So I guess we have to wait two more years for Silence.
Edited by Overstreet, 14 June 2009 - 01:28 PM.
Jump to content
Posted 25 February 2008 - 08:06 PM
Edited by Overstreet, 14 June 2009 - 01:28 PM.
Posted 26 February 2008 - 08:35 AM
Posted 03 March 2008 - 02:38 PM
Edited by MLeary, 03 March 2008 - 02:38 PM.
Posted 21 August 2009 - 10:21 PM
[Releasing the film in October 2009 would mean] not just paying for a release. It is another four months of paying for an Oscar campaign for a movie they know may well be able to be pushed into a list of 10 (another way the expansion has screwed a major studio) when it was never expected to make it into a list of 5. Cash flow is tough at Paramount, but releasing a movie in October is not a lot different in cost than releasing in February. What is more expensive is holding it in theaters and in Oscar voters' minds beyond those first 4 weeks of heavy release. . . . It's an extra $15 million that Par does not have to spend on an extended Oscar run when it already knows that a win is nearly impossible for a film like this and a nomination will not add to their cash flow.I also love the headline on Karina Longworth's blurb reporting this development: "SHUTTER ISLAND Shuffled to Next Fiscal Quarter?"
Posted 10 October 2009 - 12:30 AM
Posted 23 December 2009 - 11:13 AM
So far, I'm 50/50 on films adapted from Dennis Lehane novels. I really, truly, intensely don't like Eastwood's "Mystic River," which I felt was overwrought and preposterous. But "Gone Baby Gone," as directed by Ben Affleck, was a solid, bitter little pill. I liked that film's sensibility, the way it handled what could have been a big fat bag of melodrama. Having never read Lehane, it seems to me that adapting his work becomes a matter of taste, and how restrained or how florid you play his very big, very mechanical plots. Tone is the trick of the thing, and that's especially true with this piece of material. Scorsese's in "Cape Fear" mode here, making his own version of the sort of thing that rocked his world when he was younger. Scorsese is still every bit the active, imitative film nerd that Quentin Tarantino is... they're just drawing from different wells.
Screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis faced a challenge with "Shutter Island," and with an audience that's ten years past "The Sixth Sense," which set off a spate of films that were built to play some sort of trick on the audience, whether that's a twist or a reveal or a structural gimmick or whatever... M. Night's got a lot of 'splainin' to do when it comes to the sins of the '00's. "Shutter Island" is less about what the final reveal turns out to be, and more about the ride along the way. And that's not to say the end of the film is weak... it's an emotional powerhouse that more than justifies any game-playing that goes on. It's just that this film is such a tactile pleasure, such a finely-tuned genre machine by a guy who is one of the most reflexively gifted visual storytellers who has ever worked. I like this a hell of a lot more than I liked "The Departed," which I enjoyed. That one felt like familiar ground, though, while this is a Scorsese we've never really seen before. He's played dark, and he's played with high style, but he's never really made something you could call a horror film before now. "Shutter Island" is a horror film, but with a haunted house that travels on two legs. . . .
Posted 29 January 2010 - 04:23 PM
Posted 29 January 2010 - 04:27 PM
Posted 12 February 2010 - 01:28 PM
Posted 13 February 2010 - 01:34 AM
Edited by Ryan H., 13 February 2010 - 01:39 AM.
Posted 13 February 2010 - 05:04 PM
Expert, screw-turning narrative filmmaking put at the service of old-dark-madhouse claptrap, "Shutter Island" arguably occupies a similar place in Martin Scorsese's filmography as "The Shining" does in Stanley Kubrick's. In his first dramatic feature since "The Departed," Scorsese applies his protean skill and unsurpassed knowledge of Hollywood genres to create a dark, intense thriller involving insanity, ghastly memories, mind-alteration and violence, all wrapped in a story about the search for a missing patient at an island asylum. A topnotch cast headed by Leonardo DiCaprio looks to lead this Paramount release, postponed from its original opening date last fall to Feb. 19, to muscular returns in all markets.
As Kubrick did with Stephen King's novel, Scorsese uncustomarily ventures here into bestseller territory that obliges him to deliver certain expected ingredients for the mass audience and adhere to formula more than has been his nature over the years. Although "The Departed" and "Cape Fear" come close, "Shutter Island" is the film that most forces the director to walk the straight and narrow in terms of carefully and clearly telling a story; if testing himself within that discipline was his intention, this most devoted of cinema students among major American directors gets an "A." . . .
This is high-end popcorn fare adorned with a glittering pedigree by a powerhouse cast and crew. . . .
Posted 13 February 2010 - 05:32 PM
So all things being equal, even the most devoted of Scorsese fans couldn't necessarily be blamed for expecting little beyond a very very grand piece of Guignol, with inimitable style and panache but maybe not so much resonance. So I am thoroughly happy to report that, to my eyes and ears at least, Shutter Island is, in the Godardian formulation, a vrai Scorsese film, in its way the most fully realized personal work of the Scorsese-DiCaprio collabs, a puzzle picture that, as it puts its plot pieces together, climbs to a crescendo that aims to reach that perfect note of empathetic despair we haven't seen/heard in a Hollywood picture since Vertigo. I think it very nearly gets there. . . .
Curiouser and curiouser it grows, with new elements thrown into the labyrinth of a storyline even as others are peeled...not quite away but a little bit down, as it were. The ornate dream sequences are particularly knotty, and long, and in the many scenes of horror Scorsese pushes the imagery in ways we haven't expected of him in a while. Indeed, I imagine certain arbiters of supposed good taste will find much to object to here. It's unsettling stuff. But there's also a lushness to it all, a powerful Powell-Pressburger feel to both the cinematography (some of Robert Richardson's richest work, and this guy knows from richness) and the production design (by Dante Ferretti, who's just as unleashed as Richardson, as it were). For all the film's seriousness of purpose, you can sense where Scorsese's having a bit of fun with the genre and with references. I was a little surprised to see such a powerful influence from The Shining (and not just in the music, which, like that of Kubrick's film, is largely culled from contemporary classical masters such as Penderecki and Ligeti, and is massively powerful all the way through); less so the nods to Psycho, Lewton and Robson's Bedlam, Preminger's Laura, and many more classics.
But it's what's going on underneath all these surfaces, and the myriad plot twists, that gives this picture its greatest pull. Even more than Raging Bull, Shutter Island can be read as a feature-length remake of Scorsese's harrowing 1969 short The Big Shave: it's a chronicle of a man who simply cannot stop hurting himself, cutting himself open. And as such I found it terribly moving. Without going into too much detail, the thing about Shutter Island that frightened me the most (and it frightened me plenty) was what it told me about what I was doing with my own life. I don't expect—and certainly don't hope—that it will work on all that many viewers in that particular way, but I still feel it's definitely a more powerful, and Scorsesian, experience than your garden-variety big budget frightfest.
Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 13 February 2010 - 05:30 PM.
Posted 16 February 2010 - 10:37 AM
Posted 17 February 2010 - 12:21 AM