Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Shutter Island

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Shutter Island Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Shutter Island - 14/3/2010 4:31:53 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wilbert

I enjoyed this well-enough but if I didn't know Scorsese had directed it, I'd have never guessed.


Kundun, the musical number in New York, New York and Last Temptation of the Christ came to mind while seeing the trailer. It's not even close to those?



With the exception of New York I would say not, and thats only because they share a few of the same direct influences that in turn become homages in SI. LTOC is pretty much his most experimental flick in terms of the cut and the visuals tho, so I can see why you may see some of that in the trailer. I think the closest this comes to feeling like another of Scorsese's films is Bringing Out The Dead, or maybe even Who's That Knocking At My Door.

And while this is very different to Scorsese's existing work, I don't necessarily agree that it doesn't feel like a Martin Scorsese film, in so much that the voice informing the picture clearly knows and understands a hell of a lot about cinema.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 31
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 6:04:20 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Loose Lips Newman.



Good name for a band.

Or an album.

Anway.......

**********SPOILERIFIC**********

I was disgusted last night when my mate told me that Sight & Sound gave a credit listing for Di Caprio's character with the two names.  For fuck's sake.  I know they're all about the "Medium" but that's just not playing fair.

**********SPOILER-HERE-ENDETH*****


However (and with the smugness of hindsight) I have to say it's to this film's credit that the plot is incidental to the viewer's enjoyment of it. Scene for scene Scorsese lays down a lusty visual pursuit of all things Gothic (Ming the Merciless in a crimson winged-backed Dracula chair - what fucker cannot like that).  When the script calls for something silly (Teddy conveniently scaling the cliff) Scorsese does it with an elaborate vertical camera lift to keep your mind off the semantics and remind you why bought the fucking ticket in the first place. When Empire come to do a list of top-ten storms in a movie it will be an empty page with two entries - the storm in this, at number two, with The Omen wearing gold on the podium.  Shutter Island is a wry triumph of style over substance.  Before this film you couldn't mean that in a good way.  It's the most noble misdirection to have your director and the production design keep your mind off the script.  That would make it "Total Cinema" I suppose, and Scorsese has said that if you want to know how to direct then watch your favourite film with the sound down.  It's not an exaggeration to say that you could watch this film with the sound down.  Ok, you mightn't "get it" but at least you'll have accrued enough material for your cinematic wank-bank.  (I have one even if you don't).

I'm drunk. 

But the point is.  There is a world.  A world where M. Night Shamalama-ding-dong is allowed to live. We live in this world.  A world where cinema audiences are polluted with the instinct to second-guess everything.  "He's dead all along - it's all set in the future - it's all set in the present - the butler did it - the butler's a robot; there is no spoon and frankly I'm now doubting the existence of cutlery in general."  I'm one of these people. I think I'm snobbish and I'm very highly strung.  And every so often a film like Fight Club or Shutter Island comes along.  Shut-the-fuck-up moments, as I like to call them.  These films excite and simultaenously lull me into a notion that I may want...it's an outlandish idea i know...to enjoy story-telling without neurotic concern for the story itself.  I think it was Germaine Greer who said "I don't like being drunk.  But I fucking love getting there"...although it could have been my mate Baz who said that, in all fairness.     

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 32
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 6:16:46 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
I wrote this for my website, at which it appears with many a reference photo and whatnot, so feel free to check it out if you like.


Shutter Island is perhaps Martin Scorsese’s greatest love letter to the cinema. Taking it's place alongside the likes of Godard’s Pierrot Le Fou and Le Mepris, Truffaut’s Day For Night, Wilder’s Sunset Blvd., David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive and Nicholas Ray’s In A Lonely Place, Scorsese’s latest film takes a complex understanding if the manner in which the cinema works and exists, and uses those tools to craft his own piece of work. Godard himself claims that cinema never had the opportunity to develop it's own text, and that an uninformed language for film was never truly formed. Shutter Island, like Godard’s most impressive work is a positive example of a how an art form can flourish solely on hypertext.

Shutter Island tells the story of a pair of U.S Marshalls called to an off shore asylum for the criminally insane after a patient escapes. Teddy Daniels, a fed with a mysterious past, made all the more confusing by contradictory flashbacks is played with a previously unseen amount of vitality and power, with a performance that ranks amongst the best in quite some time. Mark Ruffalo portrays Chuck, Teddy’s companion and partner, with Ruffalo proving a reliable co-star once again, following his turns in the likes of David Fincher’s Zodiac and Fernando Meirelles’ Blindness. A suitably creepy Ben Kingsley is joined by an even moreso suitably creepy Max Von Sydow as the authorial figures that hold power on Shutter Island. As our heroes venture deeper into the maze that is the suspicious hospital on the isle the mental welfare of our hero falls into question, both for he and his audience, as his own personal history is opened up and taken into account.

The genre within which Shutter Island fits in, whatever genre that may be, is something of a departure for Martin Scorsese. Personally, and speaking as a long-time admirer of the filmmaker, I see shades of Who’s That Knocking At My Door (in the dreamlike nature of the scenario), New York, New York (in its celebration of the cinema) and even The Big Shave (a destructive protagonist, perhaps more blatantly portrayed in Raging Bull) within Shutter Island, although its closest comparison comes with 1999’s Bringing Out The Dead. Indeed, Shutter Island’s hero could have been born of the mind of Paul Schrader, such is the nihilistic definition of Teddy. This all adds up to a film that is a thriller-come-psychodrama, but one that is very different to Scorsese’s previous lone-venture into that area with Cape Fear. Perhaps it’s the sympathetic nature of the manner in which the mentally unstable character is treated, with Shutter Island providing a surprisingly emotional punch in its final act, or perhaps it’s a development of Scorsese’s portrayal of character. What we come to realise throughout the film is that the suspicions of the locale, and of its patrons are in fact the suspicions and doubts of our protagonist. This makes the argument against the films predictable nature null and void; we are not supposed to be wholly surprised, but to dwell in the gradual revelations throughout the picture. That the film leaves us with one final, genuine twist is its masterstroke.

References are rife, and to fully explore them would take any number of words and days, with my no doubt inferior knowledge of the cinema still failing to wholly explore the work that Scorsese has created, so for the focus of this piece I shall take a look at a couple of the more obscure references, and ones that I haven’t seen picked up on elsewhere. The narrative of the film itself appears to be a nod to a combination of John Huston’s Key Largo (1948), in which the shores of Florida’s Key Largo are struck in isolation during a hurricane, Kubrick’s The Shining, in which we follow our core protagonist on a downward spiral of psychosis meltdown, and any number of pieces by Alfred Hitchcock.

The key Hitchcock reference point for Scorsese’s film must surely be his 1945 Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck double header Spellbound, with particular attention paid to the stylistic formation of the incorporation of a famous dream sequence from Salvador Dali, with the surrealist artist let loose on a Hollywood tab. That Shutter Island lends a substantial amount of its second act to a confrontation between dream and reality (that in turn has the audience question exactly what it is that they have seen in the preceding act) can’t help but demand comparisons to Spellbound. Vertigo and Rear Window also act as major influences. The Manner in which Teddy constructs a plot bears more resemblance to the way in which L.B Jefferies of Rear Window fame creates a plot to explain his surroundings than that of the traditional “Movie Detective”. Sam Fuller’s Shock Corridor is another major reference point, with the “Asylum as Universe” construct being one of the core conceits of Shutter Island. Likewise Georges Franju’s asylum set debut La Tête Contre les Murs also comes to mind, especially as that film too is concerned with the archetypical asylum-based nightmare of the “man done wrong”, who is falsely imprisoned. The Red Shoes, the film currently being lauded by many publications as Scorsese’s favourite film is referenced on numerous occasions, with Powell & Pressburger’s ballet drama in sights as diverse as the feet of dead children and the stairway of an insane asylum. The work of the German Expressionist filmmakers also sees homage, with the close up, upwardly framed “face-shots” not only heavily reminiscent of the likes of Murnau and Lang, but also of the cinema of the 1930’s and 40’s which they went on to inspire. Welles is a relevant cornerstone here. The whole of Shutter Island is constructed from cinema, and the iconic imagery which it leaves in its path. For a film that revolves around memory this is an interesting and genuinely awe-inspiring manner in which to approach such material.


My favourite reading of the film comes from Jonathon Romney in his review of the picture for Sight and Sound magazine, in which he refers to the films plot as one huge film set. The doctors on the island form the production and writing duo of the picture, creating the mise en scene of the piece through their elaborate role-playing scenario, while Teddy, the patient and narrative driver, forms the directorial duties of his own tale. Romney’s genius analogy comes in his argument that a lighthouse is a projector by any other name, and that the climax of Shutter Island takes place in that very locale displays a chain of events leading from production to exhibition throughout the films two hour running time. My crass explanation of Romney’s reading does little justice to his theory, but it does hold up.


< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 14/3/2010 6:17:09 PM >

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 33
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 9:49:37 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
Adam, you're a great guy. A man of syllables and taste. I really respect you.  But why bring Godard into it?  He's a xxxx!  I reckon my man Bergman, and my mate Kubrick are standing behind the door of the waiting room of purgatory in anticipation of his death, each with a leather lined baseball bat ready to do him for his crimes against the imagination.  THWACK!! "When you're at your best you're an intellectual midget".  Stan will say.  THWACK!!! "They think you're a visionary" Ingy will accuse "But the three of us know different.  Don't we?"  KA-POW!  "You're an undisciplined, shallow prick and every time your attention deficient mind wanders they think you're boundary breaking when in actual fact the word autism was invented just for you.  Just for you.  Don't you feel special?"  And before the door closes behind him, Kubrick, as an after thought, will gruffly quip "You should have spent your time reading the books you quoted".  And Jean Simmon's will run in and say "I thought I heard Kirk!"


Anyway, the afterlife...apparently its mental.


Adam, none of that was against you by the way.  Every so often I need the splentectic and therepeutic value of a good comedy rant.  It keeps me off the streets

I saw The Last Metro by the way.  Loved it, needless to say. And I have just ordered Shock Corridor based on your recommendation.






Oy oy...just a text from the 'oul Von Sydow...he likes my humour, something else about excellent defence mechanisms and he's prepared to say sorry to Bergman when the good Lord hooks them up.  So its all good.  

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 34
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 10:34:32 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

Adam, you're a great guy. A man of syllables and taste. I really respect you.  But why bring Godard into it?  He's a xxxx!  I reckon my man Bergman, and my mate Kubrick are standing behind the door of the waiting room of purgatory in anticipation of his death, each with a leather lined baseball bat ready to do him for his crimes against the imagination.  THWACK!! "When you're at your best you're an intellectual midget".  Stan will say.  THWACK!!! "They think you're a visionary" Ingy will accuse "But the three of us know different.  Don't we?"  KA-POW!  "You're an undisciplined, shallow prick and every time your attention deficient mind wanders they think you're boundary breaking when in actual fact the word autism was invented just for you.  Just for you.  Don't you feel special?"  And before the door closes behind him, Kubrick, as an after thought, will gruffly quip "You should have spent your time reading the books you quoted".  And Jean Simmon's will run in and say "I thought I heard Kirk!"


Anyway, the afterlife...apparently its mental.


Adam, none of that was against you by the way.  Every so often I need the splentectic and therepeutic value of a good comedy rant.  It keeps me off the streets

I saw The Last Metro by the way.  Loved it, needless to say. And I have just ordered Shock Corridor based on your recommendation.




Great to hear you enjoyed The Last Metro, I was going to mention that as one of the films that act as a celebration of cinema, but as it isn't explicitly about film I decided to go for Day and Night instead. Shock Corridor is great, I have it in a 2 pack with another Fuller flick, The Naked Kiss. I'm surprised you aren't a fan of Godard. It sounds a tad hyperbolic, but I consider Scorsese, and his knowledge of, and understanding of how cinema works to be akin to Godard's own method of making films. Funnily enough we we're discussing Le Mepris in a seminar last week, and there was a definite line drawn between two camps of attitude towards the film, as it was genuinely either loved or despised. And this is late-20 year old, early 30-something academics talking, not just a bunch of your average students.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 35
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 10:39:54 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner


However (and with the smugness of hindsight) I have to say it's to this film's credit that the plot is incidental to the viewer's enjoyment of it.



Totally. The complaints of the film being predictable hold no water, as the audience follows the revelations in a similar manner to Teddy. Thats why the film works so well, with the realisation of all not being as it seems and whatnot.

SPOILERS FOR THE END OF THE FILM

Some folk have commented that the final scene is the true "twist", with the revelation that Teddy is playing mental in order to have a lobotomy and forget his past (the revelation that he isn't actually insane being the twist). The line - "Would it be worse to live as a monster or die as a good man?" implies explicitly that "Andrew" is very much all there, yet chooses to rid himself of the memories that haunt him.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 36
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 11:29:12 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

Adam, you're a great guy. A man of syllables and taste. I really respect you.  But why bring Godard into it?  He's a xxxx!  I reckon my man Bergman, and my mate Kubrick are standing behind the door of the waiting room of purgatory in anticipation of his death, each with a leather lined baseball bat ready to do him for his crimes against the imagination.  THWACK!! "When you're at your best you're an intellectual midget".  Stan will say.  THWACK!!! "They think you're a visionary" Ingy will accuse "But the three of us know different.  Don't we?"  KA-POW!  "You're an undisciplined, shallow prick and every time your attention deficient mind wanders they think you're boundary breaking when in actual fact the word autism was invented just for you.  Just for you.  Don't you feel special?"  And before the door closes behind him, Kubrick, as an after thought, will gruffly quip "You should have spent your time reading the books you quoted".  And Jean Simmon's will run in and say "I thought I heard Kirk!"


Anyway, the afterlife...apparently its mental.


Adam, none of that was against you by the way.  Every so often I need the splentectic and therepeutic value of a good comedy rant.  It keeps me off the streets

I saw The Last Metro by the way.  Loved it, needless to say. And I have just ordered Shock Corridor based on your recommendation.




Great to hear you enjoyed The Last Metro, I was going to mention that as one of the films that act as a celebration of cinema, but as it isn't explicitly about film I decided to go for Day and Night instead. Shock Corridor is great, I have it in a 2 pack with another Fuller flick, The Naked Kiss. I'm surprised you aren't a fan of Godard. It sounds a tad hyperbolic, but I consider Scorsese, and his knowledge of, and understanding of how cinema works to be akin to Godard's own method of making films. Funnily enough we we're discussing Le Mepris in a seminar last week, and there was a definite line drawn between two camps of attitude towards the film, as it was genuinely either loved or despised. And this is late-20 year old, early 30-something academics talking, not just a bunch of your average students.


I don't know the actor's name, but he's the theatre owner in Last Metro - the whole Phantom of the Opera stuff.  He's the proto-Nazi in Bergman's The Serpent's Egg.  Scary bastard.  Sorry to bring Bergman up all the time, but he's my one defence against Godard.  Bergman's films have the capacity to bore me to tears sometimes but he never goes off the reservation. And he never insults my intelligence the way Goddo does. When Bergman goes off his nut he does something like Hour of the Wolf,  totally incomprehensible but insanity never looked as good (until Shutter Island).   (Hour of the Wolf is the reason I "got" Antichrist...and boy did I get it, second favourite film of last year). 

Anyway, I'm going off topic.  I loved Godard's Weekend.  I FUCKING LOVE that film.  A big technicolor jumble of sick humour totally at cross purposes with its actos, dead-eyed Gallics', deeply dead pan and really unlikeable.  But I find the rest of him absolutely unwatchable.  I saw A Bout de Souffle first...and I thought "meh"... I saw Lift to the Scaffold and thought "oh right, the film breathless wanted to be".  I got into Louis Malle then and started asking scary questions like "did we ever fucking need a New Wave?...I mean at all?" this 25 year old frog made a film that would have Hitchcock on the edge of his seat.  A year before Godard's candied effort I do believe. I resent the New Wave cause Louis Malle wasn't excepted.  Cause he wasn't in Cahiers.  But he was assistant camera man to Bresson and he learnt from the best.  Robert Bresson is Exhibit A for why there was no need for a New Wave.

Ranting again.  Sorry.

I'm a nice cowardly guy.  But when I hear the name of a Godard film I'm like the Manchurian Candidate, need to lash out indiscriminately.  Chinoise.....that's the one that does it for me.  It sends me over the fucking edge.  How can you boy's like that Adam?

I've..............went a bit Off Topic.  Off the reservation.

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 37
- 14/3/2010 11:38:03 PM   
Tindum

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 18/6/2008
The purest embodiment of everything that is worth loving about cinema.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 38
- 14/3/2010 11:38:06 PM   
Tindum

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 18/6/2008
The purest embodiment of everything that is worth loving about cinema.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 39
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 11:46:09 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:



SPOILERS FOR THE END OF THE FILM

Some folk have commented that the final scene is the true "twist", with the revelation that Teddy is playing mental in order to have a lobotomy and forget his past (the revelation that he isn't actually insane being the twist). The line - "Would it be worse to live as a monster or die as a good man?" implies explicitly that "Andrew" is very much all there, yet chooses to rid himself of the memories that haunt him.




It's when it dawns on Ruffalo.  When he feels the need to stand up but he's that atrophied he can't step forward.  Can only watch him.  The film affords Andrew a bit of dignity at the end.





And what about that Dachau dolly-shot?

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 14/3/2010 11:49:13 PM >

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 40
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 11:53:35 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

Adam, you're a great guy. A man of syllables and taste. I really respect you.  But why bring Godard into it?  He's a xxxx!  I reckon my man Bergman, and my mate Kubrick are standing behind the door of the waiting room of purgatory in anticipation of his death, each with a leather lined baseball bat ready to do him for his crimes against the imagination.  THWACK!! "When you're at your best you're an intellectual midget".  Stan will say.  THWACK!!! "They think you're a visionary" Ingy will accuse "But the three of us know different.  Don't we?"  KA-POW!  "You're an undisciplined, shallow prick and every time your attention deficient mind wanders they think you're boundary breaking when in actual fact the word autism was invented just for you.  Just for you.  Don't you feel special?"  And before the door closes behind him, Kubrick, as an after thought, will gruffly quip "You should have spent your time reading the books you quoted".  And Jean Simmon's will run in and say "I thought I heard Kirk!"


Anyway, the afterlife...apparently its mental.


Adam, none of that was against you by the way.  Every so often I need the splentectic and therepeutic value of a good comedy rant.  It keeps me off the streets

I saw The Last Metro by the way.  Loved it, needless to say. And I have just ordered Shock Corridor based on your recommendation.




Great to hear you enjoyed The Last Metro, I was going to mention that as one of the films that act as a celebration of cinema, but as it isn't explicitly about film I decided to go for Day and Night instead. Shock Corridor is great, I have it in a 2 pack with another Fuller flick, The Naked Kiss. I'm surprised you aren't a fan of Godard. It sounds a tad hyperbolic, but I consider Scorsese, and his knowledge of, and understanding of how cinema works to be akin to Godard's own method of making films. Funnily enough we we're discussing Le Mepris in a seminar last week, and there was a definite line drawn between two camps of attitude towards the film, as it was genuinely either loved or despised. And this is late-20 year old, early 30-something academics talking, not just a bunch of your average students.


I don't know the actor's name, but he's the theatre owner in Last Metro - the whole Phantom of the Opera stuff.  He's the proto-Nazi in Bergman's The Serpent's Egg.  Scary bastard.  Sorry to bring Bergman up all the time, but he's my one defence against Godard.  Bergman's films have the capacity to bore me to tears sometimes but he never goes off the reservation. And he never insults my intelligence the way Goddo does. When Bergman goes off his nut he does something like Hour of the Wolf,  totally incomprehensible but insanity never looked as good (until Shutter Island).   (Hour of the Wolf is the reason I "got" Antichrist...and boy did I get it, second favourite film of last year). 

Anyway, I'm going off topic.  I loved Godard's Weekend.  I FUCKING LOVE that film.  A big technicolor jumble of sick humour totally at cross purposes with its actos, dead-eyed Gallics', deeply dead pan and really unlikeable.  But I find the rest of him absolutely unwatchable.  I saw A Bout de Souffle first...and I thought "meh"... I saw Lift to the Scaffold and thought "oh right, the film breathless wanted to be".  I got into Louis Malle then and started asking scary questions like "did we ever fucking need a New Wave?...I mean at all?" this 25 year old frog made a film that would have Hitchcock on the edge of his seat.  A year before Godard's candied effort I do believe. I resent the New Wave cause Louis Malle wasn't excepted.  Cause he wasn't in Cahiers.  But he was assistant camera man to Bresson and he learnt from the best.  Robert Bresson is Exhibit A for why there was no need for a New Wave.



Both Malle and Bresson were accepted by the Cahiers lot, and formed part of the 9 (or was it 13?) French filmmakers that were cool as far as the cahiers guys were concerned. They were far more bothered by the traditional french cinema, which to them seemed like little more than an obstruction between "quality" US cinema and French cinemas (due to the government enforced quota that dictated that only a certain percentage of films shown in French cinemas could be imports). Lift to the Scaffold is one of my favourite films, and very much an important part of the new wave (in fact many consider it to be the first new wave film). And the new wave was completely necessary, not just for France but for the cinema in general. By the late fifties admissions had fallen, cinema was stale and it needed a kick up the arse, and a change of direction. If there wasn't a new wave there wouldn't have been a new Hollywood in the seventies.

But yes, I recommend both Pierrot Le Fou and Le Mepris to you. Both are more in the vein of Week-End than Breathless, and both bear similarities to Shutter Island, in that both use the constructs of cinema to inform their construction.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 41
RE: RE: - 14/3/2010 11:57:44 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:



SPOILERS FOR THE END OF THE FILM

Some folk have commented that the final scene is the true "twist", with the revelation that Teddy is playing mental in order to have a lobotomy and forget his past (the revelation that he isn't actually insane being the twist). The line - "Would it be worse to live as a monster or die as a good man?" implies explicitly that "Andrew" is very much all there, yet chooses to rid himself of the memories that haunt him.




It's when it dawns on Ruffalo.  When he feels the need to stand up but he's that atrophied he can't step forward.  Can only watch him.  The film affords Andrew a bit of dignity at the end.





And what about that Dachau dolly-shot?


I love the way in which the staged manner of that scene takes on a new life when you take into account that its a memory. Some claim that the way in which the shooting range is committed from left to right makes no sense in reality (i.e all the shoulders would have really shot at the same time, not one after the other in sequence), but if you take into account that we are watching Teddy's reconstuction of the event, a reconstruction informed by Hollywood/film/cinema, it makes perfect sense.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 42
RE: RE: - 15/3/2010 12:20:53 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
.

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 15/3/2010 6:37:00 PM >

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 43
RE: RE: - 15/3/2010 12:31:10 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:



SPOILERS FOR THE END OF THE FILM

Some folk have commented that the final scene is the true "twist", with the revelation that Teddy is playing mental in order to have a lobotomy and forget his past (the revelation that he isn't actually insane being the twist). The line - "Would it be worse to live as a monster or die as a good man?" implies explicitly that "Andrew" is very much all there, yet chooses to rid himself of the memories that haunt him.




It's when it dawns on Ruffalo.  When he feels the need to stand up but he's that atrophied he can't step forward.  Can only watch him.  The film affords Andrew a bit of dignity at the end.





And what about that Dachau dolly-shot?


I love the way in which the staged manner of that scene takes on a new life when you take into account that its a memory. Some claim that the way in which the shooting range is committed from left to right makes no sense in reality (i.e all the shoulders would have really shot at the same time, not one after the other in sequence), but if you take into account that we are watching Teddy's reconstuction of the event, a reconstruction informed by Hollywood/film/cinema, it makes perfect sense.



The Commandants's office.  Diaphonous floaty quality of the papers in the air.  It flashes back a couple of times and I'm thinking "Is there meant to be a wind machine in the nazi's office?"  Course not, it's memory innit?  And seeing thing's from Teddy's point of view is a scary, disturbed and beautiful place. Did you notice about the glass, and there actually being two lighthouses? Me neither, but one of my mates had seen in 3 times and fucked with my head.  To be honest, my mate may, or may not exist. 

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 15/3/2010 12:33:24 AM >

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 44
RE: RE: - 15/3/2010 1:52:12 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
[drivel]


< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 15/3/2010 6:22:26 PM >

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 45
RE: RE: - 15/3/2010 2:16:36 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
[post deleted....I just got a bit silly after a while ]

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 15/3/2010 6:20:21 PM >

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 46
RE: RE: - 15/3/2010 9:27:20 AM   
David Somerset

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 7/10/2005
Shitter Island is entertaining, but it goes on forever and DiCaprio's mush, constantly contorted in apparent sphincter-clenching agony, is in every single scene. Even his own Mum would get fed up of having to look at him for that long.
Martin Scorsese, the apparently infallible genius who hasn't actually made a great film since Goodfellas (unless you count that wine advert), aims for something a little bit Kubricky and a little bit Hitchcocky here, but ends up falling short of both. It feels a bit like The Shining meets Vertigo, and while (to me at least) that sounds like the most perfect film that could ever exist, Shutter Island is nowhere near as good as either. Its scary bits aren't scary enough, its plot twists too predictable (if you haven't guessed the ending in the first half hour you're a pathetic, hopeless failure) and its final act seems to last as long as most films' total running time.
So what is essentially a standard thriller is livened up no end by Scorsese's kinetic camera, but that's where the magic ends. You can't take a film seriously when it includes an embarassingly cliched use of anagrams or a scene in which a character wastes an entire box of matches trying to see better in an already perfectly well-lit corridor.

Anyway I've gone and done it again; banged on about a film's bad bits and made it sound like I hated it. I didn't hate it. It was just alright, like so many other films. And from Martin Scorsese, that's not good enough.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 47
Style over Substance - 15/3/2010 2:02:33 PM   
palmerantony


Posts: 118
Joined: 22/6/2006
From: guildford
Kim Newmans review is pretty much spot on in my opinion, though perhaps given one too many stars. However in my opinion the film is definately a case of style over substance and i submit that had this not been directed by Scorsese people would not be lauding it as much as they are. For my money it completely unravels when the supposed twist comes to light (though it seems to me that it isnt really a twist at all). Up until that point it was a sylised, intriguing thrill ride. Newmans right though it soes kind of pull itself back a bit with the last line.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 48
RE: Style over Substance - 15/3/2010 6:19:42 PM   
hampstead bandit

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 18/9/2009
Shitter Island is entertaining, but it goes on forever and DiCaprio's mush, constantly contorted in apparent sphincter-clenching agony, is in every single scene. Even his own Mum would get fed up of having to look at him for that long.

I have loved many of the director's previous films, but alas this is not one of them

I watched this film, this afternoon in London, and once it had finished I felt somewhat disappointed

I did not have "high" expectations for this film, but it didn't do much for me either, apart from the first 20 minutes or so

it was definitely overlong, in a bad way, and actually quite boring in places

the ending was a big turn-off, compared to the actual potential of a "conspiracy" which the bulk of the film hinted at

I would not even say it was averagely good, just kinda boring and so-so

shame, you could see some real potential there!



(in reply to palmerantony)
Post #: 49
RE: Style over Substance - 15/3/2010 6:24:18 PM   
The900MidNightBee

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 21/8/2006
Just seen Shutter Island and really enjoyed myself doing so.Though clearly not Scorsese's best work, this is not to be taken too seriously. However, from the moment that far from subtle soundtrack first strikes up via the questionably dodgy looking background all the way though to DiCaprio's tantalising last line, there's still alot to take away from this Kafka-Lite B-Movie Pastische. All the performances are solid (suitably creepy in most cases), whilst it's great to watch Marty, now free from the burden of trying to win an Oscar, having such fun with his palet (DiCaprio's walking nightmare sequence are particularly gorgeous whilst the Dacau tracking shot also deserves a special mention).

As for Spoilers: I'm a tad annoying i didn't click on upon Teddy's meeting with Jackie Earle Haley's (I'm starting to worry that he's getting typecast) character. Damn myself.

As for Quibbles:
1) I think DiCaprio offers once again another great performance to add to his cannon of work but...The Facial Hair?!Seriously Leo? It really doesn't look good.
2) There's nothing wrong with having two different coloured eyes so don't use it when describing how creepy someone is (It after all saves you from RAGE infections).

(in reply to palmerantony)
Post #: 50
RE: Style over Substance - 15/3/2010 6:30:33 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: palmerantony

Kim Newmans review is pretty much spot on in my opinion, though perhaps given one too many stars. However in my opinion the film is definately a case of style over substance and i submit that had this not been directed by Scorsese people would not be lauding it as much as they are. For my money it completely unravels when the supposed twist comes to light (though it seems to me that it isnt really a twist at all). Up until that point it was a sylised, intriguing thrill ride. Newmans right though it soes kind of pull itself back a bit with the last line.


Scorsese himself said on the culture show last week (?I think it was there?) that the "twist" being lauded by most isn't actually a twist at all. The way in which it slowly unravels, gradually revealing itself was intended as a means for the viewer to understand whats happening alongside Teddy. The "real" twist is in fact the final scene, in which [SPOILER]Teddy reveals that he's faking his illness, in order to have the labotomy, and forget the memories that haunt him.

(in reply to palmerantony)
Post #: 51
RE: Style over Substance - 15/3/2010 9:58:51 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3933
Joined: 19/10/2005
After a slight disappointment from Peter Jackson, a major disappointment from Tim Burton and a colossal one from James Cameron, I was rather apprehensive at seeing Martin Scorsese's latest. In my opinion there's been something slightly missing from his last few films, as good as they are, as if the director has just wanted to play it a bit safe. However, with Shutter Island, he seesm to have got his zeal and his zest for filmmaking back, and though it's hardly a masterpiece, it's his sheerly enjoyable film in ages. Of course the basic plot will remind some of Shock Corridor and throughout there are visual echoes or Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Val Lewton, Powell and Pressburger and probably lots of others I didn't spot, but Scorsese makes the film all his own. He fills his movie with disjointed editing [which amazingly some claim is unintentional!], interesting shots and unusual camera angles, and it shows a director really having fun with the medium, yet he credits the audience with some intelligence. He doesn't feel the need to shoehorn unneccessary action scenes or killings, but is content to gradually build and build the suspense until the tension is almost unbearable. One bit of Leonardo Di Caprio moving through a darkened ward of the asylum is up there with the best of Hitchcock and there also some effective dream and fantasy sequences which contain some stunning and very disurbing imagery. Di Caprio gives a really detailed and compelling peformance and there are great turns from a variety of interesting actors such as Ben Kingsley, Max Von Sydown and Ted Levine whick really add to the feel of unease. The plot is very cleverly worked out but I will say that I guessed most of what was going om about half way through, a rarity for me, so I see that as a flaw, but as things come to their conclusion it become apparent that there is another way of interpreting the goings-ons that some people seem to be debating. Perhaps the final act is too drawn out, but this is generally a superbly executed picture that shows a real film master and film lover at work and may stay under your skin for ages afterwards.

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 52
Shutter Island - 16/3/2010 11:50:10 AM   
ArseOfSauron


Posts: 46
Joined: 30/9/2005
It really subverted my expectations that it would be a good film.

***Spoilers above***



_____________________________

I ... hate this place; this zoo, this prison, this ... reality. Whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell. If there is such a thing. I feel ... saturated by it. I can taste your stink.

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 53
Great! - 16/3/2010 12:41:51 PM   
TheHazman

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 6/9/2007
I really enjoyed this! It's nothing massivly ground breaking buit, it ls shot beautifully, acted really well by Di Caprio and it kept me gripped thoughout. I reccomend it!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 54
Shutter My Etes - 17/3/2010 7:29:06 AM   
kittybinks


Posts: 74
Joined: 9/11/2005
A film started with so much promised but ultimately fails to deliver. After the first 40 minutes it gets a bit too clever throwing up smoke screens, villans appear to be everywhere. Then the pace appears to slow to a relentless crawl, bum shuffling time for an hour and then the pay-off. See it once but you'll NEVER buy it on DVD as it cannot sustain a rewatch. Shame really

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 55
RE: Shutter My Etes - 17/3/2010 1:26:16 PM   
film man aidy

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 8/3/2007
Sorry guys, but this really failed to deliver for me on most counts. I just found the whole thing deeply mediocre, which for a filmmaker such as Scorsese, is surely a crime? Someone wake me up when Inception rolls around...

(in reply to kittybinks)
Post #: 56
RE: Shutter My Etes - 17/3/2010 5:58:01 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6706
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
Wonderful Crazy Tuesday at the cinema yesterday,and yes it was SHUTTER ISLAND that got me in the door not the cheap admission.Shutter Island is the story set in 1954 of Teddy Daniels, a U.S. federal Marshall sent to the island with his partner Chuck Aule to investigate the disappearance of a murderess who escaped from the island hospital for the criminally insane and is presumed to be hiding on the remote Shutter Island. Each scene provides a turn against their leads and compels them to look for more whilst searching in places we couldn't comprehend, including their minds. Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo feed off each other and supply great performances for their characters as expected,also Ben Kingsley (Dr. Cawley) and Michelle Williams (Dolores, Teddy's wife),where excellent. Each of them brought so much dramatics and new questions to the movie, developing plot twists and controversy. I don't think this film would be the same without them,or the great Max Von Sydow (Dr Naehring),in fact the entire cast are stunning.To begin explaining details of the plot and how everything comes to fruition causes would spoil it for those who haven't seen it.Take my honest word that if you enjoyed any Scorsese movie in the past or any Hitchcock movie,and have enjoyed movies that include surrealism, Shutter Island combines all this and more into an intense thriller that boggles the mind.It's Marty back to doing what he is best at,directing a work of art,full of images to scare,move you,and make you question what is real and what is not.Also mans inhumanity to man,who is in control of are fate,what is it like to be truly insane,is there a higher power,it is so full of this kind cinematic elements,that make it more than just a thriller.This is an adult movie aimed at adult movie fans that want to use there brain,not teens who would rather hear/see some Hip Hop Hollywood bullshit.It may not be Scorsese's finest work,but it is his best movie in a long time,and one of the best movies of the year so far.4/5

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to film man aidy)
Post #: 57
Stutter Island.....maybe !!!...... - 17/3/2010 6:06:42 PM   
n13roy

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/10/2005
Can't say I really enjoyed this Film much, it seemed a bit TOO clever for its own good, and at well over 2 hours long, I got a bit fed up trying to guess just what the hell was going on, and the ending really was no help either. Overall I wouldn't bother recommending it to anyone !!!!.......

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 58
RE: Stutter Island.....maybe !!!...... - 17/3/2010 7:08:45 PM   
Beno


Posts: 8127
Joined: 15/2/2007
From: Sheffield
Firstly this movie is excellent with a great feel of foreboding throughout , thanks to a fabulous music score. Secondly dont go expecting a twist as some have said cos there isnt one , there is no need . Thirdly there was something in the performance by Di Caprio that reminded me of a young Jack Nicholson , his mannerisms and something in the voice i think . Lastly , and this is only a minor dig , some of the continuity was a tad off in a few scenes but i think i only noticed this cos everything else was perfectly spot on .

_____________________________

"The one about the space hairdresser and the cowboy. He's got a tinfoil pal and a pedalbin. His Father's a robot and he's fucking fucked his Sister. Lego ... They're all made of fucking Lego!!"

(in reply to n13roy)
Post #: 59
RE: Stutter Island.....maybe !!!...... - 17/3/2010 8:46:12 PM   
Gazdance


Posts: 1239
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Southampton
Hugely disappointed with this.

Guessed what was going on after about 25 minutes (it's even pretty much stated in the dialogue) and spent the next two hours watching it all unfold waiting to be proven wrong, that my guess work way way off the mark, but no it was exactly as I thought.

Great performances all round and the film looks and sounds great but I felt short changed.

Wait for DVD and go watch Green Zone.

(in reply to Beno)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Shutter Island Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141