Suletud saar

See foorum on mõeldud Filmiveeb.ee filmide kommenteerimiseks.

Moderaator: Meeskond

Suletud saar

PostitusPostitas Zinera » 14. August 2009, 16:21

Suletud saar

Shutter Island



Aastal 1954 uurivad kaks USA politseinikut ühe patsiendi kadumist hullumajast ühel saarel Massachusetts'is. Nad satuvad aga pahandustesse, kui nad avastavad, et haigla administraator on neid petnud ja lisaks kõigele tabab saart orkaan, mis ei lase kellelgi sealt lahkuda...




Täielikku tutvustust loe siit.
No One Goes Quietly
Kasutaja avatar
Zinera
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 2581
Liitunud: 22. Mai 2005, 12:41

PostitusPostitas eerik » 21. August 2009, 22:52

Kasutaja avatar
eerik
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 4826
Liitunud: 04. Märts 2006, 23:59

PostitusPostitas Forzelius » 21. August 2009, 23:31

vägagi :( raisk. Ei ole üldse rahul, aga eks neil on omad põhjused, ega nad nalja pärast bp'd ära ei võtaks.
PiltPiltPilt
Kasutaja avatar
Forzelius
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 13064
Liitunud: 22. Mai 2005, 20:22

PostitusPostitas eerik » 22. August 2009, 17:18

Stuudiobossid nägid Avatari ja hakaksid kartma.





NOT!
Kasutaja avatar
eerik
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 4826
Liitunud: 04. Märts 2006, 23:59

PostitusPostitas Ralf » 18. Veebruar 2010, 15:22

Joblo arvustus:

I walked into SHUTTER ISLAND with incredibly high expectations. Considering it’s a Martin Scorsese film, I expected nothing short of a masterpiece, especially since it reunites him with current go-to guy Leonardo DiCaprio. Add to that the fact that this is another Dennis Lehane adaptation, whose work was previously the basis of MYSTIC RIVER, and GONE BABY GONE, and you’ve got the formula for a film that can’t miss, right?

Sure enough, SHUTTER ISLAND is a good film. It’s well-acted, beautifully shot and full of atmosphere. Some have said that this is Scorsese’s THE SHINING, and yes, this film is full of references to Kubrick’s classic from the remote, chilling locations, to the music. It’s also strongly reminiscent of a series of Val Lewton thrillers from the forties, that Scorsese previously had issued on DVD, particularly the films BEDLAM and ISLE OF THE DEAD.

Still, I can’t say that this is top-tier Scorsese for me. For some reason, I had trouble getting into SHUTTER ISLAND. It just felt a little old-hat, which is the last thing I’d expect from Scorsese. The last time he dabbled in horror, he came out with the incredible CAPE FEAR remake- which stands as one of the few remakes that trumps the original in my book. Here, the film just never really takes off. I didn’t find it scary, and at times my mind began to wander somewhat.

That said, I really can’t pinpoint what’s wrong with it. DiCaprio is great is Marshal Teddy Daniels. This is a fascinating, deeply layered character, with Daniels’ harboring many ulterior motives for his visit to SHUTTER ISLAND, least of which is the investigation to which he’s been assigned. He’s haunted by the recent death of his wife Dolores (Michelle Williams), who he sees in nightmarish visions once he gets to the island. He’s also dealing with the fact that he was present at the liberation of the Dachau death camp in WW2, which he’s constantly reminded of in his nightmares. The Dachau flashbacks are brilliantly filmed, and truly disturbing. I think if Kubrick had lived to direct his planned Holocaust film, THE ARYAN PAPERS, it would have been similar to the way Scorsese shoots the sequences, and I still hope he finds time to make a WW2 film at some point.

As his partner, Ruffalo is quite good, although the character initially comes off as a tad bland, until we find out more about his own reasons for being on SHUTTER ISLAND. Playing the psychiatrists in charge of Ashecliffe, we get two old pros, Max Von Sydow, and Ben Kingsley. Sydow’s the more enigmatic, sinister seeming doctor, and the former EXORCIST is great. Kingsley’s terrific as the more compassionate doctor, and it’s nice to finally see him in a film worthy of his talents, as he’s been in way too much crap lately.

Visually, SHUTTER ISLAND is a feast, with Scorsese once again teaming up with Robert Richardson, and the look of the film is reminiscent of their work on THE AVIATOR. The film has the look of being shot with old two-strip Technicolor, which is appropriate considering the period setting. I also loved the music score, which is all source material from artists like Brian Eno, John Cage, and Ingram Marshall. This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise though, as when has the music in a Scorsese film been anything less than exquisite? It helps that once again he’s working with his old pal, Robbie Robertson, as music supervisor.

My problems with SHUTTER ISLAND mostly deal with the last third of the film, which feels somewhat anti-climatic considering the build-up we’ve been getting. I was also somewhat underwhelmed by the mind-f**k ending, which is predictable in its unpredictability if that makes any sense. However, the final scene is indeed haunting.

In the end, SHUTTER ISLAND is a film that I think I need some time to absorb. While it’s certainly not among his best, it’s still a Scorsese film, so you get a level of quality here that you won’t get elsewhere. I also have the feeling that this is the type of film that might benefit from repeat viewings, so I’ll be anxious to give this another look somewhere down the line. Sure, it’s not a masterpiece, but it’s Scorsese, and it demands to be seen.

RATING: 7.5/10
Kasutaja avatar
Ralf
love <3
 
Postitusi: 13373
Liitunud: 06. Mai 2006, 13:57
Asukoht: Sinu voodialune (väga tolmune *köh*)

PostitusPostitas Soprano » 18. Veebruar 2010, 16:23

Ebert'i arvustus:

PiltPiltPiltPilt

"Shutter Island" starts working on us with the first musical notes under the Paramount logo's mountain, even before the film starts. They're ominous and doomy. So is the film. This is Martin Scorsese's evocation of the delicious shuddering fear we feel when horror movies are about something and don't release all the tension with action scenes.

In its own way it's a haunted house movie, or make that a haunted castle or fortress. Shutter Island, we're told, is a remote and craggy island off Boston, where a Civil War-era fort has been adapted as a prison for the criminally insane. We approach it by boat through lowering skies, and the feeling is something like the approach to King Kong's island: Looming in gloom from the sea, it fills the visitor with dread. To this island travel U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo).

It's 1954, and they are assigned to investigate the disappearance of a child murderer (Emily Mortimer). There seems to be no way to leave the island alive. The disappearance of one prisoner might not require the presence of two marshals unfamiliar with the situation, but we never ask that question. Not after the ominous walls of the prison arise. Not after the visitors are shown into the office of the prison medical director, Dr. Cawley, played by Ben Kingsley with that forbidding charm he has mastered.

It's clear that Teddy has no idea what he's getting himself into. Teddy -- such an innocuous name in such a gothic setting. Scorsese, working from a novel by Dennis Lehane, seems to be telling a simple enough story here; the woman is missing, and Teddy and Chuck will look for her. But the cold, gray walls clamp in on them, and the offices of Cawley and his colleagues, furnished for the Civil War commanding officers, seem borrowed from a tale by Edgar Allan Poe.

Scorsese the craftsman chips away at reality piece by piece. Flashbacks suggest Teddy's traumas in the decade since World War II. That war, its prologue and aftermath, supplied the dark undercurrent of classic film noir. The term "post-traumatic shock syndrome" was not then in use, but its symptoms could be seen in men attempting to look confident in their facades of unstyled suits, subdued ties, heavy smoking and fedoras pulled low against the rain. DiCaprio and Ruffalo both affect this look, but DiCaprio makes it seem more like a hopeful disguise.

The film's primary effect is on the senses. Everything is brought together into a disturbing foreshadow of dreadful secrets. How did this woman escape from a locked cell in a locked ward in the old fort, its walls thick enough to withstand cannon fire? Why do Cawley and his sinister colleague Dr. Naehring (Max von Sydow, ready to play chess with Death) seem to be concealing something? Why is even such a pleasant person as the deputy warden not quite convincingly friendly? (He's played by John Carroll Lynch, Marge's husband in "Fargo," so you can sense how nice he should be.) Why do the methods in the prison trigger flashbacks to Teddy's memories of helping to liberate a Nazi death camp?

These kinds of questions are at the heart of film noir. The hero is always flawed. Scorsese showed his actors the great 1947 noir "Out of the Past," whose very title is a noir theme: Characters never arrive at a story without baggage. They have unsettled issues, buried traumas. So, yes, perhaps Teddy isn't simply a clean-cut G-man. But why are the others so strange? Kingsley in particular exudes menace every time he smiles.

There are thrilling visuals in "Shutter Island." Another film Scorsese showed his cast was Hitchcock's "Vertigo," and we sense echoes of its hero's fear of heights. There's the possibility that the escaped woman might be lurking in a cave on a cliff, or hiding in a lighthouse. Both involve hazardous terrain to negotiate, above vertiginous falls to waves pounding on the rocks below. A possible hurricane is approaching. Light leaks out of the sky. The wind sounds mournful. It is, as they say, a dark and stormy night. And that's what the movie is about atmosphere, ominous portents, the erosion of Teddy's confidence and even his identity. It's all done with flawless directorial command. Scorsese has fear to evoke, and he does it with many notes.

You may read reviews of "Shutter Island" complaining that the ending blindsides you. The uncertainty it causes prevents the film from feeling perfect on first viewing. I have a feeling it might improve on second. Some may believe it doesn't make sense. Or that, if it does, then the movie leading up to it doesn't. I asked myself: OK, then, how should it end? What would be more satisfactory? Why can't I be one of those critics who informs the director what he should have done instead?

Oh, I've had moments like that. Every moviegoer does. But not with "Shutter Island." This movie is all of a piece, even the parts that don't appear to fit. There is a human tendency to note carefully what goes before, and draw logical conclusions. But -- what if you can't nail down exactly what went before? What if there were things about Cawley and his peculiar staff that were hidden? What if the movie lacks a reliable narrator? What if its point of view isn't omniscient but fragmented? Where can it all lead? What does it mean? We ask, and Teddy asks, too.
Kasutaja avatar
Soprano
Aasta foorumlane 2016
Aasta foorumlane 2016
 
Postitusi: 8415
Liitunud: 06. Jaanuar 2007, 04:24

PostitusPostitas DaydreamDiamond » 23. Veebruar 2010, 10:11

ja juba ongi IMDB top250 (#229) - Neljapäeval saab teada 8)
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.
Kasutaja avatar
DaydreamDiamond
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 942
Liitunud: 07. Oktoober 2008, 10:36
Asukoht: Tartu

PostitusPostitas Soprano » 23. Veebruar 2010, 18:32

8 hullumaja patsienti 10st
Kasutaja avatar
Soprano
Aasta foorumlane 2016
Aasta foorumlane 2016
 
Postitusi: 8415
Liitunud: 06. Jaanuar 2007, 04:24

PostitusPostitas DaydreamDiamond » 24. Veebruar 2010, 18:48

Enivei, Scorsese ja DiCaprio ning taaskord kinost välja tulles on tunne, et oled kinopileti raha eest on saanud ka.
DiCaprio tõestab taaskord, et on meie generatsiooni üks andekamaid näitlejaid ja Scorsese, kes ei pea ammugi enam midagi tõestama, et ta pole oma filmidel latti lasknud mitte karvavõrdki allapoole. Filmi iseloomustavad koheselt ära tuntav operaatoritöö, väga hästi valitud minimalistlik muusika. Kui DiCaprio kõrvale jätta, siis ka teiste osatäitjate suhtes ei ole minul nuriseda midagi.
Sisu poole pealt võibolla, et silma hakkas ainult üks asi, mis oli minu meelest vahepeal Martin'il meelest ära läinud (ei hakka spoilerdama, kes näeb, see näeb). Aga üldiselt mind isiklikult midagi rohkemat väga ei häirinud.
Äripäeva nädalavahetuse lisas oli öeldud, et võtted toimusid vanades laohoonetes ning ümberringi oli palju agooniat, siis ma leiaks, et see jõudis ka täielikult kinolinale (ja seda mitte halvas mõttes).
Igatahes vägagi bull's eye tabamus vanameistrilt.Aitäh.

8,5/10
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.
Kasutaja avatar
DaydreamDiamond
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 942
Liitunud: 07. Oktoober 2008, 10:36
Asukoht: Tartu

PostitusPostitas Ninja Robot » 26. Veebruar 2010, 23:46

Ma pole ammu kinos nii head elamust saanud. Tõsiselt ajusid krussi keerav teos, kus (minu jaoks) on kõik paigas. Scorsese saab nüüd minu käest andeks Mou gaan dou persekeeramise eest.
Kasutaja avatar
Ninja Robot
Teadmata kadunud
Teadmata kadunud
 
Postitusi: 15
Liitunud: 10. Veebruar 2009, 01:10

PostitusPostitas rauls » 27. Veebruar 2010, 00:33

Kuna Scorsese on mu lemmiklavastaja, siis ootasin väga seda linateost ja õnneks ei pidanud pettuma. Päris hull/pöörane film. Visuaalid oli kenad. Sünge ja ka õõvane olustik oli oskuslikult kujundatud ja üles võetud. Meeldis see, et oli palju ootamatusi. Mina vähemalt küll ei osanud oodata sellist lõpptulemust nagu oli. Kindlasti leidub mõni smartass, kes ütleb, et jagas kohe ära, mis värk on. Sisu oli küllaltki keeruline vahepeal ja ajas päris segadusse. Kas peategelane näeb und või meenutab toimunut? Mis on tõelisus ja mis on kujutelm? Lõpuks selgus kõik. Võimas film ikkagi. Tõenäoliselt lähen veel korra vaatama.

8,5/10
Kasutaja avatar
rauls
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 4326
Liitunud: 27. August 2008, 22:34

PostitusPostitas Ralf » 27. Veebruar 2010, 16:10

Meeldis. Siin-seal leidus muidugi kohti, mille arvelt oleks saanud vähendada filmi pikkust, sest umbes keskpaigas ei tahtnud lugu kõigi nende segaste unenäostseenide keskmes kuidagi edasi liikuda - ühesõnaga minu maitsele ehk veidi liiga pikk. Samuti tehti lugu kohati vägisi liiga segaseks, kuid eks see oligi ju vaataja aina enam segadusse ajamiseks, et kulminatsioon rohkem üllataks.

rauls kirjutas:Kindlasti leidub mõni smartass, kes ütleb, et jagas kohe ära, mis värk on.

Ma pole smartass, kuid jagasin küll.

Suur kuri spoiler! kirjutas:Umbes siis, kui Teddy mõistis, et number 67 tähendab 67. patsienti ja seda Cawley'le ütles, olin täiesti kindel, et ta ongi ise 67. patsient, aga kui hiljem hakati lugu pöörama hoopis muus suunas, tekkisid selles osas siiski kerged kahtlused. Tõtt-öelda ma mõtlesin juba alguses, kui Teddy ja Chuck olid laeval ning omavahel rääkisin, et Teddy on niikuinii ise ka hoopis hullumajas kinni ja nad teevad rollimängu, lootuses nii teda ravida. Seda ma muidugi näiteks ei aimanud, et Ruffalo ise oli tema psühhiaater.

Meeldisid ka montaaž ja kaameratöö, ent paljudes kohtades oli kõvasti ebameeldivaid apsakaid, näiteks ühel hetkel on käsi Teddy põsel ja siis järgmises kaadris ta õlal, või on tal veeklaas käes ja siis näeme, et see on juba lauale teleporteerunud. Sellel ma end üleliia häirida ei lasknud.

Korralik film, kuid kindlasti ei midagi, millest väga vaimustusse sattuda.

6,5/10 ümardatuna filmipäeviku tarbeks 7/10-ks.
Viimati muutis Ralf, 27. Veebruar 2010, 22:18, muudetud 1 kord kokku.
Kasutaja avatar
Ralf
love <3
 
Postitusi: 13373
Liitunud: 06. Mai 2006, 13:57
Asukoht: Sinu voodialune (väga tolmune *köh*)

PostitusPostitas hau » 27. Veebruar 2010, 16:52

Ralf kirjutas:Meeldisid ka montaa¾ ja kaameratöö, ent paljudes kohtades oli kõvasti ebameeldivaid apsakaid, näiteks ühel hetkel on käsi Teddy põsel ja siis järgmises kaadris ta õlal, või on tal veeklaas käes ja siis näeme, et see on juba lauale teleporteerunud. Sellel ma end üleliia häirida ei lasknud.


definitely not mistake.
hau
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 4195
Liitunud: 12. Veebruar 2006, 16:22
Asukoht: Tallinn

PostitusPostitas Jolt » 27. Veebruar 2010, 22:18

+1 Ralfile, umbes hetkel kui seda traileris öeldi ning eba minagi end smartassiks tunnista. Ilma trailerit nägemata seda filmis niiväga tähele ehk polekski pannud, kuid kui filmi müüakse selgelt twistfilmina ja infot antakse nii napilt siis on paraku vaid paar varianti, millele mõelda.
Põhiline viga Shutter Island'i puhul ongi, et värskusest jääb täiega puudu. Ei hakka loetlema kõiksuguseid filme, milles sarnaseid teemasid olnud - oleks liiga selge spoiler -, kuid tehniliselt väga hästi teostatud tervik ei suutnud siiski varjutada fakti, et seda kõike on juba varemgi nähtud.
Di Caprio oli taaskord superb, kogu lõpulõigu selginemishetke kestel oli tunne, et ehk tuleb veelkordne tagasipööre ja seda vaid tänu sellele, et Leo oli rollis sedavõrd muljetavaldav. Can't wait 'till INCEPTION.

Ja hauga sama meelt, paljud väikesed "vead" olid teadlikud otsused, tekitamaks ebareaalsuse ja unenäolisuse tunnet.
Kasutaja avatar
Jolt
Ristiisa
Ristiisa
 
Postitusi: 2165
Liitunud: 12. Juuni 2007, 11:02

PostitusPostitas Ralf » 27. Veebruar 2010, 22:23

Leonardo DiCaprio pole mulle kunagi väga meeldinud, kuid siin filmis on ta tõepoolest sümpaatne. Ma muidugi korra lootsin, et siin filmis me ei näegi tema crybaby-nägu, kuid kahjuks oli see lõpus paar sekundit siiski üle terve ekraani. Kummalisel kombel sobis ta Teddy rolli tõesti nagu valatult.

Ja tegelikult mängib Scorsese väga geniaalselt ja kohati ennenägematult vaataja arusaamaga filmisisesest maailmast ning selle reaalsusest, näiteks kui Teddy ning Chucki poolt üle kuulatav naine tõstab üles veeklaasi, et sealt lonks võtta, näeme me sekundiks, et tal polegi mitte midagi käes, ja muidugi eelmainitud halb montaaž, mis paistab samuti taotluslik olevat.

Vaatan filmi kindlasti 720p's uuesti, kui see Blu-Ray peal välja tuleb. "Shutter Island" on täis detaile, mida esimesel korral märgatagi ei pruugi.
Kasutaja avatar
Ralf
love <3
 
Postitusi: 13373
Liitunud: 06. Mai 2006, 13:57
Asukoht: Sinu voodialune (väga tolmune *köh*)

Järgmine

Mine Filmid

  • Statistika
  • Kes on foorumil

    Kasutajad foorumit lugemas: Registreeritud kasutajaid pole ja 4 külalist

cron