criterionforum.org

hmm...well, i don't mean that i thought Cape Fear was deep or meaningful, i just thought it was well written and seemed to me more of an authentic Scorsese movie than those others because it wasn't suffocating in production values and gave him a chance to exercise his volatile, absurdist sensibility, even if it was only in the service of comedy/entertainment.

chizbooga wrote:hmm...well, i don't mean that i thought Cape Fear was deep or meaningful, i just thought it was well written and seemed to me more of an authentic Scorsese movie than those others because it wasn't suffocating in production values and gave him a chance to exercise his volatile, absurdist sensibility, even if it was only in the service of comedy/entertainment.

You don't think After Hours is absurdist?

For what it's worth, I love Cape Fear, and I think it shares a lot of similarities with Shutter Island in its intimations about what guilt does to one's sense of reality, increasing one's paranoia and such. I think Shutter Island may be the better film, but Cape Fear is certainly the funnier.

Guilt and repression are, of course, common themes in Scorsese's oeuvre. How it manifests in both of these films, though, is interesting, because they are both initially presented as outside forces, but as the narratives progress, the viewer gets the sense that they may be more manifestations of some internal turmoil. I think the conceit works better in Shutter Island though, because as much as the rug is pulled out from under the audience, that is entirely the point of the film. In Cape Fear, the Max Cady character becomes more and more superhuman (or supernatural, if you will), and although the film is hardly presented as anything other than Hollywood artifice, it kind of betrays the limitations of its story.

Scorsese does this kind of thing ten times better than almost any other contemporary filmmaker.

im the other way around. i liked Shutter Island but i def. prefer Cape Fear. i thought the twist worked well for what it was but it just seemed too heavy and depressing for what was basically a haunted-house movie,

Spoiler

especially in the flashback scene showing dicaprio murdering his wife

. it excites your imagination at a very low level and then it dumps a tragedy in your lap. the style of the movie was too straight for me to not feel a little gypped by that. personally, i feel that Scorsese's main achievement in enterprises like this is making you take seriously something that would seem outright sophomoric or ludicrous in the hands of just about anyone else. i think he's too good at handling guilt and repression! his every dopey genre assignment becomes some sort of personal statement. since he's long since abandoned naturalism of the sensitivity of something like Taxi Driver or Alice Doesn't LIve Here Anymore, i kind of resent the heaviness of his touch. i still enjoy his movies but they seem to be getting more and more conventional, i.e. The Departed or The Aviator. the fact that they're masterfully done makes it worse - he could be doing much more.

While I'm sure most of these points originate from the source novel, but has anyone noted the similarities between the way the final twist plays out and Oldboy. DiCaprio's final choice almost feels like an inversion of Choi's in Park's film. Even the way the revealing flashback is integrated, rhythmically, into the narrative feels like those in that film.

I found "Cape Fear" to be little more than a straight update of the original. I'll take Robert Mitchum's genuine creepiness over Robert De Niro's hamminess any day of the week. Definitely Scorsese's most generic film. "Shutter Island" was at least a little more interesting.

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:I don't know, I'm generally kind of a Scorsese apologist (he's one of those directors who's body of work I find pleasure and great moments in even in his worst films) but I thought this was not one of his best by a long shot. It has some beautiful imagery and atmosphere but I find that the script is really the worst part of the whole thing. It seems like it can't decide whether it wants to be a fun pulp picture or a serious character piece (which isn't to say that a movie can't be both, considering all the movies that Scorsese is referencing like Laura, the Val Lewton films, and Fuller manage to do this sort of thing beautifully.) But I think where it really stumbles is really in the parts where it goes for seriousness, and further more, it stumbles the most when it tries to fuse these elements together and they never gel. Part of the problem I think is that I was never really invested in the film, really just noticing nice touches in the mise en scene editing etc without actually being wrapped up in the picture. Even the "twist" at the end of the film (I thought Teddy's flashback at the end of the film was handled beautifully and probably the best part of the film) doesn't really do enough to make the film work as a character piece. I would like to see it again at some point and see if maybe these elements work better on a second viewing, but for now I'm pretty underwhelmed.

However, I will say I thought Von Sydow played his part perfectly.

Finally got around to this one and this post sums up my thoughts perfectly, particularly the bolded part. Ironically, the last 10 minutes were by far the best part of the film, and really made me wish THAT had been the focus of the picture. As it stands, it's like Scorsese said "enough of this penetrating psychological drama that really gets under your skin...I wanna do what that M. Night Shamwow guy does!" It was all just too messy despite some fabulous performances from Von Sydow and Kingsley....even Leo was good (i'm not his biggest fan) though I have to agree with A.O. Scott's opinion on shoving the Bahston accents down our throats. I guess that's a good example of where this needed some restraint and just completely lacked any at all.

Someone above pointed to the editing and the delay factor in giving Marty too much time to muck about with it all. The scene where Max catches Leo in the basement and Leo finds the syringe in the doc's pocket is a good example - the two perspectives are completely off kilter. Looking at Leo he's a few feet away standing arms down....from behind Leo he's holding the doc with the syringe at his neck. arms down...syringe at neck...arms down...syringe at neck. That's way too sloppy for a film maker of his caliber. In the end it kind of encapsulated the whole experience for me...some good ideas lost in a crazed attempt to get all freaky on us and make the Mindfuck of the Year instead of a compelling examination of trauma and psychic disassociation. Again, I can't help but see a fantastic picture rooted in the final act...but this one ain't it.

Mr. Ned wrote:

zedz wrote:I also felt the working out of the plot in the last lap of the film was sluggish and laboured, lacking the speed and baroque panache of the set-up. The most interesting device Scorsese used in the film was initially really irritating,

Spoiler

namely the mismatch of shots and reverse shots. In retrospect it makes sense, but sloppy shot-to-shot continuity is so epidemic in modern genre filmmaking that at first I thought Scorsese and Schoonmaker might have taken their eye off the ball. However, the mismatches were so insistent it soon became evident that they were indeed deliberate, and functioned as a nice, understated representation of the protagonist's frantic attempt to stitch events into an acceptable version of reality, and not quite pulling it off.

I'm glad someone else noticed how cluttered and awkward the s/rs sequences were, and I enjoy your interpretation. I originally thought the mismatches were an unfortunate side effect from too much time in the editing suites and foley rooms, but a few I remember towards the beginning couldn't have been glossed over by Scorsese and co.; they were indeed deliberate. I don't know if I agree with the effectiveness of the execution, but it's an admirable experiment in technique.

Having let the film settle in my brain after a week, retrospect affirms it is indeed a flawed and ultimately forgettable part of Scorsese's filmography, but I also couldn't help but drift back to its application of historical references from time to time. It is a patchwork quilt of sorts in terms of homage...it's too bad Marty doesn't take them--and the story--anywhere too interesting.

hmmm...an interesting interpretation of the complaint i voiced in my initial post. I guess it makes sense, but man the discontinuity was so jarring it just took me right out of the scene whenever it happened. I think maybe it's a little too clever for it's own good in that respect.

Nothing wrote:

Mr. Ned wrote:Mr. Koteas is too underrated a talent to be glossed over like that.

By some accounts, Mr. Koteas is too financially motivated to do his talent justice.

such as? or are you just going to fling that out there with no evidence whatsoever?

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3

HistoryProf wrote:

Mr. Ned wrote:

zedz wrote:I also felt the working out of the plot in the last lap of the film was sluggish and laboured, lacking the speed and baroque panache of the set-up. The most interesting device Scorsese used in the film was initially really irritating,

Spoiler

namely the mismatch of shots and reverse shots. In retrospect it makes sense, but sloppy shot-to-shot continuity is so epidemic in modern genre filmmaking that at first I thought Scorsese and Schoonmaker might have taken their eye off the ball. However, the mismatches were so insistent it soon became evident that they were indeed deliberate, and functioned as a nice, understated representation of the protagonist's frantic attempt to stitch events into an acceptable version of reality, and not quite pulling it off.

I'm glad someone else noticed how cluttered and awkward the s/rs sequences were, and I enjoy your interpretation. I originally thought the mismatches were an unfortunate side effect from too much time in the editing suites and foley rooms, but a few I remember towards the beginning couldn't have been glossed over by Scorsese and co.; they were indeed deliberate. I don't know if I agree with the effectiveness of the execution, but it's an admirable experiment in technique.

Having let the film settle in my brain after a week, retrospect affirms it is indeed a flawed and ultimately forgettable part of Scorsese's filmography, but I also couldn't help but drift back to its application of historical references from time to time. It is a patchwork quilt of sorts in terms of homage...it's too bad Marty doesn't take them--and the story--anywhere too interesting.

hmmm...an interesting interpretation of the complaint i voiced in my initial post. I guess it makes sense, but man the discontinuity was so jarring it just took me right out of the scene whenever it happened. I think maybe it's a little too clever for it's own good in that respect.

I'm not so sure this was just a stylistic choice; Scorsese is great with the camera, but he's always been a bit weak in matching shots. Having said that, there are a few moments where the match is deliberately off to underline Teddy's psychological condition, but most of the mismatches resemble what we've seen in Scorsese's previous films. I assume that neither he nor Schoonmaker are too concerned with this issue.

Roger Ryan wrote:I assume that neither he nor Schoonmaker are too concerned with this issue.

David Bordwell took Scorsese (and, by extension, Schoonmaker) to task over the continuity (or lack of) in The Departed, but Scorsese has always been a director who makes his film in the editing room, not in the camera. I think, on set, getting the best performance from his actors is paramount, and then he'll find a way to make it all work in the editing room.

I'm kind of cool on much of Scorsese's recent work, but I think he would agree that if you're paying attention to where DiCaprio's arms are or where Alec Baldwin's beer can in a given scene is a clear indication either that you're too fixated on the mechanics of the film or that the scene has failed (and more likely the latter).

I'm in the camp that's pretty sure it's deliberate. It was way too jarring and noticeable, and it actually sealed my idea of what the twist was going to be

Spoiler

because I figured it had to do with his mental state. Though I only figured out part of the twist. I figured everything was in his head and he was a patient on the island, but I didn't figure everything was actually a role-playing game and that everyone else was playing along.

Matt wrote:

Roger Ryan wrote:I assume that neither he nor Schoonmaker are too concerned with this issue.

David Bordwell took Scorsese (and, by extension, Schoonmaker) to task over the continuity (or lack of) in The Departed, but Scorsese has always been a director who makes his film in the editing room, not in the camera. I think, on set, getting the best performance from his actors is paramount, and then he'll find a way to make it all work in the editing room.

I'm kind of cool on much of Scorsese's recent work, but I think he would agree that if you're paying attention to where DiCaprio's arms are or where Alec Baldwin's beer can in a given scene is a clear indication either that you're too fixated on the mechanics of the film or that the scene has failed (and more likely the latter).

i don't think it's "being fixated" - it's that it can often be quite jarring and impossible to ignore when it's blatant. The Bordwell link is interesting though....thanks for that. The depth and variety of resources so many posters here seem to have at their fingertips never ceases to amaze me. Awesome. Now if only I had The Departed on something other than an HD DVD in the spare room where the Toshiba was relegated after losing the war

Further on from the continuity, when the female patient being interviewed by Ruffalo and DiCaprio asks for a glass of water and she's briefly seen drinking there is no actual glass in her hand as far as I can tell.

souvenir wrote:Further on from the continuity, when the female patient being interviewed by Ruffalo and DiCaprio asks for a glass of water and she's briefly seen drinking there is no actual glass in her hand as far as I can tell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acZqbz5egfU

Hi Folks, just found this forum and already wondering how I did without it.

Very interesting discussion of 'Shutter Island', particularly the contrasting views on how it compares to 'Cape Fear'. Personally I much prefer 'Shutter Island', but then again it's 'new' whereas 'Cape Fear' is old news.

My opinion of 'Shutter Island' has followed a sharp upward curve, starting with thinking I was possibly going to walk out of the cinema right at the very start of the film because I thought it was going to be some sort of Mel Brooks-style comedy horror, then gently settling in and thinking it was just ok - a very well-done mainstream genre film - then gradually thinking of it more and more as a 'proper' Scorsese film.

Repeat viewings have only made me relish it more, particularly all the little details and the great supporting cast. Also going away and re-watching, say, 'Vertigo', has given it an added dimension.

Forgot to say, here's a brief review I did of 'Shutter Island'. There are a lot of things lacking in this piece, in terms of what should be in a standard review, but I wanted to get some initial thoughts down while I could. No doubt I'll have cause to revise and even regret some of them.

I suppose the most important point being made is that this film, if nothing else, helps solidify the relationship between DiCaprio and Scorsese, which should open up possibilities for the future, given that DiCaprio is such a huge star now.

johncarvill wrote:Forgot to say, here's a brief review I did of 'Shutter Island'.

I think you need to look up brief in the dictionary.

Watched this the other night and was pleasantly surprised. Basically comes off as Scorsese throwing some of his favorite films in a blender.

Spoiler

Very unsettling ending too. Even with the over-explained reveal, I still felt it was pretty open.