"Shutter Island" movie reviews
This week's literary movies are led by "Shutter Island," the Martin Scorcese adaptation of Dennis Lehane's super-creepy novel. The book won widespread praise- -- reviewers callied it "utterly absorbing," "startlingly original," "instantly cinematic" and "as good as entertainment gets." High praise, but Lehane is a master of grit and suspense -- especially when it's served Boston-style. Here are excerpts of reviews, starting with the weekend debut at the Berlin Film Festival:
Chicago Tribune -- "Shutter Island" is hysterical, in the clinical and cinematic senses, followed by plodding, just when a potboiling contraption cannot afford to be.
New York Times -- Mr. Scorsese in effect forces you to study the threads on the rug he is preparing, with lugubrious deliberateness, to pull out from under you. As the final revelations approach, the stakes diminish precipitously, and the sense that the whole movie has been a strained and pointless contrivance starts to take hold.
Los Angeles Times -- In its own way, Laeta Kalogridis' screenplay, which is based on the Dennis Lehane bestselling novel, turns into Teddy's most formidable adversary -- never letting him rest as obstacles are thrown in his path and paranoia rises with every step he takes.
Wall Street Journal -- It won't be a beloved movie. It will inspire doctoral dissertations. And while this news may not bring unbridled joy to the folks at Paramount Pictures, let them be consoled by the thought that it possesses a kind of obsessive perfection.
Reuters -- The movie certainly keeps you in its grip from the opening scene: It's a nerve-twisting, tension-jammed exercise in pure paranoia, and possibly Scorsese's most commercial film yet. ... Nearly every camera move is fraught with excitement. The music, costumes, props and the many rooms and halls of this fortress-prison are designed for maximum emotional impact.
Times of London -- Everything, from [the] garish choice of necktie to the jumpy, exaggerated sound design, charges the film with a sense of inchoate menace. Occasionally you wish that Scorsese had reined it in just a little — snapped twigs sound like revolver shots, a buzzing lightbulb evokes a brain-frying blast of ECT.
The Guardian -- I'm of the opinion that DiCaprio is still far too lightweight a performer to carry the grizzled, haunted character that Scorsese is asking him to portray here.
The Telegraph -- The plot doesn’t so much thicken as curdle with every heebie-jeebie encounter – we’ve taken a U-turn at the terrific Cape Fear and wound up at Cape Folly.
Comments
A co-worker who scored tickets to last night's preview reports that Shutter Island is not to be missed!
She is not a fan of horror movies or gore, much less those "...don't go in the basement" flicks.
reCaptcha: of schuss - how seasonal!
Posted by: Eve | February 18, 2010 9:47 AM
I know I will love this- the movie "The Ring" had fabulous AND POETIC images- a burning tree, a ladder, a doomed horse, a girl crawing out of yr. tv, a well...
from the preview this looks a little less literary-
I hope the score adds- as, w the "Ring"- did Hans Zimmer's (he also did the "Thin Red Line" score)..it had many references to the "Dies Irae", Rachmaninoff- it pulled you down with it.
images as in the gorier horror movies like "The Saw", part whatever? where they cut yr. toes off w giant wire cutters? these should probably b censored, in my opinion and their creators arrested- nothing but violent filth
Posted by: david eberhardt | February 18, 2010 4:42 PM
I just saw the movie with my boys and we all left a little confused with what appears to be a story ending contradiction. We are all "Lost" junkies and used to plot confusion, but we could not resolve this one. Please help.
At the end of the movie it appeared at first that Teddy Daniels' (Leonardo DiCaprio) experimental treatment was not successful. He was sitting on the steps with his "partner""(Mark Ruffalo) when he whispered in his ear that the two had to still find a way to escape. At that point, Ruffalo gave the thumbs down to the lead doctor, Ben Kingsley, that his experimental treatment did not work. Then Daniels mentioned to Ruffalo that it was seemingly better to die than to live his life, presumably stating that he could not live knowing now he killed his wife. So, he volunteered to walk off to be presumably lobotomized for his seemingly uncurable mental disorder. The scene then goes to the lighthouse, presumably because that's where he would get his treatment.
But, if that is true, why would Kingsley want to do the treatment? Only a cured DiCaprio would have volunteered to walk off to the lighthouse. Kingsley, at that point, should have realized that his treatment DID work, and the last thing he would ever do would perform surgery to erase his success!
What are we missing?
Tom
Posted by: tom | February 28, 2010 9:10 AM
Another confusion--why does Teddy seem so unaffected by his boys' deaths and obsessed with daughter Rachel, to the point of having him use it as an alias for his wife's name?
Posted by: jane | March 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Very good actor's play, music and beginning of the movie. All went well untill DiCaprio met the George in block "C". Then began clear pscyho, not trhiller... Bad the end of film, imho.
Posted by: Filmwatcher | March 19, 2010 5:47 AM
I don't see the twist, rather how brain washing works - if you believe Leo was patient of the clinic since ever, you might be a patient too?
Posted by: Sphinx | March 22, 2010 8:59 PM