Shutter Island (2010)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Writer: Laeta Kalogridis

Based on the novel by: Dennis Lehane

"There is no moral orders as pure as this storm. There's no moral order at all. There's just this: can my violence conquer yours? "



I must admit, since the lukewarm times of the Aviator and The Departed, I felt that Scorsese might be a little over ripe so to speak. So, when I heard that his new project was being marketed as a psychological thriller with some mystery and horror sprinkled in the mix, I can tell you I wasn't exactly holding my breath. If you shared my reluctance, let me shatter it for you: Shutter Island is great. It's one hell of a ride, an intelligent, thought provoking and truly mysterious film. Something that actually engages the audience, rather than just passively throw bits of information at them. In the tradition of Citizen Kane, this film plays on things like perceptions and memories, and although the direction of the film is great, the real hero of this film is in fact the writer Laeta Kalogridis. I don't know if the source material was just so brilliant that it made it was almost impossible to screw up, but this is just one damn good story.

The fantastic story in which I'm referring to goes like this: Teddy is a federal marshal, investigating a missing patient at the center for the criminally insane on shutter island, off the coast of Boston with his new partner Chuck. A lot of bizarre and unsettling things are in the center, as details of the case simply don't match up. That's all I'm willing to say, I really don't want to spoil anything as you should really see it. What's unique about this narrative is the way in which it is told, by that I mean what perception we the audience see through the lens of the camera. We see what Teddy sees, how he sees it and when he does. We even follow him into his dreams, which play a very important part of the film, and being by far the best parts visually. This strict point of view narrative is reminiscent of the french impressionists, expect in Shutter Island it isn't achieved through strict POV shots by say but through a narrative arc that follows one person's psychological perception. There is also a lot of German expressionism here, but more about that latter. Themes of sanity/insanity, memories and perception are all pretty thick here, as well as a redemption story filled with guilt (it wouldn't be a Scorsese film if it didn't have guilt in it). This is the strongest part of the film, the story is truly engaging keeping you on your toes, guessing and trying to figure out just what the hell is going on.

Mentioned above was a strong german expressionist current running throughout the film. The sets of the film, dark hallways, in closing gates, confusing and often contradictory staircases, are used to convey a character's psychological disposition. This style fits perfectly with the films themes, and they are used to create some truly memorable moments. The use of lighting, space and shadows give the film an eerie unsettling tone that reminds me of The Shining. But where Scorsese really comes through here is the use of sound. The sound is simply eerie, certain sounds are highlighted and others are dampened at strategic points throughout the film , which really re enforces the psychological drive of the film. Although the music at times is very campy, it kinda serves a thematic purpose on it's on. Insanity, especially the paranoid kind, is full of bizarre, epic conspiracies, and although the music is over the top it fits the idea of some sort of elaborate conspiracy. I really want to write about a specific motif using the score, but I really don't want to spoil the plot.

See this movie. It is so far the best film of 2010.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Writers: Charles McKeown, Terry Gilliam.

"Please...no more choices!"

Gilliam's latest feature centers around a Dr.'s crazy machine that allows people to physically travel into their own imagination. Actually, there isn't really a machine the power comes from the good doctor's mind, the machine is just like a needle. The film grapples with a familiar themes for Gilliam: Free will. The struggle between the so called high road and so called low road, the two forces that keep the universe together, the symbiotic relationship that God and the Devil have. One cannot exist without the other. Another theme, which unfortunately wasn't played out as much, is the idea of story telling as the center of human existence. For, indeed, one can see how Gilliam has been highly influenced not only by fairy tales but religious tales and myths as well. The free will theme is carried well throughout the film. however, it fails to say anything as unique as say Time Bandits, although the ending did remind me of the ambiguous ending of Time bandits, this is a good thing.

The plot is structured as a long on going competition between the doctor (Christopher Plummer) and the devil (Tom Waits). The devil is constantly making bets with the doctor, the first being that the first to achieve 12 followers using their own methods win. The devil emphasized danger, while the doctor stuck with the power of imagination. Doctor wins bet, and gets as his prize, immortality. However, he still ages and consequently becomes alone and feeble very quickly. The doctor falls in love a few centuries later, but of course he is old and the women is young, so the devil gives him his youth back (for a time) on the condition that any children wrought from the relationship between the doctor and the women go to him when they turn 16. Lo and behold, a child! Now, the child is approaching 16 and the devil wants a new bet, first to five souls wins it all. There's also a semi-redemption plot involving Heath Ledger's character Tony, but I've already gone a little too long. The strange thing about this plot is that it takes a long time to write down, giving the illusion of complexity, but it's really not that hard to follow. It reads like some sort of fairytale, and it works well enough. Definitely not the best of Gilliam's scripts, but better than most films on average.

Tom Waits is hands down the best actor in this whole film. It's like he really is the devil, it was the role he was born to play. And yes, this is in fact Heath Ledger's last film, he actually died while it was in production. What this means is, they didn't get all the scenes. Amazingly, the re-writes and changes are so good that if I didn't know that the lead actor died, I wouldn't have guessed that the re-writes were forced. This is a testament to how good of writing and story telling Gilliam is, and should have received some sort of award just for this. Jude Law, Johnny Depp and Colin Farrel all take the place of Ledger, in different imaginations, Tony is imagined to look different. So, because all of the character establishing scenes include Ledger himself, this works very very well. The writing is a bit campy at bits, but has some very good lines as well.

Visually, as one can imagine, there is a lot going on. GIlliam's canted camera is back, although somewhat out of place in most of the film, save for the few scenes taken in some London back street. The imaginations themselves are visual very very cool in terms of kinetics, it's just great to see what worlds people dwell into. However, do not expect the best CGI on the market here, as Gilliam's ambition might have overstretched his budget. It's not even remotely on par with some of the advance stuff, but then again, who says that someone's imagination should or even can look realistic? The massive abundance of color light make it look extremely cartoonish. Personally, I liked it, even though I tell it was a green screen and sometimes the graphics weren't that impressive, I just enjoyed it from an art perspective: the images are very cool. It leaves you wanting to see more, more bizarre landscapes and fairy tale surprises. The soundtrack is a mediocre score that is pretty uninteresting, but then again Gilliam has never been known for his mind blowing soundtracks. I personally think he works better without a soundtrack, but this seems to make audience uncomfortable.

This film is almost a kid's movie, despite the few instances of foul language. It's a magical fairy-tale journey into the depths of imagination. It doesn't have the cynical absurdist edge that Brazil or Fear and Loathing did, it's more innocent than that. I enjoyed it, and I'm pretty sure that most people will if they rent it.

The Man Who Fell to Earth

Director: Nicolas Roeg

Writers: Paul Mayersberg. Walter Telvis.

"Mr. Newton, are you crazy?"


In what was possibly the easiest casting pitch in cinematic history ("Okay Mr. Bowie, you play an alien and- "I'll do it") comes The Man who fell to Earth. A story about an alien visitor on a pretty important mission, who ultimately gets distracted by love, gin and television. And yes David Bowie is the lead, and yes he still has his British accent. I should say before I begin, that this film is based on a book I did not read. So, I mean no disrespect to the author, only to the director and writers.

Watching this film is like being stuck in a room with someone of sub par intelligence, high on some drug you can't pronounce, telling you what he believes to be a very good, moving, interesting and important story when in reality it's dull, ridiculous and simply stupid. Not only that, but he's constantly getting distracted by what he sees as deep reflections, and this all goes on for a little over two hours. SPOILER ALERT. The plot follows Mr. Newton, an alien who literally falls to earth, starts a giant corporation to get billions of dollars and ends up an alcoholic mess. We later find out (way to late in the film) that it is because on his planet (never named or described. Other than a few mysterious desert sequences) there is a terrible drought and we have water here. What exactly this means is totally unexplained. What's he planning to do with this water? Steal it? Colonize our planet? Get a sample of it and somehow clone it? What? Well, it doesn't matter because he never gets to that point. Just before he is about to blast off into space, he suddenly decides he wants to stay on earth, abandoning his alien wife and kids and his entire planet. The plot is so fragmented that it's held together by a thin cord, so thin in fact that it often becomes lost. The characters are shallow, underdeveloped, so when someone is crying, getting really angry or showing any sort of emotion, it just ends up being funny because you feel no attachment to the characters at all. It doesn't help that everyone is over acting. The dialogue sometimes seems comically awkward, unnatural and quite frankly poorly written. Overall, the plot is a mess, full of useless distractions, bad dialogue and an overall boring narrative. But, if you ever wanted to see David Bowie naked (including the whole package) then you're in luck...cause he gets naked. A lot.

This is the part where I'm supposed to say, although the story was total crap the direction and cinematography make up for it. Unfortunately, they arguably worse than the story. The man who ever showed Roeg a zoom lens should be destroyed in a painful and humiliating manner. Never have I ever been subjected to so much gratuitous zoom shots. It borders on the insane, actually he waves to the border as it ZOOMS past it (get it). I can't explain why anyone would ever think these kind of shots would look good, because I don't do LSD. I know it's a cop-out but it's the only explanation I can think of. There are so many useless characters, and so much wasted time following their useless movements that it goggles the mind on how this film was able to make it past a pitch. One scene, where for some reason Mr. Newton (the alien) can see a certain spot people from the frontier area, and they (the pioneers) can see the car, but no one else in car can see the pioneers. So basically he's looking back into time, and I guess projecting an image in time as well? I dunno, cause it's never explained and it never comes up again. It just happens and forgotten, like some fucking stoner eating off your plate then forgetting it happened thirty seconds later. It's just stupid. Oh yeah, and the two point of view shots. You know just to prove that he went to film school.

The sound is equally bad. There are many times where dialogue is heard when no one is moving their mouths. I know these could be voice-overs, which appear infrequently, but they happen in the middle of a conversation. If they are voice-overs (by that I mean narration) then it's poorly done and simply confusing. The voice-overs are also bizarre. They happen so infrequently that they just confuse you: are they talking to themselves? To a journal? What? It's like Roeg thought they would be cool for a bit, then half way through said fuck it it's too hard but forgot to take out the other ones. The music is also all over the place, sometimes it's supposed to be ironic ( I think) sometimes it's spacy ( you know...cause he's an alien and all), sometimes it's so quiet you can't even hear it. Apparently David Bowie wrote a sound track for the film, but it was rejected. He used a lot of it for his album Low.

60 sci-fi at it's worst, and that's saying something. It's that bad not because in reality it has nothing to do with sci-fi, but because it takes itself so seriously. This is a really, really boring film that borders on abusive. If you want to be insulted for 133 minutes than be my guest, watch this piece of crap. If you have any self-respect, avoid it and watch silent runnings instead.

Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)

Directed: Kelly Makin

Writers: Norm Hiscock, Bruce McCulloch, Kevin Macdonald, Mark McKinney and Scott Thompson

"So I hear dad's dead. Hey, is that egg nog?"

The famous Canadian comedy troupe's film is a heavy handed critique of the pharmaceutical industry, centered around one doctor and a pill that makes you happy. The plot follows the fate of Doctor Christ Copper, inventor of the drug played by Kevin MacDonald. However, the plot also follows the path, albeit loosely, of a few other characters as well: A repressed queer, the front man of a heavy metal group etc. These character, although sometimes are quite funny (especially the repressed homosexual, played by Scott Thompson) they are simply used to show the widespread effect of the drug, a series of mediocre vignettes. The film does a surprisingly good job of staying on plot, and because it's a pretty straightforward plot, this is good. What is not good however, is just how simple the plot is. It's terribly predictable, doctor is forced to release drug, drug is immensely popular, doctor forgets who is and starts living a crazy life of excess, drug has major problem, doctor vows to take it down. It's boring, and what's worse is that they Kevin MacDonald is easily the weakest actor of the group, and yet he gets the most screen time. Although a few of the jokes and gags merit a laugh or too, the film is not nearly as funny as I expected. Anyone who has ever seen a kids in the hall episode knows how insane and absurd their sketches can be, and it seems like they were constrained by the plot rather than inspired by it.

As far as everything else goes, mise-en-scene, sound, cinematography, what can I say? There really is nothing special going here, the film is directed like any other comedy film, situations are created for jokes to exist in, people laugh. The set pieces are usually pretty ordinary (with a few notable exceptions, the funny advertisement in the board room for example), the sound is functional, and I have a hard time even remember the sound track, which I think was just mood music or maybe a score, but it's kinda of like really average wall paper, and just blends in so well you hardly notice. My only other complaint about the film is that they were constantly trying to fit in characters from the series, whether it was relevant or not. It's like they knew that they're fans would be disappointed by their lack of insanity, so they tried to put as much inside stuff as possible to balance it out. It's like someone constantly winking at you saying "remember this guy" throughout a play. It's stupid, knock it off.

Overall, this film was immensely disappointing. Although not terrible (there are certainly much worse comedies out there) this wasn't up to par to the usual kids in the hall level. If your a hardcore fan, I'm sure nothing I say here will stop you from seeing the film. If your a fan, than spare yourself the disappointment, and just rent the series instead.