Shutter Island

The key questions are: does Shutter Island offer anything more than a well-built but remarkably unbalanced genre story? Isn't the feeling of confusion that comes after watching it actually just a reflection of the inner emptiness of the story that was told? Does the shocking point not only explain, but also justify all the wonders (logical, spatiotemporal and ideological) of the previous events? I can’t say that I’m closer to the answer YES... Which is quite a sad outcome for M. Scorsese's film. Despite the absorbing atmosphere, despite DiCaprio, despite some really great moments, I'm far from appreciating the creative game, however much I am able to accept it. I shake my head helplessly over a work that is a much more effective trick than a thoughtful manipulation. Perhaps if the film stayed away from stray attempts to overlap and admitted without torture that it was ONLY a pure, and at its core a blunt genre film, I would have left the movie theatre more satisfied. (02/15/2010)

For perhaps the first time ever, Martin Scorsese doesn't tell a story but rather glues together scenes that are more like visual masturbation by him and the cinematographer. The actors (DiCaprio is traditionally great, and so is Mark Ruffalo, despite being unnecessarily kept in the back,) do their best and deliver fine dialogues, but the plot doesn't go anywhere, the film lacks any tension, and the characters drown in having to run around the island confused and in the cheap memories of Dachau. Also, waiting almost two hours for the point seems pretty damn cheap for a director who was originally supposed to sell it as the polished thriller of the year. With all due respect to the master, this is a bad and tediously boring film through and through. (03/21/2010)

“I’ve seen something like it before.” I’m going to throw out some spoilers, so it would be better if you read this after seeing the film. On the first viewing, until the lengthy explanatory passage, Shutter Island is a paranoid crime thriller that draws on Hitchcock’s legacy and horror B-movies. On the second viewing, it is an atmospheric drama laden with the questions that Scorsese has posed throughout his entire filmography (What’s worse, emotional or physical violence? Is it better to stay in one’s accepted role or to reveal one’s true face? To accept guilt or let it consume you?). Unfortunately, the second viewing reveals not only the well-thought-out distribution of clues leading us to the final revelation, but also the film’s inability to work on both levels simultaneously. The pleasure of a skilfully shot, though not entirely smoothly flowing genre movie (the shots don't fit together as elegantly as in Casino, for example) is disrupted by long dialogue scenes in which the Big Issue is addressed, which Scorsese is again unable to properly elaborate on, because he would deprive himself and us of the pleasure taken from the presence of trashy add-ons like Nazis, mass murder, a mysterious lighthouse and a lobotomy. In short, he spoils the fun by trying to squeeze something more out of it, which is manifested in the significant reduction of the funny verbal exchanges between Chuck and Teddy from the book on which the film is based (and which, incidentally, can be read in one breath both as a genre treat and as a suspenseful story that may conceal something more). Therefore, I find it more inspiring to watch Shutter Island, even at the cost of a slight overinterpretation, as a multi-level psychoanalytical treat for all followers of Žižek (Teddy constantly moves between different floors, which we can see as “levels” of his mind; familiar with Teddy’s dreams, Dr. Cawley personifies the subconscious; Chuck, addressing Teddy as “boss”, conversely represents his – seemingly – controlled ego) which with its narrative is – probably unintentionally – reminiscent of a video game (restarting the mission, collecting objects and solving riddles, Teddy as Laeddis’s game avatar…). Choose what makes more sense to you. Regardless of its faults, one visit to Shutter Island will almost definitely not be enough. 85% (08/30/2012)

After an hour, you start to get a sense of what it's actually like, though you may have your doubts (which is fine) – you just need to have seen a few films with similar themes. Still, it's solidly made, the acting is good, some scenes are really good, but as a whole it was too long and didn't draw me in enough to forget the long running time. A very strong 3 stars. (08/13/2017)

Everything that Avatar could not provide me, namely a strong story, well-developed characters, and real tension, Shutter Island was able to deliver in abundance. No director has played so well with me since Fight Club, and I haven't had such a comprehensive film experience in a long time, despite watching a number of good films in the recent past. A smart screenplay, excellent camera work, carefully chosen exteriors, an outstanding cast, and impressive performances. A combination of all the elements of filmmaking. Martin Scorsese is an experienced filmmaker and this is the culmination of his long career. Individual scenes and significant twists in the film, such as the confrontation in the fortress or the final confrontation at the lighthouse, will resonate with me for a long time. Shutter Island is a meticulously crafted drama with numerous elements of classical psycho-horror. An emotional affair with a variety of interesting characters. This film is a strong contender for my biggest cinematic experience this year. I have nothing substantial to criticize about Scorsese's film. Overall impression: 100%. This is what honest classic filmmaking should be. (03/03/2010)