The Wolfman: Definitely not a great film, and it really straddles the "decent" line with respect to the scope of cinema. However, critics are being rather absurd in their reviews of it, and I think they're taking it a little too seriously, really. It's a fun film to watch, and though more annoying than novel, the "jump" scares are somewhat of a delight if you're just viewing it casually. I enjoyed the film because I really didn't plan on taking it seriously. I observed some neat tweaks to the story of the Wolfman, and the obscene amounts of gore just made it more fun. Sure, there's no real critical acclaim to derive from that, but the solid performances from the actors and actress (Emily Blunt) really gave it a nice distinction from other "revivalist" films. It's good in a "Sleepy Hollow" kind of way (not as
Shutter Island: No one does 'em quite like Marty. It's not Scorsese's best film, but I think he did a fantastic job of maintaining a steadily intensifying pace in a psychological thriller (which you don't normally see, especially when considering other films revolving around psychological phenomena, like A Beautiful Mind - you know, where Paul Bettany was the crazy-ass roommate who didn't really exist). In fact, Shutter Island was so well-put together in a directorial sense that I really didn't mind the slightly predictable plot. Consider a film we've all probably seen - like Fight Club - and really think about why you don't mind watching it over and over. You know what's going to happen, and you know how the central plot twist unfolds as if you'd written it yourself, yet you watch it and enjoy it because the film has so many redeeming qualities to it, aside from the plot. It kind of felt as if I'd already read Shutter Island's script once before as I listened intently on certain scenes, but I enjoyed it nonetheless because Scorsese knows how to make a film without relying on the plot as his guiding light.
Crazy Heart: Honestly, it fits your typical Oscar-bait stereotype, but it's a really great film, nonetheless. The portrayal of Bad Blake (who's completely fictional, which proves that the film was really sincere in it's writing, as the well-produced songs are fictional as well) is just a moving spectacle, and I ascribe a lot of that power to Jeff Bridges' fantastic performance. Pretty much, it's as if he was born to play that role. And, though he overshadows the rest of the cast, all of the actors and actresses were great as well. There's really not much to say about this film, considering where I am on the Internet, but I will say that it does a great job of portraying characters and human nature. There are some minor quirks I saw, as the film kind of skips over Blake's rehabilitation period near the film's conclusion as if it just "happened", and thus sort of cheats itself out of deeper character development, but perhaps it would have become overlong if it did expound on the subject...Anyway, the point is it's a great, moving film, albeit a depressing one.