“You’ll never leave this island.”

Martin Scorsese’s latest movie “Shutter Island” wouldn’t usually be part of Lights, Camera… History! because it is set in 1954. I asked to write/publish this review because it is one of the best movies I have seen so far this year. Maybe I can get some of you to take the time and go watch it in the theaters. For me it is a piece of art.

But first things first, the plot.  The movie is based on the psycho-thriller “Shutter Island” by US-author Dennis Lehane.

In 1954 widower U.S. Marshal Edward “Teddy” Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) go to Shutter Island, home of Ashecliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane, to investigate the disappearance of a patient, multiple murderess Rachel Solando, who has escaped her cell and apparently the desolate barren island, despite having been kept in a locked cell under constant supervision.

Chuck Aule: “All I know is it’s a mental hospital.”
Teddy Daniels : “…for the criminally insane.”

As you can see this story has the makings for a wonderfully intense, horrifying gothic movie. DiCaprio has one of his best performances as do Ben Kingsley (as Chief of Staff) or Michelle Williams as Teddy’s dead wife.

The movie begins with a puking Teddy taking the journey to Shutter Island by boat.  I was shocked to so obviously recognize the scene being shot with the help of a greenscreen. I was expecting better. But there you have it. I did get better, just not the way I expected. The feeling of watching an old movi stayed with me. Even the sound effects reminded me of Hitchcock or Edgar Wallace movies.

All of it helps to support the story that may not sound very interesting and probably wouldn’t be except for the surprising twist at the end of the movie. I won’t spoil the movie for you by telling you what makes the story so amazing, so intense. You just have to take my word for it and watch the movie. If you do you’ll have a very troubling but still satisfying time.

George Noyce: “Dont you get it? Youre a rat in a maze.”

“Shutter Island” is not for th soft hearted. It has few grueling scenes but wickedly plays with the minds of its audience. There is always an uneasiness around, always something around the next corner that you feel might jump out at you.

“Shutter Island” is a gothic horror thriller that pulls at your primal fears, uses simplest tools to set an atmosphere and shocks you not with things/people jumping out at you but with the tenseness, strain that comes over you while watching a simple detective story.

The cast is close to perfect. Ben Kingsley proves that you can never guess the side he’s on. He has the role of Dr. John Cawley down pat. He gave me goosebumps. Michelle Williams impersonates this scary manic-depressive wife of Teddy in a way that made me want to run the other way. Fast. Mark Ruffalo is a good, if not perfect supporting actor. He’s not even close to his lead DiCaprio, but that would be hard to do. I’m not a DiCaprio fan but always found him very convincing in his characters (hated Titanic, though).

Teddy Daniels: “We gotta get off this rock, Chuck.”

I can’t wait to read your replies to my review and hope to see you agreeing to my verdict. “Shutter Island” is chilling, deeply disturbing but also a cineastic masterpiece that has to be praised.

Official website: http://www.shutterisland.com/#/home

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130884/

Images from Allocine.fr

[Show as slideshow]

A woman as pope, the highest rank in the catholic church? For 1200 years the legend of Joan’s existence hasn’t died. In a world were Christianity was reducing a woman’s role to homemaker and mother a brave woman disguised as a man sat for two years on the papal throne.

“A girl,” he said. “So it was all for nothing.”

“Do not say so, sir.”

“She is a punishment from God. A punishment for my sins — and hers.”

The movie by Sönke Wortmann is based on the novel by Donna Woolfolk Cross. As an atheist (formerly catholic) I don’t really enjoy reading novels about the church, especially the catholic one. That’s the main reason why I didn’t pick up the bestselling novel. But the movie trailer pulled some strings in my heart and since I enjoy historical movies in general I didn’t need much persuasion to go to the movie theater.

Joan is wonderfully portrayed by three great actresses. Johanna Wokalek (adult Joan) is supreme, but I just loved the performance of the adolescent actress Lotte Flack. I could basically feel her hurt. A father who didn’t think her worth educating if his life depended on it and who even put a whip to her back because she learned to read in spite of his order not to.

Joan: “We have to answer for our conviction, even if the cost is high.”

Due to many coincidences she finds herself in the household of Gerold played by David Wenham. He’s known to most of us as Faramir from Lord of the Rings. I was waiting a long time for him to return to my screen and he is the perfect choice for Gerold. He and Johanna Wokalek had chemistry on screen, I was so entranced in their friendship, their growing love story that I felt betrayed by the films end. The only thing both of them didn’t do to my satisfaction were the kissing scenes. They seemed awkward, played and not passionate or loving.

Gerold:  “I don’t want you as my lover. I want you as my wife.”

I don’t want to reduce Pope Joan to her and Gerold because the legend has so much more to offer. A great John Goodman as Pope Sergius and several other likable and not so likable figures inside the catholic church. There are intrigues, politics and wars. Joan’s story is one of thirst for knowledge, survival, kindness, prudence and love for mankind. She seems like a person to have a long conversations with and whom I would gladly have seen as pope.

Gerold: “You are playing with fire, Joan”.

(Attention there’s some spoilers ahead !) 

There is one other thing though that kept bothering me: Joan’s pregnancy. I hope I haven’t spoiled that surprise but it always seemed obvious that she would be with child at some point. What I don’t get is the fact that she did get pregnant and stayed pregnant. She was a healer, knew her way around herbs so she would have to know how to prevent/abort a pregnancy. Wikipedia told me that that part was differing from the novel and that the book handles the situation to my satisfaction (in context with the story, not generally speaking). I am appeased.

(End of spoilers !)

Johanna Wokalek, David Wenham and all the others took me away into another world. It was a pleasure to see that the German film business does not equal dull, stupid, cheap movies but can be a momentum of history. I loved the settings, the sets, the way the camera moved in certain scenes and I enjoyed to see mostly unknown German actors get a chance. I was so unbelievable happy to not see faces like Iris Berben, Till Schweiger, Franka Potente², etc. who are usually cast in productions like this. It was refreshing.

Girls, I have to tell you to go see this movie if you ever get the chance³. For me it would be a great candidate for any movie award show. It has everything you need: a charismatic heroine who challenges the role of women in her time, intrigues, great war and battle scenes, a romantic love story and a not so happy ending.

One question remains: Is the legend true? I for my part would like to think so.

² Franka Potente was originally cast for the role of Joan. A near miss, I guess.

³ Pope Joan has a US distributor! No release date has been set yet. Word has it the film is being released in two formats: theatrical and mini-series. So there’s a chance for you non-Germans to watch it sometime in the future.

P.S: Davind Wenham is one gorgeous hunk… eye candy

[Show as slideshow]

About Charleybrown…

Hi, I’m “Charleybrown” and I started blogging a year and a half ago. I began innocently with collecting information about my favourite period films and it’s now become a full-blown obsession, discovering new movies and great friends along the way! My favourite thing is introducing someone to a great drama that they haven’t seen yet and that I’ve been tickled to discover through the great community of fans of costume dramas!

I thought it was timely when I read Richard Armitage mention his interest in Richard III, just after I had requested the DVD of Princes in the Tower from my library. It’s a story surrounded in mystery so I wanted to find out more about the events around it and the “players” upon that stage. I always get a kick when I finally make a connection between known historical figures. In this case, I discovered that Richard III is the king who imprisoned his nephews “the princes in the tower“, Edward and Richard and they were never seen alive again.

Read the entire review here

About Teje Ellis…

In 1955 my family went to Paris. I was 7 years old, and that’s when my love of history and all the trappings that go with it began. At first it was Marie-Antoinette and Napoleon, and as I grew older my interests in history expanded. I read all the historical fiction I could find in the public library, and watched all those wonderful costume dramas on late night tv. (After all, isn’t it all about the clothes and the shoes in the end?) My aunt was a wardrobe mistress at MGM, and that fueled the fire even more. I ended up being a dentist when there were few women in the field, and after 32 years of treating patients, I still have moments of regret that I didn’t pursue history and literature instead of science. But the “time-travel” through books and movies allow me to escape the everyday routine, and vacation in not only other places, but other times.

I have watched two films, both set during the Napoleonic Wars. The first, St. Ives, is based on a story by Robert Louis Stevenson. The main character, Jacques St. Ives is a French officer, who has been demoted, and taken prisoner by the English. While being held in jail, a young British woman discovers that the prisoner’s grandfather, having fled the French Revolution, lives nearby. Eventually Jacques escapes, and with several twists and turns, and of course a romance or two, the romp begins. This is not a serious film, and quite fun. The settings and costumes are lovely, and humor is sprinkled throughout.

The second movie, The Duellists, is from a story by Joseph Conrad. Both main characters are French officers in Napoleon’s forces. A minor incident causes Feraud, played by Harvey Keitel, to call out D’Hubert, played by Keith Carradine. Over a 30 year period, the two attempt to complete the duel, which has now become an obsession with Feraud, but circumstances get in the way. The film’s cinematography was beautiful, and showed a lot of attention to detail. The scenes where the French army are in Russia during the winter clearly showed how the Russian winter was what defeated the French. Curiously, this attention to detail, also evident in the sets, costumes, and lighting, did not seem to reach to how the two actors played out their roles. Both Keitel and Carradine were not believable, and therefore, I am at a loss as to how the reviews of this film that I have read could recommend it so highly.

About Becky…

My name is Becky, at One Literature Nut.  I teach high school English full time, and teach online literature courses part time.  While teaching English and literature is my profession, I have a real love and passion for reading and history.  In the end, how can you separate history from the stories that it creates? 

My initial reaction was great interest, as I hadn’t actually heard of this film before, and was shocked that it had slipped past me. I also think that Hilary Swank is a great actress, so I was eager to see her in the film. Unfortunately, this is exactly where my excitement stopped. For some reason, Swank, along with characters such as Christopher Walken (the actor in all those comedic spoofs), absolutely threw me. I wanted to fall into the story, but the characters were not believable, and I honestly wondered if there was a comic element somewhere that I had missed.

Read the entire review here…

About Maria Grazia…

I’m a teacher of English Language and Literature in Italy. I was born, live and work in a small town near Rome. I love my job and … reading, collecting DVDs and watching them of course, especially costume movies and dramas. Then I also like Art, music and blogging. I started blogging only in November 2008 with LEARN ON LINE, meant to help my students in their learning the English language and, especially, literature. Then I started liking it so much that I’ve created a personal blog: FLY HIGH!
I really can’t explain why I love period drama and classics so much. It has always been like this, since I read “Little women” at 9: if a story is set in the past – especially in the 19th century – it draws my attention and fascinates me lots more than series or movies set in our days.

In 1942, a young Scots woman, Charlotte Gray, travels to London to take a job. On the train she talks to a man sharing her compartment, and he – who works for one of the British secret service agencies at the time – gives her his card. Despite the war, social life in London is in full swing and the attractive, intelligent girl soon meets up with an airman, Peter Gregory. The temporary nature of life at the time is symbolized in their quickly lived relationship: she loses her virginity and also her heart to him. The intensity of the romance is heightened when Gregory is sent on a mission over France and news comes back to Charlotte that he didn’t return and listed as missing in action.

Charlotte spent much of her childhood in France and speaks the language fluently – a talent that the secret service wishes to exploit in its effort to support the French Resistance. Charlotte decides to throw in her job and joins a Special Operations Executive (SOE)* training course. Once it has schooled her in methods of interrogation, dyed her hair a mousy brown and replaced her fillings, Charlotte is parachuted into France to complete a specified mission. But instead of doing her job and heading home, she sets out to find Gregory’s whereabouts.

Read the entire review here…