Shutter Island II

Rating: 6/10 (24 July 2010)

I read that Nolan--an undoubtedly great director, great mind--has been working on this movie for 10 years. It's interesting then, that it comes out right after the last big movie we saw Leo Diocaprio in, "Shutter Island," because the similarities are BLATANT. I did not enjoy Shutter Island, and I would have rather not seen a part 2, but that's basically what this was...with a lot better cinematography.
The good: Leo is always great. The special effects--mesmerizing to the level (or beyond) of an "Avatar." The music (it was sooo dramatic and produced the desired effect in the audience.) The story idea--although not that original, it was approached in a memorable way: "planting an idea in someone's mind." There is the requisite underpinning of capitalism to the extreme (the whole project is based on dismantling a company for the competition) that is always interesting as well. Also, the genre: if you like SciFi (which I don't), this is your movie.
The not so good: I've still yet to figure out how Ellen Page was discovered as an actress. She has NO screen presence, NO charisma. Her character here didn't have to be flat (in fact, that character could have given some much needed humor quips the movie was sorely lacking), but she made it that way, bringing that same "dryness" of her Juno character and those awful Cisco commercials. She just doesn't have "it," and the chemistry between her and DiCaprio leaves a lot to be desired.
The bad: The length--just absolutely way too long. It really shouldn't have taken two and half hours to get to the climax. In fact, when sitting through what felt like was an hour of the planning stage before the inception, I said out loud, "Get on with it!" I think the person beside me agreed. At some point, you were ready for the movie to move forward! And hence, the other bad part: The pace. Too slow. The slowness was disguised as "the great intellectual buildup," and perhaps to a degree it was, but the movie suffered because of it.
I read many reviews and see the 9.3 rating, and a part of me thought that maybe I should see this again before reviewing, that maybe I missed something. (Even the ticket guy at the theater said before I went in, "That movie is awesome. I've seen it three times!") But then I decided against waiting to review. In my opinion, if a movie does what it's supposed to do--leave that awesome first impression--you shouldn't need to see it over and over to understand its greatness. See it again to learn new things you might have missed the first time, sure, but seeing it again to try to like it more shouldn't be necessary.
6.5/ 10