Shutter Island

“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% (30/08/2012)

Scorsese still knows how to set the right atmosphere, this is a great piece of craft and everybody is acting beautifully, so this movie isn’t just about the message. And luckily so, because after just about ten minutes there would be nothing left to watch. Despite this, I still couldn’t get that niggling thought out of my head that this should have been an episode of Tales from the Crypt and not a hundred and forty minute feature movie. If it weren’t for the opening crossing to the island and the closing approx. thirty seconds, I wouldn’t remember anything at all of this. (18/02/2010)

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. (13/08/2017)

Shutter Island is a bit like certain Brian De Palma movies – they might not be for everyone, but if it’s your cup of tea, you will be left speechless. It begins with a ship arriving at a mysterious island, which in terms of camerawork, editing and the use of scary retro music in the style of Miklós Rózsa is an equally valuable manual to creating an absolutely immersive film opening like the landing at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. And it ends not as much by making a point that turns the preceding plot upside down (in the world of film scripts, this idea is not all that original anyway), but with a bonus – the last scene and line of the film that pushes “that thriller with DiCaprio people go see en masse” three levels higher. Everything between the beginning and ending can be criticized for occasional cheesiness or chaotic switching between reality and hallucinations (which raises a few hard-to-answer questions) or the cold attitude to its characters. But all of this is part of the director’s cunning game, which is not about raising the audience’s goosebumps over the Ward C maniacs, nor milking their emotions over the fate of the main character. Because this director plays a different kind of game altogether. ___ After the second viewing, my hands were shaking like after smoking a pack of Dr. Cawley’s cigarettes. Shutter Island is an exceptional film from some other dimension. (15/02/2010)

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. (21/03/2010)