SHUTTER ISLAND

I went into this not knowing what to expect, save for that it starred DiCaprio and was directed by Scorcese. Not an unimpressive starting point, one could reasonably assume, and while this differs somewhat from a lot of his other work there is still an identifiably Scorcese feel to the movie.

However, what started out as an arresting psychological/detective yarn had, by the end, descended into familiar and hackneyed territory :-s

DiCaprio plays US Marshal Teddy Daniels, called to investigate a disappearance at the hospital for the criminally insane located on... um... Shutter Island ! He's accompanied on
his assignment by the stereotypical 'new partner' Chuck Aule, played capably by Mark Ruffalo. Now, it turns out during the movie that Teddy has a vested interest in the case -
and has actually requested that he be assigned to it. The question is, has Teddy been assigned the case - or has the case been assigned to him ?

If you were to take 1 part "Wickerman" (the PROPER version not the WOEFUL Nick Cage honey bee nonsense), 1 part "Identity", 1 part "Angel Heart", 1 part "The Game", a few pages from a novel by Umberto Eco, a sprinkling of kafka and fire it all into a tub you pretty much have the rough outline of how this movie is going to feel for the viewer. Oh, you might want to burn a copy of 'the number 23' in the corner, too, being as it's a good example of how to handle a similar idea in a flabbergastingly more inept way. Anyway we're basically talking the ol' 2 people in 1 switcheroo - yet another attempt at recreating a personality crisis on celluloid and it fails and succeeds in much the same way as other such films have done before.

As the key themes appear to be subterfuge and duality one spends a lot of time analysing everything that is happening. Or, erm, I did anyways. This leads to a somewhat strange
experience. Clearly there is something not 100% 'by the book' about the whole way DiCaprios character 'investigates' the supposed incident, nor how he receives his 'clues'. This was something of a gripe for me, as everything falls so neatly into place that I found it hard to believe him in his role as a super sleuth. I mean, surely if everything came together so obviously in an investigation it would cause even a mildly switched on person to figure "Isn't this all being funnelled down a very narrow tube??". Also, the situations that arise where ANY investigator would have his guard about him are treated with no such air and the dynamic duo stumble on through, seemingly oblivious to the signposts all around them. Infact, at points, it's almost like they're stopping to walk around them :-s

The main turning point for me from believable into unbelievable territory came with the 'cigarette swap' incident. The two 'detectives' are caught out in a rainstorm and pretty
much the first thing that's mentioned afterwards is that their cigarettes got wet ? NO SHIT, SHERLOCK ! Oh, but never mind, there's a bunch of new packets laid on. I mean, would YOU smoke those cigarettes ?? Hmmm... Supplied by an institution packed with psychoactive drugs and people who know many ways of administering them. Oh, and these same people appear to be under the impression you're trying to 'fuck them over' (and don't forget, you're pretty positive they're a 'bad lot'). Willing suspension of disbelief is one thing, stupidity is another. Plus, this is like a lot of films in that there's almost no dialogue that isn't moving the plot along - so I naturally questioned the inclusion of the fact that their cigarettes got wet (yet another GLARING SIGNPOST). If the viewer is questioning this then surely it's reasonable to expect the detective who is supposed to be IN THAT SITUATION might have an inkling that something isn't quite so welcoming about their new found smokes :-s


The supporting cast handle things well and there's certainly a lot of acting talent involved, with Ben Kingsley as the benevolent yet perfectly sinister Dr Cawley and Max Von Sydow as creepy ex Nazi Dr Naehring turning in very competent if not slightly Hammy turns (especially on the part of Sydow, but then again he is and always will be MING THE MERCILESS so he is entitled to behave however he wishes - on-screen OR off). Jackie Earl Haley also crops up in a cameo as an unfortunately typical caricature of an 'insane' character, once one of Teddys informants on the outside, now doomed to a life on Shutter Island as a result of the marshals refusal to 'let things lie'. Presumably taking some time out from the Nightmare on Elm street set, being as it only looked like he was missing half his 'freddy' guise :-o He is, as are the other 'insane' characters in the piece, way too familiar with Teddys character for it to be believable that they are not already in possession of certain knowledge about him. I appreciate this is DELIBERATELY IMPLIED in a lot of cases, but getting guards and the like to be 'in on' a conspiracy is one thing - trying to brief the inmates of an INSANE ASYLUM to remember lines by rote ? That's stretching things a little in my opinion and was one of the main downfalls of the film. It's an impressively overarching conspiracy, sure, but it sure don't stand up to much scrutiny.

Also, there are clearly times in the film when DiCaprio is at peril (see Michael Douglas in THE GAME, as this bugs me in the same way). If he is actually so IMPORTANT to the staff of the island (and by the end of the film it would seem he is ALL IMPORTANT to the future of the facility) then surely they wouldn't let him wander off into situations where he could EASILY DIE ?!? This didn't make much sense, and that's before adding in the fact that he may/may not be insane. I mean, they do say it's a radical therapy I'll give them that but COME ON... All this 'radical therapy' line is effectively doing is saying 'yes, it's a stupid plot vehicle but, erm, here's our get out of jail free card'

So, we have a film that encourages the audience to believe (at least in its early stages) in some form of conspiracy BUT... On the other hand we have a plot that seems designed to both support this thread of the story, whilst allowing the same thread to be easily dismissable in the latter half as the 'real' plot develops. This is what gives the first half an uneven air of inevitability. It's designed to appear as if the detectives have to scramble for information, when in reality it's all pretty obviously laid on for them. I felt, for me, that this gave away the main 'reveal' of the film far too early - I'd pretty much planned the whole thing out within the first 15 minutes (it's a 2 hour movie, for those who are interested). At times it appeared there was to be a different resolution, but in the end I got exactly what I imagined. This isn't, I suppose, a bad thing - but it's nice to be surprised from time to time and I'd presumed Scorcese may have had a few more tricks up his sleeve :-(

VERDICT : 6.5 out of 10
Entertaining for the most part, a tad unfulfilling towards the end and flawed in terms of 'plot give-aways' (if you're paying attention).


Reviewed by Jamie Ball.