Shutter Island (2009)

Introduction:

Martin Scorsese directing a thriller with supernatural elements? Count me in. But a quick look at reviews for the film show quite a mixed response. Did something go wrong, or did viewers expecting something other than what they were getting.

Summary:

I the early 1950’s, U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) are sent to Shutter Island to catch an escapee. Shutter Island is an Alcatraz for mentally unstable criminals. Upon arriving they meet psychologist Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) who is using radical techniques to reach his patients. But Teddy has another reason for heading to Shutter Island, and his secret may unravel events that plunge him and Chuck into a dangerous conspiracy or worse cause them to lose their minds.

Good Points

• Solid acting by the entire cast
• Dream sequences and hallucinations are executed with flair
• Some clever plot twists keep things interesting

Bad Points

• Strange music selection harms key sequences
• Some of the plot twist may disturb certain viewers
• A few strange editing choices distract in places

Overall

Scorsese’s skill behind the camera helps craft an interesting thriller. He knows how to get great performances from his actors. This is one of those movies that could have been an average thriller with a different person at the helm, but Scorsese kicks up some good tension in places. While this is not an instant classic, it’s a solid thriller for movie night.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Music: 2

Script: 4

Directing: 4

Entertainment: 3

Total: 4

In Depth Review

I’m not sure what people were expecting when they saw this movie. Something more like “The Departed” or maybe “Goodfellas” with ghosts? From the trailers I thought this was more of a supernatural thriller, but it’s really more of psychological thriller. The setting of a mental institution introduces many variables into the equation, and these drive the tension. So if you’re looking for ghosts or spirits, this movie isn’t going to provide them. But if you like mind games, then this will be worth seeking out.

A quick note to anyone who’s read the novel: my wife read it and said that the movie follows the plot very closely. She also said that this affected her enjoyment of the movie because it was too predictable. I didn’t read the book and enjoyed it a bit more than she did.

I realized that good performances were going to be the key to this film. You have to believe the characters and start to see things from their point of view. Not only does this keep things intense, but it allows the plot twists to deliver the punch they need. The cast is exceptional here with DiCaprio being the focus of the story and therefore getting the most screen time. We understand Teddy, He’s a veteran of the European front of WWII. He was part of the group that liberated concentration camps and what he’s seen there haunts him. Throughout the movie his experience colors his options and reactions to the events around him. It’s a juicy part and he pulls it off well.

The supporting cast is just as good with Ruffalo providing us with the nice guy Chuck. He’s driven to help Teddy, but as the movie progresses we begin to wonder about his motives. Ben Kingsley appears to be a man who genuinely wants to help the mentally ill and do it in a way that will be the least invasive. But there is something off about him – a secret he’s hiding. I also enjoyed Max Von Sydow’s small but key performance as a doctor who may also have a past in WWII, but on the other side. I’m leaving out several key performances by very good actors, but no one is wasted here and it all works for the good of the film.

Scorsese uses color and framing in excellent ways. For the most part the sets, clothing and even the water around the island are shades of grey and dull brown. It’s a washed out look that adds to the atmosphere. But when dream sequences and hallucinations kick in, we get startling use of color. Rich greens, reds and blues pop off the screen and give us a touch of unease. Scorsese uses some clever special effects and simple in camera techniques to add a surreal touch to these sequences. I also enjoyed the way he framed shots, often putting Teddy in a shot isolated amid a grey sky or a black background. Teddy is a man apart from the rest of the world both in character and visually.

Not all the choices work to the advantage. A few moments of odd editing makes a viewer wonder if scenes were hastily cut, or if they blinked and missed something. I think Scorsese was trying to heighten tension with these erratic jumps, but it actually was distracting, removing me from the film.

Then there were the music selections. Instead of hiring a composer, he opted to pick existing music and place it over the scenes. Some of it is very good, like the pieces by Mahler. But some of the selections are so badly placed that it amazed me. The worst offender happens at the beginning of the film as Teddy and Chuck arrive at Shutter Island. The music sounds like something you hear during a terrifying climax, as the horror reaches its apex. But instead it’s used over a simple driving scene. The effect is comical. A creeping dread style of music would have been much more effective than bombast. I’m sure Scorsese knows that, so it was probably intentional – but I’m not sure what he was trying to do there. Make the audience laugh was probably not on that list.

A thriller’s effectiveness is measured by how drawn into the film you are. If you are at the edge of your seat wondering if your lead character is going to survive then the movie has done its job. “Shutter Island” works in fits and starts. Certain sequences are excellent and others (those affected by the edits or music choices) pull you from the film. This breaks up the flow and reduces your chances of getting really scared. To see it done right, check out Hitchcock’s “Rear Window”.

What this boils down to is that “Shutter Island” ends up working for a good portion of its run time and is entertaining. It just doesn’t feel as good as it could have been. I recommend it, but don’t expect to be blown away.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Introduction

Another movie with a very good buzz around it, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” was based off a best selling Swedish novel, one that is also doing quite well in its translated form in the states. It was only a matter of time before the movie (and a remake) were brought to US shores. But can a foreign murder mystery really be that interesting?

Summary

Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is a reporter who was just successfully sued for libeling a high powered industrialist. With a prison term awaiting him Mikael is offered a job by Henrik Vengaer (Sven-Bertil Taube), a man of great wealth and power. He is seeking his favorite niece, Harriet (Ewa Froling) who disappeared years ago under mysterious circumstances. As Mikael begins his investigation he discovers that a young computer hacker named Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) has breached his computer and is helping him out. Pieces to the puzzle fall into place, and it each new clue leads to a tale of men who hate women and enigma of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”.

Good Points:

• Excellent acting by the entire cast
• The story does not pull its punches
• Unravels at a measured pace

Bad Points:

• A long movie that may move too slowly for some
• Some of the characters and situations may be too disturbing for some viewers
• They solution to the mystery is not a huge surprise

Overall:

You want solid believable characters and a compelling story, this is the movie for you. Top notch acting pulls you into the tale and the measured pace gives you a chance to get a feel for the leads and their world. At nearly two and a half hours, you’ve got to be ready for some serious subtitle reading. But its well worth the effort.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Music: 4

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Direction: 5

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Introduction

It tough to pull off a good parody film. Most of the time the jokes fall flat or are too obvious. Every once in a while you get a movie that is smart, entertaining and funny. The last one that really entertained me was "Galaxy Quest", but I heard very good things about this movie.

Summary

In a bid to make the ultimate war film four of the biggest names in Hollywood are brought together. Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) - action star extraordinaire, Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) - comedian specializing in fat and fart jokes, Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) - an actor willing to do anything to achieve his role, and Hip Hop Superstar Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson). In a bid to create the height in realism, the group is dropped into the jungle for guerrilla style filmmaking. But there's a hitch, a group of well-armed drug lords is convinced that these actors are actual solders sent to hunt them down. How long will it take these actors to realize that they are fighting for their lives, not filming "Tropic Thunder"?

Good Points

• Some very funny moments in the script that contain biting satire and laugh out loud lines
• Smaller parts for big name actors are hilarious
• Robert Downey Jr. nearly steals every scene he's in

Bad Points

• Not every joke lands, and some scenes are a little too "inside"
• Ben Stiller is good, but miscast
• The trailers in the opening are so funny that the rest of the movie ends up looking a bit weak

Overall

For anyone who loves movies and knows about the filming of war films will find plenty to enjoy here. It takes lots of jabs at Hollywood style filmmaking and personalities. The humor ranges from gross out jokes to nasty satire. If anything its worth seeing the first sequence of fake trailers.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Music: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

She Gods of Shark Reef (1958)

Introduction:

When I opened the 100 Sci-Fi Classics and saw this title I thought, we've got some kind of island queen who has power over the sharks and she uses it to defend her village from pirates. Sounds like a fun film, right? I thought so. But when I saw that the director was Roger Corman, I knew he wouldn't have the budget for that type of movie. So I set my expectations a bit lower. You should too.

Summary:

Jim (Don Durant) finds himself in a bit of trouble with Hawaiian law enforcement, so he and his brother Chris (Bill Cord) hop on their little boat and try to escape. A tempest destroys the boat and they are saved by the hula dancing/pearl diving woman of a small island. Queen Pua (Jeanne Gerson) wants them gone as quickly as possible. But Mahia (Lisa Montell) falls for Chris. Meanwhile Jim decides that he wants those pearls for himself. Things quickly devolve into kidnappings, sacrifices, sunken tiki idols and sharks. Will the brothers be able to escape the wrath of the "She Gods of Shark Reef"?

Good Points:

• Really and truly filmed in Hawaii
• A beach movie without any lame songs
• None of the actors are really bad

Bad Points:

• Moves really slowly at times
• The shark scenes are kinda funny
• None of the actors are good either

Overall:

You know, for a Corman film this isn't too bad. Sure it moves slowly and has some serious budget limitations, but at the same time the script accounts for that. It's really the story of two brothers caught in a jam and having to figure a way out of it. Look at it as more of a thriller filmed in Hawaii on a shoestring budget and you might enjoy some of it. But don't let the title fool you into thinking there is anything fantastic going on.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Music: 2

Acting: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Overall:2

After watching a few Roger Corman films on Mystery Science Theater 3000, I know what to expect from him. He used his small budget as best he can. He'd stretch that dollar with long scenes of people walking, and talking and walking some more. He'd hold out shots a little longer than they needed to be, and sometimes include questionable edits. Its drive-in material. No one was expecting the teens in the audience to really be paying too much attention. For the record, Corman could make some fun and entertaining films, especially if his budget was a bit larger. But for something like this, you just gotta expect the usual suspects.

Take the acting for one thing. Actually no one in this movie is horrible. Corman will often cast based on looks and sex appeal as opposed to actual talent. Sometimes he got lucky, but most of the time you end up with some nice looking folks that are out acted by a wooden sets. In this case, everyone is just below average. Bill Cord makes Chris a likable guy if a bit on the bland side. Don Durant plays his brother Jim as a mercurial hot head. One minute he seems like he's got it together, the next he's thirsting to steal something or beat someone up. He provides some of the color to the film, so I can't fault him to much.

Lisa Montell as Mahia makes a very alluring island gal. She plays up the innocent angle a bit too much, but it works in context of the film. Jeanne Gerson as Queen Pua is more like the cantankerous old gramma who will not let her daughter date those boys! It's a funny performance. I' m not sure if she did it on purpose or not, but she's not commanding or threatening. She just seems cranky.

The script is an odd beast, starting off with Jim and very disturbing looking old man sneaking onto a peer and killing some guards. They seem to be looking for guns, but things go wrong when they are discovered. This starts the movie with a moody and dark sequence, making me wonder if this was going to turn into something more chilling or closer to a horror film. This sequence in style and tone is nothing like the rest of the movie. All it does is show us what kind of man Jim is, and that becomes apparent quickly enough.

The rest of the movie has Chris and Jim relating to each other and to the women of the island. The two brothers obviously have some issues with each other, but Chris seems to genuinely care for his brother. Jim seems a bit more sociopathic. The rest of the dialogue is your typical islander warning the outsiders kinda stuff, "You anger the shark gods!", "You bring bad fortune!", "Only a sacrifice can appease the Shark Gods!" "You leave now, you're not wanted here!". Queen Pua gets these gems and says them in her crankiest voice.

Part of the problem is that the Shark God is never really a threat, and neither is Queen Pua. The whole movie has a real laid back feel, and it just doesn't work to create any momentum. Most of this is probably the direction, but some work on the script should have been used to make a real threat for the brothers. Instead they just seem like they are hanging around the island because it’s populated with woman who hula dance regularly.

The sound is really off in this film, with the boom mic not nearly close enough in some scenes and other times being overpowered by the sounds of wind and surf on the island. Quite a few lines of dialogue are lost because of this. Then there's the music. It goes for authentic island feel, but it is placed at some very inopportune times, becoming distracting in many scenes.

The movie does have one thing in its favor, beautiful scenery. Filmed on the island of Kauai, the cliffs and mountains of the island are wonderful to behold. Even Corman was able to grab some breath taking vistas in this film. The beach looks wonderful and even the underwater moments are impressive. It's a real shame that the print is so faded, I can imagine that this movie looked great when it was first released in 1958. Some of the budget limitations appear during the shark attack scenes. Corman uses a mix of stock footage and what appears to be a dead or drugged shark for some close up scenes. The whole thing is actually pretty funny looking and takes away any threat there may have been.

As I mentioned, I was expecting this movie to be a lot worse, but it had its moments. Things move slowly in places, with dancing sequences and walking sequences padding out the film. On the other hand it moves a lot quicker than some of the more dreary of Corman's films. If you're looking for a good riffing movie with some friends, this fits the bill. But if you're looking for an entertaining island girl film - um, move along, nothing to see here.

500 Days of Summer (2009)

Introduction:

It's amazing what good buzz can do. When I first read a review for this movie during its festival run, no one had heard of it. Jump forward about six months and I couldn't rent it from my local DVD store - it was always out. Well I finally got a chance to see it. Did it live up to the buzz?

Summary:

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is breaking up with Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel). Everything seemed perfect and now its all going wrong. Tom's memories take us through 500 days of falling love, being in love and falling out of love with his perfect girl. But as the story progresses we begin to see that Summer may not be perfect after all. What will be revealed about Tom after we see all "500 Days of Summer"?

Good Points:

• Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel bring their characters to life
• An entertaining and original script
• Avoids the clichés of current romantic comedies

Bad Points:

• A little gimmicky in parts
• The pacing suffers at times with the fractured narrative
• The song selections are sure to rub some people the wrong way

Overall:

This is how you make a film about relationships. It’s entertaining, managing to be funny and touching all at the same time. It never goes overboard with the characters or wacky antics. Instead it does its best to show how to people come together, fall for each other and grow apart - even if one of them doesn't realize it. Gordon-Levitt nails the character and Deschanel is perfect in her part, and since they carry the movie it clicks all the way through. Definitely worth checking out, even if this isn't normally your type of movie.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 4

Audio: 4

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Moon (2009)

Introduction:

This movie had some good buzz on it when it came out in theaters. Many reviewers found it refreshing to have an original sci-fi idea actually executed in a movie. Most sci-fi these days is really space opera, lots of fun and adventure, but not much science. "Moon" was more of a throwback to classic sci-fi adventures of the 50's, but without the Fire Maidens or Bug Eyed Monsters.

Summary:

Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) has been alone on the lunar station for almost three years, but it’s getting close to the end of his shift. Soon he'll be able to return to earth and be with his wife and child. During a final check of some mining equipment, he is in an accident. When he awakens his robot companion GERTY (Kevin Spacey) tells him that he was unharmed. But Sam begins to doubt this. You see, now he's pretty sure he's not the only human on board the lunar station - and that solving that mystery is going to shatter his idea of reality.

Good Points:

• Top notch acting from Sam Rockwell
• The whole movie and its themes leave you thinking at the end
• Amazing production design for a film with this budget

Bad Points:

• The movie's slow pace may bore some viewers
• A few of the shots get a little artsy and pull you out of the film
• Some viewers dislike GERTY and/or Spacey's take on him

Overall

I love space adventure films, but it's nice to get a solid sci-fi flick once in a while, and "Moon" is a good one. Rockwell owns the movie and really makes you care about his character. The slow pace makes perfect sense when you look back on it, but it can be challenging for someone expecting more excitement. I can recommend this film easily to anyone who enjoys sci-fi and is looking for something with a bit more meat in the story.

Ratings (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 5

Music: 3

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Introduction:

Has it really been 15 years since “Toy Story” came out in theaters and revealed to the world that computer animation could be used to tell a feature length story? IMDB is saying it’s true. Is there a point to making another movie, other than to fatten Pixar’s and Disney’s wallet?

Summary:

Young Andy (John Morris) is getting ready to head off to college. His playmates lay in his old toy chest all but forgotten, and yet Andy still can’t part with them. Eventually he decides to put the toys in the attic, except for Woody (Tom Hanks) who will join him at college. But a mishap ends with the toys heading out to Sunnyside Daycare. At first this doesn’t seem so bad, at least they’ll get played with. But it becomes apparent that the daycare is a prison for the toys, and that they must escape or end up destroyed by toddlers. But if they do make it out, where will they go? After all if a toy isn’t being played with, what good is it? Find out the answer in “Toy Story 3”.

Good Points:

• The animation and voice acting are top notch
• The story is a logical and entertaining continuation of the first two tales
• Achieves a surprisingly poignant conclusion

Bad Points:

• The 3D was well integrated but not needed
• Some of the story elements are obvious recycles from the previous two films
• The ending may push some viewers a little too hard

Overall:

I’ve doubted Pixar in the past, but they have yet to make a movie I don’t like. “Toy Story 3” is just as good as the previous two films, but has a darker tone to it. This gives it a greater impact at the end, one that may be a bit overblown, but is very effective. There are still plenty of laughs and thrills to enjoy. All your favorite characters and some new ones are on hand to make a very entertaining film, and maybe one of Pixar’s best yet.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 5

Sound: 5

Music: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Total: 5

In Depth

“Toy Story 3” hits all the right notes. It’s fun, it’s colorful, it’s exciting, it’s funny and it’s sad. Yeah, you heard me; this movie’s got a real melancholy vibe to it. I’m not sure if younger viewers will catch this, they’ll see the sunny ending and feel that the toys are safe and happy. Heck, I keep telling myself the same thing. But the adult in me felt the sense of loss, knowing you’ve left childhood behind. Andy’s moved on and has to say goodbye. Most of us have had to do this at one time or another. This film captures that feeling and nails it, making it one of the few movies to actually move me to tears in the theater. Oh, I’m a cynic most of the time – but when it comes to animation, I can be a softy.

Speaking of animation, this is some of the best work Pixar’s done. Each movie really pushes the envelope of what they can pull off. While this doesn’t have the aggressive detail of “Wall-e” it does a great job of pulling the colors, movement and style of the previous Toy Story films and improving them. Take a look at the scenes with Lotso (Ned Beatty). His fur is amazing, looking just like plush that has been well used over the years.

Another stand out element is the action. There is an amazing amount of fluidity to the movement, especially in scenes where cameras angle around toys in motion over a background in motion. This was also done to great affect in the finale of “Toy Story 2” at the airport. The gut wrenching finale action sequence in the junkyard is amazing to see. Pixar still can’t be topped in this department.

A word about the 3D, it’s not necessary. It’s well done, and never distracts from the film. I was never wowed by it. This movie will play just as well without the 3D and the colors will probably look a bit sharper too.

The sound work is as good as it’s always been. All the toys have distinctive sound effects that accompany them. In addition the key element of background noise is perfect, pulling you into the world that’s been created.

Randy Newman who provided the score for the first two films returns for the third. He does a great job with the score, building moments and keeping things fun. For moments when Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) is reset into his Spanish-speaking mode, Newman injects a flamenco beat into the score. His song, “You’ve got a Friend in Me” is utilized throughout the score and even played with lyrics a couple times. He even provides a new song for the end credits. I’m not a huge fan of his vocal style or his songs, but fans should enjoy what they get here.

The cast of Toy Story started out pretty big and it’s increased with each movie. Each actor brings the characters to life perfectly. Of course everyone knows and loves Tom Hanks as Woody and Tim Allen as Buzz. But Joan Cusack is excellent as Jessie the cowgirl and nearly steals the scenes she’s in. New characters include Ned Beatty as the deceptively cuddly Lotso (hugs Bear), Michael Keaton as Ken to Jodi Benson’s Barbie. Timothy Dalton provides the voice for the classically trained actor Mr. Pricklepants – a hedgehog. And Blake Clark joins the group as the voice of Slinky Dog taking over for the late Jim Varney. I want to give each actor a plug, but seriously they all do a great job. It takes effective voice acting to make an emotional ending work, and they pull it off easily.

The basic story takes the premise of “Toy Story 2” and reverses it. So instead of Woody being captured by a toy collected and being rescued by the other toys, the other toys captured at the daycare and Woody has to stage the rescue. Even the finale action set piece with the moving conveyer belts and dangerous enemy toy scheming against our heroes is very similar. It’s the added element of Andy being an adult and making a decision about the toys that drives the whole plot and the emotional climax of the film. The previous two films were focused on friendship too, but more on the friendship between the toys. This element of ending friendships looms over the whole story from the beginning and gives this movie a different tone. It feels like a natural continuation of the first two stories and it’s true climax. The only thing that really seems to be lacking is the snappy one-liners the first two films had. The movie also assumes you’ve seen the first two films. Many of the relationships and jokes rest on events the occurred in those movies.

The whole package is executed with great skill. Director Lee Unkrich keeps all the elements flowing at once. He executes the action and comedy with perfect timing. The movie never loses momentum, or bogs down in sentimentality until the end. I found the ending to be very effective, but I was also very conscious that it was getting a little manipulative. Some viewers may not understand why the farewell scene is dragging on so long. I loved it, but I also loved the multiple endings of “Return of the King”. For some, the end might be a slight misstep.

I was surprised by this movie. I knew I’d enjoy it. I really enjoyed the first two films. I also knew there was going to be a bit different from those films. I wasn’t sure how that element would work in the final analysis. When it’s all said and done, the movie is great, providing a well-rounded experience of fun and fantasy with a touch of sadness. If you’ve seen the first two films and enjoyed them, then this is a must see.