300 Words About: Shutter Island

"Listen, I'm tired of everyone staring at the bandage on my forehead - I don't know why it's there, either!"

Anal retentive that I am, it's the Little Things that always bother me in movies. An annoying minor character here, a slightly-off foreign accent there, maybe a meaningless misrepresentation of local geography (e.g., the inaccurate depiction of Red Rock Casino on or near Las Vegas Boulevard in the otherwise forgettable 21).

There were a lot of Little Things in Shutter Island that annoyed me (not the least of which was Leonardo DiCaprio's matchlit exploration of Ward C - what brand of long-burning matches illuminate a room like a Maglite?), but the prevailing problem I had with it was that Martin Scorsese didn't rectify them with substantial, even memorable scenes. In fact, it seemed he was content to surrender to formula and let all of the Little Things slide so long as he could get to that Big Bad Ending, which, I have to admit, nearly salvaged the movie.

Scorsese isn't necessarily known to be a sloppy director, but most people would probably call him a distinctive, even daring one, at least during the peak of his career. Isn't it bizarre, then, to see him submit to genre clichés in Shutter Island - and even then mix them awkwardly. One minute we're in the middle of a psychological suspense thriller (Cape Fear held its tone much better), the next we're in a jump-fright horror flick. Oh, and there's a couple of jokes and some romantic melodrama and political histrionics thrown in the pot as well. The result is a squirm-inducing stew of genres that leaves you feeling like you just had a bowl of bad New England Clam Chowder.

REVIEW: Revolutionary Road (A-)

Interesting thing about American suburbs - they've remained the same since the 1950's (which happens to be the time at which the majority of people in this country lived in one). Same neatly arranged blocks, same late-model cars in driveways, same carefree children playing in the yard. Same overly cautious outlook on life, same insecurities about keeping up with the neighbors, same habits of hiding marital dysfunction, same feelings of trapped isolation from a world passing you by.

What's most surprising about Revolutionary Road is not this realization about suburbia, but the realization that the novel on which the movie was based was written in 1961. Had Richard Yates penned this story in 2008, he would be exposing nothing that we don't already know, that we haven't already seen in an episode of "Desperate Housewives" (which I have to make clear I've never watched). Even the screenplay for Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven (2002) had the advantage of decades of reflection on American culture. But way back in 1961, when the Baby Boom was ending and married suburban couples were beginning to experience the seven year itch, the prescient "Revolutionary Road" must have been viewed as a veritable harbinger of doom.

April and Frank Wheeler are miserable - with each other, with themselves, with their kids, work, and shared existence. Terrified that they're heading down a one way road to suburban hell, the two decide to move to Paris and defy as many cultural conventions of the American upper-middle class as possible. When their plans unexpectedly change, their worst nightmares are realized - and then some.

Yeah - it's not a romantic comedy. In fact it's hardly romantic at all; the Wheeler's short marriage has been bled dry of everything but hateful spite during the course of only a few years. It's an abusive relationship where both parties are at fault, neither will leave, and nobody even knows who struck the first damaging blow. It may say something about our bipolar characters that neither knows another friendly soul in which to confide their troubles or receive advice; all of their energy and attention is directed at bringing down the other, even though no one can ultimately "win" this battle. Divorce rates during this period were among the lowest in history (it was so taboo that the Wheelers never even consider the option), but even that wouldn't have solved their issues. April and Frank have serious emotional problems, and even if they didn't have them before their marriage, they'll sure be scarred with them afterwards.

Of course, that amount of pain can only develop from passionate love, and it's interesting to consider how our experience with the Wheelers would be different had different actors been involved. Seeing Leonardo DiCaprio (Body of Lies) and Kate Winslet (The Reader) together again for the first time since Titanic only brings to mind innocent infatuation. But our perhaps foggy memory of their sappy romance gives their rage in Revolutionary Road a significant punch that would be lacking with other actors.

Winslet predictably delivers another Oscar-worthy performance (meaning AMPAS will pay attention, even if she is snubbed for a sixth time), but it was a surprise to see DiCaprio hold his own so well against her. These two actors have matured impressively, and at this point have to be considered among the greatest of their generation, despite the fact that neither have yet won an Oscar (8 nominations between them). It would be unfair to the rest of the cast of Revolutionary Road to only focus on these two A-listers, however. Kathy Bates (she's still around, just choosing horrible movies) is memorable as the Wheeler's gossipy realtor, and David Harbour (Quantum of Solace) is perfect as their lusting neighbor.

Most impressive is Michael Shannon (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead) as the "insane" son of Bates' character. Shannon has an incredibly distinctive face but I for some reason can't picture him in the other movies I've seen him in (and learning he was in Shotgun Stories makes me even more disappointed that it wasn't released in Minneapolis last year). We'll see a lot more of Shannon, I'm sure. If not on Oscar night (I predict he'll lose to Ledger), then probably for years to come.

Speaking of the future, his character in Revolutionary Road felt contrived until I realized he existed as a cautionary example for the Wheelers. Even though he wasn't so insane after all (in fact he might have been the most clear-headed character in the movie), they didn't want to become him in their later years, trapped both mentally and physically.

Frank and April try to keep the suburban dream alive...

Wow, why is this review so long all of a sudden? Like the movie, it could probably use some editing. I'm rambling so let's get it over with: the acting was among the best of the year and there were some stunning moments in Revolutionary Road. It also features beautifully rich cinematography by the busy Roger Deakins (Doubt, The Reader) and one of the best musical scores of the year courtesy of perennial Oscar nominee Thomas Newman (WALL*E). On the other hand, it lacked an emotional hook that would have helped draw me in further to their relationship (how did they end up together in the first place?), and if the extended scenes without dialogue were meant to illustrate the Wheelers in their lonely despair, there should have been even more of them. It was uneven production overall (where were the children?) and the novel possibly deserves better, but there are enough urgent issues at stake to consider Revolutionary Road one of the more important films of the year, and one that may haunt us longer than we realize.

Though I never warmed to it, I could say the same about American Beauty, the contemporary suburban nightmare that was also directed by Sam Mendes (who is incidentally married to Winslet). Ultimately, Revolutionary Road is the finer film because it takes itself seriously and doesn't stray into the amusing caricature that makes American Beauty a more comfortable viewing experience. Moreover, Revolutionary Road is much more of an indictment on traditional American culture. Who could have imagined we would take no lessons from Yates' novel in the 40+ years since it was written?


Grade:
Writing - 10
Acting - 10
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Social Significance - 5

Total: 46/50= 92% = A-

REVIEW: Body of Lies (C+)

"Trust no one. Deceive everyone.," declares the official tagline for Ridley Scott's Body of Lies. The phrasing is an appropriate metaphor for the movie in two ways: 1.) the wording is as unoriginal and bland as the story itself, and 2.) it describes the internal marketing strategy for this movie at Warner Bros., since they're clearly trying to deceive us into thinking we're getting something richer than the action-packed trailer suggests.

It was only last April that Washington Post columnist David Ignatius's bestselling novel of the same name was released. Filming on Body of Lies began in September. How did they do that, and what was the rush anyway? We're guaranteed years more of these movies about Iraq and the "War on Terror" (a veritable genre is developing), so what was accomplished by fast-tracking this one for an October surprise?

As it happens, the biggest surprise in Body of Lies is the fact that it's not a better movie. Sir Ridley Scott's track record has been shaky in the last few years (though I don't think either American Gangster nor A Good Year were as outright terrible as some people think), but this is still a director who helmed a Best Picture winner within the last decade (not to mention Blade Runner decades ago), so the name automatically carries a fairly high level of expectation. Body of Lies marks the third time in as many years Scott has directed Russell Crowe, and the first time he's worked with the reliably great Leonardo DiCaprio (Blood Diamond, The Departed).

Unfortunately, this truly A-list trio has produced a truly C-grade movie. Body of Lies is admittedly better than several of its cousins (The Kingdom, Rendition), but despite an experienced director and committed cast, it still ends up achieving only mediocrity. It's almost as if Ridley Scott knew that substance was lacking but just decided to produce his way out of it and hope nobody noticed. Significantly slicker and more visually realistic than its predecessors, Body of Lies commands your attention only to tell you something annoyingly trivial. What was the point of this again?

Oh yeah, to celebrate jingoism and reinforce toxic stereotypes about the Middle East. Look, I'm not saying terrorism isn't a real threat and that these movies don't have some educational potential, but at this point the "rogue American hero infiltrating terror cells and romancing the beautiful local woman" is a pretty stale set-up, and we never learn any lesson at the end anyway, do we? The number of clichés on display here is almost breathtaking; it's disconcerting and frankly insulting, for example, to see CIA agents continue to disguise themselves in foreign countries by wearing track jackets, sunglasses, and floppy hats, successfully establishing themselves as the only people in the country ever dressed like that.

But I'm asking for too much if I'm asking for a new story. It's just that I would enjoy something fresh, a crazy conspiracy theory or a shocking twist at the end - anything new. If I'm not going to get anything meaningful out of these movies, at least entertain me. Russell Crowe knows this, otherwise why would he ham up his performance as a hilarious hybrid of Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush? Leonardo DiCaprio (whose "costume" here is almost comical: brown contact lenses and a lumberjack goatee?) knows this, otherwise why would he leave me near tears laughing at the scene with the children at lunch, one of the funniest I've seen all year? In fact if it wasn't for Crowe, Russell, and what should finally be a star-making turn for Mark Strong (Sunshine; Stardust), the movie would be almost unbearable to sit through, even if it is kind of pretty to look at.

Hollywood surrenders to contrivances and clichés yet again...

If any of this sounded familiar as you were reading it, imagine how I felt writing it. I already reviewed this movie here, here, here, here, here, and, most importantly, here. Turn a synopsis from any of those reviews into a Mad Lib and you'll likely end up summarizing Body of Lies in the process.

Grade:
Writing - 7
Acting - 10
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 7
Music - 4
Social Significance - 5

Total: 39/50= 78% = C+

Underrated MOTM: Romeo + Juliet (1996)

The Underrated Movie of the Month (MOTM) for February, Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, has been largely overshadowed by the Australian director's other two films, 1992's Strictly Ballroom and 2001's Moulin Rouge!. His next project, this year's early Oscar favorite Australia, will thus mark only his fourth film in the last 16 years.

Romeo + Juliet was, obviously, an adaptation of Shakespeare's play by the same name, but Luhrmann's creative idea was to bring the tragedy out of the Globe Theatre and into the present day (the film was released in November of 1996). Cars, guns, and the seedy culture of Verona have never looked so spectacular, and the meticulous attention to detail and visual/pop culture referencing (media coverage, guns named "sword" and "dagger") was brilliant. Luhrmann created a bright, vibrantly colorful landscape thanks to his decision to film in Mexico and Miami, and the soundtrack was undoubtedly one of the best of the decade, featuring Radiohead, Garbage, Everclear, Quindon Tarver (an amazing cover of "When Doves Cry"), The Cardigans, Des'ree and more. It's incredible how well that collection has held up - listen to it again and feel like you're right back in the movie.

What's most impressive about Romeo + Juliet to me now is looking at who was on the short list for the cast, according to IMDB: Ewan McGregor, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet, Christina Ricci, Natalie Portman, and Christian Bale. Of course, none of them ended up in the film, but the actual ensemble cast was nothing to scoff at: Harold Perrineau (though I've never seen "Lost"), Dash Mihok, Jesse Bradford (great in Flags of Our Fathers), Pete Postlethwaite (Kobayashi from The Usual Suspects), Paul Sorvino, Brian Dennehy, John Leguizamo, and even Paul Rudd. Among those I've listed in this paragraph are some really great actors, and remember this was 12 years ago! Baz Luhrmann is either really lucky or has an amazing casting agent. Don't think I've forgotten future Hollywood legend Leonardo DiCaprio (who broke through two years later with Titanic) or talented underachiever Claire Danes. They were a great pair at the perfect point in their careers. I shudder to think at who would be cast if this film was made in 2008 - Paul Walker and Jessica Alba?

The biggest digs at Romeo + Juliet involved its visual style and contemporary setting contrasted with Luhrmann's decision to keep the dialogue in its 16th-century form (DiCaprio as Romeo: "He that hath the steerage of my course, direct my sail!"). Roger Ebert gave it one of the worst reviews I've seen him give of any movie, the NYT's Janet Maslin was a little more forgiving but still called it a "frenetic hodgepodge," and The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle called this "true tragedy" a "monumental disaster."

Wow. Well it should go without saying that your initial reaction to the film almost entirely depends on how sacred you regard Shakespeare's work. Speaking for myself: eh. The stories are rich with symbolism and I'm sure are very useful in college literature classes, but I'm not one to gush about dialogue like, "If I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine, the gentle sin is this. My lips, to blushing pilgrims, ready stand to smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss." I'm sorry, it just doesn't do much for me, and I accept that that makes me culturally degenerate. I enjoy the novelty of an old language ("Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?"; "A curse on both your houses!"), but it takes something like Romeo + Juliet to bring it life for me.

I also have to mention here the reaction to 2005's highly acclaimed Brick, which (awkwardly, in my opinion) featured dialogue in film noir style: "Your muscle seemed plenty cool putting his fist in my head. I want him out." In his glowing review of Brick, Ebert observed that these "contemporary characters...inhabit personal styles from an earlier time," before describing director Rian Johnson as "very good." What gives?

I'm going to go ahead and speculate that if Ebert and LaSalle sat down and watched Romeo + Juliet again, they would have a different reaction (probably similar to Slant's take in 2002). With Moulin Rouge!, Luhrmann clearly showed again that his motive is not protecting the sanctity of language but rather imagining new ways to mix art, pop culture, music, and love. At least Maslin recognized this "visual universe fully in tune with the characters' ageless passions." Luhrmann's style is wholly unique, similar to Julie Taymor, and he's not given enough credit for exploring new dimensions in film. Romeo + Juliet was, in my opinion, a successful experiment and fascinating stimulus for the senses. And yes, I think it did make a 400 year-old story more relevant.

Titanic: 10 Years On

I could get a lot of grief for this, but I thought I would take the occasion to discuss the 10 year anniversary of the highest-grossing and most awarded film in the history of the world. Titanic dwarfs most other movies like the actual ship would have dwarfed a canoe. It grossed over $1.8 billion worldwide and was nominated for 14 Oscars, of which it won 11, a total that tied it with Ben-Hur and later on with LOTR: The Return of the King, which is second on the highest-grossing list - and over $700 million behind Titanic. Keep in mind Titanic didn't have the advantage of millions of hobbit fanboys, either.

I saw Titanic on Christmas night, 1997, at the old Har-Mar theater. Turns out I wasn't the only one. Opening in a modest 2,600 screens, it would go on to be the #1 film in the country until April of 1998. If you don't follow these kinds of things you might not realize the magnitude of this - most blockbusters are lucky to be #1 for two weeks straight, let alone 15. (In 2007, 3 weeks was the longest streak). Even after Titanic was eventually knocked to second by (great trivia question) Lost in Space, it remained in packed theaters through the summer of 1998 (when I happened to see the musical "Titanic" on Broadway = awful). I remember people in school talking about having seen Titanic in the theater15-20 times. Wow. I think I only made it twice. That being said...I actually like the movie. Yep, I do - a lot.

First of all, the special effects were breathtaking - I hadn't heard gasps like that from the audience since seeing the dinosaurs for the first time in Jurassic Park (still probably one of the most amazing moviegoing experiences ever). Secondly, it was a great story - a major historical event told through the eyes of a likable participant. Third, it launched the careers of two of the most talented stars in Hollywood right now - Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, each of whom has two Best Actor/Actress Oscar nominations within just the last three years. That's ridiculous.

Lastly, Titanic is everything you would ever want from a blockbuster. Simply stated, it's why you go to the theater, and it was certainly worth the price of admission. I know most people can't stand it and James Cameron is jerk and it went way over budget and blah blah blah, but if wasn't for productions like it, you wouldn't go to the movies - nor would you even be reading this.

I'm surprised more isn't being made of its anniversary, to be honest. A DVD boxed set or something? I guess it had its marketing run, but I thought somebody would try to cash in. Maybe I'll just look for it on TV to witness film history again.