Shutter Island

It's wonderful to see a horror film treated with so much respect, especially by a director as well-known and prolific as Martin Scorsese. And make no mistake, Shutter Island is a horror film, and a well-made one at that, which likely explains the mixed critical reactions. The mystery and thriller aspects to Shutter Island combine with the horror elements, creating a unique blend, but the film's horror roots cannot be ignored, and I'm glad Scorsese didn't shy away.

Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, author of Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone, Shutter Island is an altogether different beast from previous works. Sure, the location is similar, but the tone is darker, the tension higher, and genre twisted. I say genre twisted, because Lehane is a writer with mystery backgrounds, which is prevalent in Shutter Island, but certainly not limited to. The film is no different, and perhaps more atmospheric than the novel it was adapted from. Scorsese embraces the horror, the paranoia, and audiences are treated to a glimpse into a genre they usually hold in disdain. This is a horror movie that takes it's time with the characters, lets the mood build and culminate in a final, game-changing twist. By the time of the big reveal, we've come to know these characters, whether they're wholly truthful or not.

As I've already mentioned, Scorsese treats Shutter Island with respect, framing scenes much like those of horror films, utilizing shadows, paranoia, jump scares, loud noises, and the score to create tension and fear. Combine that with the setting - a mental institution - and the apparent brutality of the doctors and their procedures, and you definitely have the workings of a horror flick...or thriller if you will. Shutter Island is a beauty, and whether you enjoy the story or not, it's hard to argue the film isn't gorgeous. Scorcese is a talented director, and Shutter Island proves this.

His cast is wonderful, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Mark Ruffalo to Ben Kingsley. Each of them brings their character to life, and I argue Kingsley does the most terrific job. I don't usually fawn over Kingsley's work, but he captivated me every time he was on screen, and I wanted more of him. But everyone does a fantastic job, especially in light of the twist ending, when you realize there is more to each character than you would have thought. And while the role is limited, Jackie Earle Hayley plays wonderful creeps, and his performance as a deeply trouble and violent patient resonated long after he appeared.

Shutter Island exceeded my expectations, which I'm glad to report. For a Lehane adaptation, it ranks close with Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone, and stretches far beyond Clint Eastwood's Mystic River. Judge for yourself, but this is a film worth seeing.

Genre - Horror (3.75)

Screenplay (3)

Acting (4)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

Food, Inc.

I love watching films that make my blood boil. I love it even more when those films happens to be documentaries. There is just something about real situations, however skewed an issue may be presented, that gets to me. Michael Moore is a figure whose work can be polarizing, yet each topic he's investigated has resinated with me. Health care, gun control, the Bush administration's incompetence. Food, Inc. is no different. This is a film that examines the current state of our food industry, how food is "made" and how the animals, and the crops we grow, are treated and mass-produced. And I'll be damned if it didn't get me angry.

For the record, I'm an unapologetic lover of all things meat, someone who has never given the briefest thought to vegetarianism and will suck down the flesh of animals until the day I die. But that doesn't mean I want those animals, with the flesh I so cravingly want, treated poorly. Wrangling chickens, throwing them into tiny crates, kicking them, this is not how a living being should be treated. The same goes for cows and pigs. Food, Inc. delves into the world of livestock "farming," showing just how broken the system is. It's no wonder we know so little about the food we buy, with the companies working so hard to hide it from us. Robert Kenner, the man behind Food, Inc. does everything he can to expose the industry for all its faults, hoping a more transparent system will emerge.

The film itself, which not only covers how animals are "made" into food, but also examines the wild and crazy world of corn, is well-structured and beautifully shot. Interviews are done with farmers who provide their animals to the big name companies, figures far more sympathetic than you might believe. There are also interviews with farmers doing things the old-fashioned way, what with grass-fed beef and outdoors and dignity. Viewers are treated to a glimpse of how things used to be, how things can be, if only we work to change how things are done now. Kenner lets the words and images of the people he interviews say it all, relying less on showmanship and entertainment.

Food, Inc. may not inspire an instantaneous change in viewers, but it should cause some critical thinking. There is hope for a new system, one with less hormones and cruelty and corn, but it is up to the consumers of the world to demand that change. Let Food, Inc. get under your skin, let it anger you, because that is exactly what is needed.

Genre - Documentary (4)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (-)

Production (4)

Directing (4)

In The Loop

In Burn After Reading, at the films finale, we discover that everything preceding it was a smorgasbord of chaos. The film is essentially one big joke, the end being the punch line. Some audiences were put off by this, while others appreciated what the Coen's were trying to say. I, for one, thought the film was excellent, and felt the ending lifted my spirits towards the movie, as opposed to leaving me feeling cheated. In the Loop is not Burn After Reading by any means, but the two do share a theme of political chaos, which lends each a certain hilarity that, I think, some will understand and others won't, which is a shame.

The chaos factor runs heavy throughout In the Loop's running time, and as everything becomes more and more tangled and confused, the more laughs there seem to be. The film portrays the political game as something so enormous and twisting, that is impossible to have everyone working within the system on the same page, saying the same things, doing what they are supposed to do. Which is likely fair, as governments, especially those of the featured Great Britain and United States, tend to be so sprawling in their reach that it's a wonder anything gets done properly at all. In the Loop doesn't follow so much a coherent story (though there is one), but instead follows characters caught in a machine, unable to escape, simply trying to survive. The politics are about war - whether going to or avoiding - yet every character in the film, all of them players in government or military, has their own opinion and thought of where their country stands. It's confusing and becomes much harder to follow the deeper it goes, but that is what makes the film so funny.

The writers, and there are a number of them, including director Armando Iannucci, do a brilliant job linking everything together, having the chaos build upon itself without it becoming too burdensome for the audience. The dialogue is quick and snappy, even when it is men and women screaming and swearing at each other. Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, and James Gandolfini each play their characters perfectly, some of them hapless idiots, other barking orders at anyone below their pay grade. While In the Loop is based off the British television series The Thick of It, the story seems to stand on its own, only a few characters crossing over, with most of the television cast playing different roles in the film.

Iannucci shot the film in a handheld, documentary style, with a considerable amount of improvisation by the actors, making the film feel more real. Again, this enhances the humor, if only because audiences can see the bits of truth about the inner-workings of government through this style.

This is a film definitely worth watching, a recommendation for those who find humor in politics, or in the everyday, chaotic bullshit of life. I'm glad the writers, who live and work in the U.K., spared no one in their skewering, giving both the U.S. and U.K. their dues. It's about time someone did.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)

Acting (4)

Production (3)

Directing (3)

The Book of Eli

It seems as if there are more good ideas out there than good writing. You'd like to believe the two could go hand in hand, yet this isn't always (read: rarely) the case. Some writers are gifted with devising brilliant ideas, but when pen needs to be put to paper, there is a failure in communication. The brain does not supply the proper words, the words that would flesh a brilliant idea into a brilliant script, leaving a good idea ruined. The same goes for good writers, who know the craft inside and out, yet have trouble finding anything decent to write about. I don't know what the case was with The Book of Eli, but there was certainly a breakdown somewhere in there.

The Hughes Brothers latest film, their first since 2001's From Hell, starts out promising, but by the end credits, you can't help but feel a little disappointed. We meet the title character, Eli, played by the always great Denzel Washington, who is a loner, a man that keeps to himself and likes it that way. When post-apocalyptic thugs try and steal from him, though, he slices them to pieces without so much as breaking a sweat. It's an incredible sight to behold, especially if you are a fan of quick, brutal violence...and why shouldn't you be? Yeah, why not, movie watcher? So begins a great idea, having a man protect something as simple as a book, gifted with ninja fighting skills and seems invulnerable to bullets. But then they had to go and fuck it all up at the end, with one of the dullest, most stretched out twists cinema has ever seen. Shyamalan wouldn't have let that shit happen (ignore The Happening. Or The Village. Or Signs.). This was an idea that had promise, but was poorly executed.

For the most part, the writing works until the ending. We get some interesting hints as to why the "apocalypse" happened, and some cool fight scenes. There is a tonally odd, but entertaining, shootout near the films finale that had me hopeful, but that was actually the last of anything good about The Book of Eli. After that, we get mini-twists hard not to see coming, and a lot of empty, pointless filler. The actors do what they can, and are the best part of the movie as a whole. Washington does a solid job leading, and Gary Oldman is a wonderful villain, even when all the villain wants is a book. Mila Kunis isn't given a lot to do, but she performs admirably for what she is given.

So in the end, what you have is just another post-apocalyptic movie that promises more than it delivers. Not to say The Book of Eli is a complete waste of your time, but not something you need to rush to see. Or watch all but that last five or ten minutes and call it good. No, that's not an actual suggestion, but I wish the Hughes Brothers thought about that while filming, or editing, the film. But what are you going to do? Wait for the next post-apocalyptic movie to hit theaters. Sounds good to me.

Genre - Action (2.25)

Screenplay - 2

Acting - 3

Production - 2

Directing - 2