I hated Shutter Island the novel, but I only disliked the the film. I recently included Scorsese as #1 in my “Best Living Directors” list and very astutely claimed that Shutter Island was a huge misstep for the director. I was convinced of it then and I’m convinced of it now.
I’m well aware it is not a great idea to compare an adapted film to its original work. But screw it, it can’t be avoided. I was given the book by my brother with a warning that the end was the worst ending ever. Not because it was poorly written, executed, or even that the book is bad. But instead, because the story held such promise and intrigue, but took a devastatlingly poor turn at the end. You might like it, I didn’t.
Same problem with the movie. The only difference is Dennis Lehan is a great storyteller, Scorsese is one of the best in American history. The difference might seem incidental, but it can make an awful story okay. Or an okay story good. This story is awful.
It follows two federal marshals, Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) as they enter Shutter Island, a mental institutionon for patients who are criminally insane. An inmate, or should I say patient, Rachel (Emily Mortimer) has mysteriously gone missing.
As the head of Shutter Island, Dr. John Cawley (Ben Kingsley) comments: “We don’t know how she got out of her room. It’s as if she evaporated, straight through the walls.” Fucking bad ass. The premise of this film might be one of the best in horror film history. That is not an exaggeration. But this is no horror film. It is more of a psychological thriller. It is currently #199 all time best films on IMDB. What a world…
But regardless, the two agents begin to dig deeper into the mysteries of the island. There are different wards on the island that are off limits. Who and what is inside them? Is Dr. Cawly hiding something? Was Rachel’s disappearance an inside job? What information is reliable given from someone so insane and detached from reality? The audience is literally on the edge of their seats, waiting to find out the answer to these questions.
The conclusion I won’t ruin here, but it will disappoint many, satisfy many, surprise some, and anger others. For film maniacs who have seen this all before it will be a rip-off. High Tension anyone? For some it will be new and refreshing. Whatever the case, be ready to be shocked.
The performances are dead-on. DiCaprio might even be considered a tour-DE force. Kingsley has charming subtlety, hinting at something, but never revealing he’s hiding information.
It would also be wrong not to mention the cinematography, which would certainly have received an Oscar nod had it opened in time for Oscar consideration. The shots are moody and every light and shadow seems to be deliberate. Smokey rooms are illuminated with beams from all directions, all for the purpose of highlighting the character’s mental state.
All these talents are put to waste on a bad story. What a shame.
February 2010
Collin says: C -
You’ll say: B -
By Collin, on February 12th, 2010
The Wolfman
The Wolf man’s production was riddled with problems. I was listening to an interview with director Joe Johnston on Cinemagic, which consisted of him describing the problems with the film’s pre-production, Anthony Hopkins’ desire to leave the film, numerous re-edits, re-shoots, creative differences, etc. It is no wonder the original director Mark Romanek ran away from the production. I would have.
But what struck me about the conversation with Johnston was the issues he had getting the pacing right. An issue I don’t think he ever fixed. The film is just too long and a bit boring. A problem that isn’t easily solved. Especially with an epic horror film.
The film follows theater actor Lawrence Tablot (Benicio Del Toro) as he returns to his home to investigate the bizarre disappearance of his brother at the request of his brother’s fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt).
Moreover, Lawrence has a stately home run by his father Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) whose character remains one of the few personalities that is genuinely enjoyable in this movie. Everyone else is dry, one-dimensional, and too formulaic.
The first forty-five minutes of the film are all leading up to the revelation of The Wolfman and his subsequent transformation into a werewolf. Having such an extensive intro before the transformation is fine. But the sub-plots have to be fascinating. They have to be…but are not.
Francis Aberline(Hugo Weaving), an inspector from Scotland Yard, takes off after Talbot who has transformed into a wolf. So that is the plot, but the question is: Was it good? Hmm, kinda of.
First off, Blunt’s character seems to serve very little purpose besides being a love interest for Tablot. Despite the fact their relationship is never fully realized. Why have a relationship in a film if it is never fully realized? Sure, it is more original to have them only hint at love. But this is not the type of film to get cute.
Another thing, Sir John Talbot certainly needed more scenes, if most of them. He was charming and exciting to watch.
Also, of course, the length of the film is only 100 odd minutes, but feels like it takes forever. It isn’t boring, but is hard to watch without checking your watch.
A few good things, however, are the set design and art direction. This film is downright drab. It looks like a Tim Burton film with all the darkness and none of the cheekiness. The tone is perfect.
But what took this movie from being bad into an okay film was the amount of gore. This might not satisfy all people. But it satisfied me. The gore in this film is shocking for such a high budgeted film. Many studios chicken out with big-budget films, afraid that an R will curse them from breaking into the 200 million dollar mark.
Well, as of today, the wolf man hasn’t, but that isn’t to say that the gore wasn’t a definite plus. Arms go flying, limbs are ripped from bodies, people are disembowled. I was thrilled. What a ballsy move. I couldn’t help but feel a splatter movie would have better.
Release date: February 2010
I say: C
You’ll say: C
By Collin, on February 12th, 2010
The Crazies
The Crazies gave me a little hope in the American horror film. Not a lot, but a little. The Crazies could be called an American horror masterpiece. I’m not going to go that far, but it was definitely a masterful execution of the American horror formula.
It follows Sheriff Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) and Judy Dutton (Radha Mitchell) who live in a quiet little town in Iowa. They have normal lives until Dutton is forced to shoot a man in front of an entire little league game. Why? Well, the man walks out with a shotgun and points it at Dutton. It was a necessary killing, but that doesn’t leave the town uneasy.
If that wasn’t enough, only shortly after that another man in the town burns his whole family in a house fire. Dutton knows something’s up. Him and his deputy, Clank (Joe Anderson) begin to investigate a mysterious pilot found dead in the woods. What they uncover is big trouble. A crashed plane carrying a military virus in it. That shit is in the drinking water now!
To say the least, I have always been floored by the premise that George A. Romero came up with so many years ago. I’ve heard this film referred to as a zombie flick. That’s not entirely true, because the zombies still have the capacity to drive, shoot, talk, communicate, even tie someone up. Am I being pedantic about the semantics of zombism? Probably a little. But my point is zombie movies are dead outside of comedy. They’re just not scary anymore. Sorry Romero. They killed your movies. Copycats filmmakers…not zombies.
What is scary in these films is the lock down that happens due to the virus being spread. The military locks down and begins to systemically genocide the town. The film has wonderful production values. The military scenes, as well as the horror scenes, are fantastic and are handled with great technical skill for a movie with a smaller budget. If you could call twenty million dollars small…
Another thing to mention is that Timothy Olyphant is proving he has real star power. Yes, he has headlined films before, but I really think that he carried this movie in a very powerful way. Considering he really had to act and he was on screen almost the entire film.
Now I’ll throw one gripe out there, which makes the movie very good, not great. The gore was a little on the lighter side. Not light side, lighter. I wanted buckets. I’m just saying…give the people what they want. Less isn’t more these days. Putting a lot of gore in a horror movie isn’t selling out, it is adding to the picture. I think if there were some really great splatter moments, it could have been the best horror movie in quite some time.
Release date: February 2010
Collin says: A-
You’ll say: B
>
By Collin, on February 5th, 2010
From Paris with Love
It might be unfair for me to review this film without saying that Luc Besson is one of my heroes. He is one of the most prolific and talented filmmakers making action films these days.
Luc Besson did not direct this film, he wrote it, but his marks can be seen all over this picture. Other of his written films include: The Transporter 1,2,3, District B13 1 and 2, Revolver, Taken, Unleashed, Angel-A, The Fifth Element, Leon the Professional, and literally dozens more. What a genius.
He hasn’t directed a film in a few years. But who cares? His filmmaking finger print can be felt on all his fun and brainless action pictures. I frequently quote Transporter 2 as the finest action film ever made. Why? It is short, action-packed, utterly stupid, and is proud of it. No action movie needs to be longer than an hour and twenty minutes. None. Zip. Well, maybe something by John Woo or with Jackie Chan acting in it…but still.
This film follows James Reese (Jonathan Rhy Meyers) who lives in Paris and dreams of being a CIA agent. Don’t we all? He is offered a great assignment to work with a well respected special agent Charlie Wax (John Travolta) who loves his job…to say the least. James quickly finds out this all might have been too good to be true.
Charlie is a lunatic. He shoots first and doesn’t even ask questions later. He is fearless and is amazing at his career choice. Which is to kill your way through a case.
James quickly finds out that he is the target of the terrorist he’s tracking, who are planning to suicide bomb a politic summit. It is ludricious, but why not?
I loved this movie. I really did. It is silly, fun, and the action is entertaining enough. At the center of the film is Travolta, who seems to be born to player trigger happy gunman.
I take issue with only one thing: The way the action is shot. This is a French movie, therefore, I assumed much of the action would take place uncut in front of the camera. Not quite the case, indeed.
Unfortunately, the director Pierre Morel cuts numerous times even in one punch or kick. Why do this? For low-budget films it is a necessity. Choreographing an entire fight sequence, uncut, is nearly impossible for money reasons.
The other reason is pacing: I call it “manufacturing intensity”. Which is most certainly fine. What would Hurt Locker have been without it? But take action films like Oldboy or Tony Jaa’s Ong-Bak. These films have hugely realistic fight scenes because the action is happening in front of the camera. Uncut. It drops are jaws. Take also Morel’s first film District B13 (one of my favorite action films) David Belle jumps from one building to another, without wires. We know it is real and love it.
That isn’t to say From Paris isn’t a good action movie. I’m just hoping France doesn’t start adopting that very trivial action style of American films. I always say: Mexicans know how to do the best drama, the French know how to do the best action pictures. Sorry Hong Kong.
Recent Comments