50% off Sushi
New York, NY 10003

Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island, a florid art shocker that Paramount welcomed into the world with the strained enthusiasm of a mutant baby's parents, begins with U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leo DiCaprio) seasick, head in the toilet. The film is his prolonged purging, with Daniels coughing up chunks of his backstory in flashback and dream. Now topside, he joins his new partner, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), and their destination looms into view: an ominous hunk of rock in Boston Harbor that houses Ashecliffe Asylum, where they've been assigned to find a missing inmate.
Pounded eighth notes by Krzysztof Penderecki score a gathering-storm approach that anticlimaxes at a tidy, ecclesiastical-looking brick campus. They're shown the grounds by progressive chief physician Dr. Cawley (Sir Ben Kingsley), who manages to seem both a natty, patrician liberal, circa 1954, and a bit of a satyr, with his Anton LaVey bald head/goatee combo and ironic twinkle—an ambiguous balance Kingsley keeps seesawing throughout. They also meet Cawley's colleague, Herr Doktor Naehring (Max von Sydow)—and Daniels, an ex-GI who witnessed the liberation of Dachau, takes an immediate dislike to the German.
As Daniels and Aule begin to investigate, there's a sense that their presence is an inside joke with the staff, that they're being given rehearsed misinformation. Daniels reveals that he'd heard sinister rumors about Ashecliffe long before this assignment, and not even a pretense of cooperation and normalcy can outlast their first hurricane-force dark-and-stormy-night on the island, when they trade their soaked civvies for orderly uniforms. (The film is elemental, whipped with fire, ash, snow, paper, bracken, and torrents of rain.)
As the outline of a conspiracy comes into view, Daniels's digging brings on strobing headaches, hallucinations, and a shrinking list of trustworthies that ultimately includes only his dead wife, dolorous Dolores, visiting him as a beyond-the-grave Technicolor prophet (Michelle Williams, not quite right for "ethereal"; it doesn't help that she's upstaged by Emily Mortimer's psychopath, who takes only one scene opposite DiCaprio to establish an immediate and spellbinding intimacy). As for DiCaprio, well, he'll never step onscreen and immediately suggest a liver-and-onions Greatest Generation Ralph Meeker he-man—Ted Levine's warden almost eats him at one point—but he has made suffering a specialty, and does so with an abandon that is frightening.
Production design maestro Dante Ferretti's island is a rugged symbolist mythscape, pocketed with hidden places: soothsayers' sea caves, Ward C, a squat Civil War–era fort where the most violent offenders are kept in a Goya madhouse, and, beyond it, the ultimate locked door—to the lighthouse! Scorsese's return to his Roger Corman AIP roots is an object lesson in the proximity of high and low culture—Shutter Island is lousy with modernist references, soundtracked by avant-garde 20th-century composers, pretentious in the best Pulp-y tradition.
138 minutes is dangerously epic for a talky thriller, but you forget the time and even whether the plot makes sense—and if you don't notice, it doesn't matter. Since more attention has gone into filigreeing details into each scene than worrying about the way they'll fit together, the rattletrap engages you moment-to-moment, even as the overall pacing stops and lurches alarmingly.
Though the film takes place entirely out-to-sea, the mainland isn't left behind—it's concentrated here into a midcentury chamber of manmade horrors. Loonies praise their island as a safe haven from news "about atolls, about A-bombs." There are rumors suggesting the House Committee on Un-American Activities (!) is dabbling in brainwashing experiments. Daniels flashes back repeatedly to Dachau: a camp Kapo choking in his own blood; a firing line tracking shot popping with squibs like a string of firecrackers; piled corpses frozen into a horrible sculpture. No violence is unsuitable for aestheticization; at one point in the film's web of visions, the perpetrator of a triple filicide points proudly to her handiwork and says, "See, aren't they beautiful?"—and DP Robert Richardson's image concurs.
Scorsese is as famous a movie lover as a moviemaker. This is manifest in his too-much-discussed homages, but also in his understanding of how his characters have themselves been shaped by entertainment, how they model themselves as actors in the American drama—Rupert Pupkin in The King of Comedy, or Bill the Butcher addressing his public with Edwin Forrest brio at a performance of Uncle Tom's Cabin in Gangs of New York. (The announced Scorsese project, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, dealing with our nation's premier self-publicist ham, has enormous potential.) Without revealing too much of an ending that everyone will soon insist on telling you their opinion of, Shutter Island, deep in its camp gothic trappings, seems to me a flea-pit occult history, with Daniels's headspace a confusion of "Hideous Secrets of the Nazi Horror Cult" schlock, hard-ass Mickey Spillane machismo, Cold War psychic confusion, and the post-traumatic bad dreams of ex-servicemen.
In his documentary Personal Journey, Scorsese spoke of the '50s as a time "when the subtext became as important as the apparent subject matter, or even more important"—and in Shutter Island, his most distinctly '50s movie, he replays the trash culture of the era as the manifestation of an anguished subconscious.
(Sorry if this note has spelling or grammar errors, I am not a very good first draft writer)...I loved this movie...Saw it twice...Not only is this movie a great homage to those cold war inspired horror flicks of the 50s, but a perfect metaphor for the horror of the atomic age....Several characters mentioned the H-bomb expolsive and maddening power....The H-bomb was first exploded off a small island in the Pacfic Ocean in 1952, which is the date of the murders in the movie... Shutter Island represents to me a march of madness associated with the atomic age... Thanks for reading... P.S. I loved the continous reference to Virginia Woolfe's book, "To the Lighthouse," which can mean either to knowledge or to life...In this movie, this metaphor represented Freud's death instinct...
Apologies for the multiple post, my mistake. Don't know how to correct.
I saw Shutter Island yesterday with a friend, and at the end we were sorting out the various parts of the plot to make sure that both versions were equally plausible, as in good Scorsese fashion, where by tradition fiction and reality, subconscious and performance inevitably blur. The two stories being that Edward is either really the US Marshall with the mission to investigate the criminal asylum where Lewaddis, the man who set his house and wife on fire is held, or that he is a fool in denial of the fact that Lewaddis and himself are actually the same person. As I saw the film I kept thinking of Naomi Klein's political theory book, The Shock Doctrine, which claims that the project of wrecking an economy as motive to activate a politics of privatization and wholesale of public assets, is actually a practice that started in psychiatric hospitals, when electroshock and lobotomies were common medical practices in mental hospitals. The famous 'Chicago Boys,' the Milton Freedman acolytes who engineered the various economic crises in question in the subsequent decades, learned their trade from psychiatry. They succeeded, according to Klein, in generating the kind of panic and terror that broke people resistance and gave political advocates of privatization a blank slate. It is interesting to me that a director like Scorsese would pick up Klein's message in some roundabout way and create the concrete images that bring the message home for the next generation, which visually oriented and whose collective consciousness responds to cinema that way. My company and I enjoyed the movie even though we realize that the ambivalence of the plot might baffle some spectators. To us, that ambivalence is a bonus not just because it is the hallmark of Scorsese, but rather because it reflects the confusion present in reality itself, the fact that if human experiments intended to control your brain are happening next door, it could very well be that will never, for sure, know. Leonardo di Caprio, whom I hadn't seen since Titanic (I miss a lot of movies), was in the part, I felt, his rugged charm improved with maturity. I am a writer and an activist and a professor, and I blog about movies and other topics at http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/
I saw Shutter Island yesterday with a friend, and at the end we were sorting out the various parts of the plot to make sure that both versions were equally plausible, as in good Scorsese fashion, where by tradition fiction and reality, subconscious and performance inevitably blur. The two stories being that Edward is either really the US Marshall with the mission to investigate the criminal asylum where Lewaddis, the man who set his house and wife on fire is held, or that he is a fool in denial of the fact that Lewaddis and himself are actually the same person. As I saw the film I kept thinking of Naomi Klein's political theory book, The Shock Doctrine, which claims that the project of wrecking an economy as motive to activate a politics of privatization and wholesale of public assets, is actually a practice that started in psychiatric hospitals, when electroshock and lobotomies were common medical practices in mental hospitals. The famous 'Chicago Boys,' the Milton Freedman acolytes who engineered the various economic crises in question in the subsequent decades, learned their trade from psychiatry. They succeeded, according to Klein, in generating the kind of panic and terror that broke people resistance and gave political advocates of privatization a blank slate. It is interesting to me that a director like Scorsese would pick up Klein's message in some roundabout way and create the concrete images that bring the message home for the next generation, which visually oriented and whose collective consciousness responds to cinema that way. My company and I enjoyed the movie even though we realize that the ambivalence of the plot might baffle some spectators. To us, that ambivalence is a bonus not just because it is the hallmark of Scorsese, but rather because it reflects the confusion present in reality itself, the fact that if human experiments intended to control your brain are happening next door, it could very well be that will never, for sure, know. Leonardo di Caprio, whom I hadn't seen since Titanic (I miss a lot of movies), was in the part, I felt, his rugged charm improved with maturity. I am a writer and an activist and a professor, and I blog about movies and other topics at http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/
I saw Shutter Island yesterday with a friend, and at the end we were sorting out the various parts of the plot to make sure that both versions were equally plausible, as in good Scorsese fashion, where by tradition fiction and reality, subconscious and performance inevitably blur. The two stories being that Edward is either really the US Marshall with the mission to investigate the criminal asylum where Lewaddis, the man who set his house and wife on fire is held, or that he is a fool in denial of the fact that Lewaddis and himself are actually the same person. As I saw the film I kept thinking of Naomi Klein's political theory book, The Shock Doctrine, which claims that the project of wrecking an economy as motive to activate a politics of privatization and wholesale of public assets, is actually a practice that started in psychiatric hospitals, when electroshock and lobotomies were common medical practices in mental hospitals. The famous 'Chicago Boys,' the Milton Freedman acolytes who engineered the various economic crises in question in the subsequent decades, learned their trade from psychiatry. They succeeded, according to Klein, in generating the kind of panic and terror that broke people resistance and gave political advocates of privatization a blank slate. It is interesting to me that a director like Scorsese would pick up Klein's message in some roundabout way and create the concrete images that bring the message home for the next generation, which visually oriented and whose collective consciousness responds to cinema that way. My company and I enjoyed the movie even though we realize that the ambivalence of the plot might baffle some spectators. To us, that ambivalence is a bonus not just because it is the hallmark of Scorsese, but rather because it reflects the confusion present in reality itself, the fact that if human experiments intended to control your brain are happening next door, it could very well be that will never, for sure, know. Leonardo di Caprio, whom I hadn't seen since Titanic (I miss a lot of movies), was in the part, I felt, his rugged charm improved with maturity. I am a writer and an activist and a professor, and I blog about movies and other topics at http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/
There are some reviews here that explain why people didn’t get this movie. Well, a movie should work both ways. First, it should as a piece of entertainment, and then, for the rivet counters or navel gazers, something a little more nuanced. If someone comes along again and tells me I didn’t like it because I didn’t get it, then I guess I will hit them over the head with the trophy I’m about to give them for stating the obvious. Scorsese’s Shutter Island gave me the impression that I was missing the in-joke, the mason’s handshake, or the secret passphrase. I needed to be part of a club to be interested. The editing and continuity was so awful that it had to be deliberate. And without giving anything away, the story might suggest that. But that’s not clever, it’s just extremely annoying. What does it add? Trying to unsettle the viewer? It might do that, but the focus of that, rather than enhance the story or character, detracts from it, for the viewer’s thoughts are focused on the person in the cutting room, editing the movie, or loading it with juxtaposed musical melodrama. Someone also said that Scorsese was not trying to hide anything and was revealing everything from the start. Good. For I realized the mystery from very early on, and it wasn’t much of a mystery. The only thing intense about this movie was that it was intensely annoying. If that was the objective, then I guess I do get it. I just hate it though.
Scorsese can drop as many hints to operation Paperclip and CIA mind control monarch psy-ops as he wants, but the average american (shiver)is NOT going to get a second of that. Still,for your average gushing paranoid, I appreciated it.
For the reviewer. A Kapo was a prisoner who worked inside German Nazi concentration camps during World War II in certain lower administrative positions (prisoner-functionary). The German word also means "foreman" and "non-commissioned officer", and is derived from French for "Corporal" (fr:Caporal) or the Italian word capo[1][2]'. Kapos received more privileges than normal prisoners, towards whom they were often brutal. They were often convicts who were offered this work in exchange for a reduced sentence or parole. From Oliver Lustig's Dictionary of the Camp:
My opinion this was an awful, dark movie and depressing movie! We all were very disappointed that we did waste our time and money to see this horror movie! DiCaprio did a very bad selection to act in this crazy horror movie. Leonardo DiCaprio, acting was extremely cold and melodramatic, not his best movie at all. I laughed several times during the movie; not because it was funny, but because it was filled with terribly awkward scenes that left me feeling stupid just for watching. The plot changed so many ways it became annoying, We all agree to go out we didn't wanted to keep watching it to the END!!! Not any star, I give this movie a OSCAR for the worst movie and actors!
Shutter Island the worst movie!!!! My Synopsis...This are Two crazy Marshalls that go to a crazy federal institution, is a "C" movie This movie has a lot of darkness the director was depressed, for sure when he did this movie! Some parts of the movie, had no sense at all, there was a big storm with rain, and they went to a cementary, like nothing happen........was a joke. The message that they send was hateful,was so dark that we all got depressed, no sense in the story! Leonardo De Caprio, was over acting! and all the other actors, did a poor job acting. This was a Horror movie, not a thriller.
I saw an upside to the end of SI. See what you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lUZiYwEhsY
This review is a florid, tiring hodge-podge of clauses and subclauses, all joined in a single mission: to grandstand Mr. Pinkerton's insider insights of Martin Scorcese's purported intentions and technique. A secondary mission, I suppose is to broadcast, should The Man Himself happen to peruse this review, that Mr. Pinkerton does indeed "get it." (What is "Edwin Forrest brio" anyway?) Having waded halfway in, I forged on though, in hopes of eventually gaining some insight or a recommendation at the other end. For example, a sentence that begins, "As the outline of a conspiracy comes into view..." might reasonably be expected to reveal something coherent about the plot. Instead, Mr. Pinkerton breathlessly brachiates through a jungle of commas, semicolons and parentheses until finally drooping to a halt 70 words later without having elucidated much at all. Seventy-plus-word sentences are almost as silly as the people who actually count the words. But I was curious. As for the movie itself, the mere setting of a mental institution telegraphs way too much about the plot to begin with and sets up a real challenge. Everybody knows that "Omigod. he's mad!" fits right in with dungeons, arch psychiatrists, and dripping water. Suspense? Virtually none. If you want madness and terror, rent "Wolf Creek."
Not that I don't enjoy your reviews, Mr. Pinkerton, but where the fuck is J-Ho? I'm missing my favorite critic. I hope he's just on vacation.
Most of the people that hate this film didn't understand what Scorsese was trying to do, plain and simple. He was making a by the numbers genre piece while throwing in his usual character study style. I saw the ending coming halfway through the film and it was still engrossing and utterly tense for me. The plot never changed either; you just missed the million different hints that were strewn about through the whole film. He wasn't trying to disguise the shock at the end; he wanted you to know what was happening from the start. Most people don't pick that up, however.
I thought the movie was very well made and the acting excellant. I don't go to the movies much and was glad I went to see this movie. It is worth seeing....I give it an 8 1/2 to 9.
Shutter Island is not for all audiences. A good story and good actors but lacks the spontaniety to keep you glued and to follow the storyline. Expected better from this director.
This movie is BORING,CLICHE,and far too long. Left me wanting refunds for the 5 tickets I bought. What a colossal disappointment. Never much a fan of Sandy Powell's work either. She NEVER gets the period right!!
What the F? Even in the VV you should try writing for the public-Why do we have to wade through your intellectual blabbery and obscure references when we are just trying to decide whether to see this film?
Flynn great comment that was what I was surmising and haven't yet seen the film. How any reasonable artist not be considering this type of subject these days. What do most critics that serve consumers have to dumb down the reviews? I'm not commenting on this particular review just yet. Read one in the NYT that was atrociously inane...
In so few comments it is apparent that a subset of our present culture is far sicker than I ever imagined. Mr. Pinkerton, I think, has a very pretty brain, and in his pretty review he shows well it's fine contours and happy synapses. It is laughable that he sums up this movie as, "...a flea-pit occult history" and, "schlock". His oversensitivity to the German references is inflated. This movie is more about mind control experimentation than madness. I don't think the author or director ever intends for us to clearly see the whole story, but to throw us out of our comfort zone (in a highly entertaining manner)that we might question what we do as members of the human race to our own kind. Where do we draw the line and how have we crossed it in the past? Do some research if you care to.
I haven't seen the movie yet but from other reviews not this one the class that is American with the testosterone oozing out the vagina one can't expect anyone to give a single fuck about anything except the bottom line which usually equals deferred gratification for Jesus himself.
In my opinion this was an awful movie, wasn't even worth half the cost of admission, and it was not entertaining. I have wanted to see it for quite some time now, and I have to say... I haven't been this disappointed in a long time. DiCaprio shouldn't expect any awards for this movie. His acting was extremely melodramatic, not his best movie at all. I laughed several times during the movie; not because it was funny, but because it was filled with terribly awkward scenes that left me feeling stupid just for watching. The plot changed so many ways it became annoying, and the open ended- ending did not make it any better. Once we got out to the car I realized that my fiance also wanted to leave! I wish I would have known because I would have paid more money not to have had to keep watching it!!!
Such good writing to fill this thing out, but in the end it turns out to be merely a good flick that blames the Republican Party for everything.
In the end was DiCaprio kept as "insane-drugged inmate" at the asylum or was he still "pursuing" his investigation? Did Dr. Cawley have a pre-studied knowledge of Teddy's military bkground before he was assigned this project or was "2-year stay" only part of Cawley's brainwashing tactic. Did Teddy Daniels really killed his wife or was he there to investigate his wife's killer. ... tks Dir. Scorsese this is a great movie but kind of hard to comprehend by someone like me. Could someone clarify this to me?
The film's storyline is a metaphor for the process of psychotherapy: a dark interior journey, with the light of "truth" at the end. It's the process of realizing (or... not realizing) that you're responsible for your own liberation through self-awareness (or demise without it). Was it that cryptic? Why have I not read ONE review where they got the main subtext of the movie????? Is this not the type of subtext that Scorsese alludes to in his interview?
Enjoyed the film very much, any faults I found were redeemed at the end. Your review's opening line is totally reprehensible. Hope all your offspring are perfect and you never have to choke on your words/thoughts.
OhioOrrin: "138 minutes is dangerously epic for a talky thriller, but you forget the time and even whether the plot makes sense- and if you don't notice, it doesn't matter. Since more attention has gone in to filigreeing details in to each scene than worrying about the way they'll fit together, the rattletrap engages you moment-to-moment, even as the overall pacing stops and lurches alarmingly". That's paragraph #6 in this here "review", in case you're wondering. You know, overall! I used to blame the schools, until the 'blogosphere' arrived, and then after that, the hipsters (or was it the hipsters first; i forget). Nowadays though, i miss 'em old schools.
Nick - ur writing is dense & too self-involved. I cant fathom from the column whether u recommend the movie or not. the question is not what the film is or isnt. rather the question is whether the film is good entertainment for the money. that's what the audience cares about most.
MORE LINDA BLAIR VOMITING!!! more linda blair vomiting as art! i want to vomit on scorsese and leo.
Nice review. You lay your mixed but seemingly ultimately positive views out in a very methodical, rational way, and as a film nerd, I appreciated the academic way you explain your views, which is better than standard uninformative thumbs up or down reviews. Nice job. I'm looking forward to this movie regardless and will judge for myself. Directors don't have to do "serious" films all the time, but I appreciate those who take even B-movie pulp seriously.
Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...
Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...
More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience
Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info
Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips
Log in or Sign up
Social Connect:Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.
Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:
Sign Up or Log in
Social Connect:Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.
Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:
