I saw a plug for The Spectacular Now on Jimmy Fallon a while ago and finally got around to seeing it. By the same writers as 500 Days of Summer, I was skeptical it might be more of a chick-flick than advertised. A coming-of-age film that really made a point to market itself as real and adult. It didn't disappoint. Instead of taking the normal garbage teen approach like in Pretty Little Liars or Gossip Girl where 25 year old women play high-school freshmen who have blogs and fun drinking habits. Refreshingly, we get to meet Sutter (Miles Teller), a believable alcoholic High School senior. And of course, his nerdy surprise love interest Aimee (Shailene Woodley).
Sutter was both the most lovable, caring main character I've seen in a long time and the most painfully negative influence ever for quiet, geeky Aimee. Caught between girls, alcohol, and a bad college essay, he was often much more relatable than any viewer would want to admit. We aren't made to look down on him as the story progresses, but rather to feel what he's going through. With a better brain than he wants to use and a flask always in hand, Sutter struggles through the movie aware he is in denial about living in the "now". Aimee on the other hand is a perfect student who dreams of working for NASA if she can afford to get there. The film takes us with them, but we see Aimee get a new flask, rather than Sutter get a new textbook.
As we are emotionally intended to view Sutter and Aimee, we also physically see them. Almost every single shot of the entire movie was face level framing the character who was speaking. When the director did break this while characters were speaking it was either to show interaction, or alcohol use. When Sutter or Aimee was drunk enough, the pacing picked up and more close up shots were used, cutting within dialogue, and putting the viewer too close to the characters, creating discomfort. The other change which I noticed the most was when one shot was used for almost the entirety of a scene. I believe it gave a very natural feeling to some very important scenes. On such example, their first kiss, in the clip below.
The drawn out shots had a great effect on both positive and negative scenes. One scene which was very important to the progression of the movie was effectively upsetting. It took place in a bar meant to make the main characters feel uncomfortable. Learning a lot about themselves and their lives, it changed their moods for the movie. Watching, I too felt uncomfortable. The camera sat too long on rambling, intentionally uncomfortable dialogue. It felt like a history movie where you start getting uncomfortable because the shot needs to change but it doesn't. Additionally, the music clashed audibly and emotionally with the words, and I felt like shifting in my seat. To me, this made it the most impressive scene to watch.
Ultimately, I entered the movie expecting to be disappointed compared to the add, but ended up happy with what I got out of it. Other than the fact that Sutter used AIM, the characters and plot felt very real, which was refreshing compared to teen movies like Mean Girls (not to disrespect a classic). I'm not ashamed to admit I enjoyed watching this romantic comedy/drama. It was as testosterone filled as the genre could include. This movie deserves 4/5 Bald Eagles. I left feeling exactly how the director wanted, and I enjoyed the ride.
I saw "Shutter Island" for the first time this year and had mixed feelings. It kept me guessing and excited the entire time, and the ending was as exciting as you could ever ask for. However, the more thought I put in the more I felt robbed by how it ended. The excitement was great, but maybe not the most realistic of a twist. So since I truly know nothing about if it qualifies as a great or horrible ending and therefore movie, I chose to read its reviews. The top positive review on Metacritic was by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/shutter-island-20100219). He approaches the review by relating the film to other works by Scorsese and describing the ride it takes you on. This is followed by a summary of the plot background, as well as a few teasers about "hallucinations" and "The climactic scene". He makes his argument with major references to both the intensity of the movie and Scorsese's other works. He makes no effort to hide that he loves the intensity with which the film communicates physical and psychological horrors. He does so with a very believable energy which reflects his stated preference of "nerve-frying suspense". The reviewer chose many of his words to communicate the emotions the movie takes you through, such as "murderous" and "shattered". He focuses on style because it is how he perceives so much of what defines the experience. He also focuses on the themes, and the darkness with which they are portrayed. Peter Travers, the reviewer, clearly loved the way this story was told, and it's impossible to miss in his thrilled review. Naturally, the negative review by A. O. Scott had the opposite impression of the mood and vigor with which the film was presented (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/movies/19shutter.html?ref=movies&_r=0). The review opens by bashing every last piece of the movie open for opinion, and then continues on to summarize the story line leaving no chances for the reader to believe it may be engaging. The writer began with painfully energetic sarcasm, and then supports it with a very broad base of biased insults. Nothing from the camera work to the actors' accents is left as potentially well-done. The tone of the review is childish. The writer lost credibility immediately by jumping to greedy insults without giving the reader a chance to enjoy the movie. He communicated a clearly biased review from the first sentence to the last. He did this through phrases like "camera movements telegraph anxiety" and starting paragraphs with words like "sadly". He focuses on the style we have already seen from the director, Scorsese, as well as the mood which induces anxiety in him. Additionally, he focuses on the plot being unrealistic and frequently pointless. His references are to other respected Scorsese and Dicaprio films, which he also insults. It is very clear Scott, the reviewer, doesn't enjoy this format for presenting the story, but he approaches the review like the cast did something to offend him and no one could possibly enjoy investing them self in the plot. The positive review from Rolling stone says "DiCaprio, in his most haunting and emotionally complex performance yet, is the vessel Scorsese uses to lead us through the film's labyrinth." I agree with this quote whole-heartedly because no matter how the film signatures with the viewer, Leonardo plays a truly complex and intense role. Additionally, he calls the film a labyrinth, which perfectly describes the twists and turns the plot takes, without having to state any enjoyment. The Negative review, while overly critical, made some interesting points. One of which was "the movie’s central dramatic problem — the unstable boundary between the reality of Shutter Island and Teddy’s perception of it — becomes less interesting as the story lurches along." The review is right in saying the movie is deceitful. The line between DiCaprio's perception and the viewer's is blurred and the story becomes less realistic while trying to maintain a sense of real consequences and intensity. As the plot becomes less trustworthy, the viewers ability to invest their emotion dwindles. The difference in the reviews is simple. The positive reflects a mentality that the movie is a trip which should be enjoyed as intended. The negative review, however, maintains the allusion that a movie must be absolutely perfect for every viewer or it is a failure. Because the positive critic is so passionate, I would be much more likely to follow his review. Personally, I relate more to a critic who can admit a movie is not perfect, but loves it for what it was meant to be. The negative review was painfully harsh, and gave of an immature feeling rather than professional. This makes the positive much more convincing. If I were to review "Shutter Island", I would need to start by pointing out who made and contributed to it. Scorsese and DiCaprio both have careers that speak for themselves, and a viewer can likely evaluate whether they will enjoy the movie through their past experiences. Next, it would be important to describe the intensity of the movie. A fan or not, the movie makes a point of making the audience question the importance and trustworthiness of every detail. While this created an exciting ride for me, it can make the movie too much for a viewer who isn't looking for an intense interaction with the story. Lastly, both reviews showed that a plot summary is key. The review needs to allow space for the reader to form their own opinions, and the summary, even if sprinkled with bias, allows that to happen. In this case, it is important to realize that genre and plot are hard to overcome for the wrong viewer. A movie is only as good as the audience is ready to allow it to be, and in this case the audience really controls its experience. I believe "Shutter Island" should be viewed with an open mind that a movie is meant to entertain, and a fun ride is just as valuable as a global moral or statement.
