Shutter Island

pirelli

I saw the film last week.

I also paid an extra $1.50 for a plush leather seats with cup holders, and i was excited to see what these seats looked like.

I arrived and the 75% of the auditorioum had the leather seats with two thin rows of cheaper seats. So you could sit anywhere and save the $1.50, at least if you pay for a cinema ticket i would expect you get to seat somewhere other than the side of the auditorium.

I am sure they have made the diffference in seat prices already - scabby bastards.

Anyway I sat on the delux seats and after we settled in i started giving harsh looks across the aisle at a few punters in the cheaper seats. I had began to believe i was superior than them and that they were so 'cheap' to bring their brid to the cinema and sit in the corner.

After a while i realised they were probably junkies and scumbags and i was there to protect all the women from their cheap and uncomfortable attitudes and to try prevent the vomit purple glare of cheapness away from our delux and shiny leather thrones. If one of them spoke i would tell them to keep quiet in the back rows please or 'mind your language there might be children present'.


I could feel the adulation from my fellow delux peers and felt inspired to marshall the right side aisle.

I was admiring the elaborately decorated civil war building in the film when one of two low life scumbags tried to sneak into the upper class area. I moved like a jaguar silent and stealthly and got the usher.

Myself and the usher crept up on them and she shone the torch in their faces and they were ****tin themselves. They became disruptive and while they were being moved back to C row. I gave one of them a clip in the ear.


I didn't understand the

end of the movie myself and reckon they obviously drugged him and he really was a marshall. Rachel that lived in caves explains about the cigarettes that have neuro active effects. Also Teddies inside contact that gave him the information that 'shutter island' was a place used by the goverment for experiements seemed real enough in c wing. It's a big goverment conspiracy and yet nobody can see that.

I was also dissappointed when the gardai dragged me away after the film for assault and now they are trying to convince me these arseholes actually had G row tickets. Really dissappointed :mad:

I see what you did there Pirelli

Really liked the movie and still haven't made my mind up about the ending..... Will watch again soon.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

I see what you did there Pirelli

Really liked the movie and still haven't made my mind up about the ending..... Will watch again soon.

I like the movie but it has been done so many times in the last few year's.
Films like Spider and the machinist and of course 'Freeze Frame' with Lee Evans is much more contemporary and the plot is alot more similar.

I think 'The Cell' with Jennifer Lopez who goes inside the mind of an evil serial killer takes on more of socially challenging topic than this film.

Shutter island is a slighty interesting persepective of a prison movie but isn't able to deliver the goods or hard facts that real life always manages too.

Orizio

Average-Ro wrote: »

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.

Surely you worked out that that was intentional.

Its a fine film, and I'm not that bothered by the ending, which is obvious - Ben Kingsley's character basically spells it out for us within the first 15 minutes.

pirelli

Orizio wrote: »

Surely you worked out that that was intentional.

Its a fine film, and I'm not that bothered by the ending, which is obvious - Ben Kingsley's character basically spells it out for us within the first 15 minutes.

Martin Scorsee through Kingsley gives a brief history of Mental Ayslums when the US Marshalls arrive explaining how even to this day many are devoid of any humanity . However he only touched upoun this in brief second where you learned about how patients were typically chained like animals and rather almost with a lazy eye expected the viewers to understand something which is rather complex and requires a little more than an academic understanding of the precarious situation the mental hospitals are positioned in society.

I watching the escapist at them moment on FILM 4 and i cannot see a

difference between

the two films except the

escapist was the origional.

A documentary on Broadmoor explains this in a very in depth and detailed manner and you would be surprised to see the similarities between the film and the documentary and the incidents but in the documentary the actual problem was clearly demonstrated and Broadmoor remains to this day ex communicated from the NHS and convential treatments and instead is a place deviod of humanity a place that is simply not real by any standards we understand in day to day life. A place where your sanity is hard to find let alone remember.

OctavarIan

Don't think it has been linked to so far but the author of the book gave his take on the ending, which in my eyes makes more sense than the version which everyone seems to accept. This guy knows the characters better than anyone, don't forget.

"I would say that line, which comes across as a question, he asks it sort of rhetorically," he explained. "Personally, I think he has a momentary flash. To me that's all it is. It's just one moment of sanity mixed in the midst of all the other delusions."

"When he asks the question, he does it in such a way that, if he were to say it as a statement... then there's no solution here but to stop the lobotomy. Because if he shows any sort of self-awareness, then it's over, they wouldn't want to lobotomize him. My feeling was no, he's not so conscious he says 'Oh I'm going to decide to pretend to be Laeddis so they'll finally give me a lobotomy.' That would just be far more suicidal than I think this character is. I think that in one moment, for a half a second sitting there in that island he remembered who he was and then he asks that question and he quickly sort of lets it go. That was my feeling on that line."

"I liked that line when I read the script," he said. "There was just some debate as to how much of a question it is and how much of a declarative statement. In the end they went with it being a question, which I think is important."

[edit]Also, anyone who accidentally saw any spoilers earlier in the thread, don't be worrying because knowing the ending doesn't ruin the movie one bit. It's the type of movie that demands a second viewing.

Flamed Diving

People who worry about the editing, what did you make of Taxi Driver?

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

I like the movie but it has been done so many times in the last few year's.
Films like Spider and the machinist and of course 'Freeze Frame' with Lee Evans is much more contemporary and the plot is alot more similar.

I think 'The Cell' with Jennifer Lopez who goes inside the mind of an evil serial killer takes on more of socially challenging topic than this film.

Shutter island is a slighty interesting persepective of a prison movie but isn't able to deliver the goods or hard facts that real life always manages too.

Never seen any of those movies so I'm happy out.

humanji

pirelli wrote: »

I like the movie but it has been done so many times in the last few year's.
Films like Spider and the machinist and of course 'Freeze Frame' with Lee Evans is much more contemporary and the plot is alot more similar.

I think 'The Cell' with Jennifer Lopez who goes inside the mind of an evil serial killer takes on more of socially challenging topic than this film.

Shutter island is a slighty interesting persepective of a prison movie but isn't able to deliver the goods or hard facts that real life always manages too.

That's what I was saying about The Ninth Configuration film earlier. It's been years since I saw it, but in that film

a colonel is sent to a military mental hospital to run it and is helped by doctor. In the end, it turns out that the colonel is actually insane and due to things he did in his past, he makes himself believethat he's a doctor and the real doctor is actually looking after him. And in that, he kills himself in the end as a sacrifice to prove that there are good people, or some nonsense like that

. I couldn't help but twig what the ending of Shutter Island was right at the beginning because of this.

pirelli

humanji wrote: »

That's what I was saying about The Ninth Configuration film earlier. It's been years since I saw it, but in that film

a colonel is sent to a military mental hospital to run it and is helped by doctor. In the end, it turns out that the colonel is actually insane and due to things he did in his past, he makes himself believethat he's a doctor and the real doctor is actually looking after him. And in that, he kills himself in the end as a sacrifice to prove that there are good people, or some nonsense like that

. I couldn't help but twig what the ending of Shutter Island was right at the beginning because of this.

Thats exactly how i felt but not until the very end when the character was told he had been

there for two years.

At that point it all flooded back in but instead of being a movie experience it was just a like a de ja vu and i was like ' Aww gaad ' I have seen this so many times now it's

like the ending of the escapist

Except in the

escapist

there is somewhat of a happy ending but and a much deeper meaning that shutter island as a commmercial project couldn't explore deeply enough.

kowloon

strobe wrote: »

I think he's a pretty good actor but wasn't his accent in BD absolutely slated by South Africans?

Wasn't he supposed to be Rhodesian? Either way, his accent was slated, but offends me less than Spacey in Ordinary Decent Criminal.

And to be on topic: I liked Shutter Island, but it's not as clever as some people are making it out to be.

Flamed Diving

kowloon wrote: »

Wasn't he supposed to be Rhodesian? Either way, his accent was slated, but offends me less than Spacey in Ordinary Decent Criminal.

And to be on topic: I liked Shutter Island, but it's not as clever as some people are making it out to be.

He was, and his accent was great. People seem to have this notion that if you don't sound like someone from Jo'burg, then you are doing it wrong.

indough

it was slated by people who thought he was supposed to be south african maybe, but it did sound authentic zimbabwe/rhodesian, which is what he was meant to be

Flamed Diving

indough wrote: »

it was slated by people who thought he was supposed to be south african maybe, but it did sound authentic zimbabwe/rhodesian, which is what he was meant to be

Double fail, then.

Sleazus

OctavarIan wrote: »

Don't think it has been linked to so far but the author of the book gave his take on the ending, which in my eyes makes more sense than the version which everyone seems to accept. This guy knows the characters better than anyone, don't forget.

"I would say that line, which comes across as a question, he asks it sort of rhetorically," he explained. "Personally, I think he has a momentary flash. To me that's all it is. It's just one moment of sanity mixed in the midst of all the other delusions."

"When he asks the question, he does it in such a way that, if he were to say it as a statement... then there's no solution here but to stop the lobotomy. Because if he shows any sort of self-awareness, then it's over, they wouldn't want to lobotomize him. My feeling was no, he's not so conscious he says 'Oh I'm going to decide to pretend to be Laeddis so they'll finally give me a lobotomy.' That would just be far more suicidal than I think this character is. I think that in one moment, for a half a second sitting there in that island he remembered who he was and then he asks that question and he quickly sort of lets it go. That was my feeling on that line."

"I liked that line when I read the script," he said. "There was just some debate as to how much of a question it is and how much of a declarative statement. In the end they went with it being a question, which I think is important."

[edit]Also, anyone who accidentally saw any spoilers earlier in the thread, don't be worrying because knowing the ending doesn't ruin the movie one bit. It's the type of movie that demands a second viewing.

I thought that was the only way it really could be read? It seemed fairly obvious to myself and the better half anyway, but we were really into the film.

kraggy

stainluss wrote: »

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

How do you mean sane again? Do you consider being a US Marsahall doing an investigation as sane?

Di Caprio is pretending to have relapsed back into fantasy/insanity

kraggy

Average-Ro wrote: »

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.

Orizio wrote: »

Surely you worked out that that was intentional.

Its a fine film, and I'm not that bothered by the ending, which is obvious - Ben Kingsley's character basically spells it out for us within the first 15 minutes.

I hate condescending posts like the bottom one here.

Sometimes people notice things in films because they're on the ball, and sometimes they don't because they're not. Then sometimes they don't get things because, well, they just didn't see it.

Are you telling me Oirizo that you've gotten every subtle nuance conveyed in every film you've seen?

kraggy

Co45 wrote: »

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.

According to Dr. Cawley, she was just another hallucination.

PS Did anyone else think it was Christopher Plummer playing the German doctor when he appeared first?

jaykhunter

kraggy wrote: »

How do you mean sane again? Do you consider being a US Marsahall doing an investigation as sane?

Di Caprio is pretending to have relapsed back into fantasy/insanity

I think it's more

he finally accepted reality (i.e. he's not a cop anymore, his family is dead, he has nothing to live for)

hilarious this thread is just blanked out :pac::pac:

AttackThePoster

Flamed Diving wrote: »

People who worry about the editing, what did you make of Taxi Driver?

Been a while since I've watched Taxi Driver. Do go on.

Flamed Diving

AttackThePoster wrote: »

Been a while since I've watched Taxi Driver. Do go on.

So I assume you like it? There is one scene in particular where we just back a fraction of a second, and then continue. This was clearly intentional. People refer to this as an all-time classic. Why ignore the edit here?

DIS MOVI IS FOR GEY PEOLPE

AttackThePoster

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So I assume you like it? There is one scene in particular where we just back a fraction of a second, and then continue. This was clearly intentional. People refer to this as an all-time classic. Why ignore the edit here?

Honestly can't remember it. Yeah, I liked that movie but not my favourite Scorsese piece of work. I'd have to check it out again so I could comment. Got the time for the scene by any chance?

I just didn't think the editing worked here. Obviously intentional but it annoyed viewers rather than confused them.

Flamed Diving

AttackThePoster wrote: »

Honestly can't remember it. Yeah, I liked that movie but not my favourite Scorsese piece of work. I'd have to check it out again so I could comment. Got the time for the scene by any chance?

I just didn't think the editing worked here. Obviously intentional but it annoyed viewers rather than confused them.

Not off the top of my head, but its roughly around the time he is training in his house and there is a shot where the camera is panning around him slowly and there is a monologue going. During that, the reel jumps back a few notches and then resumes. I think it was brilliant because this is a point where he is clearly losing it slightly and the edit simply adds to the sense of abstraction.

He is merely using the same trick here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ7ZaS-IH14

That might have it.

In fact, it does have the exact scene. Fast forward to about 8mins 30secs, although the whole video is great.

philomena01

omg i seen this film 2 weeks ago!!! it was fantastic!! really really good!! what are you all waiting for???

kmick

This film is terrible. DiCaprio is no leading man and the plot is pitiful.

Flamed Diving

Di Caprio is becoming my favourite of all actors.

Liam O

kmick wrote: »

This film is terrible. DiCaprio is no leading man and the plot is pitiful.

what part of the plot/DiCaprio's acting was bad do you mind me asking? I thought it was a very good movie and I've seen it twice, some of the small touches are really good the second time round.

rgt320q

Saw it last night. A bit predictable in places but a good movie nonetheless. Scorsese did a great job in making the atmosphere paranoid as hell. I'd say it'll be better on subsequent viewings.

2040

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Di Caprio is becoming my favourite of all actors.

+1. Brilliant actor. He picks good roles too. On the View a week ago or two one of the critics was saying that she used to see him as aboy trying to be a man and that that has changed now. I'd sort of agree. In The Departed, for example, that was okay, because it was consistent with his character.

He's a man in Shutter Island though. He's really good with emotions too. You really empathise with him.

At the end for example, I knew he might be insane, but i really wanted his reality to be true, as did he i think.

Orizio

DiCaprio (and Scorcese's direction) is the best part of the film. It's hard to remember he was that god awful twerp in Titanic.

Orizio

kraggy wrote: »

I hate condescending posts like the bottom one here.

Sometimes people notice things in films because they're on the ball, and sometimes they don't because they're not. Then sometimes they don't get things because, well, they just didn't see it.

Are you telling me Oirizo that you've gotten every subtle nuance conveyed in every film you've seen?

I hate overly-sensitive posts like this one here.

Are you telling me kraggy that you complain pointlessly about every little thing, even if it doesn't concern you?

(and no, I wasn't being condescending).

m83

kmick wrote: »

This film is terrible. DiCaprio is no leading man and the plot is pitiful.

Wow! Just wow!

Frisbee

m83 wrote: »

Wow! Just wow!

He heard you

kmick

Liam O wrote: »

what part of the plot/DiCaprio's acting was bad do you mind me asking? I thought it was a very good movie and I've seen it twice, some of the small touches are really good the second time round.

Things I did not like about Shuuter Island (The first 15 minute review)

1. The goddam awful music telling you something scary was about to happen.
2. The constant storm and lightening - pathethic fallacy it was not.
3. Dachau - relevance...zero.
4. The Flashbacks/Dreams - Scorsese as David Lynch - Im surprised there were no dwarves.
5. The constant lazy explanation of things e.g. they are about the land on the island and the captain says "Other side of the island is rock bluffs straight down to the water. No place to land nor even moor. The dock its the only way on....or off". Arnold Swarzneggeer would have done better.
6. Crappy dialog Teddy "Up there electrified perimeter". Chuck "You sure". Teddy "Ive seen something like it before <intense stare>"

That was only the first 15 minutes and already I want to go home.

Catenaccio!

kmick wrote: »

Things I did not like about Shuuter Island (The first 15 minute review)

1. The goddam awful music telling you something scary was about to happen.
2. The constant storm and lightening - pathethic fallacy it was not.
3. Dachau - relevance...zero.
4. The Flashbacks/Dreams - Scorsese as David Lynch - Im surprised there were no dwarves.
5. The constant lazy explanation of things e.g. they are about the land on the island and the captain says "Other side of the island is rock bluffs straight down to the water. No place to land nor even moor. The dock its the only way on....or off". Arnold Swarzneggeer would have done better.
6. Crappy dialog Teddy "Up there electrified perimeter". Chuck "You sure". Teddy "Ive seen something like it before <intense stare>"

That was only the first 15 minutes and already I want to go home.

The music was one of the good things about this film. Absolutely loved the opening 10 minutes, the whole ominous tone was great. Old school.

Not sure where Lynch comes into this tbh

Re: point 5...considering you know what's really happening in the film, this explains why it was described like that.

kmick

Catenaccio! wrote: »

The music was one of the good things about this film. Absolutely loved the opening 10 minutes, the whole ominous tone was great. Old school.

Not sure where Lynch comes into this tbh

Re: point 5...considering you know what's really happening in the film, this explains why it was described like that.

Music should complement a movie not kick your head in.

David Lynch is famous for his dream sequences including singing dwarves. I would estimate 50-60% of this move was flashback/dream.

I dont need everything explained to me in idiot detail. Its an island miles from anywhere I get it.

Catenaccio!

Ha, I know exactly who Lynch is as I'm a massive fan. Just because there's a dream sequence in a movie doesn't mean it's influenced by David Lynch. There are many, many films out there that use this technique.

And the music did complement the film, surprised there's even an issue here.

I dont need everything explained to me in idiot detail. Its an island miles from anywhere I get it.

But I don't think you get what Scorsese was doing with this movie.

jaykhunter

Catenaccio! wrote: »

And the music did complement the film, surprised there's even an issue here.

But I don't think you get what Scorsese was doing with this movie.

I reckon he got it, like me, but thought it was crap :pac::pac:

I thought the music was overbearing and obnoxious. But to each his own. Still a very enjoyable film for me.

Catenaccio!

Haha, yeah jak. But this is it, I didn't really like the movie myself. Will probably return to it at one point but I was expecting a little bit more from it.

kmick

Catenaccio! wrote: »

But I don't think you get what Scorsese was doing with this movie.

What treat me like an idiot? Your responses to my 6 or 7 points...
1) The music was great
2) The dream sequences are perfectly good
3) People who didnt like it didnt understand it.

Well thanks for that. Very helpful.

Catenaccio!

kmick wrote: »

What treat me like an idiot? Your responses to my 6 or 7 points...
1) The music was great
2) The dream sequences are perfectly good
3) People who didnt like it didnt understand it.

Well thanks for that. Very helpful.

1) I explained why I felt the score was appropriate for the film.
2) When did I say that the dream sequences were "perfectly good"
3) Once again, when did I say that? I didn't like the movie myself but understand what Scorsese was trying to do. It worked for some people but not for me. Take the editing for example, it's obviously done like that intentionally to try and confuse and disorientate the viewer. It didn't work for me but I know people who enjoyed that.

jaykhunter

AAAGHH God bless the internet :pac::pac::pac:

A V A

god this was a weird movie not really into these kind of movies but i have to say that when this was over i walked away a bit confused :S

michael999999

some of the posters need to get over themselves.this was a great movie.cant people enjoy something without having to disect and criticise every little detail

PirateShampoo

michael999999 wrote: »

some of the posters need to get over themselves.this was a great movie.cant people enjoy something without having to disect and criticise every little detail

So people who dont like the film are up them selves?

Just because its a Scorsese film, doesnt automatically make it awesome.

jaykhunter

michael999999 wrote: »

some of the posters need to get over themselves.this was a great movie.cant people enjoy something without having to disect and criticise every little detail

I do have to agree. But as with any opinion on the internet, ya gotta justify it. I think less time on the net = enjoying things more. Maybe that's why people usually make threads to give out lol. (not this board, but the internet in general)

baztard

I though the film was very well made, good acting, music, direction etc However the story line was not very original, which let what was otherwise a great film down.

I've seen to twist near the end of the film too many times before to make it seem shocking, or innovative or suprising. Its a different implementation of the same general plot as

The Others, The 6th Sense, and another film whose name I cant remember, where a mentally insane person in a prison (who I think is about to be put to death) recalls stories of someone commitiing some crime, who in the end turns out to be him (pretty much the exact same plot as Shutter Island)

I really enjoyed it right up until twist. but then its sheer lack of originality really dragged it down.

doncarlos

jaykhunter wrote: »

I think it's more

he finally accepted reality (i.e. he's not a cop anymore, his family is dead, he has nothing to live for)

That's what I thought too.

When he asks Chuck the question at the end and immediatly walks towards his fate, Chuck's expresion tells what the viewer is thinking that maybe the treatment worked after all but he has nothing to live for and is ready to be lobotimised

Overall an avarage enough film. Was really expecting

another twist at the end and was dissapointed when it didn't come.

jaykhunter

doncarlos wrote: »

That's what I thought too.

When he asks Chuck the question at the end and immediatly walks towards his fate, Chuck's expresion tells what the viewer is thinking that maybe the treatment worked after all but he has nothing to live for and is ready to be lobotimised

Overall an avarage enough film. Was really expecting

another twist at the end and was dissapointed when it didn't come.

cheers, me too, I was

waiting for the credits to roll before giving up on another twist...I was kinda hoping it all turned out that it was real :pac: