Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island

[Watashi]

Max von Sydow, Emily Mortimer and Jackie Earle Haley have joined the cast of Martin Scorsese's mystery drama Shutter Island for Paramount, says The Hollywood Reporter.

The three join Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams and Patricia Clarkson in the film, which was adapted by Laeta Kalogridis from Dennis Lehane's 2004 novel.

The story revolves around two U.S. marshals (DiCaprio and Ruffalo) who travel to a Massachusetts island to investigate the disappearance of a patient from a hospital for the criminally insane. Chaos ensues for the two as they encounter a web of deceit, a hurricane and a deadly inmate riot that leaves them trapped on the island.

Von Sydow will play one of the hospital's physicians, while Mortimer will play Rachel, an escaped hospital patient. Haley will play an inmate.

Leonardo DiCaprio
Mark Ruffalo
Ben Kingsley
Michelle Williams
Patricia Clarkson
Max Von Sydow
Emily Mortimer
Jackie Earle Haley

Yeah, try and top that cast.

You can't.

[Wryan]

Leonardo DiCaprio
Mark Ruffalo
Ben Kingsley
Michelle Williams
Patricia Clarkson
Max Von Sydow
Emily Mortimer
Jackie Earle Haley

Yeah, try and top that cast.

You can't.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World easily trumps that.......nah fuck it. Can't be done.

[Ezee E]

Can't wait obviously.

[ledfloyd]

I hated hated hated the end of this book. It made me angry cause I had loved everything up until that point. I'll definitely see the film but I'm hoping Scorsese can at the least add a little more finesse to the ending.

[Kurosawa Fan]

From the two adaptations I've seen, I don't think I'd like Lehane. I haven't really cared much for the films, and unless they've been altered pretty severely, the story has always been part of the problem.

[Grouchy]

It's funny. I like all the movies Scorsese has done with Di Caprio, but I'm getting the feeling he needs to cast another fucking actor for leading roles. Even back in the De Niro days he did films without him every once in a while.

[Velocipedist]

Any movie with Patricia Clarkson... you know the deal.

[MadMan]

I'm pretty much sold at this point. That cast=:eek:

[ledfloyd]

It's funny. I like all de movies Scorsese has done with Di Caprio, but I'm getting the feeling he needs to cast another fucking actor for leading roles. Even back in the De Niro days he did films without him every once in a while.
eh, he did 4 in a row with de niro at one point. which is where he's at with leo. maybe the next film he'll change it up. yeah, i don't believe that either.

[Morris Schæffer]

Di Caprio's ok. He appears incredibly committed in everything I've seen him in, but that baby-face is hard to ignore. While not so much of an issue in The Departed, it became a minor problem in The Aviator. A fake tache can only go so far to suggest maturity and I had the impression Di Caprio was trying almost too hard to hide his smooth-as-a-baby-bottom visage. Nonetheless, I'd be exagerating mucho if I called it an unremarkable performance.

[DavidSeven]

eh, he did 4 in a row with de niro at one point. which is where he's at with leo. maybe the next film he'll change it up. yeah, i don't believe that either.

Leo hasn't exhibited the range that De Niro did as Bickle, La Motta, and Pupkin though. I feel like I'm watching three different people in those roles. Leo is always Leo. I don't think anyone would be complaining if Scorsese was making four straight films with Daniel Day Lewis. Leo just doesn't seem to have the artistic versatility to keep this from getting old.

[Ezee E]

The amount that DiCaprio has improved from Gangs to Departed makes me know that everything will be just fine. Neither of these characters are "Travis Bickle" in scope, but that's near impossible to accomplish anyways.

And KF, did you know Lehane wrote last night's Wire episode? Not that he has too much to say since it's the Producers in charge, but he still has some influence on the structure.

[Kurosawa Fan]

And KF, did you know Lehane wrote last night's Wire episode? Not that he has too much to say since it's the Producers in charge, but he still has some influence on the structure.

Yep, I'm aware. That's why I said his stories and not his writing. The story for The Wire is already in place. My guess is he gives input and writes dialogue, but it's the stories of his novels, or at least their adaptations, that I have a problem with. David Simon is responsible for the ongoing story for The Wire.

[Wryan]

Leo is always Leo.

Except in

http://www.bravotv.com/blog/thedish/_blogImages/2007/01/leo_photo01_320x240.jpg

I like Dicaprio a lot. And DeNiro was "a different person" in Rocky and Bullwinkle, too, but...uh...

[MadMan]

At this point I'm actually a big fan of Leo's work and I consider him one of the best of the "younger" generation of actors.

That said if Marty chooses to make a bunch of movies with DDL instead I'm all down for that ;)

[Ezee E]

There was a rumor, and this is before TWBB and No Country, that the movie Scorsese was working on was going to have Daniel Day-Lewis, Javier Bardem, and someone else in a story that sounded awfully like The Last Samurai. It was called Silence I think.

[ledfloyd]

There was a rumor, and this is before TWBB and No Country, that the movie Scorsese was working on was going to have Daniel Day-Lewis, Javier Bardem, and someone else in a story that sounded awfully like The Last Samurai. It was called Silence I think.
he's still attatched to that, but last i heard it was leo and bardem.

it's based on the novel silence by shusaku endo.

[Grouchy]

Leo hasn't exhibited the range that De Niro did as Bickle, La Motta, and Pupkin though. I feel like I'm watching three different people in those roles. Leo is always Leo. I don't think anyone would be complaining if Scorsese was making four straight films with Daniel Day Lewis. Leo just doesn't seem to have the artistic versatility to keep this from getting old.
Actually, I disagree with that, I think he's becoming a great actor and on each role he does you can notice the improvement. However, you have a point in that it doesn't seem like you can get tired of Bobby De Niro.

I blame it on the face. De Niro can change more because his face is more common. Leo's eyebrows and head shape make it hard for him to achieve that chamaleon effect.

[Velocipedist]

Leonardo DiCaprio
Mark Ruffalo
Ben Kingsley
Michelle Williams
Patricia Clarkson
Max Von Sydow
Emily Mortimer
Jackie Earle Haley

Yeah, try and top that cast.

You can't.

Okay, it's definitely not better, and you can't top Sydow + Kingsley, but worthy of attention nonetheless:

Synecdoche, New York:

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Michelle Williams
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Emily Watson
Catherine Keener
Hope Davis
Samantha Morton
Dianne Wiest

You have Hoffman, who is ace. Then Williams, which is an overlap. And I don't care much for Leigh and Davis, but WHA - Keener, Morton, Wiest and Watson in the same movie? *dead*

[Ezee E]

Ridley Scott's new movie has a pretty awesome cast as well.

Leo, Bale, Cotillard, and our boy Channing Tatum. There's a lot more I think.

[DavidSeven]

Synecdoche, New York:

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Michelle Williams
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Emily Watson
Catherine Keener
Hope Davis
Samantha Morton
Dianne Wiest

Win.

[MadMan]

Okay, it's definitely not better, and you can't top Sydow + Kingsley, but worthy of attention nonetheless:

Synecdoche, New York:

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Michelle Williams
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Emily Watson
Catherine Keener
Hope Davis
Samantha Morton
Dianne Wiest

You have Hoffman, who is ace. Then Williams, which is an overlap. And I don't care much for Leigh and Davis, but WHA - Keener, Morton, Wiest and Watson in the same movie? *dead*Damn. That cast is pretty equal to Marty's film. I wonder what the film is about. Ah screw it that's not important with that many good actresses on screen.

[Sycophant]

Okay, it's definitely not better, and you can't top Sydow + Kingsley, but worthy of attention nonetheless:

Synecdoche, New York:

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Michelle Williams
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Emily Watson
Catherine Keener
Hope Davis
Samantha Morton
Dianne Wiest

You have Hoffman, who is ace. Then Williams, which is an overlap. And I don't care much for Leigh and Davis, but WHA - Keener, Morton, Wiest and Watson in the same movie? *dead*
I keep forgetting this movie's happening and I had no idea the cast was this stacked. Add to that that it's Kafuman's directorial debut from his own script and this is pretty much easily my most anticipated 2008 film.

[Velocipedist]

I wonder what the film is about.

There is a pretty detailed synopsis on imdb and the script has been circulating around, if you want to get spoiled.

[ledfloyd]

Ridley Scott's new movie has a pretty awesome cast as well.

Leo, Bale, Cotillard, and our boy Channing Tatum. There's a lot more I think.

the only problem is that it's a ridley scott movie.

[Benny Profane]

Okay, it's definitely not better, and you can't top Sydow + Kingsley, but worthy of attention nonetheless:

Synecdoche, New York:

Philip Seymour Hoffman
Michelle Williams
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Emily Watson
Catherine Keener
Hope Davis
Samantha Morton
Dianne Wiest

You have Hoffman, who is ace. Then Williams, which is an overlap. And I don't care much for Leigh and Davis, but WHA - Keener, Morton, Wiest and Watson in the same movie? *dead*

Lots of females. A star-studded chick flick at first glance.

Watson and Morton together in the same movie though. That's pretty awesome.

And back on topic, Leo is a great actor. I don't care what anyone says.

[Qrazy]

This thread has made me realize the degree of my chauvinism. I recognize nearly all the male names but most of the female names barely register.

[Wryan]

This thread has made me realize the degree of my chauvinism.

Mission accomplished.

[transmogrifier]

I keep forgetting this movie's happening and I had no idea the cast was this stacked. Add to that that it's Kafuman's directorial debut from his own script and this is pretty much easily my most anticipated 2008 film.

Button. Benjamin Button.

[Velocipedist]

Button. Benjamin Button.

Blanchett <> Swinton?

Definitely!

[MadMan]

There is a pretty detailed synopsis on imdb and the script has been circulating around, if you want to get spoiled.I'm just a lazy bugger. But yes I'll go see what its all about.

[Raiders]

And I don't care much for Leigh and Davis, but WHA - Keener, Morton, Wiest and Watson in the same movie? *dead*

I'll take Leigh over any of those four. But as a whole, that cast is magnificent.

[/defiant to sycophant's new thread]

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, Jennifer Jason Leigh is quite awesome.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah, Jennifer Jason Leigh is quite awesome.

Yeah but why'd she do it with Demone?

[Sycophant]

I'll take Leigh over any of those four. But as a whole, that cast is magnificent.

[/defiant to sycophant's new thread]*shakes fist*

[MadMan]

*shakes fist*I made post in it. 'Tis good indeed.

[Velocipedist]

Yeah, Jennifer Jason Leigh is quite awesome.

Oh, she's not bad at all and neither is Davis.

I just like the other four much better.

[Watashi]

Teaser poster:

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq23/shaymarin/shutterislandposter.jpg

[number8]

That seriously can't be real. Jesus.

[Ivan Drago]

If it is fake, I still give mad props to the maker. That's awesome.

And I thought this was called Ashecliffe now?

[Ezee E]

A movie starring Leo DiCaprio and directed by Scorsese, and they aren't even mentioned on the poster? Hmm...

[Lasse]

That seriously can't be real. Jesus.

Agreed. But still, I like the art a lot.

[Ezee E]

http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shutter11.jpg

[Wryan]

http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shutter11.jpg

He almost kinda sorta looks like a young Marty in that.

[number8]

I was going to say Philip Seymour Hoffman.

[Wryan]

I was going to say Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Shutter Island 2: Twenty Years After the First

[Sycophant]

I see Marty has chosen to use the red edition of Leonardo DiCpario for this movie. Bold choice.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was going to say Leonardo DiCaprio. But that's just me.

[Wryan]

I was going to say Leonardo DiCaprio. But that's just me.

With that nose and those eyebrows? Nawww...

[Silencio]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/shutterisland/)

[MacGuffin]

Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/shutterisland/)

Holy shit.

[number8]

That looks awful.

[MacGuffin]

That looks like it could potentially be Scorsese's best. This is my most anticipated movie right now, aside from some of the stuff that played at Cannes.

Fixed.

[number8]

That looks like Scorsese went and made a sequel to Gothika.

Fixed again.

[MacGuffin]

...I mean, seriously, who was the cinematographer for this movie? Look at the richness of the colors. The movie seems to venture into horror territory and with Scorsese as the driver, who knows what will happen? All I know is that I can't wait to find out.

Fixed for a third time.

[Winston*]

Looks silly.

[number8]

Dert durr durt durttt my last movie sucks the big one but it won me an Oscar anyways so now Imma make generic looking horror movies or let's call it psychological thriller durt hur dert *fart*

Final fix.

[MacGuffin]

Well, I think The Departed is one of his best movies of the ones that I've seen (certainly better than the somewhat entertaining, glittery, but ultimately interminable and borderline pointless Goodfellas), so I can't say that I'm with you on that one, 8.

[Acapelli]

love the departed, and i think this looks like a dark castle movie

luckily i usually like those awful movies

[number8]

Goodfellas is, admittedly, nowhere near Scorsese's best. Still, it ain't terrible. Which The Departed was.

Come to think of it, I don't think I love any of Scorsese's movies in the 90's. Hmmm.

[MacGuffin]

Goodfellas is, admittedly, nowhere near Scorsese's best. Still, it ain't terrible. Which The Departed was.

Come to think of it, I don't think I love any of Scorsese's movies in the 90's. Hmmm.

So what is — from someone who is genuinely interested in "Scorsese appreciation" — considered by consensus, barring Goodfellas, his best work? Taxi Driver? I saw that years ago, and only recall loving it, but want to see it again just to be sure. Raging Bull? I saw this, too, years ago, but fell asleep during it. Was it just another standard bio-pic? I'd be willing to see it again to find out. (For the record, I also liked The Aviator a lot when I saw it.)

[number8]

And because it's inevitable anyway:

1. Taxi Driver
2. Raging Bull
3. The Last Temptation of Christ
4. The Last Waltz
5. No Direction Home
6. Mean Streets
7. Bringing Out the Dead
8. The Aviator
9. Goodfellas
10. Gangs of New York
11. Casino
12. Shine a Light (probably shouldn't count)
13. The Color of Money
14. Cape Fear
15. Kundun
16. The Departed
17. The Age of Innocence

So need to see Alice, King of Comedy and Boxcar Bertha.

[megladon8]

The Departed was a great movie.

Great improvement over Infernal Affairs.

[Boner M]

Looks luridly enjoyable, at the very least.

[megladon8]

The B&W photograph of the missing patient looks a lot like Margot Kidder.

[chrisnu]

So need to see Alice, King of Comedy and Boxcar Bertha.
After Hours!

This looks absolutely terrible. Hopefully, the movie's better than the awful trailer.

[Acapelli]

The Departed was a great movie.

Great improvement over Infernal Affairs.
haven't found many people that share this opinion

[Ezee E]

The talent alone makes it better than any Dark Castle movie. You can already see the Scorsese camera movements, and i dig it a ton.

Scorsese hasn't had a less than great movie since Kundun.

[megladon8]

haven't found many people that share this opinion


Frankly I found Infernal Affairs boring.

And even though The Departed is nearly an hour longer, the original felt overlong, yet Scorsese's film flew by.

[Qrazy]

Frankly I found Infernal Affairs boring.

And even though The Departed is nearly an hour longer, the original felt overlong, yet Scorsese's film flew by.

I'm with you... in the sense that I think The Departed is better than Infernal Affairs... because amongst other things I can't stand IA's editing style or synthy soundtrack. However I don't think The Departed is exceptional.

Oh and Raging Bull is Scorsese's best and one of the great American films.

[number8]

Gross.

[Qrazy]

The talent alone makes it better than any Dark Castle movie. You can already see the Scorsese camera movements, and i dig it a ton.

Scorsese hasn't had a less than great movie since Kundun.

Gangs of New York sucked man.

[Qrazy]

Gross.

Your face?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Huh. It looks...different.

And this ranking made me realize that I need to see more Scorsese:

1. Goodfellas
2. Raging Bull
3. Bringing Out the Dead
4. Taxi Driver
5. The Last Temptation of Christ
6. The Departed
7. The Aviator
8. Gangs of New York

[MacGuffin]

I need to see Bringing Out the Dead.

[ledfloyd]

1. After Hours
2. The Last Waltz
3. The Age of Innocence
4. Taxi Driver
5. No Direction Home
6. Raging Bull
7. Mean Streets
8. The Aviator
9. Casino
10. Goodfellas
11. The Departed
12. Gangs of New York
13. The Last Temptation of Christ
14. The Color of Money
15. Bringing Out the Dead
16. Boxcar Bertha

the first 5 are the only ones i'm a big fan of.

[trotchky]

1. Taxi Driver - masterpiece
2. Goodfellas - masterpiece
3. Mean Streets - masterpiece
4. Gangs of New York - masterpiece
5. The Aviator - really good
6. Casino - good
7. The Last Temptation of Christ - good
8. The Departed - okay
9. After Hours - bad

Been too long since Raging Bull.

And this movie looks great.

[Ezee E]

I need to see Bringing Out the Dead.
While it certainly has flaws with Patricia Arquette's character, there is some fascinating stuff that goes on in that movie. Nic Cage is in his "good acting" mode, and when on the streets with his partners (the last one in particular), Scorsese is top of the line. Just a few hiccups is all.

[number8]

While it certainly has flaws with Patricia Arquette's character, there is some fascinating stuff that goes on in that movie. Nic Cage is in his "good acting" mode, and when on the streets with his partners (the last one in particular), Scorsese is top of the line. Just a few hiccups is all.

Also, it is fucking hilarious. The prayer circle, especially.

[Milky Joe]

I really cannot wait until Marty does a movie that does not involve Dicaprio. De Niro he fucking ain't.


4. Gangs of New York - masterpiece
9. After Hours - bad

Wrong. So very, very wrong.

1. After Hours
2. Raging Bull
3. The King of Comedy
4. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
5. Taxi Driver
6. No Direction Home
7. Casino
8. Goodfellas
9. Mean Streets
10. New York, New York/The Aviator/The Color of Money

Still need to see The Last Temptation of Christ and Bringing Out the Dead and some others that probably wouldn't make the top 10.

[Stay Puft]

The Last Temptation of Christ (great)
Raging Bull (great)
Bringing Out the Dead (good)
Goodfellas (good)
The Aviator (meh)
Gangs of New York (hate; maybe shouldn't count this because I turned it off, but yeah, couldn't stand this one)

Definitely need to see more, but probably will never watch The Departed (cast is downgrade total, not interested, can't even get interested in the IA sequels so whatever).

[Rowland]

Taxi Driver
Goodfellas
After Hours
Raging Bull
Bringing Out the Dead
The Departed
Gangs of New York
Cape Fear
The Aviator
Casino

Only the top two strike me as Great, while the only one I flat-out don't like is Casino, and I definitely need to see more.

[Ezee E]

Also, it is fucking hilarious. The prayer circle, especially.
Intentionally so, and it is hilarious. Sizemore at the end is pretty hilarious too.

You should get around to After Hours and The King of Comedy 8. I think you'd like them.

[Watashi]

Casino is his only bad film.

The Departed actually went down on a second viewing, but it's still better than Infernal Affairs.

I will always defend that Gangs of New York and The Aviator are some of his best.

Shutter Island looks a lot like Cape Fear Scorsese which is great.

[Watashi]

1. The Last Temptation of Christ
2. Gangs of New York
3. Raging Bull
4. The Aviator
5. Taxi Driver
6. Cape Fear
7. The Age of Innocence
8. Kundun
9. Bringing Out the Dead
10. Mean Streets
11. The Departed
12. The King of Comedy
13. New York, New York
14. Goodfellas
15. After Hours
16. No Direction Home
17. Who's That Knocking at My Door
18. The Color of Money
19. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
20. Casino

[Sxottlan]

Great to see Scorsese teaming up with Robert Richardson again. Doesn't seem like something Scorsese would do, so I'm very intrigued to how it'll turn out. Like the gothic setting.

And The Age of Innocence is his best film. ;)

[Rowland]

I hope the big twist has been rewritten to be less transparent, contrived, and pointless.

[Watashi]

I hope the big twist has been rewritten to be less transparent, contrived, and pointless.

Judging from the spoilerrific trailer, is the twist that DiCaprio is the 67th patient and being a detective was all in his head?

I haven't read the novel.

[Rowland]

Judging from the spoilerrific trailer, is the twist that DiCaprio is the 67th patient and being a detective was all in his head?

I haven't read the novel.If you really must know... I'm warning you...

Pretty much, with a small twist relating to the nature and purpose of the orchestrations which may have been kinda-sorta neat if it wasn't actively retarded and ultimately pointless, as the book doesn't even go for the most obvious base moral dilemma I anticipated it would. After the profoundly unsettling conclusion for Gone Baby Gone, I found this all a load of simple-minded nonsense.

[Skitch]

Come to think of it, I don't think I love any of Scorsese's movies in the 90's. Hmmm.

Wow. Those are my favorite from him. I find most of his earlier stuff to be while good, a tad overrated.

[[ETM]]

I'm hoping it's just a weird trailer.

[Raiders]

Oooooh, me too! Me too!

1. The Last Temptation of Christ
2. Raging Bull
3. After Hours
4. The Aviator
5. The Last Waltz
6. The Departed
7. Goodfellas
8. The King of Comedy
9. Taxi Driver
10. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
11. Who's That Knocking at My Door
12. Mean Streets
13. The Age of Innocence
14. Gangs of New York
15. Cape Fear
16. Bringing Out the Dead
17. The Color of Money
18. Casino

Of the few I haven't seen, the only one I really want to see is New York, New York. Maybe the Dylan doc too.

[Qrazy]

1. Raging Bull
2. Taxi Driver
3. Goodfellas

4. The Aviator
5. Mean Streets
6. The Departed
7. After Hours
8. Bringing Out the Dead
9. Kundun

10. The King of Comedy
11. The Color of Money
12. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
13. The Age of Innocence
14. Who's That Knocking at My Door
15. Casino

16. New York, New York
17. The Last Temptation of Christ
18. Gangs of New York
19. Cape Fear
20. Boxcar Bertha

Not ranking shorts, omnibus or docus right now.

[megladon8]

Finally someone else who wasn't taken with The Last Temptation of Christ.

[Qrazy]

Oooooh, me too! Me too!

1. The Last Temptation of Christ
2. Raging Bull
3. After Hours
4. The Aviator
5. The Last Waltz
6. The Departed
7. Goodfellas
8. The King of Comedy
9. Taxi Driver
10. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
11. Who's That Knocking at My Door
12. Mean Streets
13. The Age of Innocence
14. Gangs of New York
15. Cape Fear
16. Bringing Out the Dead
17. The Color of Money
18. Casino

Of the few I haven't seen, the only one I really want to see is New York, New York. Maybe the Dylan doc too.

Kundun is worth seeing also. Boxcar Bertha is not.

[Qrazy]

Finally someone else who wasn't taken with The Last Temptation of Christ.

Ironically (given the Christian backlash) the only part I especially liked was the final sequence.

[Raiders]

Kundun is worth seeing also.

I did see this but it was in its initial theatrical run and I literally remember nothing at all about it.

[Melville]

Lame trailer.

Masterpieces:
Taxi Driver
The Aviator
Raging Bull

A bit messy but still having some great things about them:
The King of Comedy
Casino
Bringing Out the Dead
Goodfellas
The Last Temptation of Christ
Gangs of New York
The Departed
Mean Streets

Didn't care for them:
The Age of Innocence
After Hours
The Color of Money

[Qrazy]

I did see this but it was in its initial theatrical run and I literally remember nothing at all about it.

Philip Glass's score FTW.

[Robby P]

I agree that Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas are the best that Scorsese has to offer. Casino and Gangs of New York are probably the worst.

[Qrazy]

I agree that Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas are the best that Scorsese has to offer. Casino and Gangs of New York are probably the worst.

Boxcar Bertha is damn awful haha.

[Ezee E]

Finally someone else who wasn't taken with The Last Temptation of Christ.
Watch it again sometime. I had the same reaction.

[Qrazy]

Watch it again sometime. I had the same reaction.

Your first reaction was the correct one.

[Ezee E]

Watch it again sometime. I had the same reaction.
Not including his earliest shorts.

****(M)
Taxi Driver
Raging Bull
After Hours
The Last Temptation of Christ
Goodfellas
Casino
The Departed

****
The King of Comedy
"Life Lessons"
Bringing Out the Dead
Gangs of New York
The Aviator
"The Personal Journey and Voyage to Italy" bits

*** 1/2
Mean Streets
The Last Waltz
Cape Fear
No Direction Home

***
Who's That Knocking At My Door
New York, New York
The Color of Money
The Age of Innocence
Shine A Light

** 1/2
Kundun

**
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

* 1/2
Boxcar Bertha

So essentially, only two bad films from him, and those were his earliest. Easily my favorite director still.

[Ezee E]

Back to the movie, it's said that Scorsese used Michael Powell and Hitchcock as the main influences in this. You can already see the Powell influence with the use of that cliff. Michelle Williams looks right out of a Hitchcock film as well.

[Milky Joe]

Oh yeah, Michelle Williams = me seeing this.

[Qrazy]

Yeah I find it hard to tell... the footage looks good but the drama/atmosphere looks like it could go either way... either genuinely thrilling/tension building (Taxi Driver) or just stupid (Cape Fear)... it could be the trailer editing or it could be the actual film. To be honest I actually take it as a bad sign that he used Hitchcock and Powell as reference points because they have a certain aesthetic quality which works well for them in terms of tone and drama but I don't think it works well for Scorsese.

[Sxottlan]

Back to the movie, it's said that Scorsese used Michael Powell [snip] as the main influences in this.

I was about to say I'm seeing a bit of Black Narcissus here.

That's a good thing.

[megladon8]

Watch it again sometime. I had the same reaction.


I've seen it twice.

I just don't like it.

[Rowland]

Watched the trailer. Looks like they're following the book pretty closely. Hopefully it'll play out better as a highly atmospheric genre pic than it did as a novel, where I had more time to linger over its hoaky plot machinations and lack of thematic ambition.

[Qrazy]

Watched the trailer. Looks like they're following the book pretty closely. Hopefully it'll play out better as a highly atmospheric genre pic than it did as a novel, where I had more time to linger over its hoaky plot machinations and lack of thematic ambition.

Haven't read the book but if that's what the novel brought to the table then... I doubt it.

[Pop Trash]

Scorsese is certainly one of the most consistent directors around for me, so that makes it easy to be an auteurist about him. That said, only Taxi Driver and Goodfellas would get the "M" word from me and even then I'm stretching it with Goodfellas. However, almost all of his films make my top ten of their respective years.

In rough order:
10/10
Taxi Driver
9/10
Goodfellas
"Life Lessons"
8/10
The Last Temptation of Christ
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
The King of Comedy
After Hours
Raging Bull
Cape Fear
Casino
The Aviator
The Departed
No Direction Home
The Last Waltz
7/10
Mean Streets
Gangs of NY
6/10
Shine a Light

Still need to see:
New York, New York, The Age of Innocence, Boxcar Bertha, Who's That Knocking at My Door, American Boy, My Journey Through American Films, and Kundun

I've seen but don't remember well enough to rate:
Bringing Out the Dead and The Color of Money

Great but hard to rate against his other films:
My Voyage to Italy

[Ivan Drago]

Looks really good, even if I can already predict the twist.

[trotchky]

Wrong. So very, very wrong.

Oh okay.

[Grouchy]

Absolute Masterpieces:
1. Raging Bull
2. Goodfellas
3. Taxi Driver

Brilliant Films:
4. The Age of Innocence
5. Last Temptation of Christ
6. The King of Comedy
7. After Hours
8. Casino
9. Mean Streets
10. Bringing Out the Dead

Merely Very Good Ones:
11. Cape Fear
12. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

Lesser Scorsese, Still Better than 60% of the Shit Hollywood Calls Movies:
13. New York, New York
14. Who's That Knocking At My Door?
15. The Last Waltz
16. The Aviator
17. Boxcar Bertha
18. The Departed
19. The Color of Money
20. Shine a Light
21. Gangs of New York

[Morris Schæffer]

Cool trailer. I dug it.

[Dukefrukem]

Bullshit. The Departed is BETTER than Goodfellas.


1. Raging Bull
2. Taxi Driver
3. Cape Fear
4. The Departed
5. The Age of Innocence
6. Kundun
7. Bringing Out the Dead
8. Goodfellas
9. Gangs of New York
10. The King of Comedy
11. New York, New York
12. Mean Streets
13. After Hours
14. No Direction Home
15. Who's That Knocking at My Door
16. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
17. Casino
18. The Aviator

[Grouchy]

Speaking about the trailer, it doesn't look like something I'm desperate to see but I'm pretty sure it won't be bad. That early shot of the crazy woman staring at Leo is pretty creepy.

[Wryan]

Not diggin it, frankly.

[eternity]

This looks like something that the trailer is going to be a whole lot more intriguing than the actual product...

[Qrazy]

This looks like something that the trailer is going to be a whole lot more intriguing than the actual product...

Really? I'm guessing/hoping it will be the other way around.

[eternity]

Really? I'm guessing/hoping it will be the other way around.

It just seems with movies like this that the question is much more interesting than the answer. Cause the question is very, very interesting. This could be much better than Scorsese's recent efforts, which have merely been "okay" for me.

[Qrazy]

It just seems with movies like this that the question is much more interesting than the answer. Cause the question is very, very interesting. This could be much better than Scorsese's recent efforts, which have merely been "okay" for me.

Ah right, got ya, I found the trailer to be poorly put together so I'm hoping the film is better than that... but yeah hopefully the film doesn't end with a horrible plot twist.

[Raiders]

but yeah hopefully the film doesn't end with a horrible plot twist.

It does. Well, if it is at all sticking to the book it does.

[Qrazy]

It does. Well, if it is at all sticking to the book it does.

:cry:

[BuffaloWilder]

Well, I'll say this - it doesn't feel like a Scorsese film.

But, that could just be the trailer. And, DiCaprio should never, ever try to do that kind of accent again.

[DavidSeven]

I don't know. On the surface, there seems to be shades of Taxi Driver/Bringing Out the Dead here. Introspective, slightly delusional protagonist trying to "rescue" the damaged (here crazy) female. Seems less interesting within genre confines though.

[trotchky]

It certainly looks like a Scorsese film (extreme close-up of water pouring out of a showerhead, anyone?)

[Qrazy]

Well, I'll say this - it doesn't feel like a Scorsese film.

But, that could just be the trailer. And, DiCaprio should never, ever try to do that kind of accent again.

DiCaprio really sucks at accents.

[Sven]

This looks so unspectacular.

[MacGuffin]

I wish Sven posted more so I could disagree with him more.

EDIT: Nevermind. Just read something. Still, post more.

[MacGuffin]

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3890/shutterislandposter.jpg

[Silencio]

Pushed back to February, 2010.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/shocker-paramount-moving-scorsesedicaprios-shutter-island-to-february-2010/

[Pop Trash]

Pushed back to February, 2010.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/shocker-paramount-moving-scorsesedicaprios-shutter-island-to-february-2010/

Wow. Seriously? I guess the studio brass didn't think much of it.

EDIT: Just read it and I guess it comes down to -shocker- money. They don't have the cash to promote it and DiCaprio can't travel internationally to make interview rounds and such. Bummer. But Paramount can always flaunt the Oscar bait that is GI Joe!

[Ezee E]

Grr...

Really, GI Joe has a chance at nominations? I have a feeling something else is at stake.

[Sxottlan]

Son of a crap. Well, at least it's only a five month delay. But in the context of potentially contributing to what's been a real solid year for movies, this really sucks.

[Sycophant]

Oh god, the trailer for this is annoying.

[MadMan]

I think I agree with the people here who can't shake the feeling that the trailer gives away the twist. I hope that's not the case, and Leo at this point is someone who I feel is a good actor. I trust Marty, but I also agree that this doesn't appear to be his type of movie. Still, bearing bad reviews I'll be seeing it next year.

[baby doll]

It certainly looks like a Scorsese film (extreme close-up of water pouring out of a showerhead, anyone?)Isn't that Hitchcock you're thinking of?

Anyway, the trailer looks stupid. If Scorsese's name weren't attached to the project, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

If Scorsese's name weren't attached to the project, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

Sure we would. We'd be asking Duke why he bothered making a thread about the flick.

[Morris Schæffer]

new trailer:

http://www.davestrailerpage.co.uk/

Scroll down a tad for a variety of sizes.

[number8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6v2yJtiUI

It's better than the first one.

[Dukefrukem]

much better

[Grouchy]

Wow, is that Robert De Niro with the match in the "let me see your face" scene or do I just have an hyperactive imagination?

[number8]

That's Chris Meloni, I thought.

[number8]

Scratch that. It's Elias Koteas. He and Meloni look a lot alike.

[Ezee E]

Scratch that. It's Elias Koteas. He and Meloni look a lot alike.
Yes. Many times I'm not sure which is which.

[[ETM]]

Hmm... funny how shallow perception is sometimes. They're actually nothing alike.

But a Google image search for "Elias Koteas" yields images of Meloni as early as fourth and fifth result.:crazy:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow, is that Robert De Niro with the match in the "let me see your face" scene or do I just have an hyperactive imagination?

Haha. I thought this too.

In any case, this looks like pretty bland Scorsese. I kinda wish he'd get this populism out of his system and do something personal and immediate. Bringing out the Dead, for all of it's faults (Marc Anthony? Ewwwww) is when Marty is at his best. Failing that, he can do another rock-doc on one of my favorite bands.

[Ezee E]

Haha. I thought this too.

In any case, this looks like pretty bland Scorsese. I kinda wish he'd get this populism out of his system and do something personal and immediate. Bringing out the Dead, for all of it's faults (Marc Anthony? Ewwwww) is when Marty is at his best. Failing that, he can do another rock-doc on one of my favorite bands.
Gangs of New York was as personal project as it could get for Marty.

[MadMan]

So is this actually getting released in October, or is it being pushed back?

[B-side]

So is this actually getting released in October, or is it being pushed back?

February 19th. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/shutterisland/)

[Spaceman Spiff]

Gangs of New York was as personal project as it could get for Marty.

Oh yeah. But that kinda sucked though.

[Morris Schæffer]

Oh yeah. But that kinda sucked though.

Crank 2 sucked. Gangs of New York was minor, but altogether satisfying, Scorsese.

[Wryan]

Crank 2 sucked. Gangs of New York was minor, but altogether satisfying, Scorsese.

Crank 2 was Scorsese? How did I miss this shit.

[MadMan]

February 19th. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/shutterisland/)Damn. I was really looking forward to seeing it this month.

[Qrazy]

Crank 2 sucked. Gangs of New York was minor, but altogether satisfying, Scorsese.

They both sucked, but in different ways.

[number8]

They both sucked, but in different ways.

I don't know why they call you Qrazy. They should call you Qorrect.

[Grouchy]

I don't know why they call you Qrazy. They should call you Qorrect.
Hell no. A Qrazy bastard he is alright, and not only because of this post.

[Qrazy]

Hell no. A Qrazy bastard he is alright, and not only because of this post.

Oh fine, just ignore my Pelham and Luke post. :cry:

:)

[lovejuice]

so is the book any good? i remember someone not too impressed with it?

[Rowland]

so is the book any good? i remember someone not too impressed with it?I think I posted thoughts about the book earlier in the thread. It sucked.

[Grouchy]

Oh fine, just ignore my Pelham and Luke post. :cry:

:)
Heh. It's nice to have someone to constantly disagree with, though. Keeps one's opinions in check.

So, I'm glad you're Qrazy.

[Dillard]

I gotta say, I'm really exited about this one, particularly after reading Lehane's novel, which was good, but I think Scorcese, DiCaprio, Ruffalo (and all the rest) can definitely take this material to new heights.

Glen Kenny isn't saying much after a screening, other than that he was very impressed (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2010/01/chalk-up-another-victory-for-the-avantgarde.html)!

[angrycinephile]

Um... bump.

Currently at 75% at TM after 24 counted reviews. To no one's surprise Armond White hated it.

[Winston*]

Christ this movie was dumb.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Gonna reserve my ticket tomorrow.

[Spinal]

Christ this movie was dumb.

Was worried about that. February release gave me pause.

[Dillard]

Mixed reviews will not deter me from anticipating this film!

[Winston*]

High point: Ben Kingsley's delivery of a single line late in the film. You'll know it when you see it, I think.

[kopello]

Mixed reviews will not deter me from anticipating this film!

Same here. I've been looking forward to this one for awhile, the trailers gave me the impression that it might be his best film in over a decade. I hope I'm not wrong...

[Watashi]

Was worried about that. February release gave me pause.
Scorsese is apparently furious about the studio pushing it back.

[Boner M]

Nah, it's pretty good. Works best at literalising the trauma of Dicaprio's character in the form of floridly expressionist B-movie tropes, and the overt artificiality of the whole thing makes the rug-puller ending - which could've been a groaner in another context... perhaps the novel, anyone? - easier to swallow, even somewhat poignant. Many arresting images, enjoyably hammy performances from all, and I think it might even benefit from repeat viewings.

Think of it as a minor Scorsese film but a major De Palma one.

[angrycinephile]

Think of it as a minor Scorsese film but a major De Palma one.

This sounds good. Tell me, how big is Max von Sydow's part?

[KK2.0]

Think of it as a minor Scorsese film but a major De Palma one.

Makes sense, since Hitchcock is Scorcese's main inspiration and De Palma is a huge Hitch Fanboy.

I can't wait, but it only opens here in March. :(

[ledfloyd]

the overt artificiality of the whole thing makes the rug-puller ending - which could've been a groaner in another context... perhaps the novel, anyone? - easier to swallow, even somewhat poignant.
god yes, i picked this up at the library a year or two ago when i heard marty was adapting it, and it was a good read until that point. at which point i threw the book across the room.

[Rowland]

god yes, i picked this up at the library a year or two ago when i heard marty was adapting it, and it was a good read until that point. at which point i threw the book across the room.You didn't see it coming though? I had the entire ending pegged before the book was even half over. And yes, it's pretty lame and anti-climactic in the book, largely avoiding some knotty thematic issues that I hoped would be addressed.

[ledfloyd]

You didn't see it coming though? I had the entire ending pegged before the book was even half over. And yes, it's pretty lame and anti-climactic in the book, largely avoiding some knotty thematic issues that I hoped would be addressed.
yeah, i sort of saw it coming, but i hoped lehane wouldn't go that route, as his books are usually a bit smarter than that.

[Ezee E]

Not sure what to think of this. Scorsese goes all out as for as the technicals go, and it's never boring.

But........... I don't know. I actually want to see it again. I think it'll get better on multiple viewings, even though there's some silly stuff in it.

Boner says it right basically.

[megladon8]

Probably going to see this tomorrow night.

Man, I haven't been to the theatre in a long time. Last movie I saw theatrically was Paranormal Activity.

[Ezee E]

I should mention that I absolutely loved the score to this.

Only to find it, it was all previously recorded material.

[Boner M]

This is sitting well with me, actually.

On a sidenote, how good is Patricia Clarkson? Best single-scene performance in ages.

[number8]

Not really planning on seeing this any time soon, so is the twist...

...that Leo is a patient all along?

You can just say yes or no.

[Ezee E]

Not really planning on seeing this any time soon, so is the twist...

...that Leo is a patient all along?

You can just say yes or no.
Yes, but that's as important to the movie as say, the twist to The Shining.

[Boner M]

I guessed the twist as soon as I read a review saying there was a twist, but I think the full dimensions of the twist are unexpected & satisfying.

The lake flashback scene is really quite devastating. It reminded me of a similar scene in Leave Her to Heaven, which is featured in Scorsese's Personal Journey Through American Movies.

[Pop Trash]

Hmmm I dunno. Mildly enjoyable but I will take Cape Fear over this any day as far as pulpy "minor" Scorsese goes. I realize most of what will be criticized about it (the rug-puller twist ending) is not Scorsese's fault but still reminds me a bit like something Donald Kaufman might write. Still, it's not without it's pulpy pleasures. I'll have to think about it over the next few days. I'm a bit buzzed right now. :P

[Pop Trash]

Not sure what to think of this. Scorsese goes all out as for as the technicals go, and it's never boring.

But........... I don't know. I actually want to see it again. I think it'll get better on multiple viewings, even though there's some silly stuff in it.

Boner says it right basically.

In yet...3.5 stars?

[Winston*]

I realize most of what will be criticized about it (the rug-puller twist ending) is not Scorsese's fault but still reminds me a bit like something Donald Kaufman might write.
It is Scorsese's fault, because he decided to make this fucking terrible narrative into a movie. Man, it makes me so angry thinking about how stupid the ending of this movie is.

[hey it's ethan]

Still digesting the entire experience but...

How ballin' was that stedicam shot of the guards being gunned down?

[Wryan]

It's good but not much more. Not sure why Scorsese thought this had his name all over it. Some stuff needlessly drawn out. Score borders on hilariously on-the-nose. Acting pretty good. Not really sure about the rats.

[hey it's ethan]

One thinks that being a Martin Scorsese picture released in the fall, you somehow have to be an Oscar-bait prestige picture; therefore everyone thought that Shutter Island would perform like the other Scorsese/DiCaprio collaborations and grab a handful of nominations. Out of nowhere the film was delayed to February. Internet fanboys a-plently decreed “NOOOOOO!!!!!!” Strangely though, I think the February release date kinds of suits this film. Most would see a statement like that as a slam seeing as how February is considered a dumping ground for movies but sometimes it’s also open for the stuff that’s hard categorize.

Scorsese choose not to make either the aforementioned Oscar-bait prestige picture or a straightforward popcorn horror/thriller. What we have here is something that chooses to experiment and take sidetracks. I’m tempted to say it’s just Scorsese having fun making a movie after finally nabbing his Best Director prize, but there are deeper, more passionate ideas at work here. You can’t deny that Scorsese is gleefully rubbing his hands together behind the monitor as he evokes Val Lewton, Alfred Hitchcock and Luis Bunuel along the way but there’s a deep psychological thread running throughout this film. Scorsese is as dedicated as ever when telling a story that puts character first. Teddy Daniels ain’t no Jake LaMotta or Travis Bickle but he’s willing to do everything to prove to you that he is.

Here’s where we come to the whole twist thing; if you didn’t have it, the character of Teddy Daniels played as predictably intense yet still terrific by Leonardo DiCaprio would easily be some cypher in a spook-a-blast-pulp-yarn. Instead, Scorsese (or I guess I should give credit to Dennis Lehane) is making a story that’s purely character driven and meant to actually stay with you. You remove the twist and you just have a fun movie. Again though, this is no Oscar-bait; simply put, Scorsese goes balls deep with the experimental imagery. Most of the surrealist sequences are far more deliberately strange the way something like Aqua Teen Hunger Force is (I know, weird comparison) than coming from a deep-rooted mind like the work of David Lynch. Still though, it plays like gangbuster. I felt Teddy’s psychological torment and that was what made the boat ride to Shutter Island worth it. It’s about the journey, not the destination. The twist is predictable but it’s so against the point to just focus on that. If this were some Dark Castle-production then I would likely roll my eyes and groan. We invest in the plight and therefore the ending just comes as more of a powerful reminder than a “OHNOYOUDI’NT”. It may dabble a bit into “Norman Bates dressed as his mother blah blah blah” school of exposition towards the end but I could overlook it for the deeper areas it alluded to.

[Adam]

Liked it a lot. Just on a technical level, from the score on down, it's an awesome, hyper-stylized experience. The rest is so-much schlock, but DiCaprio sells it well enough to pack a surprisingly poignant punch. That's tricky - making something incredibly artificial work emotionally, too


It is Scorsese's fault, because he decided to make this fucking terrible narrative into a movie. Man, it makes me so angry thinking about how stupid the ending of this movie is.

What's so terrible about it? Do you mean like the very end or just the nature of the over-explanatory third act?

The story's probably not the main attraction here, but I definitely still dug it. Everything about the build-up to the "twist" was revealed quite elegantly, in spite of being obvious. And even with the whole crazily exposition-heavy lighthouse scene, I think you're still left with enough ambiguity to make it something kinda special. DiCaprio's last line is especially interesting. On the surface, it seems like he's acknowledging his violent identity, copping to his wife's murder and pretending to still be stuck in that insane loop of his; choosing lobotomy over living with it. But that line could also be a final insult directed towards the Ruffalo character; hinting that the whole paranoid conspiracy was true from the start. There are enough inconsistencies throughout the film that it could be read either way. So I dunno, I think it all works very well


How ballin' was that stedicam shot of the guards being gunned down?

That was pretty great

[Adam]

I also love how, of all things, this is the material Scorsese chooses to essentially write a love letter to old time Hollywood

[megladon8]

That was good.

From a technical standpoint freaking sublime. Cinematography is to die for. Acting is solid all around. Will someone please convince Ben Kingsley to do more films like this, and stop doing terrible low-budget STV crap?

Has serious flaws, though. For the story it told it was overlong - could have done with one less dream/awakening sequence, and some of the exposition could have been trimmed. At 138 minutes, I think it could have been trimmed to a nice 2 hours.

Am I the only one who saw Ciaran Hinds at the beginning of the film, playing one of the guards? At the front gates, just after DiCaprio and Ruffalo are forced to give up their guns, I am certain I saw Hinds as one of the guards looking all pissed off, then we never saw that guard again.

Anyways, yeah, the implausibility of the story is overshadowed by just how great it all is as Scorsese's wonderfully eerie tribute to the character-driven thrillers of early Hollywood. Some of it had a real Val Lewton feel to it I liked a lot.


Oh and regarding the apparently terrible book it's based on, I remember around the time Gone Baby Gone came out I asked if Lehane's books were actually any good or just throwaway crime novels, and the response was that, yes, he's quite a great writer and his books are worth reading. Was "Shutter Island" just a crappy exception, or am I misremembering (or possibly asking the wrong people:P)?

[Winston*]

What's so terrible about it? Do you mean like the very end or just the nature of the over-explanatory third act?

The story's probably not the main attraction here, but I definitely still dug it. Everything about the build-up to the "twist" was revealed quite elegantly, in spite of being obvious. And even with the whole crazily exposition-heavy lighthouse scene, I think you're still left with enough ambiguity to make it something kinda special.

I don't buy that twist the it's supposed to be ambiguous, and even if it was I wouldn't like it any more. And the whole thing made no sense. What, you've got the most dangerous prisoner in your mental asylum and you give him the run of the place, endangering staff and patients' lives, in an attempt to cure himn ? Constructing an elaborate fantasy to cure your patient's delusions? From the start the film I was like "They're not going to make him the patient are they?" and then they did and it was nonsense.


I wasn't very impressed with the movie well before that anyways. DiCaprio was totally miscast IMO and thought the direction was mostly a wash, some good moments aside.

[dreamdead]

I love, love, love the one sequence with DiCaprio and Williams in the house, as ashes fall all around them. That was marvelously shot and conveyed.

Much of the film, though, including Clarkson and Haley's performances, lose their power when they're forced into the third-act narrative. They kill the tension that should have been building and instead force too much reappraisal of "what did happen?". And I would have preferred the Ruffalo/DiCaprio roles switched.

[Boner M]

And I would have preferred the Ruffalo/DiCaprio roles switched.
I would've agreed in the early stages of the film, but Dicaprio's character is revealed to be someone playing at being hardboiled, so his relatively anemic presence works for the role, I think.

[hey it's ethan]

I think the thing about the twist is that it's not supposed to be a grand reveal, it's supposed to be somewhat obvious from the beginning. The power comes from Teddy, er Andrew, slowly realizing everything. The scene in the lighthouse is almost sad for Kingsley's character because he's done this so many times that he has to literally create a chart explaining everything.

[megladon8]

It was hilarious how vocal everyone in the theatre was about hating this movie when the credits rolled.

[Ezee E]

It was hilarious how vocal everyone in the theatre was about hating this movie when the credits rolled.
People have been really liking it around here.

[megladon8]

People have been really liking it around here.


I'm glad it's doing well.

But man oh man, the theatre I was in was nearly empty, and the few people who were there HATED it.

[ledfloyd]

Oh and regarding the apparently terrible book it's based on, I remember around the time Gone Baby Gone came out I asked if Lehane's books were actually any good or just throwaway crime novels, and the response was that, yes, he's quite a great writer and his books are worth reading. Was "Shutter Island" just a crappy exception, or am I misremembering (or possibly asking the wrong people:P)?
i can't claim to be an authority on his work. but the other lehane books i've read have been top shelf crime fiction. gone baby gone in particular. so i'd assume it's an exception.

[Ezee E]

I'm glad it's doing well.

But man oh man, the theatre I was in was nearly empty, and the few people who were there HATED it.
It's going to end up being Scorsese's biggest opening ever it looks like. Somewhere in the mid-30's range.

And yeah, as far as I know, Lehane hasn't done very well around here.

[megladon8]

Does anyone else think Emily Mortimer looked a LOT like Margot Kidder here?

I still find that glimpse of the black and white photograph of her looks identical to Kidder in her Sisters days.

[Henry Gale]

I loved this way more than I ever expected to. The trailers did very little for me outside of the visuals, the only Scorsese films from the last decade I've liked are No Direction Home and The Aviator, I'd known the twist for what seemed like years, reviews were starting to look pretty middling; only saw it because it just seemed like a good option on a Saturday night with a bunch of friends.

It's just such a gorgeous film to take in. The music Scorsese and Robertson put together for it, the way Robert Richardson shot it, every set... all impeccable. Also, the little things in the editing to make you feel uneasy, some more obvious than others (like having props in characters hands sudenly absent between cuts in hallucinations, having takes played backwards, skipping ahead in standard scenes that suddenly make things feel oddly fragmented, etc.) ... I could go on. It elegantly tickled almost every sense a film can.

I'm not sure if having a very vague idea of the twist going in helped, as I had it in sitting there in my head for a good chunk of it, but as it went on I really started to get lost in the narrative the way it was supposed to unfold and almost forgot about where it was all supposed to be headed. When the reveal finally came it felt like it had become specific enough to the story at hand that it didn't just feel like a way out in the third act. And even though I wasn't loving it as it was first being explained, as it came together I really thought it began to richen a lot of what we had known from before rather than betray it.

The only ambiguity in the ending (which I didn't even consider was there until talking about it later) should be:

a) Did Laeddis pretend to relapse so that he would be lobotomized because he couldn't live with what happened and would likely have never left the island anyway?

b) Did he actually reset back to his fantasy like Kingsley and Ruffalo said he has done many times before?

or c) Was he never really cured when they thought he was and still felt all along that he was being drugged, thinking that him and Ruffalo were still working together and that there remained a way to bring down "the conspiracy"? (Similar to B, but with no breakthrough)

You could also argue a d) option where the conspiracy was real and Ruffalo was on their side, the information fed to DiCaprio was lies, and so on... but I'm not sure if there's as much to support that one.

As the film ended and I walked out of the theatre, I personally thought b) was the only option, but the more I think about it, the more I think any one of those could potentially work in their own ways thematically.

I really adored it, despite its imperfections.

[megladon8]

I personally thought it was option A.

[Wryan]

I figured option A was the intent, personally.

[megladon8]

I personally would have found it more potent if he had killed the children and his wife. Say he planned to kill his wife because of her incredible, incurable depression and not being able to live with that any more, then killed the children so they wouldn't grow up knowing what he had done.

I thought the idea that he killed his wife after she murdered their three children was, well, not exactly an inhumanly evil reaction to what she had done.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Wowo. It's like Scorsese wanted to evoke the ending of Psycho but wished there was more stuff to say.

I liked the film, especially the first hour or so, which really got into the stylistic side of the film. The looming shots of the island, the geography of the wards, the creepy patients. All very classic Gothic stuff. The asylum setting was one of the more evocative mystery/horror/thriller spaces I've seen. Frequently matched Danvers and Saltair for locationary goodness. But that ending...it's not that I didn't see it coming, it's that the exposition was so arduous and ultimately needless. By putting too fine a point on the "solution," Scorsese does a disservice to the refreshing ambiguity present in all of Teddy's "visions."

Furthermore, why didn't we ever come back to the World War II stuff? There were some stunning flashbacks, but they ended up being trumped by Teddy's more personal visions.

[Watashi]

I thought the stand-out scene in the film was the conversation between DiCaprio and the Warden in the car. The acting between the two was just awesome.

[Eleven]

Lots of good one-scene perfs from Clarkson, Levine, Koteas, Haley, and Mortimer. There should be a Match Cut Awards category for that.


Did anyone else pick up on what I think is an irony of the ending, mention briefly in the comments at Glenn Kenny's blog (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2010/02/films-without-continuity-errors-towards-a-master-list.html#comments) (copied below)...

"My favorite aspect of the movie's resolution is how, in a way, it flips the twist back upon itself, suggesting that DiCaprio's muddled reality was essentially correct: there are Caligaris and Mabuses spreading their fiendish plans in the world, but operating with complete sanction. Thus the final shot of the lighthouse; DiCaprio's destination all along, where he is in fact to become one of the island's ghosts." - Bruce Reid.

The fact is, there was an island-wide conspiracy against him, and lobotomies are being performed just as his suspected.

[Eleven]

Re: Raiders's deleted post. Yeah, you're probably right.

[megladon8]

Furthermore, why didn't we ever come back to the World War II stuff? There were some stunning flashbacks, but they ended up being trumped by Teddy's more personal visions.


Is it possible that...

...they were trying to cure Teddy of his guilt from the wrong crime? Maybe his true guilt and self-torment came from the murder of all of those German soldiers.

Both crimes (the murder of the Germans, and the murder of his wife) could be considered "justified" considering the circumstances, particularly if you believe in the "temporary insanity" plea.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Is it possible that...

...they were trying to cure Teddy of his guilt from the wrong crime? Maybe his true guilt and self-torment came from the murder of all of those German soldiers.

Both crimes (the murder of the Germans, and the murder of his wife) could be considered "justified" considering the circumstances, particularly if you believe in the "temporary insanity" plea.

I don't know. The focus of Kingsley's infodump at the end was on Teddy's denial regarding his wife's death. The war barely came up, if at all. So the assumption is that the war stuff is there for texture, while the wife stuff is more important narratively. Oddly, I found the war imagery more stunning and tragic, and the tracking shot as the officers were shot was possibly the film's peak.

[megladon8]

I don't know. The focus of Kingsley's infodump at the end was on Teddy's denial regarding his wife's death. The war barely came up, if at all. So the assumption is that the war stuff is there for texture, while the wife stuff is more important narratively. Oddly, I found the war imagery more stunning and tragic, and the tracking shot as the officers were shot was possibly the film's peak.


I, too, found the war images quite incredible. The piles of bodies frozen in ice looked like something Giger would have sculpted.

But the fact that it was never brought up with Kingsley's expository speech at the end is entirely my point - maybe we were shown these atrocious wartime images to make a point. This is what really destroyed Teddy's mind.

The death of his children and murder of his wife were like the final blow that crippled his already weak mind.

[Ezee E]

The war stuff was more inside Teddy's head, whereas the wife was blocked out entirely. Perhaps Kingsley didn't believe in the war stories?

[Dead & Messed Up]

The war stuff was more inside Teddy's head, whereas the wife was blocked out entirely. Perhaps Kingsley didn't believe in the war stories?

I suspect he didn't care. As we see, "Teddy" has no problem admitting to his war stories. Part of his delusion is the fear that Shutter Island will repeat what he saw in Germany.

[Watashi]

One thing I'm unsure about:

If the entire scheme was one big role-play, did the scene with Teddy and the real Rachel still happen or was that in his head? I was confused by that because the ending sets it up that Teddy was never imagining things.

[megladon8]

One thing I'm unsure about:

If the entire scheme was one big role-play, did the scene with Teddy and the real Rachel still happen or was that in his head? I was confused by that because the ending sets it up that Teddy was never imagining things.

I think it was in his head. It is definitely acknowledged that Teddy did imagine a lot of things. Think of the number of times his wife appeared in the shadowy corners of rooms.

[Wryan]

Actually I wanna know why Kingsley said "baby."

[megladon8]

Actually I wanna know why Kingsley said "baby."


Because that's what Leo said to his wife when he came home that day. "You're all wet, baby." Kingsley was triggering the memory.

[Fezzik]

So, just got back from seeing this.

I reeeeeaally liked it. I thought the twist wasn't really one at all (in honesty, it was about as 'secret' as the fact that the Book of Eli was a Bible), but I loved how the movie plays with those expectations and made you wonder whether there was an unexpected twist after all, by planting the thought that...


he wasn't crazy at all, but part of an island-wide conspiracy. I freaking love that after everything, he was indeed the victim of a conspiracy but it was because he WAS crazy, not because it wasn't.

The performances were stellar across the board, but I have to say, as much as Haley, Clarkson, Mortimer, et al get props for their one great scene, DiCaprio really was the glue that held it all together.

I thought he was mesmerizing.

The cinematography was just amazing. I love the tracking shot from behind the camp fence as the germans are mowed down, and I absolute got a kick out of how claustrophobic some of the interior shots felt.

There was some amazing imagery in this.

I was impressed. A lot more than I expected to be.

[Fezzik]

Because that's what Leo said to his wife when he came home that day. "You're all wet, baby." Kingsley was triggering the memory.

I did have a question about that. I was wondering if there was any signifigance to the fact that...

the first time we hear DiCaprio say the "why are you all wet?" line, its in the vision of Dolores in his apartment, and he says "Why are you all wet, baby?"

This same wording was used by Kingsley at the end to trigger the memory, yet in the memory itself, the word order is different: "Baby, why are you all wet?"

I thought it a mistake or insignificant, but there was a pregnant pause after DiCaprio says "baby" that makes me think otherwise. Thoughts?

Oh, and one more thing...

Was "The Law of 4" ever addressed? If it was, I missed it. Was it just a red herring?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Question: are spoilers necessary in this thread now that the movie's out?

[megladon8]

Question: are spoilers necessary in this thread now that the movie's out?


If there's one thing I've come to learn from being on MatchCut for years, it's that spoilers are always necessary.

Speaking of which, don't go in The Reader thread if you haven't seen it. I haven't, and someone-who-will-not-be-named completely spoiled the ending in the last page.

[Watashi]

The Law of 4 dealt with the 4 different anagrams that Teddy used.

[Derek]

If there's one thing I've come to learn from being on MatchCut for years, it's that spoilers are always necessary.

Speaking of which, don't go in The Reader thread if you haven't seen it. I haven't, and someone-who-will-not-be-named completely spoiled the ending in the last page.

Why would you read posts in a thread for The Reader two years after it came out and be upset to come across a spoiler?

Rosebud's his sled. Ilsa leaves Rick in the end! Verbal Kint made it all up! Bruce Wilson was dead the whole time! Hahahaha! :twisted:

[megladon8]

Why would you read posts in a thread for The Reader two years after it came out and be upset to come across a spoiler?

Rosebud's his sled. Ilsa leaves Rick in the end! Verbal Kint made it all up! Bruce Wilson was dead the whole time! Hahahaha! :twisted:


I've been reprimanded here for accidentally revealing spoilers to movies that came out more than a decade ago.

I'd be pretty pissed off if this "rule" only applies to me.

[Derek]

I've been reprimanded here for accidentally revealing spoilers to movies that came out more than a decade ago.

I'd be pretty pissed off if this "rule" only applies to me.

I've always been in favor of the rule of "If you don't want to know specific details about a film, don't read threads dedicated to that particular film where dozens of people will inevitably be discussing them." But I know common sense can be a hard sell here at good old MC.

[megladon8]

I've always been in favor of the rule of "If you don't want to know specific details about a film, don't read threads dedicated to that particular film where dozens of people will inevitably be discussing them." But I know common sense can be a hard sell here at good old MC.

OK, I officially remove myself to keep from starting an argument.

[B-side]

I've always been in favor of the rule of "If you don't want to know specific details about a film, don't read threads dedicated to that particular film where dozens of people will inevitably be discussing them." But I know common sense can be a hard sell here at good old MC.

I've been scanning this thread and I still haven't seen the film.

[Derek]

I've been scanning this thread and I still haven't seen the film.

I'm not saying it's not common courtesy to put spoilers in spoiler tags especially for a film like this which JUST came out. But if you're going into a thread about a film that came out, say, 6 months or longer ago and is on DVD, you're entering at your own risk is all I'm saying in my opinion. [/two cents]

Vader is Luke's father!

[Adam]

One thing I'm unsure about:

If the entire scheme was one big role-play, did the scene with Teddy and the real Rachel still happen or was that in his head? I was confused by that because the ending sets it up that Teddy was never imagining things.

I really dug how, by the end, you have no idea how much of the film really happened and how much of it took place in Leo's head. As far as the Patricia Clarkson scene goes, they make a big point out of saying early on that there's no way a human being could make it down the rockface and into those caves, so I dunno

Speaking of which, don't go in The Reader thread if you haven't seen it. I haven't, and someone-who-will-not-be-named completely spoiled the ending in the last page.

I'll agree with Derek on the statute of limitations for internet spoilers and I'll also say that if my inconsiderate spoiler stopped anyone from going back and watching The Reader, then I feel like I've done a public service

[Boner M]

Who cares about spoilers. Get formalist, y'all.

[Raiders]

My own opinion is that in threads dedicated to the specific film, spoiler tags are unnecessary once the film has been released (basically when it is moved to the GD). People who choose to read those threads do so at their own risk. Spoiler tags should only be necessary in threads not dedicated to a particular film where you are revealing a twist or crucial plot element.

[Mysterious Dude]

Pshaw! Everyone got pretty pissy at me when I inadvertently spoiled 28 Weeks Later.

[Eleven]

Who cares about spoilers. Get formalist, y'all.

I feel this way too. Is describing the long take in Touch of Evil or The Player a spoiler? I pity those who only care about plot resolution in movies.

[number8]

My own opinion is that in threads dedicated to the specific film, spoiler tags are unnecessary once the film has been released (basically when it is moved to the GD). People who choose to read those threads do so at their own risk. Spoiler tags should only be necessary in threads not dedicated to a particular film where you are revealing a twist or crucial plot element.

I agree with this. If you come to a thread for a specific movie, knowing full well that people are gonna be discussing said movie in detail as we usually do here at Match Cut, and you act all pissy about it, you're being a baby.

[Robby P]

I think spoiler tags are just a common courtesy. I come in here because I'm interested in gauging the general reaction to the movie before deciding whether or not it will be worth my time to view it for myself. If a person is going to discuss a crucial detailed component of the movie, some form of advanced warning or concealment seems prudent. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

[Raiders]

I think spoiler tags are just a common courtesy. I come in here because I'm interested in gauging the general reaction to the movie before deciding whether or not it will be worth my time to view it for myself. If a person is going to discuss a crucial detailed component of the movie, some form of advanced warning or concealment seems prudent. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

I think this is where E's 2010 Database (stickied in GD) is a great idea. But honestly, it is rather cumbersome and annoying to have whole discussions under spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to discussion of the specific film.

I'm not trying to create legislation, people are free to spoiler tag whatever they choose. But I don't think anyone should be criticized for failing to spoiler tag something regarding this film in its own thread.

[angrycinephile]

I've had this music piece (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bfkhlSXk_o) in my head all day.

Damn you, Krzysztof Penderecki.

I kinda want to see the film again to give it an exact rating, but I certainly admired the film. DiCaprio's performance was fantastic and one of his best.

Also, early contender for next years Oscars for Best Cinematography? All the hallucination scenes especially were visually beautiful.

[Watashi]

Yeah, the music is amazing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGtN3lpI2f4&feature=related).

[chrisnu]

Saw it once, and liked it. Saw it again, and liked it even more. I noticed a few pointers.

1. At the beginning of the film, Teddy can't stand the water.
2. A sign that everything was staged: Chuck had trouble taking off his weapon. Something that's shrugged off at the time.
3. During the extended dream in the apartment, blood and water stream from Dolores' stomach.
4. Another sign that everything was staged: the guard in Ward C laughing. Another thing I initially shrugged off.
5. A sign that Dr. Losando wasn't real: as Teddy is leaving the cave, there's a shot which shows Rachel wearing shoes. According to the previous story, she didn't have any shoes.

Love the imagery and atmosphere, love the music, and the performances are pretty solid all around. I thought DiCaprio was outstanding. If I were Scorsese, I would also be pissed that this was bumped out of awards season. It would definitely would be up for consideration in technical categories.

I think it would be pretty interesting to compare this film with Lost Highway.

[soitgoes...]

Spoilers below, but given the recent conversation I'll leave the tags off.

Maybe I'm being too picky, but I just can't get passed the fact that the doctors staged the whole thing for one patient. Do other people not find this a problem? I mean how is that even plausible? How can everyone be okay with a very dangerous crazy guy running around loose on the island? If he really isn't deemed dangerous because he is always in "US Marshall Mode," then why house him in the ward for all the worst patients?

[Adam]

Spoilers below, but given the recent conversation I'll leave the tags off.

Maybe I'm being too picky, but I just can't get passed the fact that the doctors staged the whole thing for one patient. Do other people not find this a problem? I mean how is that even plausible? How can everyone be okay with a very dangerous crazy guy running around loose on the island?

Ya, you're being too picky. This is such an uber-stylized movie; I don't know that you can really complain about it not being rooted in reality. Also, the fact that the island-wide play-acting idea is so absurd adds to the ambiguity of it all. I'm surprised most everyone here seems to just take the ending at face value and accept what Kingsley's selling

Another interesting angle on staging all that nonsense for one patient is that it's meant to represent this almighty war of convictions going on in the field of psychiatry during the 50s/60s


If he really isn't deemed dangerous because he is always in "US Marshall Mode," then why house him in the ward for all the worst patients?

They make a point out of saying he's their most dangerous patient, what with his "violent nature" and so on

[Rowland]

Yeah, the music is amazing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGtN3lpI2f4&feature=related).Ahh, that piece is in the movie? I've had that on my hard drive for several years. Great tune.

[soitgoes...]

Ya, you're being too picky. This is such an uber-stylized movie; I don't know that you can really complain about it not being rooted in reality. Also, the fact that the island-wide play-acting idea is so absurd adds to the ambiguity of it all. I'm surprised most everyone here seems to just take the ending at face value and accept what Kingsley's selling

Another interesting angle on staging all that nonsense for one patient is that it's meant to represent this almighty war of convictions going on in the field of psychiatry during the 50s/60sWhy wouldn't it be grounded in reality? Just because the way it was filmed was "uber-stylized," how does that affect a movie where everything is shown as happening in the 50's? I do understand it is a fictional work, but unless I'm completely missing something, it is grounded in our reality. A reality that would never allow the most dangerous person in a mental institution run around the island just to try to achieve a radical mental health breakthrough. It's silly.


They make a point out of saying he's their most dangerous patient, what with his "violent nature" and so on
Exactly. I was only leaping to that conclusion as some sort of defense of the ridiculousness of having your most dangerous guy out and about.

[Adam]

Why wouldn't it be grounded in reality? Just because the way it was filmed was "uber-stylized," how does that affect a movie where everything is shown as happening in the 50's? I do understand it is a fictional work, but unless I'm completely missing something, it is grounded in our reality. A reality that would never allow the most dangerous person in a mental institution run around the island just to try to achieve a radical mental health breakthrough. It's silly.

It's pure schlock, sure, but that's by design. I think you pretty much know where you stand by at least that first scene when Ruffalo & DiCaprio are being driven into the institution. How many thunderous *booms* do you have to hear before you realize you're about to watch something very, very silly? And how is it grounded in reality when, by the end, you have no idea how much of the film took place solely in Leo's head? It's totally absurd but, for my taste, that's what makes it so glorious

I also think it's a tremendous achievement that, despite being so silly, the film still manages to pack a fairly devastating emotional punch

[Adam]

And, again, I don't know how you can say for sure whether or not Kingsley's whole experiment was real in the first place

[megladon8]

I never really understood what made Leo the most dangerous person on the island.

He seemed pretty tame compared to some of the guys we saw in Ward C.