Shutter Island (spoilers hidden and clearly marked)

This was the second half of last Wednesday's double bill.  Orange Wednesday is never a good time to visit the cinema but we had no other night free.  I was amazed that the screen we were in was completely full.  I haven't seen that, outside an IMAX screening, before.  I wonder what the big draw was?  Scorsese? Dicaprio? Luckily we got a good seat without too many mutterers and phone checkers nearby.

It's pretty obvious from the outset that this is Scorsese's 'Noir'.  It's got all the signs, the looming shots, the oppressive soundtrack, the dialogue.  Everything that makes a film slightly ridiculous without destroying your enjoyment.  My only complaint at the beginning was the Foghorn soundtrack.  If it had continued at that level throughout the film I would have had a serious headache.  It was just a touch too much.

The film looks great.  Modern gloss on a 1950's setting worked.  It reminded me of how good Mad Men looks.  To an inexpert eye the period detail was great.  Even though the film itself had a modern shine to it I was in the 1950's throughout.

I liked the cast.  They all carried out their task admirably.  Ruffalo is usually really easy to watch and he definitely was in this.  I just warm to him on screen.  Kingsley steals the scenes he's in.  He's brilliant, the best thing about the film for me. DiCaprio holds his own and does his role justice.  It['s always nice to see van Sydow in a film.  I haven't seen him in anything for ages.  None of the cast are greedy, they all fulfill their role and let the rest do the same.

There are some harrowing scenes of Dakow concentration camp which bring you back to earth with a bang.  Giving an odd seriousness to a film which otherwise I don't take too seriously.

It's and old theme that's been done many times before.  A locked house scenario, based in an asylum filled with dangerous inmates.  It's a credit to Scorsese that I never found it tedious, not even from the start.  As the film develops it seems to become more and more crazy.  My words as I left the cinema were "It was bat-shit crazy but I loved it".  I did feel slightly uncomfortable that I'd thoroughly enjoyed a film that included some harrowing scenes.

Spoilers below, roll over to highlight.

The end of the film wasn't what you'd call a particularly clever twist but it worked for me.  Though I did keep expecting another twist it never arrived.  The end of the film was quite harrowing.  Again bringing you back down to sombre territory.


I never did understand why it had to end in the lighthouse.  Is that what Dicaprio's character needed or was it cinematic license?  I'm beginning to think that lighthouses are like monkeys.  They always add a little extra to a film :-)

End of spoilers.

4 out of 5 pawprints.  Utterly insane but roll with it and it's very enjoyable.

Entertained but Angry - Green Zone

The first half of last night's double bill was Green Zone.  I was really looking forward to it.  I like Greengrass's work and Matt Damon's always solid.

The film I saw I found very entertaining.  It certainly looked very real (to someone who has never been to Baghdad, granted).  The story was gripping, kept me involved throughout.  There were numerous upsetting scenes but I don't suppose war is ever pretty.  Damon was good in his role.  It was a little obvious at times, rival agencies vying for power.  That may be exactly how it was though.  It wouldn't surprise me at all.  It was the 'bad guy - nice and polished' 'good guy - dishevelled but hard working' that took it a little too far for me.
It also fell foul of the compulsory chase scene.  This was better than most but I  do find them boring after a few minutes.  Also the ends were all tied up far too neatlly with a nice little Hollywood ending bow.

As an entertainment piece I'd give the film 4 out of 5 stars.

My major problem was (rant begins) that the director held far too much power.  He was making a film to put his point across.  Not a documentary which would have done pretty well to get that point well and truly home.  But making a 'movie', which takes actual facts and occurrences then bolsters the director's view with fiction.  Packaging it all in a nice box that hints at it all being true.  I left the cinema very uneasy.  Greengrass knows that he's famous for putting true events on screen.  He knows that the majority of the cinema-going public is gullible and believes what it sees on screen and never thinks to check facts.Then I listened to him interviewed on The Film Programme, podcast from BBC Radio 4.  (Available on the BBC site or Itunes, dated March 12th)  This really raised my hackles.  The man is not on the same planet as I.  The interviewer was questiong him on whether he was concerned that people would see the film and believe that it was all fact.  His answer -

"I believe in if you consider the full arc of this debacle in broad terms what we portray is basically what happened."

So he's claiming it is pretty much the truth?  Even though he has no access to 'the truth'.  he then goes into a rant on how the Iragi war damaged US/UK power in the world.

His reasons for making the film -

"What I wanted to do was find a story, find a way of bringing a broad audience to consider this subject. What you're trying to do is create a genre piece, a thriller.  You know because if you're going to get a broad audience the reality is you have to operate within the genre."

So you want to bring things to people's attention?  Documentary audience too small, truth not 'thrilling' enough?  Let's make a story up!

When the interviewer had the cheek to use the word 'fantasy' in connection with his film -

"I don't think it's a fantasy.  I think that's unkind.  What you're saying is 'Can I demonstrably prove that the events exactly in this film occurred?' No. obviously not.  It's a movie.  the point you're going is 'If you push that too far then it's propaganda', which I've never made. But of course the most interesting place to be, the reason why I've always liked putting pieces where the fact and fiction collide is because it's a sort of area of limitless creative possibilities.  It's capable of abuse, of course it is, and we all know those pieces that have been made where your audience looks and feels that this is propaganda.  But equally there are many, many pieces where that place has the deepest truth because you can say 'didn't it happen a bit like this?' 'Couldn't you just believe that this story happened?'  It's good and necessary and right that those kinds of issues get explored in popular cinema and that's what Green Zone is."

So Mr Greengrass, you're not interested in facts?  More interested in 'the deeper truth' that you made up.  Made up to prove your point.  This film is propaganda for what Paul Greengrass believes could have happened.  God knows we already know Iraq is a complete mess.  Probably a lot of what we saw on screen is true.  The fact that the director's ego got in the way of an honest film really sends him down in my estimations.  It seems we have an ego to contend with Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.  In their world we don't have truth, we have their 'deeper truth'.

Anything the BBC can do....

..... Hollywood can do shinier.  Edge of Darkness, a review

First of all I must say I saw the BBC serial quite a while ago so it isn't completely fresh in my memory.  As it's a direct remake I can't avoid comparing it to the original work.  I did think the BBC version was very good.  My only complaint was that it was a little too long.  Maybe this is partly because I watched it on dvd rather than as it was shown in weekly episodes.

After last year's State of Play I wasn't expecting too much from this.  I found State of Play to be much inferior to the original BBC production.  Mel Gibson is far from my favourite actor.  Ray Winstone I was very unsure about, how was his stereotypical, London hard-man type role going to stand up?  I always enjoy watching Danny Huston but I've pretty much made up my mind about what his role will be before I even see a trailer.

The main bonus for this film was the speeded up plot.  I think it was a little too speedy but perfect for a film rather than a tv serial.  I'm getting sick of sitting through films that should be 30 minutes shorter.  It was also updated well.  Keeping the nuclear shadow but in something much more applicable to current times.

Gibson surprised me.  I bought his character.  I forgot it was Mel Gibson (and all his baggage) on the screen and enjoyed his performance.  His chemistry with Winstone cut the mustard too.  The whole story needs you to suspend a little disbelief and go along for the ride.  Both of these characters made it a popcorn-tastic ride.  It's probably one of my favourite Winstone performances.  Huston did what he does best as he always does it.  I do crave to see him in a role that doesn't mean he's a highly suspicious/downright evil character.  I didn't think Gibson's character showed enough of a descent into madness as is required by the title.  He was plenty angry and seeking for the truth but I never really thought he may crack completely.  The fact that they kept one aspect of this was a nice surprise for me.  The fact that his daughter speaks to him once she's dead.  Which is never fully explained either.  I really thought this aspect would be left out.

The ending was typically Hollywood.  All endings tied up nice and neatly.  A bit of a disappointment really.  I know the whole plot is rather far-fetched but a nice ambiguous ending would have made me feel it was that little bit more real.

A good popcorn flick, but it's unlikely I'll be re-watching anytime soon.

3.5 pawprints out of 5.