Shutter Island

doctor evil

Is the book title the same as the film?

He didn't start any fires but his wife deliberately set fire to their apartment and so they moved to the house by the lake. There were elements of what actually happened found in his delusions. On some level he would always know what happened as he had the two breakthroughs but the truth is just too horrific for him to live with.

I really enjoyed this film and wouldn't mind reading the book. There were a muppets who kept talking and asking 'what happening' during the screening.

MisterAnarchy

Saw this last night and it was very poor.
I guessed the plot twist just by reading the synopsis in the lobby of the cinema ffs.:mad:

Simplicius

just saw this , great acting doesn't save it, poor, drawn out and weak, a waste of my time

ginoginelli

doctor evil wrote: »

I really enjoyed this film and wouldn't mind reading the book. There were a muppets who kept talking and asking 'what happening' during the screening.

Book is defo better than the film. better build up of suspence, and a more subtle approach to the twist.

Since you already know whats going to happen though there isnt much point in reading the book.

Average-Ro

My god, I just wish Scorsesse would pay attention to editing and continuity. The editing here was absolutely AWFUL. The first scene on the boat had jump cuts galore.

Also, anyone notice when Teddy was interviewing the woman and she asked for a glass of water. Chuck handed it over and she went to tak a sip from it, but there was nothing in her hand! I thought, "fair enough, she's crazy and maybe she only thinks she has a glass" but in the very next shot, she places the glass down on the table.

I found it really hard to enjoy this when the editing was that bad.

antod

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Saw this last night and it was very poor.
I guessed the plot twist just by reading the synopsis in the lobby of the cinema ffs.:mad:

yeah would have to agree with you there watched it last week ,i guessed the plot twist myself and that piece of classical music they kept on using was most annoying, a very average movie.

speedboatchase

ginoginelli wrote: »

Book is defo better than the film. better build up of suspence, and a more subtle approach to the twist.

Since you already know whats going to happen though there isnt much point in reading the book.

One of the things I liked about the book, which is shown but never followed up in the film is

Ruffalo's character fumbling with his gun when they have to remove them for the guards. In the book, when Di Caprio's character begins doubting Ruffalo's identity and credentials he starts thinking back at how odd it was like he wasn't used to handling a gun. In the film we see an odd reaction to Di Caprio when he fumbles with it but no mention of it, which is a shame as it's a nice little touch

Co45

Quick Q

Did the women Di Caprio's character met in the cave actually exist? If she did exist how did they know Di Caprio would find her? And why was she telling him to stop taking his medication when surely they'd want him on it?

This film promised so much. I was so excited and at the start when they are getting a tour of the island I was just sitting there going this is going to be epic. Sadly other than some great performances it just doesn't live up to what I expected.

Sleazus

Average-Ro wrote: »

Also, anyone notice when Teddy was interviewing the woman and she asked for a glass of water. Chuck handed it over and she went to tak a sip from it, but there was nothing in her hand! I thought, "fair enough, she's crazy and maybe she only thinks she has a glass" but in the very next shot, she places the glass down on the table.

That was kinda the point of it - to make the audience slight uneasy and confused. Things are there one minute and gone the next.

Like in his conversation with Noyce, Noyce changes position depending on the camera angle (particularly his arms). I thought it was great, an effective way of demonstrating the uncertainty of anything during the course of the movie.

AttackThePoster

I see where you're coming from Sleazus and I'd hope that you're correct but I'm not 100% buying it. I did think afterwards that it was purposely done but if that really was the case, well, it didn't really work as it annoyed viewers more than confused them. I say this as I've read a number of reviews and comments and they've all mentioned the bizarre editing going on here.

Faith

Right, maybe I'm being dense, but

who wrote the note about "who is 67" if yer one didn't exist? Teddy?

ginoginelli

Yes.

Teddy lived in a world of codes. That was one of them.

rednik

I have to go see it again. Was at it last night and I swear the simpsons were sitting behind me. A man brought his child who I'd say was 10 yrs old to see this film and she had a bag of whatever which lasted for the entire movie. Absolutely ruined the film for us as most of the film is quiet all we could hear was the ruffling of the bag. I would love to hear the little one's take on the film. I imagine she was eating out of boredom. Do people not check whether a film is suitable for children.

Ziggy_Stardust

Seen this flick yesterday and really enjoyed it. DiCaprio was brilliant as always but i must say i thought Mark Ruffalo had an outstanding performance. I thought the whole look and feel of the film was done very well plus it sounded amazing. Did anyone else feel Scorsese was really trying a Hitchcock type approach here? Some of the opening scenes are very like Hitchcock, i must say i really liked this.

11811

AttackThePoster wrote: »

Re: Shutter Island

How come there's snow in the Dachau scenes?

Yes...
this bugged me too

Dachau was liberated in late April. Hmmm

adox

Watched this tonight and was disappointed. Overlong, meandering and all over the place at times, all to lead up to the last half hour which really could have been covered in 10 minutes.

I so wanted to like it... but didn't.

Duggy747

Just after watching this and have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. A group of us watched it and I knew the film was working as we were discussing every little odd thing throughout the movie.

The editing was purposely choppy to throw you off, one second you're sure something is going to happen and next thing something else (or nothing) does. It plays with your perception of things perfectly.

My mind was constantly ticking over on everything as it's easy to miss things. By the end people will have different conclusions but I think that's what makes this film work,

the group of us we're split on the ending as to whether Leo was insane or not. I'm on the sane boat for now, anywho. This definitely requires a 2nd viewing

Crazy how Scorsese is still producing films of this quality!!

Flamed Diving

AttackThePoster wrote: »

Re: Shutter Island

How come there's snow in the Dachau scenes?

11811 wrote: »

Yes...
this bugged me too

Dachau was liberated in late April. Hmmm

But he wasn't at Dachau, that was all in his head too, right? I could have been Smarch.

AttackThePoster

Good point.

budgemook

11811 wrote: »

Yes...
this bugged me too

Dachau was liberated in late April. Hmmm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But he wasn't at Dachau, that was all in his head too, right? I could have been Smarch.

You sure?

I thought the military and us marshall stuff was real. That's why he was so dangerous and needed to be either sane or taken out.

Flamed Diving

budgemook wrote: »

You sure?

I thought the military and us marshall stuff was real. That's why he was so dangerous and needed to be either sane or taken out.

Yeah, he was in the military, but I think I remember the psych saying that he was never in Dachau and that there was no German commandant, and that it was all part of his mechanism. Can anyone else remember this, or I am due for a visit to Shutter Island?

indough

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, he was in the military, but I think I remember the psych saying that he was never in Dachau and that there was no German commandant, and that it was all part of his mechanism. Can anyone else remember this, or I am due for a visit to Shutter Island?

he was there alright, but the doctor said the part about shooting the guards wasnt true

crashtestdummy

Okay, i still think the ending is a little open to interpretation. Tell me this

Who was the woman in the cave? Also, the other patient left the note telling him to run? And, 'to live like a monster or die...' There are many ways to interpret that one

Thought it was a great film though. The direction and the score were incredible, as was the acting.

johnny_ultimate

Finally saw this today and loved it. I'd go as far as saying it is one of the best Scorcese films I've seen, and certainly one of the most atmospheric pieces of cinema of recent times. From the outset, there is just a sense of creeping dread (at first I found the weird jump cutting in the first scene to be distracting, but Scorcese is definitely playing with the audience throughout). It is never an outright scary movie, but I genuinely feel deeply uneasy throughout. The soundtrack was absurdly effective, and the cinematography and lighting in particular were stunning, with plenty of haunting images.

Storywise, I enjoyed the OTT nature of it all.

Personally I pretty much accepted the ending as is - I guessed what the general outcome (it was fairly obvious that Teddie was 67 and suffering from some post-traumatic stress) but what I liked more about the 'twist' (if you want to call it that) is the way it all comes together, and a large amount of the oddities explained. I also think a lot of the inconsistencies discussed in the thread could be put down to the fact that these people are insane, and you can't really take anything they are saying as truthful. It doesn't concern me in the slightest that there was snow in the concentration camp - this is a stylised horror film not always grounded in reality. The presence of snow can easily be explained away as either artistic licence or deep psychosis of the character.

Overall, the film dragged me in from the very beginning - an old-fashioned, yet extremely refreshing, horror movie with atmosphere seaping out of every frame, and a superb cast (woo Max von Sydow ). Certainly Scorcese's most effective film in years.

Flamed Diving

crashtestdummy wrote: »

Okay, i still think the ending is a little open to interpretation. Tell me this

Who was the woman in the cave? Also, the other patient left the note telling him to run? And, 'to live like a monster or die...' There are many ways to interpret that one

Thought it was a great film though. The direction and the score were incredible, as was the acting.

The real Rachel Soldano, in his head

Nick_oliveri

I thought it was a bit mad that his psychiatrist let him climb down a steep cliff which was, as he put it - "suicidal"

Sleazus

indough wrote: »

he was there alright, but the doctor said the part about shooting the guards wasnt true

I thought he said there was no evidence Teddy/Andy was involved in shooting guards. Which is far different from saying no guards were shot. I don't exactly think the soldiers there filed paperwork on it, it just means the asylum can't verify it rather than that they can actively disprove it.

I'm willing to allow the snow on foot of the fact that it's a stylistic touch representative of

the lead character's internal uncertainty. In the first scene with his wife, she bleeds from the gunshot wound we don't know exists, but she also crumples to dust - which obviously isn't how it played out. Memory is a fragile thing, we construct memories based on our perception or interpretation of events rather than reality (Waltz with Bashir explains this better than I do). If he remembers it as cold (which is fairly easy to understand), he could easily have imagined the snow - certainly in his "less than robust" mental state.

phasers

I have heard that at Concentration Camps the ash from the burning bodies would fall like snow, maybe that's what it was? Like the ash that was falling in that scene with his wife.

I've got mixed feelings about the film tbh, the tweest was obvious to me as soon as I saw

the red shoes on the little girl in Dachau, they took their shoes didn't they?

I have no idea why that got me so suspicious but it did! Whenever I saw

the little girl ghost

as well it felt really clichéd.

Overall though it was well acted, well shot and quite enjoyable, as long as you don't try and pick holes in it and just go with it.

Flamed Diving

BTW, great film. How good is Di Caprio? (rhetorical)

Sleazus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

BTW, great film. How good is Di Caprio?

Seven!

Flamed Diving wrote: »

(rhetorical)

Rhetorical, eh? Eight!

FUNKY LOVER

to me it can have 3 endings.

1.they drugged him to carry out experiments etc just like the girl in the cave said.

2.he was insane and had a relapse at the end.

3.he came around but didnt want to face the truth.

still a bit confused.

Flamed Diving

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

to me it can have 3 endings.

1.they drugged him to carry out experiments etc just like the girl in the cave said.

2.he was insane and had a relapse at the end.

3.he came around but didnt want to face the truth.

still a bit confused.

For me, Occams Razor rules out 1.

Ferris_Bueller

The more I think about it the better the film was, throughout the film I was very confused at times and really needed to pay full attention to know what was going on, a lot of people said they knew the ending was coming but I honestly had no idea how it was going to end.

Still there are many bits which left me baffled and wondering about, but overall a brilliant film methinks.

jaykhunter

Saw the film last night. Really enjoyed it; it's still in my head, but I hated a few small things about it :
1) 'Arthouse' overuse of the jumpcut/ A/V doesn't sync up/am I really here editing (I feel that if Scorsese wasn't the director, people would give out a lot about it) ...I also thought the cut/move onto the next scene was too sharp and harsh for my liking. I get that it's a style, I just didn't like it at all. Felt rushed.
2) Overbearing and obnoxious score (especially at the start of the film. He's in a bloody jeep; no need for such an imposing, abrasive score)
3) What's-her-face from Dawson's Creek. Her as an actress I can't take seriously and carries negative baggage with her. I didn't think her acting was bad, I just don't like her.

Despite those things I thought everything else about the movie was well done and engrossing. The settings, visuals, progression, odd conversations....all very well done. It all makes sense and makes you want to re-thread the same ground, like looking for Tyler Durdan on re-watching Fight Club...

Did anyone else get a huge 'Silent Hill' vibe from this film? I imagine that a few changes to the plot/setting here and there and you'd have Silent Hill;

from the ash/snow falling...to creepy locals, to going in and out of reality...

Despite the editing and score, I was really interested in the plot. I felt it unfolded quite like a videogame (e.g. Arkham Asylum) as you'd hear about a new area

(Block C; the Lighthouse)

which would become available when the plot has progressed more!

Anyway, the story and the crux of the film is kept going along quite nicely, with the real turning point of the film being very interesting indeed. Overall I'd recommend to everyone and am quite considering seeing it again to notice any small points that can now be seen in a different light.

cill5

Average-Ro wrote: »

anyone notice when Teddy was interviewing the woman and she asked for a glass of water. Chuck handed it over and she went to tak a sip from it, but there was nothing in her hand! I thought, "fair enough, she's crazy and maybe she only thinks she has a glass" but in the very next shot, she places the glass down on the table.

I found it really hard to enjoy this when the editing was that bad.

Didn't you think it was deliberate...

We are viewing it from Andrew's point of view and he's off his tits crazy so all these things are part of the mindf*ck!

cill5

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

to me it can have 3 endings.

1.they drugged him to carry out experiments etc just like the girl in the cave said.

2.he was insane and had a relapse at the end.

3.he came around but didnt want to face the truth.

still a bit confused.

It was obviously 3...

His last line is evidence of that. 1. is ridiculous, how do they have pictures of his daughters, exactly the same as in his hallucinations... 2. as a stated for 3 is incorrect too.

Corholio

Saw this tonight. Found it a great movie with a terrific atmosphere from start to finish. Running time didnt bother me at all and kept me watching it throughout.

Just one thing though

When Teddy had the hallucination about the nurse posing as Rachel, she and the 3 kids were covered in blood. Why would they be covered in blood if she drowned them in the lake?

Maybe I missed something. Absolutely well worth watching though

Raekwon

I saw it earlier tonight and was totally blown away by it!

There were a few things that I didn't get though, one of them being

How did they get Teddy/Andrew onto the boat at the very start? He was being seasick so does that indicate that he was drugged and when he came around he was already in his US Marshal attire complete with gun & badge and just started talking to his partner/physiologist and suddenly start to begin the roleplay?

But even with the many unanswered parts of the plot it didn't take away from the overall movie, I thought it was an excellent watch.

Galvasean

SPOILER TAGS FFS PEOPLE!!!!!! :mad:

Thanks. I'm going to see this film on Thursday and know the ending.

jaykhunter

Galvasean wrote: »

SPOILER TAGS FFS PEOPLE!!!!!! :mad:

Thanks. I'm going to see this film on Thursday and know the ending.

I must be ignorant because I've popped in and out of this thread before watching the film and didn't have it spoiled! Kinda looking over the last few pages for spoilers that weren't marked...i don't see it.

Apologies if my review post is considered as spoiler-material but I tried my best giving generalities.

Galvasean

I've added spoiler tags to a few posts after people reported them. *sigh* This moderating mojo can be a curse sometimes.

Rabidlamb

Is it better to live as a monster, or die as a good man ?.

I take it he walked freely to his lobotomy at the end knowing he could never live with the guilt of killing his wife & the loss of his children.
The way he walks off purposely followed by Max Von Snowdyn, the warden & the orderlies made me initially think that it was Chuck who was the madman. Obviously ruled this out with a bit of extra thought

I loved everything about this film.
There were cliches all through but Scorsese has a fantastic ability to make them look at original ideas.
My favourite film since The Road.

PirateShampoo

Personally i thought the film was slow to start, and i thought the Music at the start was to loud.

For me it seemed in places they where pulling parts of the plot out of thin air. I did think it picked up towards the end but i was really expecting better.

the glass woman

Ziggy_Stardust wrote: »

Did anyone else feel Scorsese was really trying a Hitchcock type approach here? Some of the opening scenes are very like Hitchcock, i must say i really liked this.

Yes! From the minute it started, from the music to the whole style of the film, especially that tracking shot with the warden in the buggy. I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned that..

SillyMonkey

Just on the ending:
The line

"Is it better to live as a monster or die as a good man?"

is not in the book. In the book it just ends with

Andrew having a relapse and thinking he is teddy again. They then take him for his lobotomy.

I felt that this was a real "hollywood" ending to a great movie.

In the book he's just f*cked up with no hope of recovery, end of. The movie makes him out to be this noble guy.

genericguy

have to say i thought this was shite. fancy, well acted, but the editing was disgraceful, and the 'twist' ending has been absolutely done to death, imo it's very similar but inferior to the machinist.

Michael B

I liked it but thought it would be better. I kept away from all the reviews so I wouldn't hear what it was about. Completley not what I thought it would be but it was good enough.

stainluss

Its clear that he's sane again at the end and you can tell this by Chucks reaction after that monster line.

He stands up and tries to call him back as he knows he hasn't relapsed

To anyone who hasnt seen this, I reccommend it:D

Töpher

jaykhunter wrote: »

Did anyone else get a huge 'Silent Hill' vibe from this film? I imagine that a few changes to the plot/setting here and there and you'd have Silent Hill;

from the ash/snow falling...to creepy locals, to going in and out of reality...

Most definitely reminders of the early Silent Hill games in there.

Ward 'C' reminded me heavily of the school from the alternate reality from the original game, not just the long ever darkening corridors, but the grated walls too. And as he was walking up the darkened corridor in the ward, I was convinced I could hear static interference, like you do on the radio in the game series as danger approaches - and the inmates of ward C reminded me of the naked sexless mannequin monsters from SH2.

Or so I reckoned at least.

The Black Oil

Apart from a couple of quibbles I enjoyed it. The book is better, I think. The

execution scene at Dachau was a bit ridiculous. All it was was a camera on a trolley panning across for what seemed like an eternity, bordering on absurd.