Shutter Island

Russinating · 31 Mar 2010 at 09:32

I only saw the trailer, I didn't read any reviews or hear anything about it otherwise. And so what, every film I've seen the trailer for is going to be rubbish? No. You seem to forget that a trailer is made of clips from the film, so if I worked out the twist from the trailer, I'd have worked it out from the film as well...

Also, just because I thought there may (note: MAY) have been a twist doesn't take away from the fact that the film was badly written in a way that constantly confirms and never unconfirms this. Like I said, Ben Kingsley spent 5 minutes explaining the plot of the film within the first 10 minutes! Now come on... you've got to agree that if you've even got a rough, vague, stab-in-the-dark idea in your head of the storyline then that's just a hook, line and sinker.

And at no point was anything written in to try and dispel my idea or make me doubt myself.

SexyGreyFox · 31 Mar 2010 at 17:39

Russinating said:
I only saw the trailer, I didn't read any reviews or hear anything about it otherwise. And so what, every film I've seen the trailer for is going to be rubbish?

I haven't got the slightest clue what you're on about.
You keep talking about rubbish :confused:

Do you think if you see a trailer the film is rubbish?
Or Shutter Island is rubbish because of a trailer?
Or if you see a trailer they're not rubbish?
What you on about and where did rubbish come into the equation when we're talking about twists?

Russinating · 31 Mar 2010 at 18:28

Ok. Let me break it down simply for you:

- I say the film's rubbish
- You say that's because I saw the trailer and so thought there may have been a twist
- I ask if seeing a trailer automatically denotes that the film will be rubbish

Obviously my last question was rhetorical as it's clearly not true: the fact that I saw the trailer is irrelevant to how good or bad the film was, yet you seem to be blaming the film's faults on the fact that I saw the trailer.

You can't deny that the entire film's premise was explained within the first 10 minutes by Ben Kingsley. If you've even the vaguest of ideas of how the film's going to pan out then that's just a spoon-feed. Bad, bad writing.

J86 · 31 Mar 2010 at 19:34

Most boring and obvious film I've ever seen...

SexyGreyFox · 31 Mar 2010 at 21:17

Russinating said:
- I say the film's rubbish

That is your opinion and you have every right to it

Russinating said:
- You say that's because I saw the trailer and so thought there may have been a twist

Where did you get that from?
I said if you knew about a twist before you watch a film then you will look for a twist.
Where's this rubbish bit come in?

Russinating said:
- I ask if seeing a trailer automatically denotes that the film will be rubbish

That would be silly

Russinating said:
Obviously my last question was rhetorical as it's clearly not true: the fact that I saw the trailer is irrelevant to how good or bad the film was, yet you seem to be blaming the film's faults on the fact that I saw the trailer.

Are you quoting the right person?
Nowhere have I said that you think the film is rubbish because you watched a trailer first.
Can you find where I said that because it would be very silly?

Amp34 · 31 Mar 2010 at 23:49

dmpoole said:
Which means that those who worked it out must have known there was a twist in the film.
Me on the other hand just watched it without knowing anything about it and as far as I was concerned it was 2 cops looking for a woman.

Not really, it was a pretty standard plot twist in films like that. Either he was being set up like the "partner" mentioned reasonably early on, or he was actually a patient fantisising he was more.

Having not seen the trailer or even knowing what the film was before I got to the cinema I still worked out it would be one of the two inside 20 or so minutes, then the "partner" mentioned one of them and that confused me.

Amp34 · 1 Apr 2010 at 00:02

Kenai said:
Spoilers:

For a good part of the film, I was expecting it to go the way of him being 'captured' and made to believe he was (or made to be) insane for a yet to be revealed motive, rather than the whole thing being an elaborate experiment to try and help an existing patient.

That was my initial thought too, however after the "partner" mentioned it it was obviously not going to be it. However you still get the lighthouse at the end, and empty rooms, which are supposed to be for sewage treatment from what I understand...

I went with my parents and sister and we came out with mixed opinions, some thinking he was sane and the others thinking he was always a patient, both using the last two lines to back up our point...

The one big thing that annoyed me was the music, it was way too loud and prominent in quite a bit of the film, tone it down a bit maybe!

player · 1 Apr 2010 at 00:50

fantastic film, so many hidden hints alluding to the final conclusion.

reiyushin · 1 Apr 2010 at 10:42

I'm very glad I didn't see any trailers for it

seems a stupid idea to put massive hints like that in the trailer...

Kenai · 1 Apr 2010 at 12:28

reiyushin said:
I'm very glad I didn't see any trailers for it

As am I, having watched them since, i'm in no doubt they'd have tarnished my enjoyment of the film as i'd have viewed it in a totally different manner.

Krowzer · 1 Apr 2010 at 21:47

Such a great film, even better is how it highlights the people that go and see it and say "yeah i got the twist well early". Theres hell of a lot more going on than just the clearer than day twist.

Russinating · 1 Apr 2010 at 23:09

dmpoole said:
*snip*

I give up.

Krowzer said:
Such a great film, even better is how it highlights the people that go and see it and say "yeah i got the twist well early". Theres hell of a lot more going on than just the clearer than day twist.

Please elaborate.

SexyGreyFox · 1 Apr 2010 at 23:17

Russinating said:
I give up.

So do I, you still haven't explained what all the 'rubbish' bit was about.
You must have been quoting somebody else :confused:

nydryl · 2 Apr 2010 at 00:00

dmpoole said:
Which means that those who worked it out must have known there was a twist in the film.
Me on the other hand just watched it without knowing anything about it and as far as I was concerned it was 2 cops looking for a woman.

Spot on. I struggle to believe that unless you know there is a twist that you would predict this one. Says a lot for avoiding film hype and just going along and seeing what happens - I certainly didn't guess the twist and wasn't looking for one, it spoils the fun.

Krowzer · 2 Apr 2010 at 00:17

Russinating said:
Please elaborate.

Okay, from the opinions i've heard and read there seems to be different ideas of what the twist is/was

A) The most simple one, he was crazy from the start and despite the treatment he still was.
B) Viewers understood the line in regards to being a monster (was cured but couldn't live with what had happened)
C) He was never insane at all and his partner was brain washed along with him (Chuck was brain washed into thinking he was a doctor) and the only people who werent under any influence was the main doctor and the woman in the cave.

Edit. Oh and, what are peoples views on the man in the cell being De Niro as an uncredited part?

atpbx · 2 Apr 2010 at 00:18

Russinating said:
Please elaborate.

It will be interesting what he comes out with.

What the film does is telegraphs whats going on right at the beginning, and then attempts to lead you quite away down two or three different paths to convince you that you have got it wrong.

I'll also say this, you dont need to look too deeply into it, in interviews with the books author the twist is the twist, its not up to interpretation, he is nuts, end of story.

Amp34 · 2 Apr 2010 at 02:38

Krowzer said:
Okay, from the opinions i've heard and read there seems to be different ideas of what the twist is/was

A) The most simple one, he was crazy from the start and despite the treatment he still was.
B) Viewers understood the line in regards to being a monster (was cured but couldn't live with what had happened)
C) He was never insane at all and his partner was brain washed along with him (Chuck was brain washed into thinking he was a doctor) and the only people who werent under any influence was the main doctor and the woman in the cave.

Edit. Oh and, what are peoples views on the man in the cell being De Niro as an uncredited part?

Why brainwash? That's a bit of a silly assumption. The most logical (and simplest) idea, if he was sane is that the partner was a plant. The partner was given the job of playing the deputy marshall, and when you think about the conspiracy theory it would be a pretty easy plant, with apparently the OSS/government involved.

Pestilence · 2 Apr 2010 at 03:58

Krowzer said:
B) Viewers understood the line in regards to being a monster (was cured but couldn't live with what had happened)

That's the true storyline and the factor that, in the end, adds the "tragedy" angle that makes a truly great story in literate construction terms.

In the end, their treatment worked. He broke through and realised what he had done, but couldn't live with it. He'd rather be lobotomised.

Goodie · 2 Apr 2010 at 07:55

Krowzer said:
Edit. Oh and, what are peoples views on the man in the cell being De Niro as an uncredited part?

Is that the characteras discussed in this thread? http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/186833563/p1/ Someone indicates its someone else?

SexyGreyFox · 2 Apr 2010 at 08:58

atpbx said:
I'll also say this, you dont need to look too deeply into it, in interviews with the books author the twist is the twist, its not up to interpretation, he is nuts, end of story.

But aren't there plenty of debates on here about films that have been altered from the book and that's why most **** the films off?
Just throwing something in.