I don't think this is a fully auteurist film, but it isn't too far from being a masterpiece. It's top-notch storytelling, where finally the overused "is it real or is it not?" motif doesn't feel gimmicky. It's quite a miracle that film can communicate these completely subjective states of mind more than any other art form can in my opinion, and this film is a testament to that.
I have to admit that I stopped watching after half an hour. Maybe when you're young this film can impress you. But I have watched too many of these films, where horror, crime and catastrophe threaten the lives of middle class families living strange lives in this weird and foreign culture named American.
Despite Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain's brilliant acting, this film failed to captivate me. I found it difficult to relate to the main character's illness. It kind of came out of nowhere - referring to the narrative - and this made me perceive the whole work as a not very accurate portrayal of anything in particular.
How does it come out of nowhere? It seems like the fact that we're always seeing the surface of it instead of the backstory, is what makes it so convincing. It's like Hemingway's iceberg theory--what isn't revealed is what makes the work even more meaningful.
Maybe I just have the wrong kind of sensibility. I was incapable of feeling involved into the whole thing. That could also be because the film depicts a quite distant reality from the one I am accustomed to relate to, and this wouldn't be an issue, but I think it's depicted in a way that fails to transpose it effectively and furthermore to deliver an universal message. But that's just my opinion
Great all around, but I would have preferred a more ambiguous ending, instead of the Boy Who Cried Tornado (but actually probably still has a mental illness). The magic ending felt kind of like a few steps back from what had otherwise been a pretty realistic representation of a family dealing with mental illness. But at least there wasn't Black Swan twirling schizo-lesbian BS ending, haha.
A superb film that has more layers to it than meets the eye. Shannon and Chastain are two of the best actors working in Hollywood at the moment and are both excellent here. The ending maybe is the only weak point. It should have been left more ambiguous.
I can't see why everyone thinks the ending had to be real. Perhaps this was the most realistic hallucination the whole film/Michael Shannon's instability was building up towards.
Didn't not even hear about this film at all, just stumbled upon it on Netflix. I was really happy I did, it was amazing! Great direction, really patient, and the film unveiled this slow sense of dread which had me cringing constantly. Amazing acting by Michael Shannon, just a tortured performance. Really not sure about the ending right now though, I really have to think about this one.
Ignore the divisive twist ending for the time being. Take Shelter is a well-acted, thoughtful, intense family drama: Shannon's Lyons Club freakout and Chastain's response to the loan are perfect. Nichols nails the zeitgeist: economic instability, healthcare fears, stigmatization of the mentally ill, "crazy" prophecies about biblical end times. The CG work and score consistently pulled me out of the film.
"listen up, there's a storm coming like nothing you've ever seen, and not a one of you is prepared for it." so Curtis tells neighbors, certain that everything is about to be gone. He sacrifices everything to build a shelter. His wife, while worried for his sanity, is firmly on his side. A storm comes, she insists, "You have to open the door. This is how you stay with us." Later, a nod between them confirms this.
Quite disturbing, that one last scene. I'm still trying to understand its meaning and hopping the point made is something more than just point the similarities between prophets and dilusional people. Otherwise it would ruin the whole film.
i don't think so. on the contrary, it's about a man with a disturbing problem: that's the movie, him dealing with the problem, going to the psychiatrist, and all that. the scene where he's leaving the shelter with Jessica Chastain, that's the movie: him dealing with it. then, at the end, they ruin ruin ruin it. i can see your point of view, but i think the movie would be much better without that ending for the reason i just explained.
This doesn't have nearly as much stopping power as "Shotgun Stories". Even though Shannon's performance was stressful and heart-breaking, the supporting cast were wonderful, the photography was perfect, and the music was great - there was just a little something off (and not the CGI bird attack). In the end, this is a devastating film about the modern world, mental health, and divination.
Few filmmakers have the capacity to be as observant and meticulous developing a psychological portrait than Jeff Nichols is when it comes to Curtis' slow, agonizing inner downfall and the excruciating toll it takes on his family as a whole. The storytelling is always fluid and masterful in setting the details properly without ever feeling sluggish or convoluted and finds in Michael Shannon a ferocious performer.
Tutto ciò che sfugge alla nostra comprensione è da catalogare come "pazzo"? Viviamo davvero in una società in cui la mediocrità è così diffusa da dover dubitare e allontanare ciò che si distingue dal cosiddetto"normale"? Take Shelter è un bellissimo spaccato sulla paura, le angosce e la fragilità umana attraverso l'evoluzione di una famiglia media,con una tensione costante che porta ad un magnifico finale.4*
Es geht nicht um den Weltuntergang. Es geht um die Dämonen des einen, die die andere aushält. Es geht um Liebe. Natürlich.
Ditto to the comment about this being a good version of Melancholia. This is beautiful and brilliant. A portrait of a world completely out of balance. It chills to the bone.
This film owned me. Couldn't stop thinking about it for days. It's like a good version of Melancholia. Shannon is mind-blowing, and Chastain is so solid as supporting. Deeply chilling. Nichols is the man.
I really don't understand what this film does in the top 10 of Cahiers du Cinéma. It's so predictable, such a shallow point of view of psychosis. This guy is waaay more Spielbierg than Malick, not a humanist at all, just cliché after cliché.
How often do you see a film like this? Not very often at all. I really liked it. Excellent performances all around and excellent direction. Nichols masterfully builds tension and draws you into the character's plights. I was more emotionally invested in this film than I have been with most.
Feelings are what make us humans and humans are meant to be fragile. Human mind is a beautiful tool, most of the times underestimated in the power it has and some others leads to projections of fears: no meter what upper cortex says, love is the ancestral stronger force. Great cast, nice story, the normality of the setting is contrasted by Curtis endogenous projections. Love the ending: are we all fool?
3 1/2 rounded up to 4. Very solid film, well-acted, beautifully photographed, good use of CGI and I loved the use of sound in the movie. Definitely gave the movie an edge.
Chilling and humanistic. Deftly displays a person's mental breakdown with empathy and allegory.
Not too sure about that ending, but great nonetheless. Shannon and Chastain are perfect.
michael shannon was intensely wonderful (again) but overall this was a bit of a dissapointment.....
This is deeply disturbing and affecting, a slow, pointed descent into chaos, of the mind and physical, that leaves you shaken. Michael Shannon is beyond great.
