Shutter Island
I actually like it a lot, too, it just seems so universally hated.
The video for “Must be santa” is awesome!
gotta go now. see you.
Unfortunately, I went into this with the goal of spotting all the references and allusions to other films,
so I was WATCHING instead of just watching, if you get my drift.
In the process I accidentally made myself hyper-attuned to clues and symbols.
Therefore (SPOILER for the uninitiated) the mirror monologue and the cage from which Leo
emerges in the opening scene pretty much shouted that we were dealing with the classic
unreliable narrator (or perspective). That’s mainly because I knew enough of the basic plot line
to guess that he was a patient, notwithstanding having seen A Beautiful Mind, Memento, Mulholland Drive, et al.
Thus, within the opening 90 seconds I already knew the plot twist.
That’s not Scorsese’s fault.
But it seems to me that, even not knowing the secret,
a viewer is left without much suspense in this movie. It’s all ambience and atmosphere.
This is not a thriller: it merely lovingly recreates the visual tropes (down to the color palette)
of classic thrillers and melodramas.
This must have been a blast for everyone involved. Parlor tricks always are.
But these kind of homage pictures strike me as very much like a hot air balloon race.
Lovely to look at for a while, until you realize that you are still on the ground while the pilots
are having all the fun.
It was a slightly pleasant diversion, and no more.
That island fortress was straight out of a 40s cliff-hanger series, or maybe the old Fleischer
Superman cartoons.
And if Von Sydow and Kingsley weren’t doing Karloff-Lugosi lite, they missed a chance.
Ted Levine needs more work. DESERVES more work.
After a rewatch I think it’s the most important work of his career.
Chimes at Midnight for Welles.
Inland Empire for Lynch.
The Shining for Kubrick.
This one for Scorsese. Say what you will, bash it, laugh at it, shit on it. In 10 years time, well…
The Shining???????
User, Interesting… why do you say that?
Nope I’m not going to explain my statement, only time will explain. Come back to me in 3650 days or so..
:)
Just poppin’ in quickly [ignores spoilers]
User: That’s an extremely provocative comment……….and it’s making more eager to see this. 0_0
Its a glorified well shot Vincent Price movie (without the fun) with way too much exposition
Ok then while we wait, why don’t you explain why The Shining is Kubrick’s most important film. ;)
I just saw this last night and less than 30 mins into the film I said it reminded me of this movie-mentioning the movie may be somewhat of a spoiler.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092563/
Nonetheless, I enjoyed it.
Not the best movie I’ve ever seen, but it held my attention without the use of alcohol.
SPOILERS?
“…with way too much exposition”
The reason for this is that everyone was leading him on to his conspiracy. They did a pretty sloppy job of it, like Chuck when they were taking refuge from the storm, but that’s because the characters themselves were acting. I thought having too much exposition was perfect.
I think its a great movie.
!!!!! SPOILER !!!!!
The last shot of the lighthouse was pretty amazing. What is amazing about the very end is that for a split second we see an orderly carrying an icepick for the type of lobotomy described. the way Teddy walks away with crowley, etc. following and the final shot leaves the resolution unknown.
also with the talk about cigarettes, pills, etc whats genius about the movie is how it leaves itself somewhat open.
The last shot suggested that we may never know.
just my opinion though.
Im really in love with this movie. I dont think people will like as much as some of his other films, but for me its in my top 3 favorite favorites of his
“After a rewatch I think it’s the most important work of his career.
Chimes at Midnight for Welles.
Inland Empire for Lynch.
The Shining for Kubrick.
This one for Scorsese. Say what you will, bash it, laugh at it, shit on it. In 10 years time, well…"
You’re either trolling or trying to intentionally go against the grain. I liked the movie, but it’s clearly an homage to older psychological thrillers. A director’s most “important” work needs to have more than just good cinematography and atmosphere.
It was alright. Nothing brilliant but it had some great moments. It may have been the script that was a bit contrived, but again some parts really worked. I can see it fooling a lot of people into thinking it was brilliant because of the whole psychological twist but it didn’t feel up to Scorcese’s caliber a large portion of the time.
The “twist” was predictable and it just felt stale. The flashbacks were trying far too hard. It did have some very nice cinematography though (the wide shot as they approach the island for the first time). Michelle Williams, as always, was great.
I think it was a fun film and nothing more
It was alright. Nothing brilliant but it had some great moments. It may have been the script that was a bit contrived, but again some parts really worked. I can see it fooling a lot of people into thinking it was brilliant because of the whole psychological twist but it didn’t feel up to Scorcese’s caliber a large portion of the time.
The “twist” was predictable and it just felt stale. The flashbacks were trying far too hard. It did have some very nice cinematography though (the wide shot as they approach the island for the first time). Michelle Williams, as always, was great.
I think it was a fun film and nothing more
I think the best part of the movie was the rainstorm. “Hey guys, we don’t even need to write a script that allows for plot development! We can just control the weather and bring in a storm whenever we need one to further the plot.”
Elmer, you know that was a real hurricane, right? 1954? It also follows a literary trope of Romanticism, where the weather reflects the emotional tone of the story. It wasn’t an unreasonable plot device.
I can’t argue with the complaints. Kingsley, Dicaprio, etc were good enough in their roles, and the story made them work, but there have been better performances. Also, sure the ending was predictable, if you’re going into it as a clinician, looking to solve the puzzle from the outside. And finally, yes, there was some awkward exposition and hammy dialogue. However, when you’re an paranoid narrator in an artificial world, things are bound to look like that… constructed, exaggerated. It’s justified by the tone of the film as a whole.
However, the film hit so many nails on the head, I can’t really complain about those things. The wild pace of plot developments, the jarring transitions between color palettes, the tense, unhinged anxiety in scene after scene… it worked wonders for me. For most of the story I felt like I was in a world that didn’t fit together, and it gave me a sense of manic confusion and delerium. The plot kept me grasping for order, but there were always enough simultaneous motivations to keep me from pinning it down. This is partly because I started off with the assumptions you’re expected to make going into any piece of film or fiction… the assumption that the narrator was reliable, and that I could count on knowing the difference between observation and imagination. It may be old news to frustrate these expectations, but that wasn’t the point… this movie wasn’t just a puzzle box with a final twist. It was also an intense, claustrophobic, and emotional experience.
I just saw this last night and less than 30 mins into the film I said it reminded me of this movie-mentioning the movie may be somewhat of a spoiler.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092563/—-
I thought you were going to say this movie
Is this silly little potboiler worth all this discussion?
we might as well be discussing the new version of The Wolfman
http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/7560
go ahead.
When one says that The Shining was Kubrick’s most important film one hasn’t seen much of Kubrick. Or, it seems Scorsese either, if one thinks Shutter Island will even be remembered after 10 years.
All of Kubrick’s films are his most important, including The Shining.
Eyes Wide Shut is easily forgotten.
The idea that Martin Scorsese has “sold out” is absolutely ridiculous. It’s well known the man first fell in love with studio pictures and has always had an immense respect for studio directors like Hitchcock, Powell & Pressburger, King Vidor and countless others who managed to create well-crafted studio pictures that still had an authorial touch.
Simply because he chose to make a fun genre picture doesn’t mean it is not personal. And just because it didn’t come from his own experiences (Catholicism, gangster machismo) doesn’t mean its themes of sanity, loss and murder are foreign to him; he’s dealt with this stuff before.
To those who cry plot holes: Lehane based the novel on B-films like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and the original “Wicker Man”; it’s a beach read pulp-thriller; why expect anything different from an adaptation?
I feel the negative reviews are equally as smarmy as some of the positive reviews for “The Departed”: “Stay in your corner where you belong.” Say what you will, Scorsese stretched himself in a direction he’s never travelled. (De Niro, as great as he is in “Cape Fear”, prevents the film from plumming the depths of terror.) This film is truly frightening.
The idea that Martin Scorsese owes us another “masterpiece” is laughable; he owes us NOTHING. We have been lucky to be witness to some great movies. It must be a great burden to be seen as a quote-unquote serious artist, makes me think of someone like Bob Dylan. (“Christmas in the Heart” is an equally misunderstood album; people forget he has a sense of humor…..) The minute you try to let your guard down a bit, the mob starts shouting….
I forgot Spoiler Alert
and I agree with Velvetmaggot up there with a few additons:
Oddly enough for me, 30 mins. in I was bombarded with thoughts of similar “twists” from the likes of
Memento, A Beautiful Mind, Mulholland Drive, Angel Heart and even K-PAX, after which I lost interest.
Den, Who are you to decide what is worthy of discussion?
ha ha
I really dug this movie. And while I’d read the book, I never got the feeling that the movie was really trying all that hard to conceal the twist.
i have a question about the plot. BIG SPOILERS.
in some ways the film reminded me of finchers the game, where the whole movie is concerned with a contrived trick to make the protagonist wake up from his denial, in shutter island’s case ignoring his wifes mental illness and then the murder of his wife. except, i find that this film has no twist, & thats what makes it different from the game, which i think is still a pretty entertaining thriller. I think its rather obvious from the trailer of shutter island that either dicaprio is crazy or something insidious(but what exactly?) is going on in the island. And I think the answer is both.
my question is, what makes dicaprios character important enough to make an entire island pretend just to try and make him realize the truth? i dont think its as simple as they A. care for him so much they want to help him at all costs, or 2. They hate him so much they want to keep him on the island so they can implement more experiments or torture on him, or C. he knows too much so they want to keep him on the island so he doesnt share what all is going on, because he doesn’t realize whats going on until the end. its possible some parts of a-c may be true, but the plot is so complex and interwoven a simple answer doesnt seem to suffice. so a question i have is why did scorsesse leave such an enormous question as why the island is pretending for 2 days for one guy open? this really makes or breaks the movie to me. Because, if dicaprios character isnt special, then either the island really is trying the most elaborate try to gain an average patients attention – which is ridiculous as a plot, or there is a point, from scorsesses view, to the sheer ridiculousness of it. that the ridiculousness is the point, or could be the point.
the movie doesnt seem to be as simple as ‘the people on the island are all in on it together" and thats it. whats the subtext for that? i guess thats what i cant figure out. what is scorssesse trying to show by depicting a ridiculous act of everyone on an island acting for one patient, if there isnt some specific special reason or characteristic about teddy danials?
and also, what is the little bandage on dicaprios head most of the film signify? was it maybe from the fight he had with George Noyce previously (Jackie Earle Haley i.e. Rorschach)? or from an experiment by Max von Sydow? it seems like too small a wound to be from either of those. or how did he get on the boat in the first place? and how did ben kingsley know that phrase ’why are you all wet baby’? are we to assume he overheard dicaprio say it in the past 2 years of being a patient there, or is kingsley a part of dicaprios mind? Or… or..?
After seeing it two times its starting to really grow on me, and there are a lot of questions (obviously) that I have that keep leading me deeper into the character of teddy daniels (who is really mr. laeddis right?) and im enjoying the ride. But im not sure it all adds up yet. Like other people it makes me think of mulholland drive in some ways, but im not convinced its nearly as good as that film. Thoughts?
Mike Spence
This exploration of psychological guilt with the twist ending thriller genre, a la The Machinist is now as boring to me as the heist genre. Thanks Scorsese.
The only good thing is that Leo’s ill-fitting hat and coat makes sense now.
The aerial shot of Leo screaming “nooooo” is arguably worse than the silly shot from Revenge of the Sith due to the unfortunate use of dead children. Worst shot of Scorsese’s career and probably the worst film.