Shutter Island

T

The Eyes of Texas

500+ Posts
I haven't seen it, but from the previews it seems obvious that DiCaprio isn't really a cop, but an inmate who's delusion is that he is a cop. Can someone who has seen it confirm this, or tell me I'm wrong so I don't have to waste my money?
 
One of my favorite books-I kept on reading the ending trying to make sure I understood what had happened. The movie is outstanding. He's not a cop-he's a U.S. Marshall. You'll get no spoilers from me!
 
Glad to hear somebody likes the movie. I've had the same thoughts as the op about the plot, and the spooky visuals don't do much for me in the trailer. Even so, Scorsese is always worth a shot.
 
SPOILER ALERT





you know, if you are going to post a spoiler... you might want ot alert folks. the whole movie is based on the premise that you provided, furthermore, it is not revealed until the very last 5 minutes of the movie..... so basically you are ******* anyone that wanted to see it and not know the ending.

it is what the ENTIRE movie is about and with your post, there is nothing really to see at all if you read it.

seriously dude? i guess the previews give it away a bit, but i had no idea until the end.

btw, i give the movie a C.
 
Since anyone who's reading this far has already been spoiled by the original poster, I'll lay into it. It's clear to me that the guy was a Marshall at one point. He's currently an inmate being helped to realize his delusion of remaining a Marshall with a different name/story. By the end, he realizes his situation and accepts it. He then makes a decision to succumb to the lobotomy out of depression/grief.

And kudos for getting the gist of it from the trailers. I got it about 20 minutes or so in, but you were faster.
 
First thing I typed was 'I haven't seen it yet' - - therefore it was a guess, therefore it wasn't a spoiler. Sometimes I forget some of the posters here are from Oklahoma.
 
Wow, I didn't get that until the very end. I'm going to rewatch the trailer to figure out what you saw...

EDIT: Just watched two theatrical trailers and the super-bowl comemrcial. I have no idea how you figured that out.

BTW Did anyone who saw it feel like it was a Kubrick ripoff? The beginning especially bugged me, and I wanted to walk out after the first 20-30 minutes. I'm glad I stuck it out, and enjoyed the movie, but the Kubrick similarity sort of bugged me.
 
I knew there had to be a plot twist and for some reason the tone of the preview reminded me of that John Cusak movie, Identity, a few years ago where

************Spoiler Alert(happy NotReally)*****************




the whole movie took place inside a criminally insane guy's head, and all the characters were different iterations of his multiple personalities.
 
spoilers.....

not trying to be a dick or anything, but just saying other than than what you posted..... there really isn't any other plot. the movie is setup to look like decaprio is a us marshall investigating a mental institution. he is in fact a patient, which is revealed in the very final scene and the whole premise of the movie. if you know that going in, i can't see how this movie could be very good. imo.
 
I don't think the first poster asking the question did the spoiling. It was when the question was answered that this was the correct scenario. It could have been played off by saying it was a good idea or that would be a good twist. Anything but verifying the hunch or suspicion was indeed correct.
 
my daughter and I were disappointed.

The premise, the setting, the casting, the acting and the preview I saw were all good.

Lots of potential there.

The Link

However, I think that choices made in screenplay and direction diminished my interest.

I haven't read the book, but the movie, judged solely as a movie, was lacking for me.

Some spoilers follow:










If this film is judged by book reading moviegoers to be a good, faithful adaptation of the book, that's cool, but it fell short for me as a motion picture.

I saw some some cinematic similarities to "One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest," "Vertigo" and "The Shawshank Redemption"

But there was a different manner of resolution used here than in those flicks.

I felt that on Shutter Island, the final denoument was accomplished by too much talk and not enough by action.

Excessively wordy lecturing up in that lighthouse and not enough enlightenment via visual aids.

All the pictures in the first part of the movie were too quickly explained away by mere dialog at the end, instead of by visual and mental discovery for the audience though the eyes of the protagonist.

From the start, things got curiouser and curiouser a la "Alice in Wonderland," but there were no shocking, explanatory revelations as in "Psycho."

If Scarlett, in "Gone With The Wind," had simply been awakened from an afternoon nap by Mammy or Prissy and told she was only dreaming all that stuff about Rhett and Tara and the War of Northern Aggression.........

Or if Rick were told he'd lost his mind at the end of "Casablanca" and Ingrid's character had really never even been there and Sam certainly hadn't played that song.

I think those were better movies because of the discoveries those characters made and that the audience made through those character's eyes.

Martin Scorsese is a wonderful movie maker, but I found the way he chose to make and present this movie turned out less engaging and enjoyable for me in the end than with other directions he might have gone as the director.

Maybe Scorsese and the screenwriter adapted the book exactly and well, but I only saw the movie and I'd hoped for a better motion picture experience.

Having the explanation come to the audience chiefly from Ben Kingsley's character's mouth and not more through Leonardo DiCaprio's character's eyes simply made this a less powerful flick for me.

If you like it better the way Scorsese went, that's cool.

cool.gif
 
I agree with what you're saying, but the problem is that all of the action on the island wasn't actually taking place only in his mind. The story to justify it was all a fiction, but they actually took him on the ferry, they actually gave him free reign on the island for two days, they actually had the other patients cooperate in the charade for his benefit. We saw the truth when we saw the past action with the story about his wife, but there was no other truth to reveal, since everything we actually saw actually happened, other than his meeting with the fictional lady in the cave. In some ways, I actually preferred this choice to some other movies that ended with "everything you just saw didn't actually happen." Unless you're The Usual Suspects and you get drawn into a tale just like the characters in the movie, I end up feeling somewhat cheated if they can just lie to the audience like that. Lie to the characters all you want, but don't lie to me without giving me something in return.
 
and me being a spoiler police ******** aside.... i was also disappointed, as was my 13 yr old daughter.

i just felt like it had been done. fight club was a good example. memento came to mind as i was leaving the theater. but in both of those movies, the insanity led up to an extrordinary events..... with shutter island you were just left with, the guy is crazy.

interesting point above about the charactar choosing the lobotomy. i didn't see it that way, i just thought he was still delusional about it all. however, after someone brought that up, that is interesting. i am sure the book gave more hints that being the case.
 
To be honest, I just assumed that he was aware and making a choice because of what he said just after the words that convinced the Dr. he was still delusional. Something about living as a monster vs. dying a hero. Then Mark Ruffalo gives him an astonished, knowing look as he walks willingly towards his fate.
 
I posted this addendum over on another board:



As movies with a twist go, I thought "The Sixth Sense" and even Scorsese's recent Oscar winning "The Departed" did a much better job of keeping the audience guessing.

And even requiring and rewarding some thought after things were over.

I don't need slam bang action to satisfy me.

I just thought having Kingsley's character verbally reveal almost everything was a less interesting way of doing that than seeing more revealed through DiCaprio's character's eyes.

A good example of action, as seen through the protagonist's eyes, revealing the answers is the original of "The Wicker Man," which is much, much, much better than the Nicholas Cage remake.

The Link

When I recall and evaluate the skillful use of foreshadowing in the excellent screenplay of "The Sixth Sense," I freely admit that in "Shutter Island" I saw and was aware of similar hints beginning on the boat and then all through the buildup of the movie.

That was all good, it was only the overly talky, IMHO, explanation and revelation that disappointed me.

I can think of lots of movies that made such revelation more interesting or more exciting or more satisfying or more shocking, sometimes using action-packed stuff and sometimes using subtlety.

Sometimes using both:

"Forbidden Planet," "To Kill A Mockingbird," "Planet of the Apes," "Body Heat," "Rebecca," the original "The Night of the Living Dead," "Chinatown," "Rosemary's Baby," "North By Northwest," "The Bridge on the River Kwai," "Wild Things," "Being There," etc.

These all (and the ones I mentioned earlier) were explained more by on screen activity as seen by the characters than by "lecturing" dialog.

Anyone who likes the overly talky, verbose, "here's what we didn't tell you before" explanation route better might appreciate "The Wolfman," on local screens right now, more than I did.

Different strokes.

cool.gif
 
Good post, Fred,

I was disappointed in this movie. There are a ton of movies that "push the 'reset' button" much more artfully than this one. The film that came to my mind was "Jacob's Ladder," where after the first 30 minutes, we see Tim Robbins wake up, and the camera pans over to a woman in bed with him who is not his wife (we think), and he says to her, "I had the wierdest dream... that I was married to Rosie from the post office." And then you suddenly have to reconsider everything you've absorbed up to that point.

There were several really nice moments of tension in "Shutter." During the storm, when they're seeking shelter in the graveyard and Ruffalo tells DeCaprio that he's been tricked into "volunteering" to come to the island, and that surely the "Bureau" invented the escaped-patient scenario in order to lure him there. That's the same scene where we see what the crazy patient wrote on DeCaprio's notepad ("RUN"). Audience has tons of anxiety and tension at that moment that Leo is in trouble... that he is a pawn, and that he is in horrible danger of being locked in a cell and declared insane.

The movie could play out from that angle-- maybe he manages to escape (cling to the ferry, etc.) and then maybe at the end, the audience isn't sure if Daniels and Laeddis are the same person. Or maybe give us a last scene of DeCaprio back home again and somebody calles him "Laeddis" or the camera pans over to his unopened mail addressed to Laeddis.

Instead, I felt like the last 30 minutes of the movie was waaaaaay too much resolution and explanation (plus, like Fred said, it was revealed in dialogue and not action). We got that long scene where Kingsley spells out the plot for the audience (using a chalkboard, no less). Then it had that long flashback to the day of the kids' drowning, then back to the island again for the scene where DeCaprio restates his delusions to Ruffalo (or chooses a lobotomy).

By beating the viewer over the head with the explanation, the movie pisses away what was a very clever set up, IMO.

Finally, let me add my voice to those who say the original post on this thread should have SPOILER ALERT in the subject!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top