I read the book. It's noirish and a quick read. Movie looks alright but for 6.99 you could buy the book read it and probably get more out of it.
Saw it Thursday as a freebie sneak preview. For Scorsese, I was dissappointed. I don't mind twisty plots, but this one came off kinda of gimmicky. (I won't give away anything for those who choose to see it.) OK for bargain matinee or a rental. It ain't no Taxi Driver or Raging Bull.
Saw this Wednesday and thought it was really cool. It's like a Psycho-noir version of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
My wife said the score was not even ham-fisted, it was brass knuckled. I don't know what that means exactly, but I agree that it was a distraction. I thought the acting was really good, but the plot was very predictable.
I saw it with my g/f yesterday using some free movie passes. SPOILER ALERT STOP READING IF YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW: It did have my interest at first, but as soon as Leo began "taking pills" for his headaches the movie unravelled for me. I saw it coming a mile away that he was a patient there and not a cop. Which really is lazy script writing (or if it was an actual book I'd have rewritten it to be an actual murder mystery). The old switcheroo 3/4 of the way in the film is so old and played. I went in expecting film noir murder mystery and left thinking it was "a poor man's Beautiful Mind disguised as film noir" What a jip....
SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! Umm. The script is completely ambiguous. If he was beginning to be given psychotropic drugs, the hospital could have indeed mind-fucked him into staying. Funny how he never was shown to have any delusions (ie-anagrammatically named arsonists etc.) until he was given medicine and possibly tainted cigarettes. The film was indeed an elaborate hoax to either coax him out of an extreme psychosis or into one. Either way, every person on the island was scripted to play along, even the nurse who "acted" as the woman who supposedly escaped in the first place. If you can see how well the story was scripted in this light, and then spend some time searching for clues that Scorsese hides within the film hinting at his true feelings about the happenings, then the movie begins to display its many true layers. At the 3/4 mark of the film, when the narrative's diagesis switches from Leo's supposed delusional self image, to an omnicient view of the island's true reality, the question arises of how can a typical shaggy dog, unreliable narrator in actuality be completely reliable in describing the island, its happenings, and his eventual demise to a lobotomy by ice picks?? For me, Leo's perception of reality rings much truer than the happy-go-lucky, shady acres portrayal in the end. The last true hint of reality is revealed when his character so succinctly proclaims at the end, "Is it better to live as a monster or die a good man?" He chose to be lobotmized, rather than to be re-released into the world, brainwashed to do "unspeakable things," as in the Manchurian candidate. I'm of the mind he was never insane, but the reverse is equally as plausible, hence the ambiguity. Good stuff.
I guess what tainted my view was my expectation of a movie from Martin Scorsese. The 'reality vs. fantasy/delusion' is a theme he explored more successfully in Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. In Shutter Island, I felt the heavy handed CG patina of unreality gave away too much. His former films relied on acting & scriptwriting. Shutter Island relied more on contrived plot twists & gimmickery - seemed more like M. Night Shyamalan than Scorsese.
Saw this yesterday with the wife. We both enjoyed it, but I thought it was a little long winded and at least 30 min or so could have been trimmed.
wow, the reviews are not so good for this movie. but still, isn't a bad Scorsese still a pretty good movie?
The short answer is "yes." Even his films that fall a bit short in one way or another ("Kundun," "Cape Fear," "Gangs of New York") have something about them that's interesting, at least. I think his consistent problem is that he needs to reel it in a bit, but like George Lucas, he's surrounded by "yes people" who dare not tell him that he's overdoing it and losing momentum. I'm going to see this one with lowered expectations. Seems the people who enjoy neo-noir are the ones who like it the most. I was surprised at how hard the NYT review slammed it, but I trust that the criticism isn't knee-jerk. His next movie is an as-yet untitled project starring DeNiro as an over-the-hill gangster. Marty tells us not to expect an action film.
Well, that's a pretty harsh comparison because even the worst Scorsese is nowhere near the wretched B.S. George Lucas pumps out. I mean, look at THX 1138 and American Graffiti; the guy has scope and skills. He hits it big with Star Wars and that's all he can make now? The thing with Scorsese is he has a creative cycle that dates back to his earliest films: He makes one film he loves and considers it art, and then he jumps into another project purely to make cash or gain points with a studio or producer so he can get financing for the next project. Not too sure what his status is nowadays, but it seems like he's well past doing projects just for "work", but Shutter Island feels like that; a stop-gap project just to get his name out there and not much else.
Harsh on Marty? Moi? Nah, I just recognize that his latter work sometimes suffers from "great director bloat" and that there are reasons for that. That doesn't mean that I don't think highly of "The Age of Innocence," "Kundun," and "The Departed" etc. for their considerable strengths. It's just that if you go back and watch "Mean Streets" or "Alice Doesn't Live Here Any More" or "Taxi Driver" there's an efficiency and drive that started going a little wonky with "After Hours." Marty's the man ... and probably the most influential and beloved living advocate for film scholarship in the world. I didn't mean to imply that he'd lost his artistry, as Uncle George seems to have done. I'll wager a thousand quatloos on Rupert Pupkin over Jar-Jar Binks any day.
