Shutter Island - Scorsese takes a new direction.

I guess saying that Shutter Island is a new direction for Martin Scorsese isn’t entirely true. He’s ventured into creepy territory before with 1991’s Cape Fear starring Robert De Niro, but that movie didn’t leave much of an impression on me. In fact, I didn’t really like that movie much at all. I’m happy to report that Shutter Island, while not Scorsese at his best, is a really excellent film. If you’re a fan of psychological thrillers starring excellent casts in wonderfully creepy settings, then this is a movie you shouldn’t miss.

Let me be honest about a few things right up front. Coming into last night’s viewing I wasn’t too excited about this film. The previews have been around since something like last August, and I know for a fact that the release date was pushed back numerous times. (I think it was initially supposed to release in September or October?!) The fact that it’s been pushed back so long, coupled with the reality of it being released in February, a month not much better than January when it comes to Hollywood releases, I was pretty certain that the studio was taking a “Better to release it late than never.” standpoint. This mentality had me feeling indifferent about it to say the least. I’m happy to report that my concerns were completely unfounded. Scorsese has crafted a complex, atmospheric, nerve shredding piece of work that grabs the viewer by the throat from the opening shot and doesn’t really let go until long after you leave the theatre. Is it 100% successful? No, it isn’t, but what movie is?

Maybe the thing that comes through the most in the film is a sense of confidence. We all know that Scorsese is a great director. With classics like Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Taxi Driver, and his more recent work The Departed no one is going to tell me that the man doesn’t know how to put a good film together. He’s a supremely capable man, good at framing shots, working with complex scripts, and weaving a lot of different narratives together while keeping everything compelling and moving forward. It’s his confidence that shines through in every scene. He knows what he’s doing, how to take the viewer through the story, and how to bring them to the dénouement, all the while playing his cards close to the vest.

Unlike the recent The Wolfman and some other “scary” movies of late, Shutter Island is good at the slow burn, constantly keeping the audience on edge in just about every single scene. It’s not a “horror” movie per se (it resides squarely in the “psychological thriller” genre) but it can definitely get you to jump out of your seat when it wants to. Taking place on an isolated island populated by the mentally insane, most with violent criminal pasts, I suppose it’s not surprising that it can make you jump at points. But the sheer sense of discomfort one experiences from start to finish is accomplished in a myriad of ways, not just through cheap scares, but in genuinely unpleasant sights, sounds, situations. Some of the “waking nightmares” are truly frightening but, strangely enough, eerily beautiful. I know that sounds contradictory, but it’s the truth. Without delving into spoilers, let me just say that the visuals that Scorsese puts together manage a delicate balance of horror and beauty that have rarely been seen in films I’m aware of, and might be reason enough for me to buy this when it hits the Blu Ray rack at my local Best Buy.

Performances? Anyone out there who’s going to try and claim that Lenoardo DiCaprio is “just another pretty face” couldn’t be more wrong. He is, without a doubt, one of the most talented actors of his generation, and I look forward to seeing where the rest of his career takes him. With films like What’s Eating Gilber Grape, Catch Me If You Can, and The Departed in his past you can’t argue with the guy’s talent. He’s strong here throughout, and particularly shines in the final chapters of the movie. He’s a man at the very end of a completely frayed rope and one can’t help but feel for him. The rest of the cast is solid with memorable work turned in by Sir Ben Kingsley, Max Von Sydow, and Patricia Clarkson. Mark Ruffalo, cast as DiCaprio’s newly assigned partner, turns in a solid sidekick performance.

The story is a labyrinthine maze, and seemingly becomes more and more complex with each new turn that DiCaprio’s tough guy veteran deputy marshall, and Ruffalo’s recent west-coast transplant uncover. The movie runs about 2:20, so it’s a bit longer than standard popcorn fare at your local cineplex, but it’s exquisitely timed in terms of pacing, with each scene building on the previous effortlessly.

My one gripe with the film, which both of my friends echoed as we walked out, is with the soundtrack. The atonal nature of it, while eerie, doesn’t seem to gibe with with the film on the whole. For a film set in the 1950’s it seems a bit heavy handed, and a bit out of place. However, it’s a minor complaint and easily overlooked given the rest of the film’s success.

A couple other quick thoughts before I end. This movie is one reason that I’m glad I check out sites like Rotten Tomatoes and look at reviews ahead of time. I might have skipped this one altogether had I not been following it on Rotten Tomatoes where it’s getting pretty decent reviews all around. Many complain that my penchant for reading reviews prior to seeing movies means that I don’t see some movies that look like they should be good, and that may well be true, but it’s the good word of mouth, and positive reviews that I read ahead of time that sold me on seeing this film once and for all and I’m thankful for that. I would have regretted not seeing this when I had the chance. Also, and I’d love for anyone to chime in on this, I know that the film is based on a Dennis Lehane novel and I hear that it’s a pretty faithful adaptation, but I couldn’t help but feel like I was almost watching a play in a couple of scenes. I wonder if this is a piece that could somehow make it into a stage adaptation....?

It’s not Scorsese at his best, look to Taxi Driver or Goodfellas for that, but it’s definitely Scorsese in fine form. And that should be reason enough for you to see it. It won’t be for everyone, but if you like creepy, or the previews have even remotely piqued your interest, then get out and see it while you can. You won’t regret it.

Check out my good friend Andrew’s thoughts here for a second opinion.

The Wolfman...now with 50% more boring!

I suppose I could end my review right there. Just tell you not to see this poorly written, aimlessly directed, plot-hole ridden, waste of talent, and you’d ultimately get the message. It’s a bad movie. Not the worst I’ve ever seen, not by a long shot (that honor goes to Naked Lunch, and I’d probably include 2009’s The Box at this point.) But it’s really quite...quite bad.

I’m going to try to write this up without spoilers, but let it be known that I will discuss aspects of the movie in general, some of which will be tied to plot, so stop reading now if you don’t want this crap-fest ruined in advance.

From the moment I saw the first preview for this new reboot of the Lon Chaney classic I was excited to get to a theatre and check it out. The previews indicated a great sense of art-direction with a really atmospheric movie, the effects looked to be awesome (the scene with Del Toro strapped to the chair while morphing into the Wolfman in particular stood out), and I thought the rest of the cast looked really strong. I mean, come on, it’s Sir Anthony Hopkins right?? How can you go wrong?! Damn you previews, and damn the marketing teams that come up with previews this enticing for movies this lame.

I’d read some of the reviews floating around the interwebs so I knew going into it that it wasn’t going to be great, but I hadn’t been adequately prepared for just how lame it was ultimately going to end up being.

First the good, the movie does look really great. It’s really atmospheric and dark, almost mono-chromatic with saturate grays, blues, blacks, browns. The settings are all fun to look at, and there’s some good period costume work going on as well I suppose, though it’s nothing too stellar. As for the next good.....well.....um.....yeah, that’s about all I got actually. How disappointing is that?

Let’s talk plot. You already know that Benicio del Toro is the Wolfman so nothing is spoiled there. But the plot surrounding how he becomes the Wolfman, his apparent history of mental illness, and all of the rest of the events of the film are a complete and utter mess. Nothing is really explained, characters that are somewhat pivotal (Hugo Weaving - Mr. Smith from the Matrix trilogy) are given a cursory shading of background information, and apparently crucial historical events are handled through incoherent flashbacks that barely tie together in any discernible way that makes sense. Imagine taking a decent book, throwing it into a blender, hitting puree for 2 minutes, and then pulling out the pieces and taping about 1/3 of them back together. Yeah, that’s the plot.

Performances? Well I’m a fan of basically everyone in the cast so I figured they’d redeem the film on some level. They come from a good body of work. Sir Anthony Hopkins, Benicio del Toro, and Hugo Weaving all come from a strong body of work with some excellent character work in their past. As my friend Andrew said, “Maybe it was a directorial choice to have every performer think about doing their laundry, or what they were going to have for lunch, while reciting their lines.” I don’t think I can put it any better. Not a single person in this film seems remotely interested in telling the story that’s being told. They all just seem.....bored.

Pacing is the final huge issue (I’ll give the cheesy dialog a pass for this review.) The whole movie has the tempo of a runaway freight train. It’s hard to understand how something that’s moving so ridiculously fast from one plot point to the next, from one setting to the next, can be so bland. Apparently, in England, they don’t have full moons like you and I do, on some sort of regular lunar cycle, instead they have a full moon every 2 or 3 days. You could see how that would be problematic when a Werewolf is on the prowl, right? Also, some people apparently can only walk across the full length of the English countryside as conventional means of travel (horse, train) are unavailable to them, while others can hop a train no problem. The weird thing about this? The person walking and the person on the train arrive at the same location at the exact same time!!! Explanation? Someone? Anyone?

Ok, I’m almost done. One last thing, and yes, this is a definite spoiler, so quit now if you don’t want the final 20 minutes of the film ruined. (The final 20 minutes that my friend Andrew and I simply spent laughing out loud while pointing at the screen.)

SPOILER BELOW!!!

The movie went from just lame to outright bad when, in what would be the final fight, Werewolf Anthony Hopkins jumps back from the wounded Werewolf Benicio del Toro in a fit of rage and...you guessed it...rips off his shirt Hulk Hogan style revealing his old, grey werewolf fur before getting his ass handed to him by his young pup of a son Benicio. Yeah, that did it.

All I could think about was what that day of filming must have been like on set.

“Yes Sir anthony, I know you’re a legendary actor, and that you’ve been in some amazing movies, and are immortalized as Hannibal Lecter forever. Now, would you mind putting on this old man werewolf suit and tearing your shirt off for us, please?”

Ugh. Skip it.

Daybreakers...um....breaks the mold.

Long story short, it’s a really solid movie that actually asks the viewer to come along for the ride. Good performances and an interesting story dynamic make it one to see. The plot is a little bit uneven at points, and the cinematography gets a little bit hokey (as are almost all of Willem Defoe’s lines, but hey, he’s Willem Defoe so who cares?!) but all around it’s an interesting entry into vampire lore. Reminded me, at a couple of small points of Gattaca (getting by as a flawed individual in a basically perfect world) and The Matrix (people as a source of power/food.) What’s funny is that it almost feels more like a vampire drama than it does a horror movie. Part of me wonders what the first draft of the script looked like and how many actual scary or action scenes were in it. I had the sense that the studio might have looked at the Spierig Brothers at one point and said, “We need you to throw in a couple more fight/action sequences so that the previews will be a bit more enticing and we can get butts into the theaters.” Kind of a shame honestly, some of those scenes feel a little bit tacked on and don’t quite flow with the narrative being told. Not a huge loss though. Sam Neill is really good as the corporate villain and I always enjoy Ethan Hawke, though he isn’t much different here from his character in Training Day or Gattaca. Get out and see it.

If you’ve got interest in seeing it with a completely blank slate, and no idea what the plot is about then you should stop reading now. It’s going to be impossible for me to talk about this movie without giving away the basic premise of the plot.

For those of you who don’t mind knowing what the plot of the movie deals with, read on!

SPOILERS AHEAD

I liked Daybreakers. I mean, I really liked Daybreakers. Is it a “great” movie? No, it isn’t. Will it be on anyone’s Top Ten lists at the end of 2010? Probably not. But the movie packs a heck of a punch on a lot of different levels, and I think that it deserves a little bit of recognition for that.

The set up of the movie is this: It’s 2019 and a vampire epidemic that broke out in 2009 has led to an Earth that is ruled by vampires where humans are hunted down as a food source and “farmed” for blood. You know how we keep thousands of chickens at farms where their sole purpose is to make eggs and eventually be turned into our dinners? Yeah, now replace the chickens with people, and the farmer with a vampire. Get the picture? Look at the picture up there, those are all humans, now imagine that the picture is actually a window that you’re looking through and guess what? You’re the vampire.

What’s so interesting about this movie is the vampire dynamic it establishes. The vampires presented here are just like you and me. They have jobs, they go to work, read the paper, watch the nightly news (with vampire newsmen and women), and they get their daily coffee fix at the local Starbuck’s (complete with a couple spoonfuls of blood.) Now, that’s not to say that the traditional “vampire” rules don’t still apply to them. We all know vampires can be killed by exposure to sunlight, so what we have here is an entire movie that exists more or less in the dead of night. Everyone goes to work at 8pm and gets off at 5am, before the public service announcements pumped through the city on loud speakers tell us that sunrise is an hour away, so that we can get home to our completely shuttered suburban home where we’d make dinner before catching some sleep for the day.

What the movie presents so well, and is so fresh to see, is this dynamic fleshed out from top to bottom. Every car is retrofitted with shutters so that, if you find yourself driving during the day, you’ll be protected and can still see the road through the use of a roof mounted 360º camera feed to the interior monitors in your car. Cities have put in “subwalks” or tunnel systems in place of sidewalks, allowing for passage between buildings and streets during the day if needs be. Every single element of dark/light is handled with complete care and utter faith, and it’s really interesting to see how those relationships play out as the movie develops. Imagine you’re a human being and the only place you might find to safely meet other surviving humans is in the middle of a wide open field at high noon with a sky full of sunlight. Weird, right?

What about the other vampire truths? Let’s say you’re married and have a couple of kids before the epidemic. Now let’s say that you and your husband/wife are infected but you’re kids aren’t. What do you do? Do you go through the unpleasant business of “turning” your kids? Knowing that the alternative is that they will be hunted and farmed? What will your kids think of the idea? Vampires are immortal, but they never age. So would your kids want to stay 8 and 10 forever? Aging while stuck in a child’s body?

Then there’s the blood. That’s the hitch in the whole thing. Humans are basically a finite resource as they’re being farmed and, in this world, the supply is quickly running out. Without blood vampires die, but before they die, this movie posits that they devolve into the more typical winged, bald, grotesque, malformed, bat-like creatures seen in tons of other vampire flicks. They lose the power of speech, their appearance degenerates, and their only purpose is to scavenge for blood. With supplies running out the population of these devolved creatures begins to skyrocket. And suddenly the movie adds another layer of commentary as the still normal, healthy vampires are forced to begin mass exterminating these creatures by rounding them up with military death squads and dragging them out into...you guessed it...broad daylight. What if you’re a parent who can’t feed their children? What then? Watch them burn? Or find food any way you can?

Lastly there is the question of corporate greed in this new world. As if vampires weren’t enough to deal with, the mega corporations are still around. Let’s just try on the idea that Exxon, Shell, BP, and Wal-Mart have gotten into the “people farming” business. And as blood supplies decrease the demand soars, which means more money in the pockets of the guys at the top. Now, why would these companies ever want to find a “cure” for this disease of vampirism? Wouldn’t it serve to keep the population hooked on blood? Or something similar?

Moreover, why would any vampire want to find a cure? I mean, you’re never going to get sick, you’re never going to die, you have almost otherworldly strength, and you’ve learned to enjoy the dark. It’s ultimately not so bad, as long as there is blood to sustain you.....

I realize, after writing this, that I talk too much, and will work on shortening these up in the future. Thanks for your patience. Leave a comment!

Let's talk about Avatar, and 3d...

It’s simple for me to say that you’ve never, in your life, seen anything like James Cameron’s return

to cineplexes with his newest film Avatar. The truth of the matter is that I’m probably too close to the film at the moment to have a proper perspective on what I saw in order to write up a decent review. But I want to write a bit about it while it’s still fresh in my mind, so bear with me, and I reserve the right to recant some of my thoughts later if I change my mind. There are some generalized spoilers below, but I won’t go into specifics, and I will label them so you know when they’re coming. Cool?

First things first, the movie is an absolute wonder to behold from a visual spectacle standpoint. All of the hype that this film is getting for being revolutionary, changing the way we will see movies in the years to come, amazing CGI, and everything else, is well deserved. Cameron has put together a feast for the eyes that is second to none. It’s like the best Thanksgiving dinner you can remember, the most amazing Christmas of your life, and the most insane Times Square New Year’s Eve, all for your eyeballs. Seriously, the old cliche of wanting a cigarette after spending some special time with that special someone? I felt like, if my eyeballs could smoke, I would have run to the nearest 7-11 and bought a pack for each of them after I walked out of the theatre.

The magic of his world of Pandora is in the exquisite detail down to the smallest of minutiae. Yes, we’ve seen good CGI before in films like King Kong or The Lord of The Rings, and numerous other big budget flicks of late. But none of them have come close to this level of detail. Every single thing in this universe is painstakingly realized, and given extreme care. From the biggest of creatures, to the smallest of plant life, it’s all a treat to look at. The more amazing feat, is that I didn’t find myself thinking “Oh, that’s CGI. And so is that. And yep, that is too.” It all looks incredibly believable. And the giant blue people from the previews? Yeah, they’re the main characters more or less, and to see crowds of them running, fighting, interacting with one another and the actual human actors is pretty amazing. They have pores, fingerprints, wisps of hair coming separated from their dreadlocks, facepaint that rubs off, and they’re all individually distinct from each other. The motion capture of the actors is really excellent, if you thought Gollum was good in LotR, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

It’s like the entire production team sat in a room and James Cameron said, “I want to make as many cool animals, amazing plants, ridiculously slick robots and spaceships, planets, action scenes, fight scenes, and things blowing up scenes as possible and I want to put them all in a single flick, I want to include people, and I want to make sure that no one in the audience can tell where the real people stop and the computer graphics take over.” I can’t even fathom how much time was spent in post production putting the finishing touches onto every single frame of film. It must have been absolutely exhausting, and I can see why it’s reported to be the most expensive film in Hollywood’s history.

If you’re going to see it, I can’t stress enough that you should see it on an IMAX, and you should see it in 3D. Really. That’s the way the movie was meant to be seen, so do yourself a favor and throw down the extra few bucks to see it properly.

But.... You knew there was going to be a “But” didn’t you?

Minor, vague, non-specific spoilers ahead....

It’s the plot/story that I’m really stuck on. For my money, the plot is where the movie struggles. There are some really amazing action sequences, reminiscent of some of the classic action of Cameron’s earlier works like Aliens, Terminator 2, and True Lies. But around the big action scenes are a lot of big chunks of not terribly interesting story/plot scenes. The movie runs 2:40 long, and the last 40 is one big, long, ridiculously fun action set piece, But the plot is kind of a plodding, uneven, lumbering, all over the place....bore. I’m not sure why that is honestly. I don’t know if it’s trying to do too much, with too many threads of story, so that it doesn’t ever really hone in on one thing specifically. I just don’t know. It’s an amalgam of some Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Star Wars, and Romeo and Juliet(?). Then sprinkle in a morality discussion about human and corporate greed, sidelong commentary on the plight of the Native American’s(?), more allusions to the “West’s” need for oil and it’s relentless determination to have it by any means necessary, and you’re getting a rough picture of what the story is all about. Does it sound complicated to you?

The complexity of the plot and the fact that the majority of the movie is spent with the giant blue natives, don’t really help one relate to anything that’s going on on-screen. Yes, you’re sorry for the events that are going on at points, and yes, you even find yourself caring for the (completely CGI) natives...at points, but those points are few and far between. And I think the fact that I just didn’t really feel like I connected with anyone/anything in the movie, is my biggest issue. The spectacle is all really great, but if I don’t care about what’s going on or the people involved in it then, ultimately, the movie isn’t a success. It’s actually easy for me to relate this to the field that I work in currently. Yes, you can put a fantastically elaborate, decadent, well designed, and aesthetically pleasing opera on stage, but if the story is weak or not terribly compelling, then what are you left with? You’re left with saying, “It sure did look pretty.”

Is it a movie worth seeing? Yes. Especially if you can see it on a huge screen, and in 3D. I don’t really know that I would have been quite as impressed if I’d seen it in regular 2D. I’m just not quite that sold on the story, or at least the way the story is told. I’d love to hear some other thoughts...

AND WHAT ABOUT 3D?

Ok, I’m almost done, as I know this has gone on too long. A couple last thoughts....

If you didn’t know it already, the first 3D televisions are set to start hitting the markets at the end of 2010 or so, and are expected to ring in at a cost of somewhere above $3500 a piece. As I’m an avid gamer I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t at least a little interested in this new technology coming into the home. Sony has already stated that 3D games will be a major part of their Playstation gameplan in the years to come. So that’s cool. And watching Avatar today, and the onslaught of 3D movies around the corner, I can definitely appreciate the technology and the opportunities it gives filmmakers. And for video games, well the more “in the game” you can feel, the better.

But I have to wonder if it’s absolutely necessary that we switch all future movies to 3D? Is it really necessary? Sure it’s great for action, sci fi, animated, and horror flicks. But is it really necessary for dramas like the recent Precious? Or The Blind Side? What is gained by the 3D in these scenarios? What about classics? Do we need a Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane in 3D?

In bringing the technology home I can certainly see the appeal for gaming, or the aforementioned genres of films, and I’ve got to think that the Super Bowl or the NBA Finals would be awesome to watch in 3D from the comfort of your living room. But do I need to watch Friends or The Office in 3D? I don't know. Thoughts?

Thoughts on the Wild Things....

Just got out of seeing Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are" a movie that I've been looking forward to for at least 6 months, if not longer. I'm choosing to write this here as all of my thoughts wouldn't really fit into a regular status update.

It's a fascinating movie, that's probably the best way to describe my feelings on what Jonez has accomplished. I remember loving the book as a kid, but now that I'm 25+ years removed from it I can't say that I remember exactly what the book was about. I remember the framework, but not the actual details.

The movie isn't for kids, not even remotely. It's a disservice what marketing and previews are doing to a lot of movies out there these days, though I understand why they do it. It's easy to put a bunch of big monsters all partying and having a good time into some quick clips and release it as a preview because that way they know they are pandering to the little ones out there and uninformed parents will drop the cash to take the kids and see it, not knowing what they are getting themselves into. You need to be removed from your childhood to really understand what this movie is trying to convey, what it's trying to get across.

It's a contemplative movie, it reflects on what childhood is in so many nuanced and subtle ways. What it's like to look at your parents or older siblings when you're 9 years old and not understand why they do the things they do, and why they don't pay attention to you the way you feel they should. It looks at all of the emotions that you have inside of you when you're that age, and how you don't know what to do with them all the time. Sometimes you just need to yell and growl don't you?

And don't all of us, even now, just want to feel love and closeness with others? And at age 9 isn't it the thing we want most of all? We don't care about the best car, the newest computer, the coolest gadget, the better job, the car loan, the house payment, getting laid off at that age. We care about having a good time, about make-believe places and make-believe things. And how all of those places and things are so much better than real life

because they really "get" us, what we're about, what our potential is. We can be kings simply because we say we are, we get to wear the crown and make the rules because we say so. And if the best way to fix something is by dog-piling your friends, or building a fort, then so be it.

It's a big movie, a thought provoking movie.

It looks gorgeous, the voice acting is impeccable, has a great soundtrack, and Max Records, the kid who plays Max in the film, is a real find.

I wish Spike Jonze would do more work, he's an incredibly talented director.

In short, the film is really a bed time story brought to life. A story you might tell your kid, or your kid might tell you, totally off the cuff, with all the twists and turns that those magical stories entail.