Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
"flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
And yet you've piqued my curiosity enough that I want to see it. Just the right amount of detail this time, Pig.
On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
So did you consider Take Shelter to be a legit capture of the
zeitgeist (a comment I heard about it earlier today) or as I might
have mentioned here and there (favorably), a long Twilight Zone
episode?
> On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> > Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> > he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> > unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> > could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> > as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> > but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> > "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> > director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> > Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> > dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> > although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> > 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> > well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> So did you consider Take Shelter to be a legit capture of the
> zeitgeist (a comment I heard about it earlier today) or as I might
> have mentioned here and there (favorably), a long Twilight Zone
> episode?
[no SPOILERS here, but some of their kissing cousins]
(I saw and even read a bit of that earlier discussion, but I've given
up on fighting with Google to reanimate such.) Afaics, it's SHELTER's
length that turns it from TZ episode to existential klaxon horn. And
I can't say that it fully worked as either for me. (Seldom head-over-
heels for TZ, btw.) I liked so many of this movie's particulars, even
identifying with *every* character's pov (good writing), that I'm
somewhat annoyed not to have received a meatier takeaway. Actually,
as its psychological progenitor, I'd probably nominate THE RAPTURE...
> > Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> > Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> > he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> > unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> > could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> > as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> > but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> > "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> > director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> > Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> > dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> > although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> > 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> > well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> And yet you've piqued my curiosity enough that I want to see it. Just
> the right amount of detail this time, Pig.
> On Apr 12, 4:45 pm, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> > > Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> > > he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> > > unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> > > could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> > > as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> > > but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> > > "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> > > director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> > > Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> > > dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> > > although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> > > 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> > > well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> > So did you consider Take Shelter to be a legit capture of the
> > zeitgeist (a comment I heard about it earlier today) or as I might
> > have mentioned here and there (favorably), a long Twilight Zone
> > episode?
> [no SPOILERS here, but some of their kissing cousins]
> (I saw and even read a bit of that earlier discussion, but I've given
> up on fighting with Google to reanimate such.) Afaics, it's SHELTER's
> length that turns it from TZ episode to existential klaxon horn. And
> I can't say that it fully worked as either for me. (Seldom head-over-
> heels for TZ, btw.) I liked so many of this movie's particulars, even
> identifying with *every* character's pov (good writing), that I'm
> somewhat annoyed not to have received a meatier takeaway. Actually,
> as its psychological progenitor, I'd probably nominate THE RAPTURE...
I have one plot-related question that doesn't really go into any major
spoilage but it's something I didn't understand watching Take Shelter
(taking into consideration it is a long, slow film and my mind might
have wandered at some crucial point.)
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
Okay, so Shannon's character is building the storm shelter with
equipment he's "borrowing" from work and with the assistance of his
worker's mate, or whatever you'd call him. Anyway, Shannon then goes
to his boss and says he's become uncomfortable working with this guy,
so this guy is let go. Of course, the first thing this guy does is
squeal about what Shannon's been up to with the construction equipment
and Shannon gets fired, making a wreck of his badly needed health
insurance. Why does Shannon go to his boss to begin with to get rid
of this guy, when he should have known this is what would happen?
> On Apr 12, 5:17 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 4:45 pm, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 1:37 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> > > > Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> > > > he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> > > > unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> > > > could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> > > > as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> > > > but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> > > > "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> > > > director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> > > > Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> > > > dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> > > > although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> > > > 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> > > > well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> > > So did you consider Take Shelter to be a legit capture of the
> > > zeitgeist (a comment I heard about it earlier today) or as I might
> > > have mentioned here and there (favorably), a long Twilight Zone
> > > episode?
> > [no SPOILERS here, but some of their kissing cousins]
> > (I saw and even read a bit of that earlier discussion, but I've given
> > up on fighting with Google to reanimate such.) Afaics, it's SHELTER's
> > length that turns it from TZ episode to existential klaxon horn. And
> > I can't say that it fully worked as either for me. (Seldom head-over-
> > heels for TZ, btw.) I liked so many of this movie's particulars, even
> > identifying with *every* character's pov (good writing), that I'm
> > somewhat annoyed not to have received a meatier takeaway. Actually,
> > as its psychological progenitor, I'd probably nominate THE RAPTURE...
> I have one plot-related question that doesn't really go into any major
> spoilage but it's something I didn't understand watching Take Shelter
> (taking into consideration it is a long, slow film and my mind might
> have wandered at some crucial point.)
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
> Okay, so Shannon's character is building the storm shelter with
> equipment he's "borrowing" from work and with the assistance of his
> worker's mate, or whatever you'd call him. Anyway, Shannon then goes
> to his boss and says he's become uncomfortable working with this guy,
> so this guy is let go. Of course, the first thing this guy does is
> squeal about what Shannon's been up to with the construction equipment
> and Shannon gets fired, making a wreck of his badly needed health
> insurance. Why does Shannon go to his boss to begin with to get rid
> of this guy, when he should have known this is what would happen?
s
p
o
i
l
i
s
h
Best I can do is that Shannon knows he looks nuts, and is pushing
people away to keep them from a better -- and more interfering --
view. Just as when he gave up on his brother, he did it as "quietly"
as he could manage. He tried to hide his own instigation, but the
boss spilled the beans when reassigning the guy ...and apparently even
attached some blame to the move.
> On Apr 12, 3:31 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 1:37 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
>>> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
>>> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
>>> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
>>> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
>>> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
>>> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
>>> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
>>> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
>>> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
>>> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
>>> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
>>> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
>>> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
>> And yet you've piqued my curiosity enough that I want to see it. Just
>> the right amount of detail this time, Pig.
> I knew it. I blabbed...
Now I've seen it and while I've read the rest of this thread, I think I'll respond here because it'll keep things simpler.
Who is this movie for? Who might enjoy watching little more than the dread developing and the portents portending and on and on again and again with one crazy dream after another separated only by halting, pausing, ever-so-slowly-delivered dialog? And all this effort to what end? What's the point? Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and Yeats said it all perfectly in far fewer words with nary a special effect.
Pig, it'll be OK with me if in the future, at least when the movie sucks, you dial back on the interesting details.
> > On Apr 12, 3:31 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 1:37 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> >>> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> >>> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> >>> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> >>> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> >>> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> >>> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> >>> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> >>> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> >>> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> >>> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> >>> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> >>> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> >>> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> >> And yet you've piqued my curiosity enough that I want to see it. Just
> >> the right amount of detail this time, Pig.
> > I knew it. I blabbed...
> Now I've seen it and while I've read the rest of this thread, I think
> I'll respond here because it'll keep things simpler.
> Who is this movie for? Who might enjoy watching little more than the
> dread developing and the portents portending and on and on again and
> again with one crazy dream after another separated only by halting,
> pausing, ever-so-slowly-delivered dialog? And all this effort to what
> end? What's the point? Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and
> Yeats said it all perfectly in far fewer words with nary a special effect.
> Pig, it'll be OK with me if in the future, at least when the movie
> sucks, you dial back on the interesting details.
But now I have to castigate us for joining the puppies-and-lollipops
crowd. If this movie had gone in the opposite emotional direction, I
bet we might be praising its "human spirit". Anyhow, just to
acknowledge the martyr's perspective, here's Ebert's 4-star --
http://tinyurl.com/6tr62z2 (even if he does seem to have a crush on
Michael Shannon).
>> Who might enjoy watching little more than the
>> dread developing and the portents portending and on and on again and
>> again with one crazy dream after another separated only by halting,
>> pausing, ever-so-slowly-delivered dialog? And all this effort to what
>> end?
> I previously wrote: There's a lot of "more of the same, more of the
> same, more of the same..." before any major plot developments arrive.
> Similar to your complaint.
I should have acknowledged your post. So I'll just ask, "What major plot developments?"
SPOILERS
The tornado and the trip to the storm shelter? The long, slow, drawn-out, interminable decision to go back outside? The decision finally to see a real psychiatrist? Or how about that final scene? Are we sure it wasn't just another one of his dreams? There's certainly no indication that it's not. And if they're really about to be swept away by that big Atlantic storm, what difference does it make?
By that point I sure didn't care because the movie is all premise and no payoff. "Hey, lets make a movie about a family guy who is overcome by dread that something awful is about to happen!" And so they did, and thus he is at the beginning and thus he is at the end, and that is all there is.
> On Apr 21, 11:10 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 5:20 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 3:31 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 1:37 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
>>>>> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
>>>>> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
>>>>> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
>>>>> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
>>>>> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
>>>>> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
>>>>> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
>>>>> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
>>>>> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
>>>>> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
>>>>> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
>>>>> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
>>>>> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
>>>> And yet you've piqued my curiosity enough that I want to see it. Just
>>>> the right amount of detail this time, Pig.
>>> I knew it. I blabbed...
>> Now I've seen it and while I've read the rest of this thread, I think
>> I'll respond here because it'll keep things simpler.
>> Who is this movie for? Who might enjoy watching little more than the
>> dread developing and the portents portending and on and on again and
>> again with one crazy dream after another separated only by halting,
>> pausing, ever-so-slowly-delivered dialog? And all this effort to what
>> end? What's the point? Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and
>> Yeats said it all perfectly in far fewer words with nary a special effect.
>> Pig, it'll be OK with me if in the future, at least when the movie
>> sucks, you dial back on the interesting details.
> But now I have to castigate us for joining the puppies-and-lollipops
> crowd. If this movie had gone in the opposite emotional direction, I
> bet we might be praising its "human spirit". Anyhow, just to
> acknowledge the martyr's perspective, here's Ebert's 4-star --
> http://tinyurl.com/6tr62z2 (even if he does seem to have a crush on
> Michael Shannon).
So Ebert liked it, huh? Well how about that. Good for him. He says, "Nichols builds his suspense carefully." Actually Nichols carefully built my desire to reach through the screen and drag the words out of the actors mouths. "Get on with it, you people!" Can't help it, it's just my nature to prefer movies in which something happens.
>> So I'll just ask, "What major
>> plot developments?"
>> SPOILERS
> Well, I meant the point when his visions finally started becoming a real
> problem, getting him fired, getting sent to a shrink, etc.
> Personally, I don't think there was much question that the apocalypse at
> the end was real. Maybe I'm wrong. But it was the first time we saw his
> wife perceiving the same calamities he saw.
If by "real" you mean movie real, fiction real, then maybe. But it couldn't be real life real, because these days no apocalyptic Atlantic storm could hit Myrtle Beach without days of advance warning. If that storm is supposed to be interpreted as real, then it's supposed to be interpreted as supernatural, and I'm really not buying that.
Still, I don't know for sure what we're supposed to make of the final storm, and checking the commentary track on the Blu-Ray revealed only that Jeff Nichols, the writer-director, got cute when it came time to talk about what it meant. Basically said he'd leave it up to the viewer's interpretation. So why not be logical? The little girl had been perceiving the calamities inside the dreams all along, so why not give mom a turn? There is nothing in the final scene to indicate that if the movie had continued a minute longer Dad wouldn't have wet the bed again.
I suppose interpreting the final scene as a dream truly relegates this movie to being a total waste of time. Well, yes, exactly.
> > On Apr 21, 11:10 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2012 5:20 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>> On Apr 12, 3:31 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2012 1:37 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>>> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> >>>>> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. In TAKE SHELTER,
> >>>>> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> >>>>> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> >>>>> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> >>>>> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> >>>>> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could call SHELTER
> >>>>> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> >>>>> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> >>>>> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> >>>>> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> >>>>> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> >>>>> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics liked SHELTER quite
> >>>>> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> >>>> And yet you've piqued my curiosity enough that I want to see it. Just
> >>>> the right amount of detail this time, Pig.
> >>> I knew it. I blabbed...
> >> Now I've seen it and while I've read the rest of this thread, I think
> >> I'll respond here because it'll keep things simpler.
> >> Who is this movie for? Who might enjoy watching little more than the
> >> dread developing and the portents portending and on and on again and
> >> again with one crazy dream after another separated only by halting,
> >> pausing, ever-so-slowly-delivered dialog? And all this effort to what
> >> end? What's the point? Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and
> >> Yeats said it all perfectly in far fewer words with nary a special effect.
> >> Pig, it'll be OK with me if in the future, at least when the movie
> >> sucks, you dial back on the interesting details.
> > But now I have to castigate us for joining the puppies-and-lollipops
> > crowd. If this movie had gone in the opposite emotional direction, I
> > bet we might be praising its "human spirit". Anyhow, just to
> > acknowledge the martyr's perspective, here's Ebert's 4-star --
> >http://tinyurl.com/6tr62z2(even if he does seem to have a crush on
> > Michael Shannon).
> So Ebert liked it, huh? Well how about that. Good for him. He says,
> "Nichols builds his suspense carefully." Actually Nichols carefully
> built my desire to reach through the screen and drag the words out of
> the actors mouths. "Get on with it, you people!" Can't help it, it's
> just my nature to prefer movies in which something happens.
In trying to formulate an appropriate reaction to this movie, I even
tried to remember how I felt about the acknowledged milestone,
REPULSION.
> > Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> So I'll just ask, "What major
> >> plot developments?"
> >> SPOILERS
> > Well, I meant the point when his visions finally started becoming a real
> > problem, getting him fired, getting sent to a shrink, etc.
> > Personally, I don't think there was much question that the apocalypse at
> > the end was real. Maybe I'm wrong. But it was the first time we saw his
> > wife perceiving the same calamities he saw.
> If by "real" you mean movie real, fiction real, then maybe. But it
> couldn't be real life real, because these days no apocalyptic Atlantic
> storm could hit Myrtle Beach without days of advance warning. If that
> storm is supposed to be interpreted as real, then it's supposed to be
> interpreted as supernatural, and I'm really not buying that.
> Still, I don't know for sure what we're supposed to make of the final
> storm, and checking the commentary track on the Blu-Ray revealed only
> that Jeff Nichols, the writer-director, got cute when it came time to
> talk about what it meant. Basically said he'd leave it up to the
> viewer's interpretation. So why not be logical? The little girl had
> been perceiving the calamities inside the dreams all along, so why not
> give mom a turn? There is nothing in the final scene to indicate that
> if the movie had continued a minute longer Dad wouldn't have wet the bed
> again.
> I suppose interpreting the final scene as a dream truly relegates this
> movie to being a total waste of time. Well, yes, exactly.
A non-literal interpretation is that the family is now reunited -- in
its outlook on life. The facts of their situation haven't changed,
but everyone's gotten the Pessimist Manifesto memo.
>> In the dreams the little deaf girl sat at the window watching the dirty rain,
>> saw the birds, got pulled out of the car window, maybe more.
> Oh, OK. Well, I don't think the wife entering the picture for the first
> time is something to be just shrugged off.
I'm not shrugging it off exactly. We all have developed a sense of how movies work; we've seen this sort of thing before; we just assume in a movie like this that the suspense is building to a payoff. In this movie it's perfectly natural to assume that the final storm is a supernatural payoff: he was right all along, Armageddon really was imminent, the world is ending, only this gifted man saw it coming, and we're supposed to be impressed or entertained or inspired or something, whatever, that's a reasonable interpretation.
I'm just saying that in the case of this particular movie it's only our sense of how a certain type of story works that leads us to assume it's a supernatural storm. In fact, everything that preceded the final storm would indicate he's having just another dream. All his dreams had at least one thing in common: they were introduced to the audience as though they were real. It was only as the dreams progressed that we began to realize we were looking at products of his subconscious. So what's a convincing argument that the final storm wasn't just another one of Little Nemo's adventures in Slumberland? Myrtle Beach wouldn't even be Mom's first appearance in a dream: remember how he encountered her in the kitchen?
There's nothing in the final scene to indicate convincingly that it's all real this time. We assume it's real because that's the scenario that satisfies our idea of a spooky story. Seems lame to me.
On Apr 12, 10:37 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. InTAKESHELTER,
> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could callSHELTER
> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics likedSHELTERquite
> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
Michael Shannon is the driving force in this movie, as if it had been
written for him. I can expect anything I see him in to be other than
usual... he is an intriquing actor. Shannon brings a believable depth
-- of struggle? of questioning? of witnessing? -- to all his
characterizations. His role in Bug was fascinating.
Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.
The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake... maybe it
was man being touched by the divine after all.
There was a question in the thread about why Curtis/Shannon would ask
to have his co-worker transferred to another group after borrowing the
company equipment -- it was because one of Curtis's dreams had been
about his co-worker's "face changing" and attacking Curtis. Like Red
the dog, the co-worker had to be moved out of sight because Curtis
felt threatened by him.
And also, as a by-the-way: the film expresses a believable vision of a
loving relationship between a husband and a wife.
I really enjoyed the film, felt empathy for the main characters, and
it seemed flawless enough for me.
> On Apr 12, 10:37 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
> > Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. InTAKESHELTER,
> > he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
> > unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
> > could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
> > as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
> > but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could callSHELTER
> > "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
> > director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
> > Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
> > dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
> > although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
> > 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics likedSHELTERquite
> > well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> Michael Shannon is the driving force in this movie, as if it had been
> written for him. I can expect anything I see him in to be other than
> usual... he is an intriquing actor. Shannon brings a believable depth
> -- of struggle? of questioning? of witnessing? -- to all his
> characterizations. His role in Bug was fascinating.
> Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
> the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
> of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.
> The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
> to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
> and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
> and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake... maybe it
> was man being touched by the divine after all.
> There was a question in the thread about why Curtis/Shannon would ask
> to have his co-worker transferred to another group after borrowing the
> company equipment -- it was because one of Curtis's dreams had been
> about his co-worker's "face changing" and attacking Curtis. Like Red
> the dog, the co-worker had to be moved out of sight because Curtis
> felt threatened by him.
> And also, as a by-the-way: the film expresses a believable vision of a
> loving relationship between a husband and a wife.
> I really enjoyed the film, felt empathy for the main characters, and
> it seemed flawless enough for me.
For some reason, I can't bring the co-worker dream to mind, but your
answer makes sense. Btw, those bird flights are real, and impressive.
> On Apr 12, 10:37 am, moviePig<pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> Though he'll likely never be a romantic lead or action hero, Michael
>> Shannon has the gift of seeming born to his roles. InTAKESHELTER,
>> he's a hardworking Ohioan, a family man, suddenly gripped by an
>> unshakable ominous premonition and a fear of the mental illness it
>> could portend. Shannon's understatement easily carries us with him --
>> as insiders -- down that corridor and threshold, and it's a difficult
>> but convincing journey. Overall, in fact, I could callSHELTER
>> "flawless", in that it seems to look and feel exactly as its writer/
>> director intended. (Moreover, any flaws always fade near Jessica
>> Chastain.) My difficulty with the movie is that I'm biased away from
>> dramas of inexorable descent (...no matter where they lead). So,
>> although this is two top-notch hours, I'd likely have better enjoyed
>> 30 minutes less of it. Understandably, critics likedSHELTERquite
>> well, but from me it's only mostly recommended.
> Michael Shannon is the driving force in this movie, as if it had been
> written for him. I can expect anything I see him in to be other than
> usual... he is an intriquing actor. Shannon brings a believable depth
> -- of struggle? of questioning? of witnessing? -- to all his
> characterizations. His role in Bug was fascinating.
> Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
> the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
> of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.
Of which there were exactly...none. Noah and God were on a first-name basis, and instructions on how to deal with the coming catastrophe were specific, right down to the cubit. Noah got an instruction manual. The guy in this movie was on his own, figuring out how to deal with dread.
> The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
> to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
> and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
> and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake... maybe it
> was man being touched by the divine after all.
Maybe and maybe not. That's the problem for me; the movie is too timid to take a stand. Concluding that there was substance to his premonitions gives me no payoff, and concluding that he was nuts is equally pointless. Either way, so what?
> I really enjoyed the film, felt empathy for the main characters, and
> it seemed flawless enough for me.
I got really impatient during the film. I felt some sympathy for the wife because clearly she loved her husband and he loved her and they both loved the little girl and they were good people and their neighbors were good too and everybody was basically good. Fine.
But either he was nuts or he was receiving warnings.
If he was nuts, well, that's an easy explanation and the movie really doesn't make any point at all.
If he was receiving warnings, well, now the explanations are more difficult. Who was sending the warnings and why, and what was he supposed to do with his special knowledge which was really less knowledge and more, "I have a bad feeling about this"? God told Noah exactly how to prepare for the flood. If God was out and about in this film, all He accomplished was to drive some poor guy crazy. I know God moves in a mysterious way, but c'mon...do we really want to believe He'd get His giggles by torturing one poor guy a few weeks before he tsunamis us all to smithereens?
I think the movie failed. If I interpret the final storm as just another dream, the movie is pointless vapor; and if I interpret the final storm as the Apocalypse, I still detect no worthwhile meaning to the exercise.
On Apr 24, 3:55 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
.
> On Apr 24, 6:13 pm, Janice <janice_geran...@dixoncreekstudio.com>
> wrote:
> > There was a question in the thread about why Curtis/Shannon would ask
> > to have his co-worker transferred to another group after borrowing the
> > company equipment -- it was because one of Curtis's dreams had been
> > about his co-worker's "face changing" and attacking Curtis. Like Red
> > the dog, the co-worker had to be moved out of sight because Curtis
> > felt threatened by him.
.
> For some reason, I can't bring the co-worker dream to mind, but your
> answer makes sense. Btw, those bird flights are real, and impressive.
When he first confessed to his wife about the dreams, he told her
about his most recent dream about his co-worker... it wasn't one of
the dream visualizations that the audience got to see.
On Apr 24, 5:22 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
> On 4/24/2012 6:13 PM, Janice wrote:
.
> > Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
> > the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
> > of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.
.
> Of which there were exactly...none.
When I mention the connection with Noah, I was thinking of parallel
moments such as when he tried to warn his neighbors, or explain it to
his wife and family, or even to just trust himself and his dreams --
after all, at some point even Noah must have had to make the choice to
believe that was God speaking to him, and not that he was having a
psychotic episode. Mystics always question their own sanity, it is
the only way to test the reality of their experience.
There are moments in this film that thrust us into the agonies of a
man's soul and ask the big questions -- what is real, and, who am I?
> > The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
> > to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
> > and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
> > and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake... maybe it
> > was man being touched by the divine after all.
.
> Maybe and maybe not. That's the problem for me; the movie is too timid
> to take a stand. Concluding that there was substance to his
> premonitions gives me no payoff, and concluding that he was nuts is
> equally pointless. Either way, so what?
I am not going to try to convince you otherwise since you saw the film
from your own point of view and it didn't work for you. For me, it
wasn't as simple as is he crazy or is he not. I saw the subjects of
fear, and intention, and trust, and love, and the divine mind touched
upon in a wonderful script.
I thought it was perfect that Curtis found the courage to confront his
fears and open the door of the underground (!)shelter -- and while he
would not have done it for himself alone, he was able to do it for
those he loved. I can't tell you how many times I have watched men
cave into their fears and personal demons and not be able to step up
and make the changes necessary to keep a relationship (or themselves)
alive... and this carries exactly the same message. Hooray for
Curtis.
> On Apr 24, 5:22 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> .
>> On 4/24/2012 6:13 PM, Janice wrote:
> .
>>> Besides the fact that the movie balanced its tension nicely between
>>> the possibilities of prophecy vs. lunacy (I loved the bizarre flights
>>> of birds), it was fun to look for analogies to Noah.
> .
>> Of which there were exactly...none.
> When I mention the connection with Noah, I was thinking of parallel
> moments such as when he tried to warn his neighbors, or explain it to
> his wife and family, or even to just trust himself and his dreams --
> after all, at some point even Noah must have had to make the choice to
> believe that was God speaking to him, and not that he was having a
> psychotic episode. Mystics always question their own sanity, it is
> the only way to test the reality of their experience.
> There are moments in this film that thrust us into the agonies of a
> man's soul and ask the big questions -- what is real, and, who am I?
>>> The story's psychological insight into a man's fear of not being able
>>> to take care of or protect his family against the terrors of the world
>>> and the unknown or even himself was, to my mind, beautifully done...
>>> and would have sufficed, but there was icing on the cake... maybe it
>>> was man being touched by the divine after all.
> .
>> Maybe and maybe not. That's the problem for me; the movie is too timid
>> to take a stand. Concluding that there was substance to his
>> premonitions gives me no payoff, and concluding that he was nuts is
>> equally pointless. Either way, so what?
> I am not going to try to convince you otherwise since you saw the film
> from your own point of view and it didn't work for you. For me, it
> wasn't as simple as is he crazy or is he not. I saw the subjects of
> fear, and intention, and trust, and love, and the divine mind touched
> upon in a wonderful script.
> I thought it was perfect that Curtis found the courage to confront his
> fears and open the door of the underground (!)shelter -- and while he
> would not have done it for himself alone, he was able to do it for
> those he loved. I can't tell you how many times I have watched men
> cave into their fears and personal demons and not be able to step up
> and make the changes necessary to keep a relationship (or themselves)
> alive... and this carries exactly the same message. Hooray for
> Curtis.
And hooray that the movie worked for you. Every once in a while I'll come across a movie that really works for me (Midnight in Paris, anyone?) and I don't care what anybody else says, I know what I like and I treasure a good movie whenever I can find one.
