Showing posts with label Leonardo DeCaprio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leonardo DeCaprio. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 December 2010

Shutter Island



Shutter Island – 2010, Martin Scorsese

Spooooooooooooooooooooooooky!



There are a handful of authors who are, or have been, very popular in Hollywood. Top of the list is Stephen King who has a list of media based on his works as long as both his arms and growing. King’s ‘great work’ the Dark Tower series will inevitably be adapted for film or TV or both.

The late Michael Crichton was equally prolific and would no doubt still be writing for the screen if he were still alive and now Dennis Lehane is setting himself up as the next Crichton (with less science fiction): Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, a couple of episodes of The Wire and of course 2010’s warm up to Inception; Shutter Island.

I can only assume that it is a coincidence that two films were released within a few weeks of each other, both starring Leonardo DiCaprio and both having such a strong ‘it’s a film about films’ vibe. SI is an ode to classic 40’s thrillers and mysteries, Inception a tribute to Hollywood movie convention and a demonstration of how it doesn’t have to be all bad. Inception is of course open to, and subject of, intense debate about its meaning. A lot of people tired of the praise, then the backlash, and the following argument (summed up best here), but I’ll never tire of Inception or the great debate.

Shutter Island was lauded as a great film and rightly so, but it was never the beneficiary/victim of as much hype as Nolan’s film and so never sparked much debate. The other thing about Shutter Island is, without giving too much away, it is not open to interpretation. It’s a mystery, but all is revealed unambiguously at the end.

It’s precisely because it is not open ended that SI is so entertaining. Scorcese’s not-so-subtle-but-not-quite-obvious touches compel the audience to really pay attention. Some of the necessary elements that allow the viewer to form a theory about what is really going on are a tad obvious, but this is definitely a film that warrants a second viewing to go back and spot all the clues.

SI is one of the best ‘spooky thrillers’ I’ve seen (I’m desperately trying to think of a similar film...The Others maybe?) DiCaprio’s character’s motivation is clear and his behaviour is believable. I find that the most annoying thing about a lot of thrillers and horrors is the unbelievable or inconsistent way the protagonist behaves, all for the sake of moving the story forward of setting up the shocks, doing dangerous or ill judged things for no reason. In SI, all the secrecy and strangeness that surrounds Leo compels him to probe deeper into the events on the island, putting himself at greater risk, but not without reason.

I found to be a Shutter Island is a satisfying film. Some may think that the big twist at the end is either predictable or unoriginal, and they’d have a point, but they’d also be missing the point. Shutter Island is a popcorn movie. It’s a big budget studio picture starring an A-Lister in the lead and directed by a successful and well established director, and it’s as good as such movies get.

I suppose the only negative is the ‘they had too much money to spend’ factor that can effect films nowadays. The film looks very good but it’s very obvious that a lot of shots were filmed in front of a green screen.

The theory behind extensive green screen shooting is that it is cheaper to create stunning exterior locations digitally. Why bother scouting a location then setting up a shoot and waiting for just the right light when The Magic Hour can be created on a computer? It’s good, but not completely believable. It doesn’t detract from the experience, but there are a couple of scenes that look out of place because of the awkward transition from location to studio within the same scene. This is just nitpicking, Shutter Island is well worth a watch, and proof (as if it was needed) that Scoresese can do more than just Gangster Montage. It would be interesting to see what Guillermo del Toro would have made of it.

NB.
It’s very easy to mistype the title of this film.

Monday, 19 July 2010

Inception

Inception – 2010, Christopher Nolan

It’s difficult to talk about what makes Inception so good without spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, and to declare that there isn’t a massive Sixth Sense style twist at the end doesn’t spoil it. In fact, as intricate as the film’s plot is, it’s refreshingly simple. The story is good enough without some huge about-face at the end. There is a little predictable ambiguity, but that can be forgiven.

The essence of Inception’s greatness is that it straddles the line between risk taking intelligence and studio pleasing big summer release. Nolan’s Batman films are praised for being popcorn blockbusters that don’t underestimate the audience and Inception is the same. During the second half of the film there are four storylines all taking place at the same time. It would sound complicated to explain, but when you watch it, it isn’t remotely difficult to follow. The script was years in the making and it shows, if only every film was allowed to stick to the original screenplay so rigidly, films like Hancock and Clash Of The Titans would hold themselves together better. There’s been a bit of ‘will inception flop’ talk bouncing around the internet which will doubtless be bollocks, Inception is too good to fail.

The film runs for over two hours but I don’t think it ever gets boring. This is partly because of the aforementioned multiple stories but also because of the supporting cast who are all more compelling to watch than DiCaprio. Leo gets a lot of knocking and I don’t like to criticise him for no reason. His performance in Inception is very understated considering the character he plays. Like I say, I won’t spoil it, but if you watch Inception, take a moment to think about Leo’s character afterwards, and try to imagine how any actor could play a character who has experienced all those things.

I suppose someone had to do it, and I can’t actually think of another contemporary leading man who would have done better. DiCaprios’s presence is like Joseph Gorden-Levitt’s hairstyle; slightly off-putting but necessary.

Tuesday, 8 June 2010

The Quick and The Dead

The Quick and The Dead – 1995, Sam Raimi

The best thing about a lot of good films is their excellent ensemble cast. The best examples are of course Predator and the Alien films. An ensemble cast only works if all the characters are well established, even if they don’t have much screen time. The Quick and The Dead contains at least ten characters each with their personality and motivation are all clearly defined, even though only four of them are the main characters of the film. The four leads are, in order of importance; Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, pre gladiator Russel Crowe and a young Leonardo DeCaprio. Keith David and Lance Henriksen are in there as well, in a sense they are underused, but there’s enough going on in this film as it is.

TQATD is a western directed by the guy who did the Evil Dead trilogy, before he did the Spiderman trilogy. At the time it was his biggest budget picture to date, about twice the cost of Darkman (the Liam Neeson comic book vehicle).

The plot involves a gunfighter competition in a town called Redemption. Almost all the characters are gunslingers and the film revolves around them pairing up and taking part in shootouts in the street. Action and drama in equal measure, the perfect cocktail.

Sam’s western is an homage to westerns, made long before the self conscious referential homage became popular and quickly got old (rant, grumble etc). The film is full of B-Movie clichés, but they work perfectly within the story and whole ‘studio western’ vibe that Raimi achieved. He made exactly the film he intended to, but in later years he has apparently expressed his regret at how it turned out, suggesting he didn’t know what he was doing. He probably just regrets that it did so badly upon release.

This film and Bruce Willis’ Last Man Standing (a remake of Yojimbo directed by the great Walter Hill released a year earlier) both bombed at the box office, possibly because they were ahead of their time. For some reason it took Kill Bill to make such films cool.