I often have sympathy for the parents of these killers.

Without giving anything away, the scene where she stops the stroller next to the jackhammer construction in the street to drown out his incessant wailing - a virtual moment of peace for her - really illustrated her plight.

And of course the Dad was an idiot.

If the movie is half as good it'll definitely get your attention.

Man---and that poor woman.

The movie glossed this, I think, opting for the "inherent evil" approach. The book was much more nuanced, suggesting that part of Kevin's personality was developed because he clearly recognized that his mother hated him from the beginning. Obviously, things like this are going to turn on a nature/nurture divide. The movie makes it all "nature." The book is wiser, straddling that line with much more skill.

that the reason the mother never warmed up to the kid was that even as a baby he was unresponsive. So it was a kind of mutual thing. It was kind of like she wanted to love him (or, at least, she knew she was supposed to) but he wouldn't let her.

Books by their very nature are almost always more nuanced than movies, but I still want to see the movie, find out what they did with it.

As someone who loved all my babies, even when #2 was severely colicky and unresponsive until she was 3.5 months (she was either sleeping or screaming bloody murder, and yes, I did end up with some depression but I never resented my baby and loved her like crazy) I found the way the mother treated her child in the movie horrid. Seriously, it made me cringe. Now I don't doubt there is a certain element of nature - in books I have read about psychopathy and sociopathy (my ex is a sociopath, so naturally I'm concerned about the nature part of it when it comes to our kids) they cite a 50% chance of passing on certain personality disorders if the biological parent has one (mostly related to AsPD and NPD). However, a lot about conventional parenting can inadvertently trigger the genetic component, things like invalidating feelings, lack of showing empathy, lack of consistency, etc. I saw a lot of that in the movie. I do believe you can, with most kids prone to those PDs, steer them into leading somewhat normal lives, but it takes a lot of work and the help of a child psychologist (yes I've consulted with one with regards to my kids just in case.) And I'm just as sure some psychopaths are lost causes from the time they are small children, but I didn't feel that way about Kevin in the movie.

Another thing I didn't agree with in the movie - at the end where Kevin shows regret about what he had done with regards to his mother. A psychopath wouldn't give a crap. So I found that a bit odd how they dehumanized him the entire movie and then he shows a shred of decency at the end? Not really believable. Not sure what it's like in the book, because truthfully after the movie I wasn't even interested in the book. I seriously hated the movie.

I agree that they tried to signal more of the mother's initial resentment in the movie; in the book it's somewhat more overt, but it really went to the issue: is there actually sociopathology or is it an invention - a form of believing in "evil" or "fate," but simply dressing it up with (pseudo)science? The book is very much a rumination on biological determinism, whereas the film simply assumes it. It's why I found the book more interesting. The film simply plays out our common mythologies of sociopaths and psychopaths rather than really questioning them. In this sense, the film's ending was - on the contrary - the only interesting moment for me, since it was the only moment that questioned the dominant belief in biological determinism. But that's why you don't like it!

I've had it around for a few months, but after this weekend, I wanted to sit down by myself and give it a look. I love Tilda Swinton.

I got more out of it the second time.

Very underrated and underknown movie.

The author, Lionel Shriver, thought the film was "stunning .. a brilliant adaptation of my novel."

@ at 01:05