![]() You gotta love Scorsese's work. If there's one thing you can say about it, it's that he's got range. He has given us just about everything ranging from family friendly adventures ('Hugo') all the way to intense thrillers such as 'Shutter Island'. As far as all the in-between, just look at his IMDb page, as I could be here all day listing off his wonderful work. 'Shutter Island' is Scorsese's take on a pyschological thriller, all while maintaining that crime-related story he's so well-known for. It's just that in this case, it's a creepy mental institution on an island as opposed to, say, the familiar streets of New York. some of the main draws to this film are among the many names attached to the project. Aside from director Scorsese, it's also helmed by the talents of Leo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo and Ben Kingsley, with great side roles for names like Max von Sydow, Michelle Williams and Jackie Earle Haley. So it's pretty star-studded, and that's not even mentioning a few more perfectly recognizable faces. One might not place this at the top of their Scorsese list, but I can say with all honesty that it's well worth a watch. You just have to sort of ditch the idea of it being a typical Scorsese film. This is one that seemed a little more experimental, teetering on light horror. For a real quick plot breakdown, things open up in 1954, where U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and his new partner, Chuck (Ruffalo) have been assigned to investigate the disappearance of a potentially very dangerous patient. The assignment takes place on Shutter Island, where the US government runs an institution for the criminally insane. Based on his own past experiences, Daniels soon becomes weary that the institution may be doing some pretty abysmal stuff behind closed doors. The film takes a few twists and turns, and keeps you guessing as to what the outcome might be. Is the government facility corrupt? What really is going on with certain prisoners? Is there more than meets the eye to the institution, or less? With all this guess work, though, I might recommend that you don't bother with the trailer before heading into it. It doesn't happen often for me, but this was one case where the trailer showed me everything I needed to know to call its ending. So upon seeing it the first time, I can say I was a bit disappointed. But with that said, it's still a perfectly solid film with a dark and imaginative atmosphere. If you're not into all the gangster related material Scorsese cranks out, this is a cool change of pace that shows us how dark and mysterious he can get. On the other hand, if you really like typical Scorsese material, this could easily be seen as a little too different for your taste. Here, he plays with things like horror elements and makes sure everything atmospherically dreary and dark. Even through the day, it's all clouds and storms. It's safe to say that the overall feeling of the film matches the poster perfectly. On top of that, the performances and dialogue are all great, and it's a neat one to go back and watch now when some faces may be more recognizable. It may not be Scorsese's crowning achievement, but considering his filmography, that's not a stretch either. It's still a really good flick.
0 Comments
![]() Back in February of 1991, this film was released to mass praise from audiences and critics alike. It struck a chord with audiences as a very intense thriller that borders on horror (much like 'Seven', which would come later, and owe a lot to this film). Meanwhile critics couldn't deny how good it was with its twists, turns, atmosphere and incredible acting. It went on to receive 7 Oscar nominations, winning 5, including Best Picture, Director, Lead Actor (Anthony Hopkins), Lead Actress (Jodie Foster) and Adapted Screenplay - a clean sweep of the top 5 categories, which, at the time, had only gone to a couple of dramas in the past; 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' ('75) and 'It Happened One Night' ('38). This was unprecedented for a movie of this type, as most fans ultimately consider it a horror movie of sorts. So what gave such a twisted movie such praise? The film opens up with FBI trainee, Clarice Starling (Foster) as we see her tackling an obstacle course in a creepy forest, giving us a nice visual portrayal of her character without saying a damn thing. You can tell from the get-go that she's independent, tenacious, and on-guard, but knows she can hold her own. This and the fact that she doesn't spook easily are pretty much cemented when she is assigned to a particularly creepy project. She is assigned to interview former psychologist and cannibalistic killer, Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) to try to get into the mind of an on-the-loose killer known as "Buffalo Bill" (Ted Levine). Bill has been going around, abducting young women, and cutting the skin off their bodies. Much like Leatherface of 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', he is also based on real-life serial killer Ed Gein. Anyway, FBI Special Agent Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) believes that Lecter will be able to divulge information about Bill that will help the FBI track him down and capture him. The catch to these interviews is that Lecter often ends up playing mind games with Clarice, having her divulge some of her personal life information in exchange for information that may lead to Bill. This makes for some of the more intense moments of the film, and it's easy to see in both Hopkins and Fosters cases why the won those acting awards. Hopkins showed an incredibly dark but sophisticated side, pretty much forever turning Hopkins into Hannibal the same way Robert Downey Jr. is basically just Iron Man now by default. Foster on the other hand gave horror/thriller fans another strong female protagonist, strong for her mind and determination more than anything else. Foster's character was somewhat refreshing in that sense. My humble opinion is that she's probably the best female protagonist since 'Alien' (but that's perfectly debatable). Even by today's standards, one can't really deny that she's well-established in the hall of fame for best female protagonists. This is one of those movies that I would recommend to anyone who's a fan of horror, thrillers and intense murder mysteries, as this is a sort of crown jewel. Horror fans see it as being an immense leap forward, and Hannibal Lecter is widely considered one of the best villains out there, let alone horror villains. On the other hand, if you're a fan of crime thrillers, and looking for something a little more intense, this is a great watch. Even if you know all that happens without seeing it, you should still give it a look, because there's more than just good story and acting here. The film was further nominated for Best Sound and Film Editing, and it really shows. But it could easily further qualify for categories like Original Score with its ominous overtones; Cinematography, as the overall atmosphere of this film is so genuinely dark and creepy; Production Design based on the asylum scenes alone. This really is a gem of a film overall, and it lends itself to multiple viewings based more on its entertainment value than the idea of looking for clues. If you haven't checked it out yet, give it a shot. Just be weary that some of the asylum scenes can be a little intense if you're sensitive. ![]() It's unfortunate that this movie has had its ending spoiled to the point of it not being a spoiler anymore. Pretty much everyone knows how it ends by now. Some may have seen it coming (or so they say), but luckily for myself, I was one of many who was kinda blown away, and definitely had to re-watch it. The first time around was a great ride that left you questioning the mistakes the movie must have made. The second time is almost better, though, as you realize the writing is pretty damn tight. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) is a child psychologist who, through a bad experience with one of his patients, finds himself wanting to do right by helping a troubled boy, Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment). In a side story, Malcolm also gets so caught up in his work that he starts to have trouble with his wife, Anna (Olivia Williams), who seems overlooked. Cole lives his life in fear, both of the bullies at school, and of his deep dark secret; he sees dead people. He keeps this from everyone, including his mother (Toni Collette), leading the kids at school to dub him a "freak", and his mother to genuinely worry about him. But being that his secret seems so outlandish, he keeps it to himself, confiding in Dr. Crowe to help him through his fears and find some sort of solution. Going back to the watchability of it, a lot of people will probably pass this off as something you see two or three times to pick up on things that lead to the twist, but then put it down because it just doesn't have that impact anymore. However, I still deem this perfectly watchable for multiple sittings, as the film represents so much more than one of Hollywood's greatest movie twists of all time. Potential spoilers ahead, but as I mentioned before... can this even be spoiled anymore, today? If you look at Cole's situation, his big lesson is that he eventually has to face his fears, whether he wants to or not. These ghosts can really represent anything the viewer may fear, but must face. It could be a surgery you have to go through, a place you have to move to for work, or a final test you have to take to graduate. I find this movie to mostly be about facing your fears head on, and it's no coincidence that I really started to take to horror movies right after watching this. On the other side of things, you have Dr. Crowe. My big takeaway from his side of things is also pretty simple, and that's to do what you need to do before you pass on. Part of that lies in helping Cole, allowing him to forgive himself for failing his previous patient (the same one he had trouble with at the beginning of this review). But part of it is also to do with his wife, and just getting that time in with your spouse while you can. So, even though this one is 20 years old now, and everyone knows how it ends, it still ends up going on my list of film recommendations as a lot of the writing cleverly brings out other aspects of the world around us, and how we deal with it as individuals. This film is absolutely Shyamalan at his best, so if you wanna check out any of his movies, this is like the 'Empire Strikes Back' of his collection - complete with spoiler you probably already know going into it. ![]() For our first title of suspense, I thought I'd take a look back to one of my first little toe-dips in the macabre. I rented this one with a friend when I was around the age of 13, once it was released on video. At this point in my life, a lot disturbed me, but for some reason I really wanted to see this movie. I did NOT do horror back then, but for me, this just kinda teetered on what I considered horrific. 'Seven' actually marks a pretty big jump in personal growth for me, as the first film I wanted to see, knowing that I might get freaked out by it. I did watch 'Freddy's Dead' a few years prior, but the choice to watch that was based on peer pressure. This had the premise of using the Seven Deadly Sins in its plot, which morbidly interested me. It made me finally want to take a peek behind the veil of morbid curiosity. This one features two homicide detectives; Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is on the edge of retirement, and Mills (Brad Pitt) who strangely transfers to the film's setting - a dark, bleak, unnamed city that is a perfect reflection of the dark subject matter of the film. Together, they work on tracking down a serial killer who only goes by John Doe (Kevin Spacey) whose M.O. is to use the Seven Deadly Sins against his victims. One by one, Doe's victims are tortured and killed in some truly gruesome and memorable ways. The kills are done off-screen, and all we really see is a variety of silhouettes and shadows, pretty much always faceless. Yet the memory of what you don't see, and how horrible it must actually look, really sticks with you. It's something I'd use as a prime example of less being more. The Sloth victim was a touch of nightmare fuel at the time, and we get to see a lot of him... but he's still kinda faceless. Maybe I'm reading too deeply into it, but I find keeping the victims faceless lends itself to allowing the audience to take a look at themselves. Could they have been one of John Doe's victims in this situation? It's very impressive film making from director David Fincher, who we now probably know best for 'The Social Network' and 'Fight Club'. Fincher excels in the gritty, and this film is absolutely no exception. It's the kind of film I'd say you might feel like you need a shower after watching. In some ways, this is a lot like the 'Saw' movies, but without the torture porn aspect. Instead of seeing the torture, we imagine the torture - again, so much more potent. A lot of themes are similar as well, having to do with self-reflection. If you're watching this, knowing nothing about it, it'll probably make you think. Fair warning though, the ending is not a happy one! |
Categories
All
Archives
September 2022
|