Shutter Island...who saw it?

[WellDressed]

funny you should mention that: to me Shutter Island almost looks like a Polanski film. Kind of a cross between Polanski and Michael Powell. A very bold and exciting film that refuses to do the work for you.

 

Could not agree more about TWBB. beautifully shot with arguably the best piece of film acting since Brando at its center. But the film has something to say and that turns people off. By virtue of referencing oil TWBB becomes political. I first saw the film in the theater when i was living in Oklahoma, a VERY conservative place. I overheard people, during the screening, complaining about being hit over the head with a liberal message (heard the same complaint while watching Wall-E). An opinion I personally find to be kind of nuts. It's also long and slow by Hollywood standards. Once you get used to farting chipmunks and hockey playing tooth fairies a 20 minute long silent opening is very distancing. I have seen TWBB probably 10 times now; it just keeps getting better.

The sad thing is a film with that kind of pacing practically incites anger. I remember showing one of my intro to film classes Powell's "Peeping Tom." The general consensus was of the film being slow and boring. Maybe 60-70 students and all but 2 or 3 thought it was practically unwatchable.

 

Peeping Tom is a sleeper, and very suspenseful. Criterion is discontinuing about ten films, and Peeping Tom is one of them. I snatched two copies, one to sell at a later date. The Hitchcock Criterion Collection 'Wrong Men & Notorious Women" (five films) can fetch an easy $250 on eBay. I bought Rebecca & Notorious (Criterion) a few years ago to replace my older Anchor Bay featureless versions. Rebecca used was $75 and I think I paid slightly over $50 for a used copy of Notorious.

 

I know Hitchcock did not like Selznick’s control over him while making Rebecca, but that film is in my personal top five Hitch movies. I loved the atmosphere, the amazing performances of Joan Fontaine, Sir Lawrence Olivier, Judith Anderson’s evil presence, the huge doors and eye level doorknobs. At least there was some of Hitch’s trademark dry humor in the film. I’ve always wondered if Orson Welles copied the over sized fireplace and doors from Rebecca for Citizen Kane.

 

--------------------------------------

 

I watched my fist Claude Chabrol film tonight, 'La Ceremonie'. Not exactly one of his masterpieces, but overall, a fine film.

God, foreign cinema towers over the shlock that hollywood puts out. My preference in film is Film Noir & the Nouvelle Vague period established by Mellville, Truffaut and Goddard. I also have an affinity to good French policiers like the Oliver Marchal thrillers- "MR73" & "36 quai des orfevres." As you can see, I like films about criminal behavior.

 

But even modern European cinema makes hollywood look downright childlike.

 

Check out 'Monsieur Hire' Directed by Patrice Laconte-----A must see sleeper. You also get the benefit of a young Sandrine Bonnaire The film holds up amazingly well for being over twenty years old.

[Astrojanitor]

Peeping Tom is a sleeper, and very suspenseful. Criterion is discontinuing about ten films, and Peeping Tom is one of them. I snatched two copies, one to sell at a later date. The Hitchcock Criterion Collection 'Wrong Men & Notorious Women" (five films) can fetch an easy $250 on eBay. I bought Rebecca & Notorious (Criterion) a few years ago to replace my older Anchor Bay featureless versions. Rebecca used was $75 and I think I paid slightly over $50 for a used copy of Notorious.

 

I know Hitchcock did not like Selznick’s control over him while making Rebecca, but that film is in my personal top five Hitch movies. I loved the atmosphere, the amazing performances of Joan Fontaine, Sir Lawrence Olivier, Judith Anderson’s evil presence, the huge doors and eye level doorknobs. At least there was some of Hitch’s trademark dry humor in the film. I’ve always wondered if Orson Welles copied the over sized fireplace and doors from Rebecca for Citizen Kane.

 

--------------------------------------

 

I watched my fist Claude Chabrol film tonight, 'La Ceremonie'. Not exactly one of his masterpieces, but overall, a fine film.

God, foreign cinema towers over the shlock that hollywood puts out. My preference in film is Film Noir & the Nouvelle Vague period established by Mellville, Truffaut and Goddard. I also have an affinity to good French policiers like the Oliver Marchal thrillers- "MR73" & "36 quai des orfevres." As you can see, I like films about criminal behavior.

 

But even modern European cinema makes hollywood look downright childlike.

 

Check out 'Monsieur Hire' Directed by Patrice Laconte-----A must see sleeper. You also get the benefit of a young Sandrine Bonnaire The film holds up amazingly well for being over twenty years old.

 

I'm shocked Peeping Tom is out the door. I really do not understand how that film is not lauded as one of the popular classics. That film is as vital as Psycho to me. Stunning, uncomfortable, visceral...every bit as good as Hitchcock. Powell made cinema, not movies. The look of those films are almost intimidatingly beautiful.

 

Like any auteur Hitch really benefited from restrictions. My favorite film of his is Rope. One room and no visible editing. Add a healthy dollop of homoerotic subtext and go. Film has less exciting, for me at least, in the last 30 years since now everything goes. If Hitchcock was working today it would be all breasts and f-bombs.

 

Laconte has a film called Man on the Train which will knock you out. It's from like 2003 or so and was hands down my favorite film of that year. it's a small story, but Laconte allows the characters to slowly build out of this vague first act. There's no rush to let the audience know what is happening--you have to sit there and let Laconte tell you his story and I love that. Last night I watched Dark City with Roger Ebert's commentary track on. He was talking about how most modern Hollywood films have a third act that is primarily composed of a car chase and a big climatic fight. All special effects but the story ends like an hour into the film. Man on the Train is the exact opposite. The third act is as vital, narratively, as the first. Great film.

 

I am a Godard junkie. I could watch his work from the 60s a thousand times. Made In USA is my current favorite. Such a bold filmmaker. No one has ever been able to continue what he was trying to do in the 60s. Soderbergh has a film called Schizopolis that comes sort of close. Medium Cool is like half a Godard, but that's really it. Just no one can touch him.

 

Film noir is probably the thing I know the most about in this world. I've done a lot of thinking and writing on the genre, could not love noir more. My all time favorite is Force of Evil by Abraham Polonsky. Stars John Garfield and is so good the government wouldn't let Polonsky make another film. HUAC...jerks went out of their way to alienate the brilliant.

[WellDressed]

I'm shocked Peeping Tom is out the door. I really do not understand how that film is not lauded as one of the popular classics. That film is as vital as Psycho to me. Stunning, uncomfortable, visceral...every bit as good as Hitchcock. Powell made cinema, not movies. The look of those films are almost intimidatingly beautiful.

 

Like any auteur Hitch really benefited from restrictions. My favorite film of his is Rope. One room and no visible editing. Add a healthy dollop of homoerotic subtext and go. Film has less exciting, for me at least, in the last 30 years since now everything goes. If Hitchcock was working today it would be all breasts and f-bombs.

 

Laconte has a film called Man on the Train which will knock you out. It's from like 2003 or so and was hands down my favorite film of that year. it's a small story, but Laconte allows the characters to slowly build out of this vague first act. There's no rush to let the audience know what is happening--you have to sit there and let Laconte tell you his story and I love that. Last night I watched Dark City with Roger Ebert's commentary track on. He was talking about how most modern Hollywood films have a third act that is primarily composed of a car chase and a big climatic fight. All special effects but the story ends like an hour into the film. Man on the Train is the exact opposite. The third act is as vital, narratively, as the first. Great film.

 

I am a Godard junkie. I could watch his work from the 60s a thousand times. Made In USA is my current favorite. Such a bold filmmaker. No one has ever been able to continue what he was trying to do in the 60s. Soderbergh has a film called Schizopolis that comes sort of close. Medium Cool is like half a Godard, but that's really it. Just no one can touch him.

 

Film noir is probably the thing I know the most about in this world. I've done a lot of thinking and writing on the genre, could not love noir more. My all time favorite is Force of Evil by Abraham Polonsky. Stars John Garfield and is so good the government wouldn't let Polonsky make another film. HUAC...jerks went out of their way to alienate the brilliant.

 

 

Ah, not to worry, 'The Third Man' was discontinued earlier this year. I guess Criterion buys the rights for a set number of years, and when it comes due, they decide not to pursue it????

 

You like Rope?? Wow, I thought I was the only one. I even liked the large background of the New York skyline. I fell in love with Joan Chandler in the film. Unfortunately, I think that was her only silver screen performance.

 

Laconte is one of my favorite modern day directors, I loved 'Man on the Bridge' with Johnny Halladay. I loved when he was given the pair of slippers and initially didn't want them. The dialogue was superb, and the western motif was great. I had to laugh at the music, it was kind of comical. What did the slippers represent??

Now, I really think 'Woman on the Bridge' with Daniel Auteuil was just as good, if not better.

 

My favorite film noir has to be 'Double Indemnity' followed closely behind by 'Out of the Past' JP Melville's take on American noir was FABULOUS, and I love all of his films. Army of Shadows was a masterpiece.

 

So, Polonsky banned just like Dassin?? Dassin made his best films when in Europe. 'Rififi' & 'Night & the City' had much more depth than 'The Naked City' & Theives Highway. Although 'Theives Highway' was really well done.

[Fan in Chicago]

And it is worth seeing. The direction is astounding. The photography is brilliant as well. I also feel it will hold up to repeat viewings. now that I know what's going on, I think there are going to be subtle clues hinting me in that direction. A lot of techical flashing that is going to be fun to pick out. Stuff like the delusions being shot in technicolor while the memories are washed out (something I already noticed). The are shots that embrace their own artifice (ie use of rear projection) I can't wait to go back and take another look at that usage. Beautiful score too. When I left the theater my buddy felt it was Scorcese's best picture since Raging Bull. i don't know about that, but certainly his best since Goodfellas. I feel 50 years from now when we are able to properly judge his career Shutter Island will come up as one of his minor masterpieces.

I disagree on several aspects, except on the photography part which is very good. Production value is also excellent.

 

 

I have had the story spinning in my head since I saw the movie. I considered both aspects - either that Andrew is a kook and the given explanation is what it is. Second possibility is that he indeed a federal marshall and his conspiracy theory is correct. Both ways, the story has holes. The events and storyline do not hold either explanation. I have detailed thoughts which I am too lazy to type up. I have heard excuses such as 'leaves the viewer to fill in the gaps'. I think it is a cop out. The movie does not progress well nor have a tight script to elicit such a dual-outcome possibility. I personally think Scorcese got incredibly lazy in this movie

 

[Astrojanitor]

I disagree on several aspects, except on the photography part which is very good. Production value is also excellent.

 

 

I have had the story spinning in my head since I saw the movie. I considered both aspects - either that Andrew is a kook and the given explanation is what it is. Second possibility is that he indeed a federal marshall and his conspiracy theory is correct. Both ways, the story has holes. The events and storyline do not hold either explanation. I have detailed thoughts which I am too lazy to type up. I have heard excuses such as 'leaves the viewer to fill in the gaps'. I think it is a cop out. The movie does not progress well nor have a tight script to elicit such a dual-outcome possibility. I personally think Scorcese got incredibly lazy in this movie

 

I do want to see the film again, maybe some of these criticisms will land with me after knowing the secret ending. But the film is told through the eyes of a (possibly) mentally disturbed person so there is a lot of intention disorientation. An example would be when Leo is interviewing the female inpatient. When she asks for the glass of water...she grabs the glass, there's a quick shot of her miming drinking a glass of water...ends with an empty glass hitting the tabletop. only purpose is to keep the audience confused in order to replicate a deranged mind. There's a lot of unrealistic weirdness (ie climbing up and down those cliff sides) that I am not convinced really happen in the narrative because of being shot with an obvious rear projection matting. I would not agree with Scorcese being lazy on this film (The Departed? Lazy as hell).

[Astrojanitor]

Ah, not to worry, 'The Third Man' was discontinued earlier this year. I guess Criterion buys the rights for a set number of years, and when it comes due, they decide not to pursue it????

 

You like Rope?? Wow, I thought I was the only one. I even liked the large background of the New York skyline. I fell in love with Joan Chandler in the film. Unfortunately, I think that was her only silver screen performance.

 

Laconte is one of my favorite modern day directors, I loved 'Man on the Bridge' with Johnny Halladay. I loved when he was given the pair of slippers and initially didn't want them. The dialogue was superb, and the western motif was great. I had to laugh at the music, it was kind of comical. What did the slippers represent??

Now, I really think 'Woman on the Bridge' with Daniel Auteuil was just as good, if not better.

 

My favorite film noir has to be 'Double Indemnity' followed closely behind by 'Out of the Past' JP Melville's take on American noir was FABULOUS, and I love all of his films. Army of Shadows was a masterpiece.

 

So, Polonsky banned just like Dassin?? Dassin made his best films when in Europe. 'Rififi' & 'Night & the City' had much more depth than 'The Naked City' & Theives Highway. Although 'Theives Highway' was really well done.

 

Polonsky was able to do some undercover writing, must notably that Robert Wise picture "Odds Against Tomorrow." he was really only able to make the one film, tragic when realizing a talent like that was never able to live up to his promise. Polonsky and Dassin really had a similar style, I think that's what partly got them in trouble. That stark high key naturalistic lighting really highlights the filth and detritus in the urban landscape. it wasn't just a skyline showing the clear line of progress in post war America...beautiful architecture built on top of filth covered streets--pretty straightforward metaphor there.

 

Another great noir is Moontide. Actually directed by Fritz Lang but credited to someone I don't remember. Features a great performance by Jean Gabin of all people. Criterion is releasing an amazing Nicholas Ray film called "Bigger Than Life" starring James Mason. it will be out in about a month or so and should be watched immediately/repeatedly. A truly subversive, weird and daring film about Mason going crazy due to cortizone shots. It's almost like Douglas Sirk making a hardcore punk record.

 

Joan Chandler did some tv work, but unfortunately bottomed out in mystery science theater 3000 type weirdness. She was in "How to Make a Monster" and "Dragstrip Riot," films note worthy mostly because near perfect rock and roll band The Cramps are fans of both. They even named an album How to Make a Monster, which is probably the only reason why that film may be in print.

[WellDressed]

Polonsky was able to do some undercover writing, must notably that Robert Wise picture "Odds Against Tomorrow." he was really only able to make the one film, tragic when realizing a talent like that was never able to live up to his promise. Polonsky and Dassin really had a similar style, I think that's what partly got them in trouble. That stark high key naturalistic lighting really highlights the filth and detritus in the urban landscape. it wasn't just a skyline showing the clear line of progress in post war America...beautiful architecture built on top of filth covered streets--pretty straightforward metaphor there.

 

Another great noir is Moontide. Actually directed by Fritz Lang but credited to someone I don't remember. Features a great performance by Jean Gabin of all people. Criterion is releasing an amazing Nicholas Ray film called "Bigger Than Life" starring James Mason. it will be out in about a month or so and should be watched immediately/repeatedly. A truly subversive, weird and daring film about Mason going crazy due to cortizone shots. It's almost like Douglas Sirk making a hardcore punk record.

 

Nicholas Ray was not given credit for a leat one Film noir, that now is a classic. "The Racket"

As I was looking for this slight, I have to add another film to my favorite noirs--"In a Lonely Place"

 

I have 'Bigger Than Life' on order as we speak.

[WellDressed]

I do want to see the film again, maybe some of these criticisms will land with me after knowing the secret ending. But the film is told through the eyes of a (possibly) mentally disturbed person so there is a lot of intention disorientation. An example would be when Leo is interviewing the female inpatient. When she asks for the glass of water...she grabs the glass, there's a quick shot of her miming drinking a glass of water...ends with an empty glass hitting the tabletop. only purpose is to keep the audience confused in order to replicate a deranged mind. There's a lot of unrealistic weirdness (ie climbing up and down those cliff sides) that I am not convinced really happen in the narrative because of being shot with an obvious rear projection matting. I would not agree with Scorcese being lazy on this film (The Departed? Lazy as hell).

 

 

Hey, hey, hey my film friend. Have you seen the real "Departed"

 

Infernal Affairs is the better film, then it carries on further with IA-II which was mainly backstory, and than IA-III, which I have not watched.

I am not bashing Scorsee in the least, but Cape Fear & Departed were total remakes.

 

 

Who do you think will be cast to star in his upcoming Sinatra film??

[Cugalabanza]

I just saw Shutter Island. I liked it very much. Not fair at all to lump it in with the MNS-formula-twist stuff.

 

Also, I'm enjoying following the astro/fancypants discussion. Rope, Rebecca, Peeping Tom, Internal Affairs

[Cugalabanza]

I disagree on several aspects, except on the photography part which is very good. Production value is also excellent.

 

 

I have had the story spinning in my head since I saw the movie. I considered both aspects - either that Andrew is a kook and the given explanation is what it is. Second possibility is that he indeed a federal marshall and his conspiracy theory is correct. Both ways, the story has holes. The events and storyline do not hold either explanation. I have detailed thoughts which I am too lazy to type up. I have heard excuses such as 'leaves the viewer to fill in the gaps'. I think it is a cop out. The movie does not progress well nor have a tight script to elicit such a dual-outcome possibility. I personally think Scorcese got incredibly lazy in this movie

 

The given explanation is definitely what it is. And it holds water.

[Astrojanitor]

Hey, hey, hey my film friend. Have you seen the real "Departed"

 

Infernal Affairs is the better film, then it carries on further with IA-II which was mainly backstory, and than IA-III, which I have not watched.

I am not bashing Scorsee in the least, but Cape Fear & Departed were total remakes.

 

 

Who do you think will be cast to star in his upcoming Sinatra film??

 

I did see Infernal Affairs and did enjoy it a lot more than Departed. problem with Departed, to me, was it was assembled as a Scorcese greatest hits. Most egregious was the use of Jumping Jack Flash for the fifth time. And seeing Nicholson on screen these days is always irritating. he's been "Nicholson" since The Shining. The whole thing felt cheap and easy to me. tarantino's nasty comments about Scorcese really stems from his repeating himself with the Departed. That genre of film needs to be rethought. It's been 50% Scorcese 50% Hong Kong for 20 years now. I'm looking forward to a director coming out and making a cops and gangsters movies that does not involve slow motion gun play.

 

I've been thinking recently about who could be Sinatra. As a rule I hate musical biopics. If you've even seen "Walk Hard" you know why. That movie's genius was in being exactly right. The turnaround reveals, the 40 year old men playing high schoolers, the basic plot structure of famous scene-drug use-famous scene-nearly die-famous scene-redemption....rarely ever works. Now I love Sinatra, love him. The thought of seeing reenactments of famous concerts and movies just holds no appeal to me at all. That being said it was a fascinating life so maybe this will be the exception to the rule.

 

I don't know who could play him, people don't carry themselves like him anymore. Jon Hamm would be great if he looked totally different. I think Bradley Cooper has the look but am not sure he can channel an inner Don Draper.

 

Here's a sad fun fact. I was reading something about Kate Beckinsale. In the article she said she had to gain 20 pounds to play Ava Gardner in "The Aviator." 20 pounds, can you believe that? That standard for sexy and healthy has dropped 20 pounds since Ava? Modern Hollywood man.

[Fan in San Diego]

Not at all what I thought it was going to be. A real mind screw job.

[PushthePile]

I saw it today and walked away a little disappointed. It was a decent movie but not mind blowing. In fact I found the twist to be extremely anti-climactic. The story wasn't much different than any of the crap horror movies that are being released weekly. That was my biggest complaint. If it wasn't for good acting and superior camera work, I wouldn't have really enjoyed it.

[WellDressed]

I do want to see the film again, maybe some of these criticisms will land with me after knowing the secret ending. But the film is told through the eyes of a (possibly) mentally disturbed person so there is a lot of intention disorientation. An example would be when Leo is interviewing the female inpatient. When she asks for the glass of water...she grabs the glass, there's a quick shot of her miming drinking a glass of water...ends with an empty glass hitting the tabletop. only purpose is to keep the audience confused in order to replicate a deranged mind. There's a lot of unrealistic weirdness (ie climbing up and down those cliff sides) that I am not convinced really happen in the narrative because of being shot with an obvious rear projection matting. I would not agree with Scorcese being lazy on this film (The Departed? Lazy as hell).

 

I just saw it, and if I had not known it was Scorsese's picture, I would have never guessed it. Not enough Max Von Sydow for me, but Ben Kingsley was in top form. Leo as always, showing he is in the top five or six of his craft. A good turn for Michelle Williams as well.

With all of the swirling buzz about the "surprising ending," I walked in with the same scenario that I walked out with. The only difference being, there are many unanswered questions and interpretations just as you pose above, in your synopsis.

 

I need to see RP's Ghost Writer to see how good Shutter Island really is.

[Astrojanitor]

I just saw it, and if I had not known it was Scorsese's picture, I would have never guessed it. Not enough Max Von Sydow for me, but Ben Kingsley was in top form. Leo as always, showing he is in the top five or six of his craft. A good turn for Michelle Williams as well.

With all of the swirling buzz about the "surprising ending," I walked in with the same scenario that I walked out with. The only difference being, there are many unanswered questions and interpretations just as you pose above, in your synopsis.

 

I need to see RP's Ghost Writer to see how good Shutter Island really is.

 

I think the "surprise ending" isn't the twist, but Leo's final line of dialog. That line throws huge chunks of the film into flux. Not just his mental state, but how Shutter Island (the place) can be considered...more specifically the parallels between the hospital and the death camp. It's a film that demands a lot of discussion and thought, but I think a lot of people are getting distracted by the "twist" (which I feel is little more than a Macguffan).

 

In a weird way it reminds of the classic slasher film "Sleepaway Camp." During that movie you think you are watching a trashy slasher flick, but the last shot shows we've been watching this whole different animal the entire time.