Spoil Shutter Island for me (or more precisely: don't) [SPOILERS LIKELY]

This is going to be a bit of a strange question, because I want to go see Shutter Island when it comes out here in Belgium, and I don’t want to know how it ends, except in one particular case, which I’ll explain.

Upon reading the description on IMDb and watching the trailer, I can’t escape the feeling that this is a “twist ending” sort of thriller, the twist being (all too predictably) that the DiCaprio character will turn out to have been an inmate at the asylum all along. (“There are 66 inmates here currently, are there not? Who is number 67?”) Since I’m profoundly tired of this particular twist, I’d like to ask anyone who’s already seen it (or read the book): if it does turn out the way I fear it does, please tell me; if it doesn’t, just say that it doesnt, but please don’t spoil the movie for me. I hope this makes sense.

Thanks! :slight_smile:

You are right (as long as the film follows the storyline of the book, which I read a couple of weeks ago and felt like throwing against the wall upon finishing it).

It’s from Martin Scorcese.

Is it a horror movie like the commercials seem to indicate?

It’s funny - I asked almost the same question with the same worry yesterday:

Oh dear god no. Thanks for the info.

Funny, I did a search and everything. Curse my searchability!

God I wish I’d read this thread. I just came out of the theater. Yech.

Well, no. The book is more a mystery, with some elements of spooky.

I got bored with the movie and knew nothing about it going in 'cept for a scary looking commercial (and I thought it would be more of a horror flick too). Once the “twist” was revealed I wanted to bark at the screen. But, I’m curious about one part, we found the 67 part, but what was the “Rule of 4”?

We just saw it and liked it.
To answer the OP - you are, well, sort of right, but not exactly - there is a bit of a twist to the twist in the very last line of dialogue.

And why is the “Rule of 4” missing in the preview trailer too?

Dammit! I was hoping for much more than some M. Knight Shama-lama-ding-dong ending.

I knew that was the case when he found the “Rule of 4, who is 67?” note. But I thought the band-aid he wore on the side of his forehead would be covering a frontal lobotomy entrance wound. I’m still not sure about the last line in the movie or the significance of the final shot.

Holy cow, you’re right. They should have dropped the “Rule of 4” bit totally, because (IIRC) they never explained it.

“I’m still not sure about the last line in the movie or the significance of the final shot.”

I actually liked this movie…didn’t see the ending coming, and thought the “reveal” was handled well, they took some time with it. What made it even more (twisty? dark) was the line at the end. “would you rather live as a monster or die as a good man” meant that he KNEW who he was at that point, but chose to get LB’ized because he didn’t want to live with the memory anymore.

Yes they did. The doctor had a whiteboard with a spotlight to explain it. The rule of 4 were the 4 names. Andrew became Edward and Delores became Rachel. I’m not sure how you missed that because it was at the very beginning of his whole explanation and sort of the whole key to the movie.

:smack: I remember the four names of course (Teddy Daniels/Edward Laeddis, etc.), but was attention drawn to the fact that this is what the “rule of 4” referred to? Or did those of you who are smarter than me just figure it out? :stuck_out_tongue:

Did anyone notice that when the woman who axed her husband drank water she didn’t have a cup in her hand?

YES!!! I thought I noticed that too but then when it cut to another angle after she takes the drink from a missing cup, she has the cup again and sets it down. Weird!

The doctor said “The rule of 4, Teddy” when he was pointing at the names.

There were many moments like that. They look like editing mistakes, but they’re not (I’m sure Scorsese has made mistakes in his films, but not those kind). They were just moments when Teddy had a break with reality. When she sets down the glass it’s empty. When Teddy looks at the glass again, it’s half full.

My sister and I thought that the Laeddis in Teddy’s dream bore an uncanny resemblance to DeNiro–specifically DeNiro as the Creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Did anybody else notice that?