Movie Review: The Wolf of Wall Street

Image via Slate

"The Wolf of Wall Street" is the rare film in which its trailer is not misleading. If you came anticipating flying midgets and strippers with money taped to them, that is exactly what you will get.

Although he has dipped his toes into very different territory over the years ("The Aviator," "Hugo"), Martin Scorsese returns to the world of crime and money again and again. Each time, he seems to have something new to say about it, and gives us another rags to riches villain to engrain into our memories.

Six Movies You Won't Want to Miss in December 2013

Image via Business Insider

Well, it's almost Thanksgiving again. And you know what that means: time to start thinking about Christmas!

December is always an exciting movie month. Its when the less explosion-y blockbusters come out, and the small movies that normally wouldn't get much publicity finally get the spotlight. This looks like a particularly good December that will hopefully make up for some of the more lackluster months of 2013. Come on Hollywood, this is when you get to show everyone that movies are still relevant!

In order to ensure a great holiday season, here are the December releases that I am most excited to see. Join me in the excitement, people. It's the least you can do since, you know, I can't celebrate Christmas:

Movie Review: Django Unchained

For any of you who think I have a severe Quentin Tarantino bias, let me just say that I disliked "Death Proof."

Now that that's out of the way, "Django Unchained" may have just stolen the top ten list of the year in one fell swoop. It may lack the audacious perfection of "Inglourious Basterds," however this messy masterpiece is bold and brilliant in its own right.

"Django Unchained" rightfully opens with the theme music from 1966's "Django," a film that is similar with this Django only in name. This is the first time that Quentin has made a Western that actually takes place in the appropriate era and locale. This is not modern-day Los Angeles, Tokyo, or Nazi-Occupied France. This is Texas in the years just before the Civil War.

Django (Jamie Foxx), a quiet slave with a sharp tongue and a deadly grin, is freed by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Foxx is fantastically deadpan and unpredictable as Django. Unsurprisingly, Waltz displays his incredible way with words as the verbose dentist-turned-bounty hunter. There is a giant tooth on top of his carriage. I don't why any of that is important, but it sure is funny.

Top 5: Most Anticipated Holiday Movies

December is an exciting time. Not only because everyone is decorating their trees, lighting their Menorahs, or doing whatever people who celebrate Kwanza do. This is the time when studios release the very best films they have to offer. Often, the closer we get to the Oscars, the better the quality of movies get, until the dumping ground season of January begins. Here now is my list of films that will make December 2012 memorable, even if the world doesn't end:

5. Les Miserables

I've never been a big fan of musicals, but the history buff in me really wants to see a big, epic musical about the French Revolution. I never saw "Les Miserables" on Broadway, but seeing that the French Revolution was not a very happy time in world history, this definitely won't be a musical where people sing and dance and suddenly all of their problems disappear. A song certainly can't stop a guillotine. "Les Miserables" is directed by Tom Hooper. I still think it's unfair that his "The King's Speech" beat out both "Black Swan" and "The Social Network" for Best Picture, but that guy truly has a gift for bringing the past to life.


Coming to Theaters: December 28

4. Not Fade Away

"Not Fade Away" is David Chase's directorial debut in film. If you don't know who David Chase is, you really should: he created "The Sopranos." "Not Fade Away" brings him back to New Jersey, and even reunites Chase with the state of New Jersey Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) himself. But those expecting a profanity-laden tale of gangsters might be disappointed, as this is instead a coming-of-age story about a rock and roll band. I saw another coming-of-age story about a band earlier this year  called "Fat Kid Rules the World." I was thoroughly disappointed by it, but I have a feeling that "Not Fade Away" will be infinitely better. It has "Almost Famous" potential. Plus, with a title inspired by a Rolling Stones song, it seems that "Not Fade Away" has its head in the right place.


Coming to Theaters: December 21

View the top 3 after the jump:

It's Here! The Premiere of the Django Unchained Trailer

I definitely didn't need a trailer to get me excited for "Django Unchained," but I'm not complaining about the fact that the first trailer has finally been released.

While the trailer for Quentin Tarantino's last film, "Inglourious Basterds," misled viewers to believe that it was nothing but a Brad Pitt fest, the "Django Unchained" trailer seems to be showing exactly the kind of film everyone expected it to be. And no, that is not a bad thing at all. "Django" looks to have a perfect mix of serious and awesome action and hilariously inspired exploitation. It also opens with a Johnny Cash song and includes Christoph Waltz channeling Hans Landa and Leonardo DiCaprio saying "rambunctious" in the most sinister way possible.

But it's time for me to shut up now, and time for you to watch this trailer*:

Note: This trailer comes via The Film Stage, a site dedicated to movie reviews and news. I began contributing to it today. Check out the site here: http://thefilmstage.com/

The Plot of Quentin Tarantino's Next Movie

Two posts in one night? I must be crazy. No, this only happens when something truly newsworthy comes along.

The plot for Quentin Tarantino's next film, entitled "Django Unchained," has been released today. All that was known before was that it was a slave revenge film. Here is what that actually entails:

Django is a slave who’s liberated by a German dentist-turned-bounty hunter and taught the tricks of the trade by his mentor. Django’s major goal in life is to recover his wife, and to do it he needs to get past the villainous ranch owner Calvin Candie (DiCaprio), who runs Candyland, a despicable club and plantation in Mississippi where female slaves are exploited as sex objects and males are pitted against each other in “mandingo”-style death matches. Candie is a slave’s worst nightmare, and that [sic] is where Django’s wife Broomhilda is an abused slave. [Deadline]

Yes, whenever Quentin says he is making an historical epic, it is not just some historical epic. Earlier this week it was announced that Jamie Foxx would play the lead role. While he did win an Oscar for "Ray," he also starred in "Booty Call." Then again, this is from the same director who turned John Travolta into a hitman after starring in "Look Who's Talking."

The rest of the cast is enticing. Of course, Samuel L. Jackson will be fantastic, as long as he is given a Bible or some dialogue that he can shout unnecessarily loud. While I have never seen DiCaprio play a flat out villain, his acting has improved with each film he does, so I have a feeling he can do this. As for Christoph Waltz, I have a feeling the German bounty hunter role was written directly for him. And yes, he can act his way out of a paper bag.

For now, it seems too hard to tell what direction this plot will take the film in. Is Tarantino aiming for a classic Grindhouse experience like "Death Proof," or a classier revenge fantasy like "Inglourious Basterds"?

Something that I wonder even more about, however is what Tarantino will do filming in a time period before movies even existed. In "Basterds," he was able to find conversation in the films of G.W. Pabst, but what will the 19th century characters of "Django Unchained" discuss? Maybe the characters can sit around a southern manor and discuss the significance of "Moby Dick."

Whatever he decides to do, I will be there on opening weekend.

Oscars '10: The Snubs

With every set of Oscar nominations comes a set of even more ridiculous snubs. Even with another year of ten best picture nominations, there were still plenty of egregious snubs to go around.

On this day, the day the Oscar nominations are announced, I would like to recognize not those were selected, but those who strangely missed the mark. Not everyone can make the cut, but these people and films certainly deserved to:

Andrew Garfield (The Social Network)

This one seemed like a sure thing. The man who is destined to be Spider-Man broke out this year and brought the pathos to "The Social Network." With Zuckerberg being mainly emotionally cold, Garfield made Eduardo a character impossible not to connect with. Every emotion he injects into the film, he also injects into the audience. Then when his character turns from nice to angry in the film's dramatic climax, the transformation is so believable that it makes the already devastating conclusion even worse. "The Social Network" might've been about Mark Zuckerberg, but it's hard to believe there ever would've been a great story without Eduardo Saverin and Garfield's performance.

Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass)

There should have been room for two teenage actresses who could use a weapon in this year's Oscars. So many have praised Hailee Steinfeld, but forget the almost similar performance given by Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl in "Kick-Ass." She managed to act lightyears more mature than her superiors while always maintaing child-like innocence. She showed off the kind of creepy excitement a typical tween might have over Robert Pattinson while slicing off limbs and dropping the c-bomb. Fourteen-year-olds don't typically steal the show in a film, but Moretz did enough so that it was at times hard to remember that the movie is called "Kick-Ass" and not "Hit-Girl."

Christopher Nolan (Inception)

Seriously, what does Christopher Nolan have to do to get a Best Director nomination? Is turning a confusing, mind-f***ing idea into both a work of art and a $300 million grossing summer blockbuster not enough? How about changing the rules of physics? Or how about returning blockbusters to their original state in which they began in the 1970s? The Best Screenplay nomination for "Inception" can be disputed, but few would argue if Nolan finally got his long deserved Best Director nod.

Leonardo DiCaprio (Shutter Island)

To this day, people have trouble taking DiCaprio's performances seriously. The common excuse is his youthful looks make it hard for him to seem mature. If anyone still argues this, they obviously haven't watched "Shutter Island" yet. DiCaprio went from good actor with some talent to great actor with soul. He was so smoothly able to handle the massive transformation of his character without loosing the ambiguity. Then there is the way he delivers that final line, "which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man" which is delivered in a way that is so heartbreaking that it could almost produce tears. With maybe a few more films, DiCaprio can truly become Scorsese's new De Niro.

Danny Boyle (127 Hours)

Over directing usually isn't an admiral trait in a director. Unless of course your name is Danny Boyle. Boyle made a story about one man in one location epic enough to be engaging for its entire running time. He injects every frame of this film with so much life. Everything from a drop of water to the desert sand seem to be living, breathing, interacting characters. That's how you make a movie about a man stuck in a hole. Boyle, like a great director, realizes this essential fact: a good film is about what it's about; a great film is about how it's about.

Inception: On Backlashes, Second Viewings, and Dead Cats

Warning: Do not read on unless you have actually seen "Inception." And even if you don't care about spoilers, I command you to proceed with caution.

So, here we are. "Inception" has officially been in theaters for two weekends. It's also been a little over a week since I first laid eyes on it and made it out to be a magnum opus unlike any we've ever seen (or, unlike any we've seen since Kubrick or Scorsese and Coppola in their prime). Since then, the film has made a killing at the box office, and has been called both an epic masterpiece and an overrated piece of crap.

Yes, many have dared to call "Inception" overrated. Others have dared to call it resistant to criticism. This just shows how no one seems to know what "Inception" really is. And let's hope it stays that way.

I am going to assume that most everyone who has decided to read this article has either already seen "Inception" or just doesn't care if anything gets spoiled at all. I will be light on the spoilers, but a little more specific than last time. I don't know if I'm qualified enough to write about "Inception" again. Even after seeing it again, and I feel like I understand a great deal more, I still feel like I know nothing. Yet "Inception" is just one of those movies you have to talk and write about as much as possible after viewing them.

It is safe enough to say that "Inception" has received an overwhelmingly positive response. Some make legitimate arguments. Others are just hating for the sake of being contrarian. Others are exposing everything that is wrong with modern film criticism.

It is not just one group of people who are causing the problems. The haters seemed ready to hate "Inception" since before it was even released. This goes even beyond Armond White, the now notorious critical contrarian. I won't spend too much time on White, but I will say that it's one thing to not like a movie because it is flawed, and another to not like it because you feel it has enough love already.

And then there are those people who think that "Inception" should be shielded from all criticism. These people seem to think just because it is so unique that nobody should be allowed to point to its problems. Well, everyone has a right to their opinion, and in a time where the art of film criticism is in danger, telling a critic to shut it seems kind of dangerous. As much as I love Rotten Tomatoes, I might have to blame this on them. There is a sort of feeling these days that if a movie doesn't receive a perfect 100%, then it is no good. Right now, "Inception" stands at 87%. Most movies would dream to have that much approval.

But enough with the triviality of reality. It's time to delve into the world of movies. Specifically, the world of "Inception." And what a world it is. Even on a second viewing, there was still something amazingly unique about it. While some movies that are full of surprises feel less surprising on a second viewing, "Inception" is still filled with new things.

If you've only seen "Inception" once, chances are you are really confused. It makes sense why anyone would be confused after just one viewing, but the funny thing is that no one should be. With a close listen to the dialogue, you can see that almost everything is totally spelled out for you. Almost every single line of the film is pure exposition. Yet, it seems even breezier and more fascinating on a second listen. Exposition can be fine if it's actually interesting.

I found on a second viewing that I was paying less attention the spectacle and more attention to the actual story. Yes, the folding city and zero gravity fighting are still awesome, but there's nothing quite like seeing scenes like that fresh. But when you look at the scenery, you really can miss the depth. Many have found "Inception" to be weakest in its story. That might be thought of in one viewing. But there really is more than meets the eye.

What really stood out now were the film's themes. The central question goes well beyond is this reality or a dream. It is more like when does reality start and subconscious set in, and vice versa. The question could even extend to whether or not one or the other doesn't even exist, or whether they exist in the same place.

This can be seen when paying very close attention to Mal (Marion Cotillard). She's more than just a projection, she is Cobb's totem. While Cobb is constantly spinning the top to see if he is dreaming or not, that was Mal's totem. In that sense, he doesn't use it so much to see whether or not he is in a dream, but whether or not he will get to see his wife again. Perhaps the reason he didn't even pay attention to whether or not the top was going to fall in the end was because he had totally let go of his wife. Whether or not she showed up was irrelevant.

In the relationship between Cobb and Mal lies the film's true heart. And while others didn't notice, it is beating. In addition, despite the fact that the scene where Fischer (Cillian Murphy) confronts his dying father was imagined, there was something extremely satisfying about the revelation reached at the end of it. Fischer, like Cobb, could not function on his own without getting rid of the weight of his troubled past. Dreams are where we go to escape our troubled pasts, and our even more troubled presents.

Something that is harder to notice is the film's very keen sense of humor. Most of the jokes are quick enough that only someone who has viewed the movie twice can really catch them. They also manage to work well in part of the actors. Tom Hardy as the forger Eames added a dry sense of playful British humor to every scene he was in.

But the second time around, one laugh I didn't expect came at the end. After waiting in anticipation to see the fate of the spinning top (even though I knew the ending, I was still at the edge of my seat), the whole audience began to laugh once the screen turned black. They weren't laughing at the movie, but rather with it. Perhaps Nolan actually intended that ending to be a sick joke. Maybe the moment the screen faded to black the top either fell or kept spinning.

Yes, that final shot is just one tiny shot. But it really needs to be discussed. It is more of a paradox than the infinite staircase. Yet, at that point, it almost didn't seem to matter whether or not Cobb was dreaming or awake at that point. The last shot was a sort of Schrodinger's Cat: the ending is both relevant and irrelevant at the same time.

Schrodinger's Cat

The top is so important because this tiny toy encapsulates the whole point of the movie. Perhaps the most important line in the film is when Mal tells Cobb there are three options in life: what you believe, what you want to believe, and what you know is real. In the case of whether or not the top keeps spinning or collapses, I could say I believe that Cobb is in reality, I want to believe that Cobb is dreaming, and I know that it's impossible to ever know which one it actually is. Any of these three answers, even the one about what is real, can be altered in some way. Just like dreams have different meanings to different people, the whole of "Inception" can mean so many different things. By opening up the possibility to us that nothing we saw took place in reality, Nolan was in effect performing inception on the audience.

That leads to a theory that's been widely discussed and is extremely plausible: "Inception" is a metaphor for the act of filmmaking itself. Each person who serves a role could also serve on a film set. Both involve artists meticulously creating worlds from scratch and keeping them from falling apart.

For one more second, back to that ending. There is indeed proof of multiple conclusions. Notice how the light in Cobb's house shines in the same way it did when him and Mal woke up. Notice also that this time, his children turned around while in his dreams they never did. Then again, maybe that's because he never bothered looking in his dreams.

So maybe it is too early to call "Inception" one of cinema's greatest. "Citizen Kane" wasn't called the best film in 1941. I'm not saying "Inception" has quite the impact on filmmaking as "Citizen Kane" did. But I do know that it will forever effect the way I watch and process film. It truly did push boundaries both visually and narratively. It simultaneously achieved mirror-breaking self-reflexiviness and it also became an allegory for the world we live in. I don't think I'm over-analyzing when I say that "Inception" reflects a world where people are more interested in creating their own worlds than fixing the one they actually live in.

Now, who here is ready for round three?

Movie Review: Inception

Dreams are not reality. Movies are not reality. They are both part of what he have in life, and mostly what we really want. That's why they're constantly a focus in movies. Though the whole "it was all a dream" ending had worn out its welcome. That is until "Inception" landed in theaters and completely redefined reality and imagination.

"Inception" is a film that's been hyped up for months. It brilliantly showed us gripping footage while keeping us totally in the dark. For once in your life, you'll feel like you walked into a movie not knowing a single thing about what it really is. It's more than the thriller you thought it would be. It's, well, maybe you should be kept in the dark about that.

I will give you something, maybe slightly more than you could get from some commercials. "Inception" brings us to what may or may not be a futuristic dystopia. Or else it is a slightly altered version of our own time. In this world, technology exists that allows one to enter the human mind through dreams and use that to gather and manipulate ideas. It's called Inception. Two "architects," Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), are experts at this. Cobb is addicted to exploring the world of dreams, so much so that it causes strains between him and his family.

Cobb and Arthur are hired by a shady businessman (Ken Watanabe) to find some information for them. The two team up with a bright, young student (Ellen Page) to embark on a mind-bending, possibly dangerous journey into the human subconscious.

It's hard to know where to begin with "Inception." The way to enjoy "Inception" is to suspend reality and be engrossed into the many worlds you are introduced to. That's why the set pieces and camera are so crucial. This is a rare film that actually uses its sets properly. And much of what you see is done without the aid of CGI. Christopher Nolan decided to go the old-fashioned way and actually build real sets. For that, I applaud him.

Every location and every shot of the film feels so authentic, and so imaginative. The laws of gravity and physics no longer apply. Cities runoff into the sky. People can float. Objects can move at any pace they want. This is a world without rules.

With the infinite possibilities that lie within dreams, Nolan is given the freedom to bring the story into whatever direction he wants. Most directors seem to stop at certain points because they don't want to lose their audience. Nolan doesn't care if you're following or not. He'll go as far as he wants, for however long he wants to.

Nolan though is trying to unite two different crowds: those who want a thought-provoking movie, and those who want high-class entertainment. "Inception" amazingly caters to both needs.

As an action movie, "Inception" keeps you in constant suspense and constant shock. Fight scenes, whether real or imagined, are given time and detail. They aren't filled with the insanely fast cuts that made movies like "The A-Team" almost unwatchable. Nolan lets the audience savor every blow delivered.

The one action piece you won't stop thinking about involves a hallway and a lack of gravity. Any amount of description I provide can't possibly ruin it for you. It looks accurate enough to have been a green screen.

"Inception" proves a conclusion that has already been reached: Nolan is a master. He knows how to turn spaces into haunting visual nightmares. The looming shots of Tokyo and other metropolises might as well be Gotham City. He can then take those landscapes and fill them with incredibly complex stories.

Nolan's narrative techniques are as interesting as his directing. Much of the dialogue in the film is expository, but hearing every step of the process is so fascinating that you won't mind. Intertwined is some enlightening discussion about the nature of dreams and the human mind. It's the kind of information that must've taken years of research. How Nolan could fit all that in while making two "Batman" movies is a mystery to me.

The plot of "Inception" unfolds very slowly. As the characters enter deeper levels into the dream world, new layers of plot unfold. Strangely, the more chaotic things get, the clearer the story becomes.

It's kind of hard for any one actor in this film to truly shine, as Nolan and the visuals totally steal the show. That's not to say there isn't some fine acting. "Inception" boasts a few of the most talented young actors working today. With both "Inception" and "Shutter Island" this year, DiCaprio has proven himself an actor responsible of mature and psychologically complex roles. He knows how to play people so torn up that they can barely even function as humans. He is starting to become the DeNiro of our generation. Gordon-Levitt and Page meanwhile, provide a perfect counterbalance of wit and charm along with both understanding and total confusion.

All of this leads me to say that beyond all of the action, "Inception" is truly a human story. It is about loss and regret and the dream being an outlet to both conceal and confront the darkest parts of our lives. Dreaming can be a means of both escape and confrontation.

"Inception" reminded me for the first time in a long time what a true moviegoing experience is like. The theater exists for a reason. That reason is when you have a story this complex and sprawling, you need a gigantic screen to fill the room and truly take in everything being shown. It is in a space like this where we are most able to suspend reality. Plus, when you have a film this good on a screen big enough, it can truly suck you into the story. At a time like this in a film like this, 3D seems irrelevant. Your mind creates the illusion of being in a third dimension.

To call "Inception" the best movie made in a very long time would be an understatement. Nothing has changed the rules of cinema this much since "The Matrix." It combines so many genres into one mesmerizing whole. At so many points it could've fallen apart but Nolan keeps it intact.

"Inception" is a thriller of the mind that won't leave your mind. After some movies end, you immediately know you have to see it again. Only with "Inception" will you know that from the very first scene.

If You Liked this Movie, You'll also Like: Memento, Mulholland Dr., The Dark Knight, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix, Shutter Island, Fight Club, Blue Velvet, Blade Runner

For more awesome mind-bending movies, check this out.

Movie Review: Shutter Island

Sometimes, the language of film, and the language of literature, just fit together like a puzzle. When I think of great directors and great writers with similar visions, I usually just think of the Coen Brothers and Cormac McCarthy over "No Country for Old Men." Now, I can add Martin Scorsese and Dennis Lehane, over "Shutter Island."

In novel form, "Shutter Island" was a crackling and suspenseful psychological mystery that never took the obvious route. As a film, it is both a psychological thriller and an ode to a genre that seemed to have died ages ago. "Shutter Island" is set in the year 1954. Miles off the coast of Boston, there is a place called Shutter Island. It houses a mental institution for the criminally insane. The most dangerous patient, Rachel Salondo, has somehow escaped. U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) have been assigned to crack the case.

Before going on there are a few character points, rather than plot points, that need to be explained. Teddy is a war hero, haunted by what he saw when liberating Dachau. His wife (Michelle Williams) recently died in a fire. So yeah, this guy has problems. Meanwhile, Salondo murdered her children.

Over the years, Scorsese's directorial skill has been put into question. Yes, he's made a few flawed pictures ("Gangs of New York," "The Aviator"), but even those are more watchable than most of the films that come out today. Truth is, most of his recent stories do not even come close to his old ones. However, could anyone ever make a film as good as "Taxi Driver" or "Raging Bull" ever again?

"Shutter Island" clicked for me because I feel it has something for everyone: a little bit of entertainment and a little bit of depth. It's the kind of film that you walk out of wanting to talk to someone about the ending. It's also the kind of film where you know, in the end, your money has been well spent.

"Shutter Island" shows that Scorsese, more than ever, knows how to work a camera. Not only that, but turn it into a form of art. Here, he brings back the long shots he used so masterfully in "Goodfellas" and does a few other camera techniques that bring out the ever growing sense of chaos.

This also shows how Scorsese is one of those rare directors who make movies with the self-awareness of being a movie, and being so inspired by movies of the past. The dark, smoke-filmed rooms totally bring out the film noir of the 1940s and 50s. I originally thought the music was somewhat overdramatic but when I think about it, I think it is meant to evoke the somewhat over-the-top nature of old thrillers.

Also, there is a very poor green screen in the backgrounds of some shots. It may evoke the Golden Days of Hollywood. However, it may also evoke some things about the character which I will not spoil for you. But only a director like Scorsese could use something so faulty and make them inspired and ironic.

Along with Scorsese's direction, the acting was also fantastic. DiCaprio is truly proving himself to be a great leading man now. He corresponds well with Scorsese's direction by constantly bringing out the trembling darkness within Teddy.

Also scoring a great performance by Ben Kingsley as the head doctor. I think it's his line delivery that did it for me. The way he says, "it's like she evaporated, straight through the walls," is one that sounds both entirely innocent and oddly disturbing.

Back to Scorsese for a minute, because he is truly what makes this movie for a work. I want to use one specific scene to show his great direction. In one scene, Teddy is climbing down a steep, rocky cliff. We know the hero can't die this early, but Scorsese puts a big, fat question mark to that possibility. He shoots this scene from very tight, claustrophobic angles and we feel like we're there with him, climbing down those rocks. He takes a scene that might have made the viewer feel nothing, and packs it with suspense.

I believe the story goes from page to screen so well because Scorsese takes Lehane's story and themes and makes them into his own style. Through the characters of Teddy and Rachel Solando, Lehane finds characters searching for redemption and trying to come to terms with their pasts, and their selves. Teddy's own struggle with the horrors of war he's seen could mirror what Travis Bickle had to live with in "Taxi Driver." Through this, we can understand the character of "Shutter Island" even better.

The story of the film of "Shutter Island" isn't much different than it was in the book. However, the fact that Scorsese can take Lehane's style and mold it into his own is what makes this a truly faithful, truly successful adaptation. Scorsese takes Lehane's dark message about human nature, and turns it into a haunting (and even relevant) message about how today's world works.

Of course, there is quite a surprise of an ending. Even for somebody who read the book and knew the ending, I was still surprised when the big moment came. Scorsese masterfully knew how to both hide the truth and even make it seem very apparent at other times.

The more I think about "Shutter Island," the more I like it. Scorsese has truly made a movie for everyone: it's both simply entertaining, and complexly thought provoking. Quite simply, it is the ultimate experience for those who love movies.

Movie Review: Gangs of New York

Of all of the stunning images from "Gangs of New York," one that sticks out is a shot that starts off on street level, and continues to go higher and higher until the 19th Century style buildings become the shape of the island of Manhattan. Here is a city that, over the years, I've grown to know and love. Here it is, in a form like we've never seen before.

"Gangs of New York" is Martin Scorsese's latest vision of the mean streets of his beloved New York. However, it takes place 100 years before the days of "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver," during Civil War ravished America.

The film starts off during a vicious gang war in 1848. Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the son of respected Irish immigrant Priest Vallon (Liam Neeson). On the opposite side is Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis). Bill is the glass-eyed son of a Revolutionary War soldier who gushes with patriotism. He's known as The Butcher not just for his day job, but for his weapon of choice.

As tensions rise between the Irish and the so-called 'Natives,' Bill murders Priest. Many years later, Amsterdam returns to a corrupt, Boss Tweed ruled Five Points and seeks revenge.

"Gangs of New York" shows Scorsese's recent fascination with American culture wars, as this film can be seen as something of a counterpart to his recent "The Departed." However, this film explores the roots of American diversity. It's about the earliest days of bigotry, much of it rising from immigration. In a way, much of the situations and dialogue sound frighteningly similar to the current national conversation on immigration.

Adding on to this is the near accurate version of history portrayed. While Hollywood will often portray history through a myopic lens of clean precision, Scorsese takes no shame in showing the filth, the blood, and the anger that shaped this era. Extra special attention is paid to the stunning sets. At times, it can distract from actual plot depth, but it definitely helps raise the story's level of believability.

Of course Scorsese's direction is excellent, but what stands out most is Day-Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher. He is truly the best actor of this generation, and the carrier of the method torch. He steps into the character and makes him both a blood-thirsty savage and a patriot feeling betrayed by a country he helped defend. He may be racist, but his feelings can be understood. Not to mention, all he has to do is sharpen a knife, or just squint his eyes to become the most intimidating presence in the film. He basically steals all chance for any other actor in the film to shine.

Now, back to Scorsese. What makes Scorsese one of the great directors of cinema is that he knows how to handle violence better than any other director. Of all of his films, "Gangs of New York" may be his bloodiest. While most directors might show someone being stabbed and barely show the consequences, Scorsese slows things down and allows us to see the horrible, dehumanizing consequences of each kill. Later, after another major battle, the cobblestone streets turn into a red river. To Scorsese, violence isn't something to cheer on or admire, but rather something to be sickened by. Meanwhile, the aerial shots of the war dead are reminiscent of the sprawling images of the dead in "Gone with the Wind."

Upon its release, "Gangs of New York" divided audiences right down the middle. I believe it is a minor masterpiece; it doesn't reach "Goodfellas" or "Raging Bull" heights, but its certainly no sign of a Scorsese downfall either. The film runs over two and a half hours yet races by as Scorsese explores his favorite themes of honor, religion, and family. Like in any Scorsese film, the backdrop, cinematography, editing, and score of "Gangs of New York" is extremely well detailed and masterful. They portray the chaos of the era in the same way that each room in "Goodfellas" distinguished when exactly Henry was doing well or doing poorly. And while some have criticized that too much is covered at once, it all serves to cover the chaos.

Part of the problem could be in the story itself. While Scorsese at first creates the interesting idea that while Bill hated Priest, he had a deep respect for him. Once the conflict between Bill and Amsterdam arises that inexplicably seems to disappear from the film together with little explanation. Many scenes also seem pulled right out of the revenge film playbook. For example, the scene where Amsterdam saves Bill's life so he can later murder Bill himself is pulled straight from "Once Upon a Time in the West." A little clarification is never a bad thing.

But, these are just minor flaws. Overall, "Gangs of New York" exceeds its epic counterparts (mainly "300") in creating a vision of the past that's exciting and fascinating without actually losing a grip on the history part. It's a beautifully made history lesson about the birth of a nation and a bitter love letter to a city that spawned one of the greatest directors of all time.