, and her opportunity to visit Earth 2, threaten everything they have built? Another Earth is a beautiful – thematically and visually – film about second chances and redemption. I liked it so much that I included in my Best of 2011 list. Marling pulls double duty as the film’s lead actress and its co-screenwriter. She’s a great find. I’m very excited to see what director Mike Cahill does next. 4 out of 5 stars.

2)       The Tempest – Julie Taymor adapts William Shakespeare’s play for the big screen, and in doing so makes a significant change: the male Prospero becomes a female, Prospera (Helen Mirren). I really like Shakespeare when his characters are brooding and neurotic; when they are trying to be funny, not so much. I’m not a big fan of The Tempest anyway, but this adaptation just seems to get everything wrong. Mirren, who is usually dynamic, seems uninspired and lackluster. I wasn’t impressed with the casting of Reeve Carney as Prince Ferdinand, Djimon Hounsou as Caliban, or Russell Brand as Trinculo. And the inclusion of the word f-ck in the screenplay was totally unnecessary. The only cast member with whom I was impressed was Ben Whishaw as Ariel. The costumes were frequently stunning – for instance when Ariel is dressed as a giant black bird – but the cheap-looking special effects undermined their impact. (To be honest, they were embarrassing.) Taymor really likes Shakespeare – she has previously adapted Titus Andronicus for the big screen – but she doesn’t seem to understand him. And even though her productions always attract A-listers, they still “lack something.” The Tempest is borderline unwatchable. 2 out of 5 stars.

3)       Le Quattro Volte – A number of NY critics have lauded this Italian drama by Michelangelo Frammartino, which is supposed to demonstrate how we transform from human to animal to vegetable to mineral. The idea seemed intriguing to me, so I decided to give it a go. After the first 45 minutes, which are essentially watching an old shepherd taking his goats and Border collie from an enclosure into the hills and back again, I became anxious. What the hell? I fast forwarded through the rest, and it looked to be just as “interesting.” I abandoned the film. Since I didn’t actually endure this in its entirely, I shouldn’t really review it. But let me say this for the record, those 45 minutes felt like an eternity. If I want to watch an old shepherd herding animals, I’d rather be in Italy doing that. 1 out of 5 stars.

4)       Trust – For his sophomore directing gig, David Schwimmer chose a drama/thriller about a 15 year old (Liana Liberato) who becomes the victim of an online sexual predator/pedophile. When she begins communicating with “Charlie,” he says he’s in high school. Then he’s 20. Then a grad student. When she finally meets him in the mall, she is confronted with a 30-something year old who convinces her to go with him to a hotel, where they have sex. (Her parents, played by Clive Owen and Catherine Keener, are out of town, taking her brother to college.) Rather than sensationalize such an event, the film attempts to show it from all angles. The enraged father becomes obsessed with catching the pedophile and, if he had his way, killing him. The mother is focused on consoling/helping her daughter. And in her innocence and naiveté, the victim believes that “Charlie” truly loved her and wants to be with her. At times I found Trust to be frustrating, probably because I identified so strongly with the father, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t find value in watching it. Quite the opposite. If you have tweens or teens, this might be a good film to watch with them. The best thing about Trust is Owen’s performance. I’ve never seen him exhibit such range. The worst? At times, it can feel like it’s a Lifetime movie of the week. 3 stars out of 5.

5)       Certified Copy (Copie Conforme) – Another NY critics’ delight that I hated, this drama is written and directed by Abbas Kiarostami. It begins in Tuscany at a book lecture, during which British writer, James Miller (William Shimell), discusses the issue of original art vs. copies. Elle (Juliette Binoche), a French ex-pat, is in attendance with her son. She has to leave the lecture early – her son is hungry – but before she goes she arranges a meeting with the writer at a later time. For the remainder of the film, we watch the two of them meandering through the streets of Chianti as they talk about relationships, art, children and more. I am the first one to love a philosophical movie, but not when the main characters are so unlikable. She’s desperate, needy, defensive, argumentative, and emotionally unstable; he’s dispassionate to a fault. In the real world, I wouldn’t have spent one minute with either of them, and yet, here we are forced to endure 106 minutes with both. Yuck. Those who applaud this film love the fact that you aren’t really sure what the relationship is between Elle and James. Are they strangers? Friends? Lovers? Married? This makes it “original” apparently. If by original, they mean infuriating, then I will concur. Who with a grain of sanity acts as if they have never met the other person when they have (SPOILER) in fact been married for more than a dozen years and share a son? No one I know. In my opinion, it’s just a screenwriter who is trying to be clever/pretentious, and who is wasting our time. 1 star out of 5.

6)       Cold Weather – In this comedy/drama/mystery co-written and directed by Aaron Katz, Doug (Cris Lankenau), a college drop-out/slacker, moves in with his sister Gail (Trieste Kelly Dunn). To help pay for the rent, he gets a job in an ice factory. His ex-girl friend Rachel (Robyn Rikoon) comes to town, and then disappears. Because he studied criminal justice and is a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, Doug, with the assistance of co-worker Carlos (Raul Castillo) and his sister, attempts to find her. Unlike a lot of “quirky” indies, Cold Weather seemed very “real” and relatable. It didn’t feel affected or precious. It probably helped that I share a lot of the same interests as the characters, including crime solving, Star Trek, and slacking. I had read some bad reviews for this film so I put off seeing it for much longer than I should have. Everyone who hates this is just plain wrong. It’s very enjoyable, and the actors are exceptional, especially Castillo (his role should have been bigger) and Dunn, who steals every scene. Portland, Oregon, looks absolutely stunning, too, and thanks to this film, I’m thinking of relocating. 4 stars out of 5.  

7)       The Princess of Montpensier (La Princesse de Montpensier) – Adapted from a short story by Madame de La Fayette, this historical drama centers on Marie (Melanie Thierry), the titular princess who is in promised to one guy, is in love with his brother Henri (Gaspard Ulliel), but, because of political jockeying, ends up being wed to the Prince of Montpensier (Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet). Love, or passion, cannot be denied, and Marie keeps pining for Henri, and he for her. As you can imagine, it won’t end well for anyone involved. Set against the backdrop of the Huguenot-Catholic wars, this film is your bog standard “love triangle” film, with everyone longing to be near the blonde, blue-eyed, buxom lead, including her teacher, the Comte de Chabannes (Lambert Wilson). When I was a teen-ager, this kind of thing really tripped my trigger – Camille Claudel and Queen Margot were favorites – but now I just find them tedious. And this is one of the worst I’ve seen in recent memory. It’s 139 minutes I will never get back. 1.5 stars out of 5.

8)       Queen to Play (Joueuse) – Set in gorgeous Corsica, this film is adapted and directed by Caroline Bottaro and demonstrates how chess can transform a person’s life. Helene (Sandrine Bonnaire) is a people pleasing hotel maid married to a laborer (Francis Renaud). The couple is barely keeping their heads above water. One day, while cleaning a room, Helene encounters a beautiful American woman (Jennifer Beals) playing chess with her lover. Something “clicks” inside of Helene, and she decides to buy her husband an electronic chess board for his birthday. He is perplexed by the gift. Although he hasn’t much interest in the game, Helene becomes obsessed with it, staying up late into the evening, playing matches against herself. She wants to advance but how? She finds her answer while cleaning the home of the reclusive American, Mr. Kroger (Kevin Kline). After finding a chess board on a book shelf, she asks him to play a game with her. Initially, he scoffs. But he sees something in her, and this one game turns into weekly sessions. The more she plays, the more her confidence increases, and, for better or worse, she begins to question her life. Queen to Play started out a bit slow, but if you give it a chance, it ends up being a very uplifting experience. It could be called “feminist” film, because the main character goes from being a mousy, quiet, subservient thing to having the confidence to stand up for herself and compete against a room full of rather dismissive men. I’ve long been a fan of Bonnaire, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen her in a bad film. I was a bit surprised to find Kline in this, but more surprised to see him speaking in French 99 percent of the time. After watching Queen to Play, I’ll definitely be seeking out other films by Bottaro. And for a short time, it made me want to buy a chessboard. 4 stars out of 5.

9)       Tiny Furniture – Written, directed and starring Lena Dunham, this indie comedy centers on a recent university graduate (Dunham) who moves back to NY to live with her photographer mother (Laurie Simmons) and her high school aged sister (Grace Dunham). We follow her as she reconnects with an old friend named Charlotte (Jemima Kirke), finds a job as a hostess, attends parties, and tries to find romance first with an internet sensation named Jed (Alex Karpovsky) and then with a chef named Keith (David Call). “Quirky” usually means that I won’t like a film, but Tiny Furniture is different. Dunham is very down-to-Earth; an Everywoman, if you will. If you’ve been to college, you can relate, at least in part, with her situation. Kirke is an absolute treasure as the pill-taking, boozy, unsupervised, “bad influence” Brit. I wish this blonde actress a very long and illustrious career. Karpovsky delivers some of the funniest lines in the movie. He looks a bit like a very young Chris Sarandon, and talks like a taller Woody Allen. I hadn’t heard of Tiny Furniture – named after the subjects of the mother’s photography – until my friend mentioned it. I’m glad I checked it out. It’s touching, funny, and quirky, but in a very relatable way. Some might not like the “abrupt” and unresolved ending, but I was OK with it. 4 stars out of 5.

10)   The Guard – If you read the synopsis on IMDB, you would think this was an Irish remake of Lethal Weapon. “A raucous comedy,” the DVD cover proclaims. Um, no. Written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, it centers on an “unorthodox Irish policeman” (Brendan Gleeson) who comes across as pretty clueless. He’s also an alcoholic and a racist … he’s lazy and has a fondness for hookers. Because an international drug-smuggling ring comes to town, he gets teamed up with an FBI agent (Don Cheadle), who is buttoned down and all business. It’s possible that you have to be Irish to find this humorous, because neither I nor my English husband chuckled much. In fact, I found it rather ho-hum. Fionnula Flanagan is good as Eileen Boyle, the main character’s mother who is dying, I assume, of cancer. And I always love seeing Mark Strong. He plays one of the drug smugglers; a Londoner who acts as if everything and everyone is beneath him. 2 stars out of 5.

I recently found a list that someone had compiled on IMDB of films that were released in 2011. On that list were about 200 titles; so far, I’ve seen 94 of them. Narrowing these titles down to what represented, for me, the Best of the Best has been a challenge. Sometimes, after I see a film, I will think it’s the greatest thing ever. A few months later, I’ll rethink my initial reaction, and the film will either lose or gain points. I’ve done a lot of thinking about my list this year. A LOT. And I’ve tried to see as many films as I could so that I wasn’t missing any masterpieces. I hope I haven’t. ***

My list is ranked, pretty much, in order of my love for these films. It includes some popular titles, and I make no apologies for this. I like what I like. After all, I’m not trying to show how sophisticated or intellectual I am. This list is very personal to me, and the films on it were ones that made an impression on me. Some of these I saw several times in the cinema. Many, I now own on Blu-ray.

1. Warrior – Co-written and directed by Gavin O’Connor, this sports drama had the bad luck of being promoted as a mixed martial arts rock ‘em, sock ‘em, when it’s primarily an incredibly moving tale about a family of fighters torn apart by alcoholism and abuse. You won’t find a bad performance in this film. Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton, and Nick Nolte all deserve awards for their brilliant portrayals. I really wish that more people would give this phenomenal film a chance. Better than Rocky. Better than The Fighter. My favorite film of the year.
2. Martha Marcy May Marlene – Written and directed by Sean Durkin, this psychological drama is so accurate in its portrayal of a cult that it could be a documentary. It’s Charlie Manson and his family to a T. Elizabeth Olsen is the stand out as the titular Martha. John Hawkes is seductively sinister as the cult leader. Can’t wait to own this. The only drawback is the abrupt ending, which left many in the cinema saying “what?” This is one of those films that you have to see more than once.
3. Beginners – Written and directed by Mike Mills, this romantic drama centers on a young man who finds out that his elderly father has terminal cancer and that he’s gay. For personal reasons, this film really touched me, and the acting is perfection. Christopher Plummer delivered a one-two knockout punch with performances this year in Beginners and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Kudos to the director for casting the cutest dog in the history of cinema and then really maximizing that dog’s screen time. Ewan McGregor, as always, is wonderful in this.
4. Rise of the Planet of the Apes – This sci-fi/action/drama has a very relatable, human story at its core – a scientist is trying to cure his father of Alzheimer’s – and it also offers powerful commentary on how animals are used for “scientific” purposes. John Lithgow is fantastic, but the real star is Andy Serkis, who helped to bring Caesar to life. Rise of the Planet of the Apes took me on a real emotional rollercoaster ride. This is big budget, summer blockbuster fare at its finest.
5. Drive – Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, this crime/drama/thriller wasn’t promoted properly, so audiences expecting Fast Five with Ryan Gosling got pretty angry. This is a slow film. There is no doubt about that. But it’s also a fascinating morality story about how a leopard can’t change its spots. The violence is pretty unsettling. Great, subtle, performances by Gosling, Albert Brooks, and Bryan Cranston. I can’t wait for this to come out on DVD. Great soundtrack, by the way.
6. 13 Assassins – Directed by Takashi Miike, this action/adventure/drama is essentially the very popular 47 Ronin but with fewer samurai. That said, of all the samurai/revenge films that I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a TON, this one is the best. Koji Yakusho is fabulous. Very tragic story, but man is it amazing. I paid $9.99 to see this on Amazon, and then immediately bought it on Blu-ray.
7. The Way – Adapted and directed by Emilio Estevez, this adventure/comedy/drama is about a father who, after his estranged son dies, decides to undergo the “El Camino de Santiago” pilgrimage in his son’s place. Along the way, he meets up with three very different traveling companions. Martin Sheen has never been better. This is a very touching story about human connection. Made me want to take the pilgrimage myself.
8. Melancholia – Written and directed by Lars von Trier, this sci-fi drama is breathtakingly beautiful, and will have you thinking about it long after you’ve seen it. Although you could say it’s “slow,” I would prefer to use the word contemplative/reflective. If your life has been touched by mental illness, this film will make sense to you on a level that it won’t for others. The best von Trier film to date, and Kirsten Dunst is amazing.
9. A Year in Mooring – Written by Peter Vanderwall and directed by Chris Eyre, this indie drama centers on a man who copes with a tragedy by spending a year on a boat docked in a harbor. I know that sounds pretty uninteresting, but it’s anything but. It’s emotionally raw but very relatable. Contemplative/reflective also apply to this wonderful film. Josh Lucas, and his blue eyes, is why this story works so well. Here’s to this film finally getting a wider release. (I saw it at a Native American film festival.)
10. The Thing  – This prequel, helmed by Matthijs van Heigningen Jr., is frightening, claustrophobic, unnerving, and a delight. I didn’t think it could happen, but it enhanced my already heart-bursting love for John Carpenter’s 1981 The Thing. Another great film that died a horrible death at the box office. It comes out at the end of January for rental. Do yourself a favor, and see this. If you like horror sci-fi, this is a must-see.
11. Poetry – Written and directed by Chang-dong Lee, this Korean drama centers on a 65-year-old woman who is raising her grandson. When she isn’t cooking for this teen-aged disrespectful brat, she is taking care of a disabled man. Usually carefree, she is emotionally shaken when she learns of a horrible crime perpetrated by a family member. And then she learns of an impending personal health crisis. In the midst of all this chaos, she finds some comfort in poetry. Poetry is a bit “lighter” in tone than Joon-ho Bong’s 2009 film Mother, but the films are very similar. I found myself very engaged in this woman’s life/situation. The lead actress Jeong-hie Yun is a wonder.
12. Another Earth – Co-written and directed by Mike Cahill, this subtle sci-fi drama centers on a young woman who gets into a fatal accident with a university professor and his family on the night that a duplicate planet is discovered. Another Earth is primarily about guilt, redemption, forgiveness, and hope. And yet it also raises some basic philosophical questions. People who enjoy the TV series Fringe will probably appreciate this film. I really liked the main character played by Brit Marling, a lovely actress who shares screenwriting credits, and I found the ideas raised by the film to be worth contemplating. The ending is open to interpretation. I found it to be a bit unsettling.  
13. The Trip – I rarely watch or like comedies, but this is a notable exception. Steve Coogan, playing an exaggerated version of himself, reluctantly takes his friend Rob Brydon, also playing an exaggeration of himself, on a road trip through England to review some of the country’s best restaurants. The scenery is breath-taking, and the chemistry between the two leads was electric. They try to one-up each other all the time by doing impressions of famous people; I found it hilarious. I was actually a bit sad when the film ended after 107 minutes. I think I would have watched a three hour film about these two guys.
14. Skin I Live In – A film by Pedro Almodovar, this drama/thriller was a bit slow to get going, but once it ended I couldn’t stop thinking about it. In fact, I’m still trying to figure out what Almodovar was trying to say with it. (It’s like the riddle of the sphinx.) The film centers on a brilliant, but clearly insane, plastic surgeon, who after suffering the death of his wife and the suicide of his daughter, throws himself into his questionable “work.” What is his “work”? It involves transgenesis and a mysterious woman that he keeps locked up in his home. It is a bit like Eyes Without a Face, but 10 times more disturbing/twisted.
15. Limitless – Directed by Neil Burger, this sci-fi thriller is about what happens when an author suffering from “writer’s block” begins taking an experimental drug that allows him access to his entire brain. Bradley Cooper amazed me with his performance. I think I liked this so much because this guy is living my fantasy. Who wouldn’t want to be able to learn a language in minutes? Be able to write a brilliant novel in a day? I’ve already seen this film three times, and it never diminishes in quality.
16. Source Code – After Moon, I couldn’t wait to see what else director Duncan Jones had up his sleeve. This is the answer, and it is pretty brilliant. In this action/sci-fi/mystery, an “agent” keeps getting sent back in time so that he can solve the mystery of who bombed a Chicago commuter train. Jake Gyllenhaal is wonderful as is Michelle Monaghan, who plays his eventual love interest.
17.  X-Men: First Class – I’m an enormous X-Men fan. I’ve seen all of the films in the cinema and have bought all of the DVDs. (I even like X-Men Origins: Wolverine.) If it were up to me, the franchise would never end. Naturally, I was chuffed beyond belief when I heard that they were making an origins film for Magneto. Not only is his story in here, but you also get the back story on Charles Xavier and some of the first Mutants. I found it all rather fascinating. Michael Fassbender is truly amazing as the young, vengeful and dangerous Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto. What I really like about X-Men is that it offers you two very different approaches/worldviews to the same situation. Xavier sees good in humanity and wants to build bridges; Erik, who has seen the darkest side of humanity, is convinced that no one can be trusted. I have to admit, I’m in accordance with Magneto. Kevin Bacon is also very good in a small role as Magneto’s role model.
18. Kill the Irishman – Co-written and directed by Jonathan Hensleigh, this biography/crime/thriller is based on the true story of Danny Greene, an Irish-American “Robin Hood” who just couldn’t be killed. Ray Stevenson delivers an award-winning performance as Greene, and Christopher Walken and Vincent D’Onofrio offer great support. This movie really needs to be seen by more people. I recommended it to my parents, and they both loved it.  
19. The Wave – Co-written and directed by Dennis Gansel, this German drama is loosely based on a social experiment that was carried out by an American high school teacher. In this film, the teacher wants to demonstrate to his class how totalitarianism could occur in modern (1980s) Germany. And the results are disturbing. This is a 2008 film but only became available on DVD this year in the U.S. I watched this with curiosity, fascination, and a bit of fear. I would really like to see more of actor Jurgen Vogel’s films. He’s great! It reminded me a bit of the exceptional 2001 film, Das Experiment.
20. Contagion – Directed by Steven Soderbergh, this drama/thriller feels like a documentary, because it begins with someone getting sick and then follows the CDC as it tries to find a cure before the situation turns into a devastating pandemic. (Too late.) I’m a fan of outbreak films, and this one is the most clinical available. Some might see that as a problem. I saw it as fresh. My husband is already clamoring for the two-disc Blu-ray. He liked it even more than I did. Jude Law delivers the stand-out performance. He’s reason enough to see this film. Actually, Kate Winslet is also very good.
21.  The Beaver – I don’t usually like Jodie Foster when she goes behind the camera, but this is an exception. This is a great, very moving, drama about a husband/father/executive who cracks, and then can only communicate through a beaver hand puppet. It sounds stranger than it actually is. Mel Gibson is tremendous in this, and if this film had been made 10 years ago, he would be up for an Oscar and this film would have killed at the box office. Sadly, people stayed away in droves, and it died one of the most horrible cinematic deaths imaginable. I just hope that now that his negative press is coming to an end, people will give this film a shot. I really loved it.
22. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – I’m still not the biggest fan of Stieg Larsson’s crime/drama/mystery, but director David Fincher, with the assistance of writer Steven Zaillian, really improved on the Swedish original. They made something that I had already seen, and dismissed, riveting and intense. Those 158 minutes flew right by. Rooney Mara becomes Lisbeth Salander in an eerie and frightening way. She’s a star in the making. This version is also more atmospheric and a hell of lot less confusing. I’ll buy it on Blu-ray when it comes out.
23. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol ­– Tom Cruise is the man. That’s all I need to say. Just check out his stunts in this fourth installment of a franchise that I hope never ends. Director Brad Bird has a very promising career in live action. See this film in IMAX and 3D to get the full effect.
24. Sucker Punch – I love Zach Snyder, and although this isn’t his best film, it’s still very stunning. It’s stylish and has more depth to it than people realize. I bought it on Blu-ray and watched the extended version, which includes a different ending sequence. (It was deemed too controversial or some nonsense so it was excised.) I liked how Snyder reworked various movie genres and then fashioned them together to create something completely new.
25.    Thor – I’m a superhero fan, so I’m totally psyched about all of the upcoming releases that have “interlocking” storylines. Thor introduces us to this Asgardian hero, a god who is exiled to Earth after disobeying his father, Odin. Chris Hemsworth is a real find, and I’m looking forward to seeing him in, well, anything he chooses to do. The inclusion of Anthony Hopkins is always a cinematic highpoint, and he’s pretty good as “All-father.” I was surprised to find that this story actually conforms, more or less, to Norse mythology. And Kenneth Branagh tackles his first big budget, summer blockbuster with ease. I can’t wait for The Avengers.

*** Films that might have made my list are: Albert Nobbs, The Iron Lady, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Guard, Project Nim, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Hugo, Carnage, Shame, A Dangerous Method, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Coriolanus, Margaret, and Tyrannosaur. None of these, as of yet, have opened in my hometown.

Movies that everyone seemed to love but me apparently include The Descendants, The Artist, and Tree of Life. The first was ho-hum/nothing special; the second had its moments, mostly when the dog was involved, but was just OK; and the third, too, had some beautiful imagery but was too religious, long, and jumbled for my taste. I’ve never really liked films directed by Alexander Payne or Terrence Malick, so I had a feeling that these wouldn’t suddenly transform me into a fan. I was correct.

Before I submit my Worst of 2011 list, a few caveats: I did not see every film that came out this year, so obviously this is not a definitive list. It is just based on my cinemagoing experiences and my preferences. That means, I don’t want any “hey, you forgot this or that film.” Yeah, that’s because I probably didn’t see it. For instance, I deliberately avoid anything starring Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler, anything directed by Judd Apatow, anything written/directed/starring Tyler Perry … if it’s a comedy, a child-friendly film, or anything super quirky/hipster, count me out. OK, we can proceed.

Conan the Barbarian

For some reason, they thought that this concept needed an updating. They were wrong, because no one went to see this. It only grossed $21 million. (It cost $70 million.) Bored one night, I made the mistake of renting this sword and sweating fantasy from Redbox, but once I realized that the plot was non-existant, I switched it off. Pure ridiculousness. You know you are in trouble when Ron Perlman’s faux hair looks like it escaped from the set of Battlefield Earth.

Bunraku

There was some buzz about this action/drama/fantasy directed and co-written by Guy Moshe. It’s a very stylized film, and that’s interesting for about 10 minutes, and then you start looking for a plot. I couldn’t find one, just a lot of West Side Story-inspired conflict and too many fight scenes. Directors: Please stop casting Josh Hartnett. His face has one emotion. Make-up artists again confuse Ron Perlman for a Battlefield Earth extra. And Gackt: No more American movies for you.

The Big Bang

Antonio Banderas stars as a private eye hired to find a missing stripper. I remember little else about this “mystery/thriller” and, unlike some of the other films in this list, I actually watched this entire thing. I remember there was a sex scene during which a waitress rattled on and on about physics, a giant Russian client, Snoop Dogg playing a porn director, and Sam Elliott wearing a dumb-looking long blonde wig. Only good thing about it was a scene chomping William Fichtner.

Henry’s Crime

For decades, I have made excuses for Keanu Reeves, the “actor.” Yeah, but he tries. Yeah, but he’s attractive. Well, no more. Not after watching him in this crime/drama. If proof was ever needed that Reeves cannot act, this is it. He’s so bad, it’s painful. His character is tricked into “helping” with a bank robbery, and he goes to jail for it. When he comes out, he decides to rob that bank for real. He enlists the help of a fellow, long-time, inmate (James Caan), and falls in love with an actress (Vera Farmiga) who is starring in Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard. Because her theater is right next door to the bank, Reeves finagles his way into playing the role opposite her. And that’s where this gets embarrassing. REALLY embarrasing. Farmiga and Caan act rings around Reeves, making you wonder how his career got as far as it has. This film might as well be labeled a fantasy, because you believe absolutely nothing that takes place in it.

Trespass

This has to be the biggest box office bomb of all time. According to IMDB, it opened on 10 screens and made $16,816. Wow, that’s the return on a $35 million budget, most of which probably went into Nicolas “Overacting King of the Universe” Cage’s pocket. Pathetic. This crime/drama/thriller is about a husband (Cage) and wife (Nicole Kidman), and eventually their daughter (Liana Liberato), who encounter home invaders who want what’s in the family’s safe. Had this film had a better director than Joel Schumacher, a better script, and another male lead, it might have been watchable. Kidman tries, she really does. And so does her fellow Australian thespian Ben Mendelsohn, playing the lead baddie, but Cage pollutes anything he touches. His “bad acting stink” just pervades this film. Cam Gigandet, who plays a mentally unstable hottie, helped me to endure this.

Colombiana

Luc Besson co-writes this action/crime/drama, which is just a pale imitation of his 1990 film La Femme Nikita. The pencil-thin, flavor-of-the-moment Zoe Saldana plays Cataleya, a woman who witnessed the murder of her parents when she was a 10-year-old living in Colombia. Determined to get revenge, she trains with her uncle (Cliff Curtis) to become an assassin. Her ultimate target is a mobster named Marco (Jordi Molla). Why did I hate this film? Let me count the ways. The story wasn’t fresh at all. I had a difficult time believing that this anorexic-looking woman could beat anyone in a fight. The main character had no depth; she was like a robot engaging in one fight scene after another. The romantic subplot was pointless. Usually, I like Curtis, but his accent was horrible; borderline embarrassing. And the film is rated PG-13, so the usual suspects – grutuitous violence, nudity and sex – are absent. I could go on. What did I really expect, though, when Olivier Megaton (Transporter 3) is the director?

For the remaining films, since I’ve already ranted and raved about them elsewhere, I’ve decided to just provide links to the original reviews. Let it suffice to say that I wouldn’t recommend any of these to anyone. (FYI: Had I seen Paranormal Activity 3, it would, no doubt, be included in this list.)

1. In Time
2. Attack the Block
3. The Ward
4. Take Me Home
5. Season of the Witch
6. Adjustment Bureau
7. Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon
8. Drive Angry
9. The Rite
10. Insidious
11. Black Death
12. Red Riding Hood
13. The Hangover II 
14. Arthur

For this animal lover, War Horse was a particularly difficult, and traumatic, film to watch. I’m not exaggerating or joking when I say that I cried through most of its 146 minutes. Should that prevent anyone else from seeing it? No. It’s a powerful film about friendship, courage, determination, and beating the odds. It speaks volumes about the unbreakable bond between animals and humans, and it has some real moments of brilliance. This is a Steven Spielberg film after all, which means it’s a high quality picture that stirs your emotions. (If you come away from a Spielberg feeling nothing, consider seeing a psychiatrist.)

War Horse began life as a novel by Michael Morpurgo. It was then adapted by Nick Stafford in a National Theatre of Great Britain Production in Association with Handspring Puppet Company at the Lincoln Center Theater in New York. And, finally, Lee Hall (Billy Elliot) and Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral) have adapted the story for the big screen. It’s an epic tale that’s sort of what you get when you combine elements from Black Beauty (1994), The Field (1990), Gallipoli (1981), and A Very Long Engagement (2004), just replace the missing fiancé with a horse, and change the gender of the protagonist from female to male. (The end of the film also seems to give a visual nod to the ending of Gone with the Wind (1939), and the continual suffering of the horse – there’s a sequence during which it is “crucified” by barbed wire – might even pay homage to the Robert Bresson’s Au Hasard Balthazar (1966).  But then again I might be stretching.) Although this might sound like an odd combination of film references, it works.

When I first heard about War Horse, I deliberately avoided reading anything about it – all I knew was that it was by Spielberg – so I was pleasantly surprised to see so many familiar faces in the cast. Throughout his 20-plus-year career, Mullan (Session 9, Trainspotting, the Red Riding trilogy) has turned in one consistently brilliant performance after another, and in War Horse, he plays a “disabled” veteran of the Boer War. He’s stubborn, reckless, and stoic. He’s an important, for better or worse, catalyst for everything that happens in the film. A tremendous, brave actress (Breaking the Waves, The Proposition), Watson plays a character who is long-suffering, but strong; a very salt-of-the-Earth kind of woman who maintains the homestead. Thewlis plays, what else, a horrible, rich, bullying bastard of a man. Lyons is a bit like Peter – The American (Tom Berenger) in The Field; just a guy you would like to see getting clubbed. (His son, played by Robert Emms, is just as asshole-y.)

Irvine is a newcomer to the cinematic screen, and he’s a great find. Early in the film, he’s wide-eyed and bursting with so much love for that horse that when he loses Joey, you are crushed right along with him. (I wanted to reach into the screen and choke his father.) Even though he’s British, Irvine reminded me a bit of a young Christopher Reeve. I’m not really sure how old he is – must be in his 20s – but he’s such a good actor that, again, at the beginning of the film, he conveys the enthusiasm and innocence of a person in his mid-teens. (The character can’t join the military in 1914, because he isn’t yet 19. We don’t see him in the military until 1918, so I’m assuming at the beginning of the film, he’s supposed to be about 15?) War Horse should land Irvine on some “Breakout Stars of 2011” lists, and I expect big things from him. He already has two films in the works: Now is Good (2012) and The Railway Man (2013). Looking forward to seeing these.

As for some of the other supporting performances … (Contains some SPOILERS): Tom Hiddleston (Loki in Thor) conveys grace, kindness, and gentility as the ill-fated Capt. Nicholls. I was deeply saddened to witness his demise. Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes in the BBC’s Sherlock) plays Maj. Jamie Stewart, the officer who leads the tragic, and very stupid, “surprise” attack on the Germans – his mounted army uses only swords for weapons. His character also provides the film with a second horse, a gorgeous black stallion that “befriends” Joey. Niels Arestrup (Sarah’s Key, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) plays the jam-making grandfather of a sickly war orphan, Emilie (Celine Buckens). She finds Joey and the black stallion inside of the family’s windmill, and, briefly, provides the animals with some stability and care. Sadly, the animals don’t remain with this family for very long. The grandfather will play an important role at the end of the film. David Kross (The Reader) plays Gunther, a German soldier who saves his 14-year-old brother (Leonhard Carow) from the front lines. This is another “story” that doesn’t end well. (I actually gasped when I witnessed their fate.) Toby Kebbell (The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, RocknRolla) plays a compassionate Geordie soldier who, towards the end of the film, stops the war so that he can work with a German soldier to free Joey from a mass of barbed wire. Although this isn’t a “pretty” sequence, it provides the movie with a bit of comic relief – I know that sounds strange – and allows the audience to reflect on the absurdity of war.

And just in case that wasn’t enough name dropping for all of you Anglophiles out there, how about two more: Liam Cunningham, who plays an army doctor; and Eddie Marsan, who plays Sgt. Fry. Although I didn’t recognize him while I was watching the film – my eyes were probably too clouded with tears –IMDB tells us that Philippe Nahon plays the French auctioneer. French horror fans will know that name. He played the grotesque pig of a killer in High Tension (2003), and was in writer/director Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible (2002) and I Stand Alone (1998). I shudder a bit just thinking about this. Needless to say, Spielberg has assembled a very fine cast of actors here.

The look and sound of War Horse is up to Spielberg’s usual standards, because, he’s working again with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, editor Michael Kahn, and composer John Williams. (Hey, why break up a winning team?) The real unsung heroes of War Horse are the horse trainers and wranglers, and the horses themselves. Not only do these animals perform some dangerous-looking stunts, but they also must transcend being mere “animals.” As in any film of this kind, the animals are anthropomorphized, so that we identify with them. Joey is highly intelligent – he understands vocal commands within seconds – and deeply loyal. Several times, he’s even willing to sacrifice himself for others. For instance, even though he’s not a plow horse, he takes up the yoke to save Albert’s family farm. And while owned by the German military, he “volunteers” to pull heavy artillery up a muddy hill, so that the wounded black stallion, his friend, can rest. Are horses capable of these emotions? These thought processes? I have never owned a horse, so I have no idea. But whether they do or don’t doesn’t matter. The skills of Spielberg, Kahn, and these horses make us believe they do, without question. And that helps to turn on our waterworks.

Despite the fact that I came out of War Horse feeling emotionally drained and ready for a long nap, I still recommend the film. It’s destined to become a classic in much the same way that Old Yeller and Black Beauty have become. It’s rated PG-13 for intense sequences of war violence, and yet, the imagery isn’t anything gratuitous. It’s very restrained and shouldn’t terrify young children. What might scar them for life is watching that poor horse being put through the paces. That said, the film does have a “happy ending.” If you end up being brave enough to see War Horse make sure that you bring plenty of tissues, or, if you are as soft in the head as I am, bring a very absorbent towel and some dark sunglasses. You don’t want anyone seeing your swollen, red eyes in the lobby, now do you?

From the DVD cover, you might think that Helen Mirren is the “star” of The Debt, but that’s not entirely accurate. Although she is in the film – she plays Rachel in 1997 – the person who has the most screen time is Chastain. Most of the film’s action takes place during the 1960s, but when it is in the “present,” Tom Wilkinson plays the now wheelchair bound Stephan, and Ciaran Hinds, in essentially a cameo performance, plays the troubled David. I’m not complaining – The three younger actors do a wonderful job – I just want to let everyone know how it is, because I was under the impression that this was Mirren’s film. And if you are seeing it for her, prepare yourself for disappointment. But you won’t be disappointed, because this is a very good political thriller.

This adaptation is written by some pretty heavy hitters. Peter Straughan adapted The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009) and contributed to the upcoming Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011). Jane Goldman contributed to Stardust (2007), Kick-Ass (2010), X-Men: First Class, and the upcoming The Woman in Black (2012).  And Matthew Vaughn, who frequently steps behind the camera, helped with the screenplays for Stardust, Kick-Ass, and X-Men: First Class. I’ve enjoyed all of the aforementioned films, and I really enjoyed The Debt. It’s a very human story about people doing what they think is right at the time, and then having to face the consequences many years later. How do they correct their past errors? Can they?

In many ways, The Debt reminded me of another one of my favorites: Steven Spielberg’s underappreciated Munich (2005). For one thing, both films focus on “ordinary people” who are called upon to do some pretty extraordinary things. These characters aren’t superheroes or extraordinary spies. This isn’t Bourne or James Bond. These people are real and relatable, so while watching them we wonder “what would I do under this situation?” Both films also should start a conversation about retribution, forgiveness, and moral responsibility. What should be done with war criminals after many decades? Kill them? Put them on trial? What are our real motives in choosing either option? For me, that’s the real question. And can justice ever really be served?

For those who don’t like “heavy” philosophical discussion, The Debt has a romance at its core; however, it’s a complex, not very happy one. These characters have a lot of regrets, and that’s great for creating conflict. The characters themselves are really interesting. David is a brooding, Holocaust survivor who thinks he believes in justice and truth. He’s an emotional wreck; very damaged. Actually very Heathcliff. (I liked him a lot.) Stephan is attractive, charming, practical and straight forward; an ambitious man unencumbered by morality. Rachel is caught in the middle. She’s fearful but strong; and, like Stephan, chooses her head over her heart. Overall, I found them pretty fascinating.

The “older” actors don’t really look like they could be the younger ones in 30 years, but everyone’s performance is so good, you can overlook that fact. Chastain is a relative newcomer to Hollywood, but she’s a star in the making. And she deserves a big career, because not only is she gorgeous but she’s also tremendously talented. This year, I saw her in Take Shelter, The Debt, The Help, and The Tree of Life, and wow, is this woman capable of versatility. In the first, she plays a lower income woman dealing with the emotional turmoil of having a deaf child and a husband who is slowly going insane. (Or is he?) In the second, she’s a Mossad agent, trained in combat. In the third, she’s a Marilyn Monroesque Southern belle who married into money. Because of this, she’s the town pariah. And in the fourth, she’s an Earthy mother of two boys and the wife of an oppressive, regret-filled man. I can’t imagine ANY other actress at her age – she’s 30 – pulling off all of these roles as well as she does. (Her only real competition might come from Natalie Portman, but I don’t see Portman capable of doing ditzy sex bomb with any conviction.) Consider me a fan of this Julliard graduate. (Next up, she’ll play Salome in Al Pacino’s Wilde Salome.)

Worthington takes a lot of hits from haters, but I like the Australian actor a lot. He’s a good at action, and he some dramatic chops. His David is sweet but very secretive. There is a lot going on behind his eyes. Csokas, also Australian and looking a bit like a slender Russell Crowe, is another one of my favorites, but for some reason he tends to get cast as the bad guy in a lot of horrible films, e.g. xXx  (2002), Timeline (2003), and Aeon Flux (2005). If you doubt he’s a great actor, see him in Asylum (2005). That film made me a fan for life. He’s also pretty good in The Debt.

Hinds doesn’t stick around long enough to evaluate; Wilkinson, too, has a pretty small role. So, it’s on to Mirren, who, let’s face it, can’t do anything wrong in my eyes. She’s another actress who has enviable range. She can be sexy and seductive one minute, and tough and commanding the next. This is a woman who, in recent years, has played royalty – Queen Elizabeth I (Elizabeth I) and her frumpier relative Queen Elizabeth II (The Queen) – a tough-as-nails detective superintendant (Prime Suspect); a whorehouse madam (Love Ranch); a psychotic, power crazed owl (Legend of the Guardians); a butler (Arthur); Propero as a female (The Tempest); and a retired assassin (Red). May this woman never retire. I shouldn’t forget to mention Danish actor, Christensen. He’s a fantastic villain; a guy you want to see beaten and shot. And he reminds us that Christoph Waltz isn’t the ONLY European actor capable of inspiring such hatred.

Watching The Debt made me want to see the Israeli version, but, of course, it is unavailable for rental. Maybe I’ll just pull out my copy of Munich and watch it again. I think that if you have the emotional constitution for the experience, Munich and The Debt would make a wonderful back-to-back double feature. Just be prepared to stay up all night thinking and thinking some more.

From a story by Leslie Bohem, M.T. Ahern, and Jon Spaihts, who also wrote the screenplay, The Darkest Hour is a pretty mediocre action/horror/sci-fi film. None of the protagonists are particularly beguiling or, really, even interesting. After listening to their banal “getting to know you” chatter for a while, I felt like screaming, “OK, that’s enough. Start killing them.” I didn’t really care if any of these people survived. Well, that’s not 100 percent true. Kinnaman is a particular favorite of mine, so my fingers were crossed for him. But we all know that in poorly written films, any character with even a modicum of quirkiness or personality never makes it out alive. And this one is no exception. (SPOILERS) *********** For instance, half way through the 89-minute film, we are introduced to Sergei (Dato Bakhtadze), a middle-aged, rotund, Russian plumber/electrician  who lives in an apartment that’s essentially a giant metal cage and who has a ginger-colored cat that he has wrapped in, what looks like, Christmas lights. He’s totally batshit crazy, and delightful as hell. He holds the key to destroying the enemy, and what happens to him? Yeah, don’t bother keeping this guy around. He’s smart and actually knows how to work the microwave-emitting ray gun that he’s created. But instead of having him tag along, the writers give the weapon to the diminutive Hirsch, who I believe is supposed to the 21^st century’s answer to Corey Haim. Bah. Kill them. Kill them all! (SPOILERS ENDED).

The best characters in the film are the Russian ones. About halfway through the film, the dumb Americans encounter a wide-eyed, blonde survivor Vika (Veronika Ozerova). While she is able to face her fears and go out and gather supplies, Natalie and Anne huddle together in a corner, clutching each other like babies. More Vika; less Natalie and Anne, please. Also great are the Russian ass-kickers who save the lives of the protagonists near the end of the film. They come out of what looks like a library, dressed in military fatigues covered with metal pieces – the leader (Yuriy Kutsenko) is on an armored horse – and they are carrying everything from automatic weapons to a rocket launcher. Why these guys weren’t made the main characters is beyond me. They are probably the only reason I didn’t absolutely loathe The Darkest Hour, a film that borrows liberally from Cloverfield.

Now for the pros and the cons. On the plus side, The Darkest Hour is unique in that doesn’t take place in New York or Los Angeles. This one is set in, and was filmed in, Moscow (and Berlin), so we get to see Starbucks and McDonald’s signs in Cyrillic, and buildings capped with gold domes. Despite the fact that its plot and stock characters can be found in about one million other sci-fi films, at least The Darkest Hour has a different look to it. Also, its aliens aren’t like any other aliens I’ve seen on film. Most of the time, they are “invisible,” that is until they get hit with that microwave gun or are lit up by rounds of ammo. When they do materialize, they look like a black skull encircled by a black spinal column. Whatever they are, they sure do explode nicely in a shower of black “parts.” While watching some of these sequences, I couldn’t help but think that this concept would have made a much better first-person shooter game than a movie.

Now for the minus side … boy, where do I begin? The story was tedious, the dialogue yawn-inducing, and the character development non-existent. You don’t know much about any of these “chess pieces,” so you certainly don’t care about them. The female protagonists are written as typical dumb bitches, none of whom are dressed appropriately for an end-of-world scenario. Note to every woman in the real world, leave your high heel shoes and your sheer, sparkly, sleeveless tops at home. I don’t care if you are going to a club. If you dress like this and insist on getting drunk, you are either going to be raped, kidnapped and tortured – you’ve seen Hostel – or be ill-prepared for an alien invasion. Wear comfortable shoes, bring a jacket, and wear trousers. These articles of clothing will allow you to run from your foes, leap over any dead bodies in your path, and scale whatever building/tree/wall that stands in your way to freedom. To the writers, if you are going to write female characters, stop making them simpering idiots. And enough with the sexual attraction. These people could be incinerated at any time. That does nothing for the sex drive. Stepping off the soapbox.

I’m not sure what I thought I would see when I bought my ticket for The Darkest Hour. At best, I thought it might be a good thrill ride – as Cloverfield was – and maybe contain some cool special effects. Unfortunately, because it was so predictable and because you don’t care about anyone in the film, The Darkest Hour doesn’t offer you any thrills. I don’t remember one instance of my being on the edge of my seat. I was, however, pissed when a few of the minor characters died. The special effects are OK, but if you’ve seen the trailers, you don’t need to pay to see anymore of them. And this is surprising, because the director, Chris Gorak, has been an art director on Minority Report and Fight Club, and one of the producers is Timur Bekmambetov of Night Watch and Wanted fame. With a film this lackluster, it makes me a bit nervous to think that Bekmambetov’s next effort is directing Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) – please, don’t suck; please, don’t suck – and Spaihts has co-written the screenplay for Ridley Scott’s much anticipated Prometheus (2012). I just hope that he won’t have Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron running around in space, wearing high heels and sheer blouses and collapsing into each other’s arms when the aliens appear. That would warrant many, many slappings.

I will admit that I’ve never understood Diablo Cody’s appeal. I loathed Juno (2007) – the dialogue seemed so contrived to me, and I despised Jennifer Garner’s character – and I didn’t care much for Jennifer’s Body (2009) – that probably had more to do with the casting of Megan “No Talent” Fox. And because of my overall dislike of Cody, I probably would have avoided Young Adult, which she scripted, had it not been for Theron’s involvement. I’m glad that I gave the film a chance, because had I not, I would have missed out on seeing a 4-star effort. Plus, now I can say that maybe I don’t hate Cody after all. (That remains to be seen. Let’s first see what she does with the screenplay for the Evil Dead remake.)

Young Adult is definitely not a film that will be loved by many. Mavis is a pretty despicable character. You remember that beautiful, blonde, slightly slutty, very popular, stuck-up bitch from high school? Well, that’s Mavis, in all her horn-wearing glory. Only now she’s older. Well, and she is a raging alcoholic who suffers from trichotillomania, has “bonding” problems, and seems to have an eating disorder, specifically a binging problem, especially on KFC, McDonalds, and Diet Coke. She might also have Asperger’s, because she really has no idea how to act in social situations or even how her insensitivity affects others. At one point, she even had a look in her eyes that made me think she could easily kill someone, but we’ll not dwell on this point.

Despite the fact that Mavis is a total “head case,” you don’t totally hate her. At certain times, I found myself understanding her; at other times, I felt sorry for her. Not that she needs my or your pity. As long as she remains desirable to men and is successful, she will continue to live in a cloud of superiority. That or until her liver packs in, which could be very soon. I don’t know if I would have been so forgiving of Mavis had another actress played her. In fact, I don’t even know if I would have believed that this character existed had Theron, who I’m glad is finally making movies again, not played her. It’s interesting that I recently watched Monster (2003) – the pinnacle performance of her career – and even though Aileen was a serial killer, a prostitute with serious rage issues, Theron manages to make her sympathetic. She does the same with the equally deplorable Mavis; she finds the sliver of humanity in the character.

As for the rest of the characters in the film, none are as revolting as Mavis. Buddy is a sweet, considerate, “normal,” very likable guy. His wife, Beth (Elizabeth Reaser), too, has a bigger heart and more patience than most women would have. I mean, how many women, especially ones hopped up on new mom hormones, would allow their husbands to accompany their old flames to a bar? And Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt), a chubby, disabled accountant, lends an ear and provides plenty of alcohol to this woman who didn’t give him the time of day in high school. Threatening to upstage Theron, Oswalt plays the most “relatable” character in the film. In high school, Matt was into theater, which meant to the jocks that he was gay. To “punish” him for his homosexuality – he isn’t gay – these testosterone-filled freaks took a crowbar to Matt, breaking his legs and his penis. Today, he walks with a crutch, still lives with his sister, Sandra (Collette Wolfe); distills bourbon named after the Mos Eisley cantina; and enjoys reassembling action figures into new creations. Why Mavis befriends Matt is complicated. Well, maybe not. He calls her on her shit, and he helps her get “loaded.” Their conversations create the best moments in the film, and Oswalt gets all of the best lines. For instance, when he throws back a drink, he says “Take that liver.” Had me chuckling. (Sitting in the cinema with me were two other people; I was the only one laughing.)

Young Adult is categorized as a “comedy/drama,” which probably isn’t accurate. It has a few funny moments, but it’s comedy created out of discomfort. Mavis is mentally ill. No doubt about it. And the things that she says and does are the types of things that sociopaths, people with antisocial personality disorder, say and do. At one point, I thought that the film could have easily gone down a very dark road – a homicidal one – and turned into something very different. That said, I really enjoyed Young Adult. Mavis is a fascinating and complex character; I couldn’t take my eyes off of her. Credit for that goes to Cody and, no doubt, Theron. I would like to see her reap some awards for this performance. Oswalt, too, is wonderful. I’m not all that familiar with his stand-up. Now I am intrigued.

Finally, a few quick comments. About director Jason Reitman’s choices … I thought that having the TV playing in the background, and showing either episodes from the Kardashians or Kendra Wilkinson reality shows, was brilliant. Having these vacuous, no-talent “props” blathering on about nothing beautifully mirrored the worldview of Mavis. She IS Kim Kardashian, a pampered princess who thinks that the world should bow before her because she is beautiful.  Just wait until their looks head south. And about Dulce … although I felt sorry for that adorable buff-colored Pomeranian, having it in the film demonstrated that Mavis was clearly unable to “bond” with anything. Who can’t bond with a fluffy, puffball? The scenes in the hotel, during which the enthusiastic dog was jumping up and Mavis just ignored it, were difficult to watch. But, again, they reinforced how deluded she was about the fact that she might have been able to have a family with Buddy. I can’t even imagine her with children. In fact, someone really should take Dulce away from her. Maybe Matt. (Giving her that little dog connected Mavis to people like Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and all the other rich, self-absorbed daddy’s girls who should not procreate.)

Young Adult isn’t a film that will be embraced by the masses. It’s unpleasant and doesn’t have a “happy ending.” It isn’t really “funny” and it will, no doubt, alienate some viewers. Who is its intended audience? I’m not sure. Probably Cody fans. Theron enthusiasts. (That’s me.) Um, hmmm. Definitely not lovers of rom-coms, so why they were showing trailers for the syrupy The Vow (2012), The Lucky One (2012), and re-issue of The Titantic (1997) is beyond me. People who watch those kinds of films will NOT like Young Adult. I guarantee it.