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)

The Conversation

Oh, Gene Hackman, you always look the exact same. Even in 1974, you still have the same, reliable look. And you know what? I like that. I like the consistency. The Conversation, a film by Francis Ford Coppola, is a quiet little thing, including lead star Hackman. There isn't a lot of talking, but there is a lot of listening. And watching. That is what works best for The Conversation. As a surveillance based thriller, tension is built by letting the audience guess at everything, questioning the truth of things just as Hackman's Harry Caul does. The film focuses on Caul and a single recording of a conversation between a man and a woman. The implications of this conversation, mostly on whether or not someone will be hurt, or killed, because of it, sends Caul into a spiral of paranoia. Luckily, The Conversation was made during the better of the Coppola years, or I could see this not working. That, or maybe I was expecting something a lot different than what I got. Either way, the film works for the most part, if not for feeling a little slow in places. But the ending was great and left room for interpretation. In a remake, which wouldn't be unheard of, could benefit from an upgrade in technology, but I fear a use of stupid-conspiracy would hurt the film. The subtle nature of this mystery is what makes the film work, and anymore would have made the whole experience a bit cheesy.

Genre - Thriller (3.5)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (4)

State Of Play

Before State of Play was released (a title which my father, of the Bruce Campbell/My Name Is Bruce-fiasco fame, disliked), I was more than a little disinterested. It's no secret that I don't care much for Russell Crowe. His acting isn't that impressive, and I usually groan whenever I see a trailer for a movie he is staring in, even if the film itself looks good. That said, his presence isn't a deal breaker, and so I went to see State of Play with an open mind. The results were these: better than expected. Overall, I felt the conspiracy the film revolves around was handled well, never getting too ridiculous, which is a good thing in a movie like this. Stupid conspiracies that spiral out of control have ruined more than a few potentially good movies. I'm glad this didn't. The acting by the supporting cast (i.e. not Russell Crowe, though he did fine) was above average. It's always nice to see Rachel McAdams and Helen Mirren. Even ol' Ben Affleck did a decent job. But even with some good talent, the story has to work, and in this case it did. I think the ending was a little too neatly wrapped, but it wasn't unforgivable. State of Play, in the end, had enough to say about the current state of journalism and the problems with privatizing military, so props are due for that. And, to my surprise, this was based on a television series over in the UK. I never would have thought if I hadn't noticed the information in the credits.

Genre - Thriller (2.75)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Timecrimes

I'll just come out and say it: I like time travel movies. When done well, a time travel film can hardly be bettered. Maybe that is why I love the television show Lost so much, because it knows how to handle time travel in a way that makes sense (unlike another series, Heroes). Timecrimes is at heart a thriller, and the time travel elements only further extend the intrigue. There are so many layers that keeping it all straight in your head becomes difficult, but creates an interesting puzzle for you to solve. I've seen many comparisons of Timecrimes to Primer, and while there are similarities besides time travel, the two exist as very different films. The reason Timecrimes works is because we get a linear timeline of Hector, who becomes so wrapped up in his efforts to ensure a huge time paradox can be avoided, instead of jumping from perspective to perspective of different characters or different Hector's. Plus, there are about three or four stories within the film, which are uncovered each time Hector "solves" one of his problems. At times though, the writing seems a little amateur, and the reasons for some of Hector's actions are not totally understandable. But by the end, we get a fairly decent, and somewhat depressing ending, that manages to wrap up enough loose ends to make the whole affair worthwhile.

Genre - Thriller (2.75)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (2)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

Hard Candy

Before David Slade sent a horde of vampires to Alaska in 30 Days of Night, he offered us a little Hard Candy. This cautionary tale pits teen against pedophile, in a quest of vigilante justice. Hayley (Ellen Page) is out to stop Jeff (Patrick Wilson), a 32-year old man she believes to have a penchant for young teen girls. At first glance, Hayley seems to be just one of those youngsters, but the tables quickly turn on Jeff, and for the worst. The is a compact thriller, mostly based on the interactions of Page and Wilson as she interrogates him in his home. Both roles are perfectly cast, and Page shows strong acting skills long before her Juno days. The film is intense, but not violent or crude. And the pursuit of justice in the headstrong teen is something you'll toil with; is she doing something right or wrong in all this? One particular scene will have men cringing, and I dare anyone to watch it without groaning (either out loud or in your head). Try Hard Candy and get lost in the twists and turns of it all.

Genre - Thriller (3.25)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (4)

Grindhouse

Two films for the price of one. Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof. For my money, both are quality films of two separate genres. Planet Terror is a masterfully executed B-movie that had every intention of being one. It's campy, dumb, bloody, and complete with purposefully grainy film. That is part of the Grindhouse experience. Death Proof, on the other hand, has the look and feel of a B-movie car-chase/murder/revenge/girl-power, but is actually too well made to actually be one. But that's okay, because the different tones of the two films, and the wonderfully made fake trailers that bridge them, makes for one of the most entertaining experiences ever put to film. The theater is the best place to enjoy Grindhouse, but at home works just fine. Both Rodriguez and Tarantino have constructed a timeless, underrated masterpiece. Keep an eye out for the seven minute, uncut table scene in Death Proof, and Eli Roth's fake trailer for Thanksgiving.

Genre - Horror & Thriller/Action (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4) Highlights: Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike
Production (4)
Directing (3)

Zodiac

Whoa. David Fincher blew me away with this one. Maybe because Zodiac served as my introduction to the infamous serial killer, or maybe because Fincher knows how to direct the hell out of a movie, but I was engrossed in every lush detail of the film. The script spans the length of the Zodiac killer investigation, and follows the twists and turns young journalist Robert Graysmith faces while police hunt the elusive Zodiac. Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), while working as a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle during the 70s, becomes obsessed with discovering the true identity of the Zodiac, and as a result, so does the audience. His intent is to write a book of the events, and we want him to, if only to see more. The film is dark, and the accounts of the actual crimes are grizzly, that is what makes it so compelling to watch. While it does exceed 2 1/2 hours, the film never becomes boring or overstays its welcome. Robert Downey Jr. costars, and puts in a great performance as always. Zodiac should get your blood pumping, and if you're like me, you'll research the investigation the moment you finish the film.

Genre - Thriller (3.5)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (4)

Man Of The Year

Could this comedy get any less funny? Could this thriller be any less thrilling? Drama less dramatic? For Man of the Year, the answer is no, because it fails to achieve even the most base of these cinematic platforms. The wannabe comedy/drama/political-thriller gets nary a single genre right, leaving behind an empty, boring film. Robin Williams, who has his issues as an actor to begin with, does his character no favors by acting like himself (much like Jim Carrey). The script is unintentionally hilarious when in full thriller mode, and slow and monotonous when attempting to be funny. Barry Levinson, the writer/director, has known success in the past (Rain Man), but Man of the Year will not be one he is remembered highly for. Don't waste your time with this junk; instead, watch The Colbert Report clips of Stephen Colbert running for president early in 2008. You will get more laughs, and find yourself more thrilled, then at any moment during Man of the Year. An absolute travesty.

Genre - Comedy/Drama/Thriller (1.75)

Screenplay (1)
Acting (2)
Production (2)
Directing (2)

Transsiberian

Occasionally, there are times during a film where you can pinpoint the minute things start backsliding. In Transsiberian, that moment comes during the final act. The first two-thirds of the film is tight and well-written. You feel the undertones of a thriller, bubbling just below the surface. Woody Harrelson and Emily Mortimer are a married couple traveling across Russia by train. When a mysterious couple joins them, things get weird for the two Americans. Drugs, cops, and mistaken identities top the list of problems. Director/writer Brad Anderson brilliantly photographs the snow covered country side the couple travels through, and he is strongest when building tension. But once the tension snaps, and the young couple are running for their lives, and smashing trains against into trains, it gets to be a bit much. The ending is far too happy, considering the forces the couple were up against. Overall, its a worthy watch, but don't expect the film to end on the same high note it began on.

Genre - Thriller (3)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (3)