It’s been a while since we did one of these, and it’ll make a nice distraction from the Oscar season. Chad has already been pretty candid about what he thinks of Martin Scorsese’s latest, following on the heels of Guy’s review out of Berlin. But what say you? Tell us your thoughts in the comments section below.
Comments
91 responses to “Tell us what you thought of ‘Shutter Island’”
Kevin: I don’t disagree with the first paragraph, but as for the second, quite frankly, if you pay the price of a ticket, you have the right to do whatever the hell you want, stay or go. Who said he was disturbing anyone anyway?
Joel: Considering it’s one of two films I’ve seen this year, yeah, it’s a contender for the top 10.
68% RT, guys. That is all.
sigh
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the walking out thing.
But I do agree with you that the film is far deeper and richer than people are giving it credit for. There seems to be this idiotic criticism going around something to the effect of “It’s-not-typical-Scorsese-so-I-hate-it”
That seems odd to me, as I don’t really get what everyone sees as this signature Scorsese film. He’s an incredible versatile director who has made a huge variety of films. The only really consistent factors is that all of them, save for maybe The Departed, have been intense character studies of deeply flawed people. “Shutter Island” is closer to “The Aviator”, “Taxi Driver” and “Cape Fear” than “The Departed” or “Goodfellas”. It’s also odd that Scorsese is famous for supposedly being a gangster film director, when he’s only made a small handful of gangster films in a career of 40 or so films.
As for what makes “Shutter Island” so damn great, let’s forget for a moment that from a tech standpoint, the film is literally perfect in every way, from Robert Richardson’s cinematography to Dante Feretti’s set design, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing, etc. But every bit of the film oozes with Hitchcockian-level atmosphere and suspense. People who complain about the ending being predictable ruined the movie for themselves trying to figure it out ahead of time. It’s unfortunate in this day and age that we are so critical of films being “predictable”. Plot twists don’t make a movie good, especially not one like “Shutter Island”. It’s all about the cinematic technique and artistry. The film, oddly enough, is more arthouse than I expected, despite everyone’s misconception that Scorsese has gone fully commercial. Only cinema lovers like ourselves probably saw all the Hitchcock and Robert Wise references scattered throughout (the staircase is a shot reference to Robert Wise’s 1963 film, “The Haunting”). I think the problem is that people were going in expected one kind of film and when that didn’t happen, they freaked, ala The Lovely Bones last year.
“The real ‘twist,’ vis a vis DiCaprio’s final line, is what elevates the story to something more”
I 100% totally agree. that’s what really makes the story for me.
ok, i absolutely loved it, dicaprio right now deserves that oscar, and i completely see the comparisons to the shining
but what was the final line everyone is talking about, please tell me? i cant seem to rememeber
Room 237: What does 68% on RT have to do with anything? That doesn’t kill it’s Oscar chances at all considering in the last decade these films all got Best Pic noms:
The Reader 60% RT
Chocolat 62% RT
Babel 68% RT
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 71% RT
The Cider House Rules 72% RT
Not to mention all of them did it with only 5 BP slots.
just to make a point and ask a question of the others I’d like to go over the last line of the film which as Kris, among many others, mentioned, is probably the true moment that the film makes its point.
SPOILERS below…
When Teddy/Andrew asks if it was better to live as a monster or die a good person my assumption is that he did, in fact, remember everything and was pretending otherwise so he didn’t have to live with the knowledge of what he’d done. This, as well as the general question being asked in a literal sense, I believe is the take of the movie.
I was saving it all for Sunday but there’s really no point is there. I walked out after about 80 minutes (after DiCaprio’s scene with Jackie Earle Haley). I hated every second of every frame that inhabited those 80 minutes and if there’s some fancy schmancy twist at the end that changes everything, well too bad. Scorsese doesn’t deserve to have me wait around for it.
I’m just going to assume that you (Chad) were in an unfortunate mood when you saw the film in the first place because I have to echo the people above who’ve said that if you didn’t like the story, then that’s definitely one thing. I happened to find the story inriguing from beginning to end (predictabilities or not).
BUT, from nearly every other possible facet of filmmaking (separate from the source material, story, etc), meaning directing, performances, editing, cinematography, production design, costume, make-up, sound, purposely-bombastic music punctuating the film, and the wonderful gothic, atmospheric tone/mood) ……
I think 9 out of 10 people here think that “every frame inhabiting” the 135 minutes of the film were pretty darn great, and deftly handled, at the very least.
I’m sorry you didn’t dig it. I’m just confused by the absolute hatred when not discussing the subjectivity of liking the story or not.
I WILL say, it’s never fun being one of the few people (on a message board) who are in the minority. So I feel for you, a bit. I’m sure you would love to have loved the film and shared your excitement with a lot of the other people here. Thats’ why we love the boards, right?
And I also think that an absolutely gorgeous movie can be ruined, for me, by a story or pacing that is too-detrimental for the “filmmaking” to overcome.
But in this case, you just seem to have hated just about everything. But yeah, it always stinks to be in the minority; though there are plenty of critics out there who agree with you.
Furthermore, it’s only 2 days after opening. There will be plenty more people who both LOVE it and hate it who will surface.
Does Chad have to apologize for hating it and for walking out? He wasted his money and has to say I’m sorry?
Anyway, I would like to know what people who read the book thought about the film. Nathaniel and Guy read the book and didn’t really enjoy the movie.
The book sucks, and the movie was even worse. Scorsese is a master, and still is (regardless of how iffy his past 10-15 years of output have been) but even he couldn’t save this stinker of a story.
Everyone has an opinion and has a right to one. For some story and dramatic tension is paramount in books and film. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that everyone needs that to enjoy what’s happening. Dennis Lehane readily admits that he brought every pulpy film noir cliche into service for his book. Seems Marty was maybe the perfect director to capture this on film. It’s the other stuff underneath the surface that’s the real mind fuck. Either you’re up for it or not.
I am not much of a reader but I read this book in 2 days. It just sucked me in and I loved it. The movie itself followed it pretty closely which I liked, the ending is changed slightly. I liked what they did with the ending in the movie a little more than in the book.
I’ll repeat what I said in the Friday box office thread:
What floored me about the film was how personal Scorsese ended up making the material. It was a deeply affecting movie about guilt, and with Scorsese being one of the most “Catholic” of directors, it ended up being a perfect marriage of director and material.
Also, it was interesting to see some of the new things he was doing (new for him, not new in cinema) like the heavy use of centered compositions, purposeful changes in continuity, and the use of modern classical music.
SPOILERS
***
***
What else is the climax but essentially a confession by Andrew of his sins? And if you believe that Andrew is faking regression at the end of the film, which I believe he is, then this act is a self inflicted penance, much like Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull letting Sugar Ray Robinson beat him to a bloody pulp, or later pounding his fists and head into a concrete wall in a prison cell.
***
***
END SPOILERS
I would say that this is arguably his most personal film of the new millenium; extremely surprising considering that this appeared to be a straight pulpy, genre film at first glance
Oh, and Chad,
Well, at least you didn’t walk out of a movie you loved, like Jeffrey Wells, who called Mother and Child one of the best movies of the year after seeing only 2/3 of it. That was bizarre, haha.
Seconded on it being easily the most personal film he’s made this milleneum, certainly in terms of his favorite themes which are..tada…guilt, redemption and all that comes with it. That it was all wrapped up in a pulpy/clunky/slightly Hitchcockian film noir setting (was this real or just the character’s notion of an alternative reality — in other words, was Andrew playing a detective taken straight out of popular movie fiction of the time along with all the paranoid trappings of the ’50s — atom bombs, commies under every rock, mind altering experiments?) is just icing for Scorsese to work his movie magic. Will be seeing it again soon……because it really is a modern, masterful piece of cinema that’s purely (or impurely, depending on your take) out of the past.
JJ- I didn’t think it was technically proficient at all. If I didn’t know it was Scorsese and that he once knew how to make films, I would think a completely incompetent person made it. Sure, the production design is well executed but it’s poorly conceived. Those buildings have NO practical purpose for existing except to be sets for a horror film. Making Ward C danker, more run-down and creepier thematically mirrors the worse offenders being there in the most obvious, lazy way. I can’t stand that shit. Depending on Scorsese’s needs for any particular moment, the patients are either bald, catatonic creepazoids or articulate willing accomplices. They’re naked when he needs a little creepier vibe but clothed if they’re movie stars with lines. I expect more, I really do.
Now, the score I did like.
Why you all wet, baby?
Sorry Chad, but you just don’t get it in the same way some of us do. You were right to walk out if it just wasn’t your thang.
The score — which isn’t a composed score at all, of course, but a kind of collage of one — is my favourite element of the film, too.
It’s one of my favorite elements to be sure and fits well with the mood swings in the film. It’s also often muted, almost subliminally in the background. Especially effective was one piece which you can hear if you listen carefully –fits perfectly with the tragedy that’s about to be unlocked — when Dolores is sitting in the swing overlooking the lake towards the end. The one obvious exception is when the two detectives are approaching the entrance to the asylum, a dramatic announcement that all isn’t quite as it seems.
I think it’s infinitely more uneven than anyone gives it credit for. I still liked it, but the first hour was slow and sluggish, and the second hour was enthralling like no other. Overall, a B- for me, and the obvious title of Least Successful Scorsese Movie I’ve Ever Seen. Of course, I’ve seen like five of them.
Just got back from seeing it. This movie will take some time to formulate an opinion.
I thought it was a just barely better than mediocre. The performances were pretty good, but I just wasn’t that moved by the story, and I thought the first half was boring. My biggest problem was the score. It was annoying, distracting, and unnecessary. I’d give it a C+ or a B-
Chad:
“They’re naked when he needs a little creepier vibe but clothed if they’re movie stars with lines.”
Jackie Earle Haley wasn’t clothed. And he looked pretty repulsive. And he had a long scene.
Dylan, I’m with you on the grade. B- for me as well. I think the second half makes for the best movie so far this year, but the first half was dull and unmoving.
And you may as well add that Haley was spectacular in his particular scene, which he was in spades. If this isn’t a film with incredible one scene performances, I haven’t seen one. And, yeah, it was at times moving, not consistently, but more than I can remember from almost any other Scorsese flick.
You guys need to watch the first dream scene with Dolores again — which occurs in the first half I do believe. If that ain’t moving to you, you can’t be moved much.
word, austin111, word.
I hated it and I’m a huge Scorsese fan. Leo was very good, but the movie was boring, uneven, poorly edited and the music made me want to jam screwdrivers in my ears. Truly awful. I’m very disappointed in Scorsese for this one. It amazes me that other Scorsese fans (and critics) can’t bring themselves to acknowledge he’s made a really bad movie as though his name attached means he gets a pass.
I loved it! I thought When I thought I had it figured out, I was shocked at the end of the movie which I love. I think for most people it will be a movie you eithier love it or hate it. I would love to see Leo get an oscar for a change, he is just a great actor.
Has anyone noticed with Scorsese’s films there are really apparent and visible continuity errors in the editing, just saying
Regarding the editing, yes, absolutely.
I remember one scene btwn. Jacko and Leo in The Departed where they were doing and/or sitting in completely different positions from one second to the next (camera move).
And I noticed it in The Aviator when the 15 yr. old girl Leo was dating and he were at dinner when Juan Trippe (Baldwin) sits down at the dinner table; she’s eating ice cream in one shot, and the next immediate one she has both her hands clasped in her lap.
It’s funny, for as well edited as Thelma Schoonmaker makes Scorsese movies from a narrative standpoint, she’s pretty bad at linking scene to scene correctly.
In Shutter Island, I didn’t notice those abrupt editing issues – only when they were on purpose to serve the creepy, twisted story.
Good observation moviefan1.
Agreed JJ, I remember in The Aviator especially, theres a clip where Howard Hughes is at the premier and there is a wide shot of everyone in the audience most especially John C. Reily who you can see is clapping then it cuts to a close up of John C. Reily and THEN he begins clapping, lol. Maybe im nitpicking, but thats my only real complaint of a Scorsese as a filmmaker, his continuity from one frame to the next can be really distracting sometimes
austin: That scene was one of the most emotional pieces of cinema I’ve seen in a while. Which makes the ultimate reveal all the more powerful.
I’m with you.
moviefan: It’s frankly an overall philosophy of filmmaking. Some are old school and think that editorial continuity isn’t what’s important, performance is. Sometimes it sticks out, but I like that Scorsese and Schoonmaker stick to their instincts. And in the case of this film, I actually think it works to the tone’s advantage.
I see what you mean Kris, its a minor complaint from my part, but his last two films had a lot which I just found distracting, but overall I can understand that it depends on which frame presents the best performance
I know on a purely cinematic level, this worked well. On an acting level as well. But what about a philosophical/religious/human level…in other words actual content from a sort of intellectual point of view. We know the surface is pure pulp from the late ’40s – early ’50s, especially pulpy noir films. It’s whats underneath the surface that concerns me here. What are your thoughts, if you have any at all? I’ve read some pretty interesting ones on the web.
‘Shutter Island’ is something of a masterpiece. I do think, however, that the screenplay could have used a polish…but whatever.
That dolly-shot of Leo’s firing squad at Dachau…what to make of it…hmmm…
The dolly shot makes more of an impression than just having them shot willy nilly.
[…] Tell us what you thought of 'Shutter Island' Scorsese was clearly drawing upon Hitchcock the whole time. The film is not an oscar film like a lot thought it would be, though it could have been in the Ten I think, with some tech awards. But it's a Hitchcockian thriller start to finish. Fucking brilliant. If you pay the cost of a ticket, at least be courteous to others in the theatre and sit through it and don't disturb everyone by walking out. That's just plain rude and disrespectful at 02:33 pm . […]