REVIEW: ‘Shutter Island’ Impresses With Everything But the Story
by John NolteBig movie twists are fine. I appreciate them when they work and sometimes even when they don’t. There’s all kinds of gimmickry in storytelling and The Twist has always been one of my favorites. Regardless, we all love a movie twist that knocks us out; a “Sixth Sense” kind of twist where (with the help of the filmmaker) you rerun the story in your mind and feel a great amount of satisfaction as the pieces all come together. Even less successful movie twists work on some level. The last reveal in “Unbreakable” might not have been a “Sixth Sense” wowser but is arguably successful within the context of its own world and without the specter of its predecessor might have received the respect it deserved.

In order for this kind of twist to work, however, a film must accomplish two things. First, the story shouldn’t require the twist in order for it to be successful. What precedes the twist should be stand-alone compelling – a good movie all on its own. Second, the twist should make you want to see the film again, and as soon as possible, because now what came before takes on an entirely new dimension that requires another viewing to truly savor.
And this is where “Shutter Island” fails. *SPOILERS COMING*
The two hours or so to director Martin Scorsese’s Big Reveal is a long haul, especially after you lose all interest after the first thirty-minutes due to a narrative that never gels or grabs hold. The acting is fine and the look of the atmospheric production is top-notch in that foreboding kind of way (aided by Bernard Hermann-esque flourishes in the score). But the mystery of an escaped patient on a big spooky island simply isn’t all that compelling. Nothing makes much sense once the second act really gets going, and while the Big Twist does work in explaining what came before, the thought of reliving two muddled unfocused hours was the furthest thing from my mind.
The year is 1954 and U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aule (an always excellent and interesting Mark Ruffalo) are on a ferry headed for Shutter Island, an island with one tenant: a hospital for the most violently insane criminals in the country. Rachel, an inmate/patient who murdered her children, has somehow managed to elude being caught after an escape from her cell that required either help from someone on the inside or magic.
The institution is run by Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) and Dr. Naehring (Max Von Sydow), two imposing figures who talk a good game about their advancements in treating the insane with humane, modern methods. But it doesn’t take long before Teddy (and we) have our doubts about the doctors’ sincerity. The two men appear to hold as many dark and sinister secrets as the large mysterious island they enjoy total control over with little to no outside interference or oversight.
Sure, there’s a mystery, but there’s also all kinds of red herrings that hurt the narrative because they are so obviously red herrings and therefore serve only to frustrate rather than surprise. As the scenes tick by, characters increasingly behave in ways that make no sense and a series of regular flashbacks that are beautifully realized are unfortunately more successful at killing story momentum than rounding out Teddy’s emotional life. Teddy fought in WWII and is still haunted by the inhumanity he saw firsthand after liberating Dachau, a Nazi concentration camp. He also lost his beloved wife not too long ago in an apartment fire. Both experiences continue to come back to haunt his day and night time dreams.

DiCaprio’s performance improves significantly as the story rolls on. His eternal baby face under a fedora is a distraction at first (Ruffalo looks fantastic in his fedora), but the personal journey Teddy’s forced to endure allows the actor to eventually stop play-acting as a tough guy cop and move into the more comfortable arena of emotionally-driven scenes where he’s 100% believable and even quite moving at times. His last line’s a killer – the whole ballgame – and DiCaprio knocks it out of the park.
Rounding out an already impressive cast is a terrific group of welcome actors in smaller (sometimes a single scene) but pivotal roles: Elias Koteas, Jackie Earle Haley, Patricia Clarkson, Ted Levine and Emily Mortimer. For my money, I would’ve preferred DiCaprio and Ruffalo switched roles, but the actors are the least of the film’s problems.
At 100 minutes as opposed to 140, “Shutter Island” would improve greatly. If the DVD directors cut looks like that, a second look might be worth the time. But no matter how solid the acting, impressive the production design and predigree’d the director, everything comes down to story and this one quickly falls under the weight of its own runtime, lack of tension and the need of salvation in the form of The Big Twist.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
56 Comments
I thought The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were awful (as is every other M. Night Shamalamadingdong film). Saw the endings coming a mile away.
With Shutter Island, I guessed the ending, but I didn't find it tiresome, like I did with The Sixth Sense. I found the plot interesting, and the cinematography sublime.
Thanks for the excellent review, John. I read the original novel by Dennis Lehane and "the big reveal" was insulting in a way I just couldn't pin down. Eventually I realized that I felt the same way when I saw Aliens 3, where in the first twenty minutes two beloved characters are killed and thrown away like they are inconsequential trash (Hicks and Newt.)
When a storyteller brings you into a character and makes their personal journey become your journey, to turn around and show you that the journey was meaningless and your emotional investment was worthless is a betrayal. I'm trying to tie this to liberalism but I really can't; I think it is athiesm at it's most evil, an attempt to convince us in this fallen world that life is empty.
Life is too beautiful and rich and mysterious and gorgeous — and difficult — to let storytellers like this waste my time.
Not everything ties into liberalism.
I'm biased because I'm a huge fan of Alien 3 (the extended cut) but I am more than sympathetic to your criticism. Nearly all of my friends hate Alien 3 just because they killed off Hicks and Newt. But it's interesting you compare it to atheism. I don't want to go off-topic but on the Alien 3 audio commentary, actor Lance Henriksen describes the film as, "Nihilism on top of nihilism."
Exactly … exactly … exactly.
How other critics missed the essential truths you illuminate here is beyond me. This is really the only review you need to read for this film.
Scorsese doesn't do director's cuts, so there won't be one on DVD. Scorsese isn't self-aware enough to shorten his own film for its benefit anyway, I'd be surprised if he made a tight 90-100 minute movie ever again in his career.
The problem with this movie is that you've seen it all before (and done better), everything about it is cliche.
Excellent what is said here about Alien 3. I always viewed the film as existential rather than nihilistic. Maybe the two are not mutually exclusive. To me the liberal narrative is existential to the extreme. When I listen to politicians talk about "getting people back to work", does that mean creating millions of meaningless, mind-numbing jobs that people do not really want but have no choice but to do, or does that mean reducing regulations, cutting taxes, and leaving people alone so they can create and pursue the job of their bliss. These kinds of films are problematic because they promote the master/slave complex. You are the slave of the fates and that is inescapable. You have no choice. The most successful films I think are those that promote choice. I am thinking right now of the end scene of 'Armageddon' where Willis' character chooses to die for the world, albeit reluctantly. That is a choice that makes the film successful. Aye, there's the rub. Choice.
My wife and I saw this movie on the first day and we both enjoyed it. We don't always have to be blown away by what we're watching. We just enjoy the whole going to the theater, buying popcorn and getting away from the hustle and bustle for a couple of hours. The best thing about Shutter Island was that we didn't get whacked with some out of context conservative bashing moment.
On a side note, we just watched "From Paris with Love" yesterday and we quite enjoyed it. Same theme as Taken (same writer/director), where the hero just kicks butt and asks no questions. Some good French bashing, as well. A good afternoon time killer for us. Plus, we were the only two people in the theater, which is nice on occasion.
I was a huge fan of Dennis Lehane when he wrote the Kenzie/Gennaro series (where the movie "Gone Baby Gone" comes from) but he started to lose me with "Mystic River" because it was gut-wrenchingly depressing–won't watch the movie because it stars Sean Penn. I picked up "Shutter Island" but couldn't get into it. I don't know if the movie is a true adaptation, but I think I may not be missing anything. For some reason all his later work took a dark turn and I can only take so much of that in my entertainment.
My wife and I thought this might be a movie that went good with popcorn but were both disappointed. The plot and clumsy twists required too much mental cleanup to relax and be entertained.
I liked the novel, but haven't seen the film. You know what puts me off? Leo's face stubble. I know he needs to have facial hair in order to look like anything more than a callow stripling, but I lived in the '50s. No man–I mean, no man at all in America–wore face stubble as a fashion statement. Face stubble meant you were a) a bum, or b) on a camping trip. In any other context, it was just a mark of poor hygiene.
Sorry you didn't like the Sixth Sense. I thought it was a great movie and that Bruce Willis did an excellent job. Such a different role for him.I haven't seen Shutter Island, but guessed the ending just by watching the previews on TV. Too, bad.
I like how Scorsese billed this as an homage to Hitchcock. It was really an homage to Marnie.
I'd say he watched it just before filming this. Canned Lightning, over the top score, flashbacks, repressed memories triggered by colors or symbols (water).
I compare "From Paris" to a live action version of Team America. Which is pretty good.
I also thought it was lazy of them to keep his facial hair in the same exact style during his war flashbacks. Was he trimming it in the trenches?
Well…I can give that a pass because…well, just see the movie and you'll know what I mean. Although I dunno if he had it during some key flashbacks (the non-war ones).
Perfect! Just watched this yesterday, John's review is spot-on. I was amazed that Leo did as well as he did, just not a big fan of his.
I hated Mystic River, book and movie, liked Gone Baby Gone, and Sixth Sense.
exactly… the facial hair makes perfect sense. and it is NOT there during other key flashbacks.
[...] post: REVIEW: ‘Shutter Island’ Impresses With Everything But the Story This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
The review is so late! You not getting screening passes anymore, Nolte? Like many I guessed the reveal a little too soon, but the creepy atmosphere worked well and I still enjoyed it. B-grade Marty is still worth my time & money. And Ruffalo is incredibly hot. I don't know how I've missed that fact all these years.
Layer…
I have to agree with this post, well said….
Right on, though I think Mystic River is a great novel. However,I think it took something out of Lehane, who hasn't been the same since. Shutter Island the book is exactly how Nolte describes Shutter Island the movie. I skipped the flick because I feared it WOULD be "as good as the book."
John, excellent review. Confirms my own suspicions from the trailer – 'this is so paint by the numbers'. I didn't feel any suspense, just an irritated sense of being manipulated to go 'wow, that's so interesting' when it actually wasn't because I'd seen it all a thousand times before. Yawn, we're coming up to the twist – yawn, wonder what that is. It was beautifully photographed but that's only the surface; I wanted the substance beneath that surface and it just wasn't there. Your review, John, just confirmed my suspicions about this film – sound and fury signifying nothing.
Scorsese should stick to mob movies. I saw this mess last weekend and I agree with the review here. I figured out at least the basic premise the ending within the first 10 minutes, and they payoff is not worth the wait. The performances were good and the set decoration, setting and atmospherics were top notch. The endless series of flashbacks to the war were a distraction IMO and not essential to the story. You could cut 20-30 minutes out of this film easy and it would have been better for it.
Leo bashing time again : )
What is it about Leo that grates some people? Maybe it is the movie Titanic he was in. Made lots of money but the song and the scene on the bow is a parody now. http://www.planetstern.com/pod/titanic.jpg
His acting is fine. I guess we just like to pick on him.
That photo of him at the top makes him look like some skid row bum.
When I sat down to watch the 6th sense with my wife and the camera focused on Willis sitting on bench staring at a piece of paper I turned to my wife and said, "He's dead; a ghost or something." It makes her crazy when I do that but I do it all the time. Not to make her crazy. I'm just searching for a movie with an original plot. You know, like Diogenes.
Without seeing any of Shutter Island and using only the ads I've seen on TV, I would guess that Caprio's character is unknowingly being commited to the crazy house. The movie then works through the entire process of him figuring that out. I would be mildly surprised if it deviated much from this theme.
Nicely said, Bonnie. I increasingly observe the "betrayal" of liberalism, or the conjunction of "liberalism" and inhumanity, across the board. In terms of art, how "liberal artistry" in our times has depleted rather than enriched our sense of life's mystery and possibility.
As for DiCaprio, he is lost as an action or thriller lead. It's just not him. On the other hand, he was terrific, far better than the confused and meager material, in Revolutionary Road. This played to his strengths of pathos. I think DiCaprio is a great and natural dramatic actor making typically seductive but wrong choices.
Oh, Scott – I'm so sorry you're a fan of "Alien 3."
Dude, there aren't any sequels to "Alien" past "Aliens."
I have to draw a line in the sand somewhere….so I had to rate you a thumbs-down.
Did you really have to?
I have a reputation here!
To add insult to injury, I even own a Fury 161 t-shirt. I bought it here: http://www.lastexittonowhere.com/
They have other cool geek shirts, too. Anyway, as I told Bonnie, I am certainly sympathetic to people who don't like the film (a.k.a.: just about everyone I know). But I like it. I also like the first two films.
But if it makes you feel any better, I don't like Alien: Resurrection.
Did you really have to?
I have a reputation here!
To add insult to injury, I even own a Fury 161 t-shirt. I bought it here: http://www.lastexittonowhere.com/
They have other cool geek shirts, too. Anyway, as I told Bonnie, I am certainly sympathetic to people who don't like the film (a.k.a.: just about everyone I know). But I like it. I also like the first two films.
But if it makes you feel any better, I don't like Alien: Resurrection.
Did you really have to?
I have a reputation here!
To add insult to injury, I even own a Fury 161 t-shirt. I bought it here: http://www.lastexittonowhere.com/
They have other cool geek shirts, too. Anyway, as I told Bonnie, I am certainly sympathetic to people who don't like the film (a.k.a.: just about everyone I know). But I like it. I also like the first two films.
But if it makes you feel any better, I don't like Alien: Resurrection.
I just saw the tail end yet again. He certainly DOES have facial hair during the last flashback at the lake. I'm looking at it right now. There it is.
Shutter Island was just awful.
They say:
You're only as good as your lasst film.
He looked like a little kid in a man's suit in Revolutionary Road. He seems to look basically the same here.
My favorite The fame-obsessed, maniacal Johnny Depp knock-off character in that Woody Allen film called "Celebrity" Leo was so good in This Boy's Life that I literally couldn't watch. Could have been the DeNiro character that most got to me tho.
[...] Regardless, we all love a movie twist that knocks us out; a “Sixth Sense” kind of twist where (with the help of the filmmaker) you rerun the story in your …Tags: Road Movie ReviewRead MoreREVIEW: ‘Shutter Island’ Impresses With Everything But the Story. [...]
There's a little known film that does compel you to watch it twice. It's called "The King of Marvin Gardens" and stars Jack Nicholson as an introverted radio personality who lives with his grandfather. He had a brother out there living it up. That brother calls his introverted brother periodically. He calls for money, to get him out of jail or to use him as a sounding board for his latest wild haired whim. Bruce Dern plays the wild brother. This movie just meanders on and on for seemingly nothing. and we start wondering why it was made and why we don't just turn it off. Then, the end happens. Then we are COMPELLED to sit and watch it again !
Hey John, I agree with your review. The question that still is in the mind of my wife and myself is pretty simple. Did Teddy really kill his family and was a patient; or did the doctors know he was investigating them and use the hallucinogenic drugs to implant those memories in his mind; remember his conversation in the cave? After reviewing the movie over and over in our heads we came up with several plot points that did not match the supposed ending. I know that I am in the small minority that thinks the alternate ending I brought up above is very possible. Does anyone else here have an opinion on this?
Dennis Lahane is a VERY skilled and visual author, but so much important data from his novel can be left out when it is transferred to movie –big disappointment was Gone Baby Gone directed by Affleck– I realize the job of a movie critic is to evaluate a film, but let's be fair…sometimes the novel is FAR BETTER and a director simply does not or cannot transfer a well-written and detailed novel to cinema successfully. People who find it easier to watch a movie rather than crack open a book, are in no position to debunk a story, based on how well (or not) it was presented on celulloid. DiCaprio is great on the eyeballs (yet achingly underestimated as a professional actor…) and Scorcese did great directing work on "Shutter Island" and he does not disappoint; (does he ever disappoint?)
Oh, boy! Another Leonard DiCaprio movie where I have to suspend disbelief and accept lil' Leo playing a grown adult character.
Wonderful.
Mr. Wells,
Read the novel "Shutter Island" by Dennis Lahane for the answer to your question. Lahane is a very detail-oriented and visual writer, and it is difficult for his novels to transfer well to film, sometimes due to time constraints placed upon movie length, sometimes it's the directing skills, and editing decisions (on what to put in and leave out). Though I feel Scorcese did great on this one.
Read the novel…I assure you will not be disappointed.
Respectfully,
Dolores N.
"Secret Window" with Johnny Depp did the same thing for me. I figured it out exactly long before the film ended. It was basically a ripoff of the twists of The Sixth Sense and A Beautiful Mind.
Mr. Walker….
You were upset by Leo DiCaprio's facial hair?
And that was ample reason for you to criticize a movie you claim you DID NOT EVEN WATCH?
Thank goodness YOU are not a Film Critic….
Dolores
Leo DiCaprio was born in 1974, which will make him 36 this year. Legally, he is not a child. Petty jealousies like yours is what is really childish. So…at what age are YOU going to become a grown adult character?
Nicely said, Bonnie. I increasingly observe the "betrayal" of liberalism, or the conjunction of "liberalism" and inhumanity, across the board. In terms of art, how "liberal artistry" in our times has depleted rather than enriched our sense of life's mystery and possibility.
As for DiCaprio, he is lost as an action or thriller lead. It's just not him. On the other hand, he was terrific, far better than the confused and meager material, in Revolutionary Road. This played to his strengths of pathos. I think DiCaprio is a great and natural dramatic actor making typically seductive but wrong choices.
Oh, Scott – I'm so sorry you're a fan of "Alien 3."
Dude, there aren't any sequels to "Alien" past "Aliens."
I have to draw a line in the sand somewhere….so I had to rate you a thumbs-down.
Oh, Scott – I'm so sorry you're a fan of "Alien 3."
Dude, there aren't any sequels to "Alien" past "Aliens."
I have to draw a line in the sand somewhere….so I had to rate you a thumbs-down.
Finding a good movie in the theater these days is like driving through "dead zones" with your mobile: it's a hit or miss.
"Shutter Island" didn't pique my interest; thanks, John, for saving me time and money when someone asks me, "Hey…wanna go to the movies?"
Finding a good movie in the theater these days is like driving through "dead zones" with your mobile: it's a hit or miss.
"Shutter Island" didn't pique my interest; thanks, John, for saving me time and money when someone asks me, "Hey…wanna go to the movies?"
I've never understood how the guy who was great in: "This Boy's Life," "What's Eating Gilbert Grape," "The Basketball Diaries," "Catch Me if You Can," "The Gangs of New York," The Aviator," "Blood Diamond," and "The Departed" gets so much hate.
I don't care about his idiotic green/enviro shit; his movies are good.
Hey, Now That Was A Good Movie ! "The Dead Zone" Hey wait, it's being re-made… very slowly and for real..
The headline reads: "Shutter Island impresses with everything but the story."
IMHO, The story IS "everything".
I have to be honest. I haven't enjoyed a Scorsese movie since Raging Bull. This is strictly my opinion (and we all have them), but I feel like Scorsese is over-rated. He makes beautiful looking movies and then, if he can somewhere, he throws in as much useless violence as possible that does NOTHING to forward the story or the characters. I know, I know, I know…violence has its place. But, please…we don't need lingering shots of it to get the point. IF he is such a good director, surely he could figure out another way to get the point across. I'm speaking, of course, of his much praised mob films. Just call me a rube, I know some will. I wanted to enjoy Gangs of New York but I couldn't sit down to watch it because I was afraid I was going to be inundated with some kind of imagery on a scale of SAW or HOSTEL. I allow that he is a great director and film maker, but please, bash me over the head with story and character, not senseless violence. I just don't trust anything he does anymore.
Mark Ruffalo is a commie. Only reason he gets so many gigs.
Did Nolte notice the scene in Shutter Island where the US soldiers massacre all the surrendered German camp guards? I hope he gets as worked up by this as he did by that ten second scene in The Hurt Locker he keeps fretting about.
The movie was boring as hell. It was hard to sit through the entire thing without going to sleep.
[...] Reviews: 1. John Nolte at Big Hollywood 2. Carl Kozlowski at Big Hollywood 3. Darin Miller at Big Hollywood 4. Debbie Schlussel 5. [...]
Related……
[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.