MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
It appeared on many gates and entrances of those camps, but Dachau's version looks different than what was shown in the movie. I think the movie's version is actually from Auschwitz.
(Not sure, and can't be bothered to research it... just a quick glance at wikipedia and some other pages)
Isn't the ending more like the opposite of a COP-OUT? This movie starts with a COP-IN, but then the COP is destroyed and the OUT never happens.
It's more like 'COP-IN, CRAZY PSYCHO EVEN FURTHER IN' rather than COP-OUT.
Yes, I know what you mean, but I was thinking of the ending of 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' (although its in-movie title is 'Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail', so which is correct?), that is said to be a "literal cop-out"..
By the way, if you need ODDS to be right, to be right, chances are, you are not right.
There's so much filler, silence, non-dialogue, stupid, prolonged 'dream-sequences', and other things that do not add anything to the story or explain anything that could easily be left out.
This movie has about 30 minutes worth of story, if that. It's just full of 'twist-movie-clichés' that make no sense. I guess people that make these movies think that because there's a twist, they can throw ANY old nonsense anywhere in the movie and create a dozen unresolved mysteries and it'll be a sign of genius and brilliance, when all it really is is lazy writing.
It's like Seinfeld.. why didn't the woman eat the pie? Why did the other woman always wear the same shirt? Why did the yet other woman never get any calls or have any social life although she was pretty and fun to be with... don't know, because it's not explained. It's just easier to write a mystery and go home than write a mystery, write plausible explanation for it, then resolve it in an interesting way.
This movie is filled with the Seinfeld-syndrome.. it's ridiculous that people debate about this or that theory, that just means the movie failed to GIVE you a story you can accept and that makes sense with what's shown.
This movie wouldn't even be a passable Twilight Zone or Outer Limits-episode, it'd probably be too long even if it was cut down to 30 minutes, because there's not much story here.
"dopped up or labotomized"
This makes sense. People stupid or crazy enough to try to make sense out of a nonsensical movie aren't intelligent enough to write two simple words correctly.
That's "doped", not "dopped", and it's "lobotomized", not "labotomized".
I mean, 'labotomized' sounds like someone working in a laboratory, does it not?
"..Cawley snaps at him, saying things that apply to Laeddis but not Teddy. "
The movie doesn't tell or even show us this. Snaps? He's talking peacefully and casually, while smoking a pipe. This is not what 'snapping' looks like. Are you on something stronger than tobacco?
Also, how does it apply to EITHER 'characters' that he came to the island alone? The shrink was with him in EITHER case, so this doesn't apply to anyone. It's pure lying or gaslighting, and I don't get why he would do this unless this movie is as badly-written as I think it is.
"If it's a giant roleplay then why did they tell Teddy that " what partner? You came here alone.." wouldn't they have continued with the role that Chuck was his partner?"
I noticed this earlier as well, but I chalked it up to "this movie makes no sense because it's lazily written and not thought-out almost at all, because it's based on a twist and nothing more", instead of any proof about it not being a 'giant roleplay', as you worded it.
It can still be a 'giant roleplay', it just means the quack character is badly written or crazy himself.
"First, Teddy/Andrew was not in denial of the existence of his wife...just his children. So, no need to show him a photo of his wife as he accepted her existence in both of his personalities. Second, he also accepted his wife was dead in both personalities so this was not something he needed to move past. He had dealt with the death of his wife so there was no need or point in showing him a photo of her.
"
You didn't answer the question at all, you created a strawman and then explained that to bits.
The original question wasn't about Leo believing the wife existed or died. The question had to do about _HOW_ she died. She didn't die in a fire, as Leo believes, but she was SHOT by Leo. Showing her unburned body with a bullet wound and blood from the police records, would've been convincing evidence about her dying _DIFFERENTLY_ than what Leo thinks.
Way to go, you constructed a long-winded explanation about a completely different question than the one you are supposedly responding to. Maybe YOU are suffering from a similar condition as Leo in the movie..
That was another unrealistic movie that took so many artistic liberties, it makes your head spin - it's a lot like making Marie Curie look beautiful, ravishing and have a cute nose, when in reality, she looked like a manboob monster that escaped from the Black Swamp of Horrors.
Almost none of the story happened the way the movie depicts, and hallucinations of people are not quite like that, and so on, but whatever. It's also a pointless movie, because it's ALSO based on a ridiculous twist, or 'twist' that leads nowhere.
I do agree that the WAY they displayed the psychosis was more INTENSE, almost explosive, and sort of 'convincing-while-having-an-eerie-quality-about-them'. I mean, when they suddenly bust in the door and take him to the radio and whatnot, it's so jarring, but yet believable, and at the same time, it feels very OFF in a really spooky way.
I grant you that THAT is very well done in that movie, and THIS movie could have used some of that, but all this movie has is strobo lights and over-exposure and lots of slowly flying papers and other crap in the air, because that is what visions, dreams, memories, trauma look like.... NOT.
Why can't movies just be what they appear to be? Why can't a movie tell EXACTLY the story it actually tells us? Just because it's convoluted, full of plot and other holes, makes no sense and has a stupid twist at the end?
Why do people think they can endlessly change and twist and post-create the story of an already told story of some movie? I don't care if it has unreliable narrator, memory problems, unexplained scenes or an idiotic twist at the end; a movie tells us the story it tells us, end of story. Why do you have to try to change it to fit YOUR preferences?
If you don't like some movie, just watch something else instead of vomiting your mindflow onto an innocent discussion board, thinking you are brilliantly explosing the mysteries of the movie by changing its ACTUAL story completely.
That's what I do.. this movie sucks, so I rather watch something else.
Just let it be what it has written to be and move on. There's no need for THEORIES, movies are not some kind of philosophical free-for-all you can customize to your liking.
If a movie requires 800 kitchen-psychologist ape kids to write convoluted THEORIES about all day long, it's a badly and lazily written movie.
This certainly qualifies.. what does 'Shutter' even mean in this movie's title? The Island is pretty self-explanatory, but the shutter? Why is it called the 'Shutter Island'? Because it shuts down any logic and common sense?
Try to disprove THAT theory while you are at it. My theory is just as valid as anyone's.
That makes no sense; why is the shrink his partner, then? Why would his gun suddenly transform to a toy gun without him noticing? Why would he be able to see and hear his gun being shot, if it's a toy gun?
Why would he see that woman in the cave, since she's not real? What's with the migraines and bright lights, if he was right 'the whole time'?
Why would they treat him so kindly and let him do all that without trying to stop him, if he's right all the time? Why wouldn't they just put him in the ferry and tell him he's banned from the island, if he's an actual cop? Wouldn't there BE those 'brain operations' going on in the lighthouse, if he's right? How come the 'partner that fell to his death' is still alive in the end, if he's right?
Try again.. or rather, don't. This movie doesn't deserve it, it's just a cheap, failed copy of Memento, which isn't that brilliant to begin with.
Why?
Wouldn't the importance of clothing in _THAT_ particular place and situation override any RUSH they might have or feel? I mean, they're basically in a mental institution that's located completely ISOLATED from the rest of the world. Anyone suddenly treating them as patients would be the worst thing that could ever happen to them.
Wearing the detective clothes would also let them psychologically feel like they're not only different from people on the island, but also that they're in authority and superior to the others, which would bring confidence and so on.
I would like to know what kind of 'hurry' can trump all this...so please elaborate.
This is the reason I hate these 'theory movies with a twist', because they CONTRADICT themselves so you can't ever create a coherent story out of it even if you try (and the filmmakers surely didn't even try), so you can never, as a viewer, get satisfaction as to what really happened.
These movies give you 'alternative paths' to what COULD have happened, until no one can ever say for sure what happened and what didn't. Whatever someone says is always contradicted by something in the movie. That Leo REALLY was a cop is contradicted by the shrink's behaviour, dialogue and other people's behaviour around him that would ONLY make sense if he really IS the shrink, not any 'partner'.
It is also very stupid that Leo's character doesn't remember boarding the ferry with this unknown partner, and only 'meets him with his head in the toilet', as the dialogue goes (sort of).
If it was real, surely Leo would remember this 'partner' from before, and not have to be introduced JUST before they arrive, none of this makes any sense from any perspective.
It's just lazy writing to create a 'premise', 'twist' and then incoherently just schlap something inbetween and call it a day, then the audiences can debate about the movie forever and there IS no truth.
At least Memento was more coherent, though people still fell for the temptation of 'unreliable narrator means ANYTHING I imagine is right'. Sigh.
What's the point of a movie that doesn't take a CLEAR STAND on what actually happened, or explain any of its weirdness and mysteries? It's like weird things are thrown in just for the sake of terrifying the viewer, regardless of if it makes sense or not.
How could the doctor deny his partner anyway, when he's clearly real? Why would he suddenly deny his existence and CLAIM that Leo arrived alone? What? Wasn't the whole plan that the shrink PLAYS his partner, and they indeed arrive together? Wouldn't the dialogue of the guards be VERY different if it was just him? I hate this..
The right thing to do would have been something like this:
1) Apprehend your wife, tell her she's under arrest, cuff her, tie her, maybe sedate her if possible.
2) Call the authorities, tell what happened.
3) Watch justice take place.
4) Feel no guilt about what YOU did, no matter how much you grief for the people that the psychotic hag set free in a cruel way - those 'children' are now just regular adults living a good life in the astral side, and will probably soon incarnate again to some other family, nothing is really lost per se.
5) Meditate and possibly meet those 'children' entities in your dreams, where they can tell you they are fine, everything is OK and after your body dies, you can all meet in the most happy way.
6) Realize what burden wife (even if not more psychotic than casually accepted in this world usually) and kids would be, and how much more free you are as a single guy that can now do whatever he wants in his life, how much more money you will now have, how much more time for your self and hobbies you now have, how much more you can create, achieve and accomplish in life, and how much more sex you can now have (whether in your imagination or learning to be a PUA - after all, you have all the time in the world now)..
Also, how many choices for different jobs you now have, that you don't HAVE to work very hard to support a family, you need MUCH LESS money, so you can take easier, smaller jobs that don't pay as well, but offer more freedom and free time, and so on and so forth.
In the end, doing the _RIGHT_ thing would be WIN-WIN-WIN, but doing the WRONG thing (murder is always wrong, regardless of what the 'legal system' says about it - murder is UNLAWFUL, not just illegal (there are 'legal' murders, but never, EVER a 'lawful murder').
The moral is, don't murder, let the authorities handle a psycho. ALL problems solved. Anything that happens to you after you decide to push that trigger is your own damn fault,you SHOULD be lobotomized!
To add, WHAT kind of programmer-hacker EATS AT A RESTAURANT VERY OFTEN?
"I USED to eat there" means it was not just some special occasion that happened rarely, but a thing that happened A LOT, and so consistently, he can refer to it as 'used to eat'.
This makes no sense.. noodles would make sense, but not in a damn restaurant, a programmer-hacker has BETTER things to do and occupy his mind (he's even shown to SLEEP at his computer!) than FREQUENT a restaurant, noodles or otherwise! Programmers and hackers do not generally waste their time in 'fine dining' (and if they did, they wouldn't order NOODLES in a restaurant!).
The whole point of noodles is that they're cheap, easy and fast to cook, so it's IDEAL for people that just want a quick, cheap meal without having to bother too much about thinking about eating or planning meals.
This restaurant-thing MAKES NO SENSE from this point of view, either. What the heck were they thinking?
I wouldn't mind if someone said young Abe Natsumi is HOT (though she really isn't, she's just 'cute', but only when she's smiling, and even then, the smile has some kind of esoteric 'deep-friendly'-quality that's hard to explain, it has a deep effect, and it's not just the visuals of the smile, there's something weird in there).
I wouldn't mind if someone said that about relatively young versions of: Maeda Atsuko, Dana Wheeler-Nicholson, Vanessa Marquez, Laura San Giacomo, Glynis Barber, Christina Applegate, Francesca Gonshaw, Cynthia Rhodes, Victoria Principal, Hiep Thi Le, Joey Wong, or even Fran Drescher, Jane Seymour or Mila Kunis, Catherite Zeta-Jones or EVEN Gabrielle Glaister (she's a Leo, just like Mila Kunis, so they both have an extra 'glow' about them).
Heck, I would be silent even if you said it about things like young Charlene Tilton, Alicia Silverstone or Debra Messing (another Leo-effect)!
But the hags people USUALLY say this about, are NOWHERE NEAR the charm or 'interesting-face' or 'interesting Leo-effect' of the women on this small list. It's always some repulsive man-face with a dull, ugly, bulgy-eyed face or masculine qualities.
Are these people secretly gay, when no one ever says this about Claudia Wells, but numerous morons say this about the 'Alien' hag that should have BEEN one of the aliens (or one of the ghosts in 'Ghostbusters')?
I don't get it.. I just don't get it, and it makes me lose all hope for any humanity that could've existd on this planet. These posts make it clear no such thing has existed on this wretched mudrock for aeons.
Aren't there ANY other terms people could be used? Why is it always that word, and why is it almost always capitalized, and is it REALLY supposed to mean something, when your pénis types for you, and you don't even think to be ashamed of how embarrassing your ridiculously short and meaningless post is?
You type: "[This ugly hag] is HOT" and think you have contributed something meaningful to the vast Universe, the size of which you are not even capable of comprehending?
Is that how it works? I could write that about so many women, but do you see me writing that kind of tiny post? These boards are meant for DISCUSSION, why do people write these ridiculous, minuscule non-posts anyway? It's like they're not even being human beings, they let their animal side control what they do in life. They connect to the internet, the miracle of modern network communications, that enables them to express their most interesting thoughts for everyone to see, and ALL they can think of is how some ugly hag made their balls tingle?
REALLY?
What the hell is wrong with people.. the abundance of these non-posts is actually scary, because it tells me there are SO many people that are not being human beings, or more importantly, are not CAPABLE of probably ever being human beings..
Could people like this just keep their horniness inside of them? WHY do they think we want or need to hear about it or know it? What's the point of just saying 'someone is hot'? What does that generate, what purpose does it create? What sort of contemplative contribution does it add to the world's philosophical archives?
PLEASE think before you post "[This ugly hag] is hot". Sorry, meant to say, "[This ugly hag] is HOT!"
First, she's not. You are just horny.
Second, expand your mind and visuals enough, and you'll realize she's actually pretty ugly.
Third, if you must say something this stupid and simpy, AT LEAST choose the right women to talk about. I wouldn't mind if someone said Claudia Wells is HOT.
To add to what I said earlier, the problem with this movie is that it's UNEVEN.
It's very, very uneven. There is some absurd hilarity that spoofs horror movies and mocks the tropes, and the 'tiny-handed handyman' is usually absolutely ball-bouncingly funny. The only place where 'gross' is funny (it usually fails), is when the handyman is serving the dinner, I can't watch that without laughing even nowadays. How gross it is, IS so darn funny.
If the whole movie was funny on the level of THAT scene, this could be the best of all of them and rival Airplane!.
But there's so much 'almost-funny' stuff and that horrible hag that wasn't meant to be seen on ANY screen - not TV, let alone a movie screen - just takes the cake. She is the living embodiment of how ugly nepotism really can be. Her face looks exactly like the face of nepotism would, if it had a face.
I can't believe some horny kid has written the typical movie board "[This ugly or plain hag] is HOT"-type post about _HER_.
Really? She's even uglier than the most ugly hollyweird hags of all time, from the Shining hag to Rocky's wife to Sickhorny Fever that some people, for some reason, still seem to find 'tolerable-looking' despite her horrible manface and manvoice and awful hair and features. Didn't you see her in 'Alien'? Have you ever seen a young, asian beauty?
Go visit Asia and look at the women there, THEN come back and tell me she or Face-of-Nepotism are somehow "HOT"! I bet 100 bucks you can't do it (at least if you are honest).
The only reason for this really weird phenomenon, besides some idiotic teenage hormones that I can think of, is that american people see 'typical american wide loads' every day, so when they see someone that's not MORBIDLY JABBA-THE-HUTT-LEVEL-OBESE-AND-SLIMY (I think George Carlin was WAY too kind when he was describing americans and their ugly bodies), it SEEMS somehow attractive by contrast.
I also hate that people use the word 'HOT' every time (capitalized, too).
They were never in a hotel.
They were in INNs and MOTELs.
They didn't eat any toast. I am not sure if they even made a toast.