Shutter Island - Spoilers out on the table

Don't cry about spoilers in this thread.

I watched Shutter Island on Saturday and some people (mykevermin) are hating on it by calling it predictable.

Really?

Let's go with the standard interpretation: Edward Daniels is invited to Shutter Island to find a missing patient. The missing patient turns up on her own. Edward reveals to his partner that he is hunting his wife's murderer, Andrew Laeddes (sp?), and to investigate all of the money being pumped into this island by the government. Everything climaxes in a lighthouse where the director of the asylum claims that Edward is a figment of Andrew's imagination. His new partner is revealed to be his physician. Andrew's psychotic break was explained by his murder of his wife after she drowned their three children. He is given the ultimatum of accepting the role of a monster, Andrew, or remain as Edward and be lobotomized. At the end of the movie, Andrew embraces Edward as his identity and is shuffled off to be lobotomized.

Is the standard interpretation correct? I don't know. I say it is a coin toss.

Here's my alternate interpretation after watching the movie ONCE. Edward Daniels traveled to Shutter Island under the pretense of locating a missing patient. While there, he revealed to his partner, a government plant, that his mission was to expose government testing on mental patients. While there, he was exposed to mind altering drugs and committed. At the end of the movie, Edward refuses to accept the identity of Andrew and is shuffled off to be lobotomized.

The end of the movie is pretty damn clear, it's just predictable garbage. I hate that it is, because i love most of Scorsese's movies, but that was just bad. I called it before i even went to see the damn movie, that's pretty bad.

[quote name='JolietJake']The end of the movie is pretty damn clear, it's just predictable garbage. I hate that it is, because i love most of Scorsese's movies, but that was just bad. I called it before i even went to see the damn movie, that's pretty bad.[/QUOTE]

What makes, I presume, the standard interpretation clear to you?

I don't think anyone can shit on Scorcese's work considering the movie is based on a book. I haven't read it yet, but I'm pretty sure you can only do so much with the source material.

Assuming the standard interpretation is correct, here are a few anomalies in no particular order.

First, why would the warden have such a grim conversation with Edward?

Second, why would Andrew be left loose in Ward C?

Third, why tell Andrew that staff has consulted for a bunch of military agencies?

Fourth, why would they lobotomize Andrew when they clearly knew he was faking it as Edward?

Fifth, why would the "crazy" lady write "RUN"?

Sixth, why the closing shot of the lighthouse if they didn't perform lobotomies there?

Seventh, why bounce the wedding ring in and out?

Eighth, why have the old German shrink present at all?

...

As an aside, MK Ultra did happen during this time period.

I'm sure there is more, but I only watched the movie once.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Assuming the standard interpretation is correct, here are a few anomalies in no particular order.

First, why would the warden have such a grim conversation with Edward?

Second, why would Andrew be left loose in Ward C?

Third, why tell Andrew that staff has consulted for a bunch of military agencies?

Fourth, why would they lobotomize Andrew when they clearly knew he was faking it as Edward?

Fifth, why would the "crazy" lady write "RUN"?

Sixth, why the closing shot of the lighthouse if they didn't perform lobotomies there?

Seventh, why bounce the wedding ring in and out?

Eighth, why have the old German shrink present at all?

...

As an aside, MK Ultra did happen during this time period.

I'm sure there is more, but I only watched the movie once.[/QUOTE]

I think the ending was pretty clear. He didn't relapse or anything. He just realized how shitty his life was and he didn't want to live like that. So he pretended to relapse. This was obvious by his last line.

Responses to some of your questions:

4. I don't know if it was clear to them. It was very clear to the audience, but not so much to them.

5. She knew who he was, a patient just like her. Why the not tell him to run?

6. Hmm. Good question.

7. Didn't notice this. Hmm.

The clearest ending just might be trolling if some of your points are valid.

The main thing that keeps me leaning towards the standard interpretation is Kingsley and Ruffalo. They seem guilty and disappointed they have to give Andrew the ole brain hook.
Then again, maybe they get a smaller bonus if their ghosts can't blend into society.

I have a feeling this movie's plotline, especially the ending, is going to confuse me like Basic Instinct did eons ago.

He was crazy the entire time. Dr. Cawley didn't believe in lobotomizes, so he put on this drastic role-play to quickly cure Andrew. At the end it worked, but Andrew didn't want to live knowing what he had done (or hadn't done - get his wife help). He made a conscious choice to play pretend (kinda like his wife) and go out as Teddy.

- He feels uncomfortable with the water when he came on the ferry.
- The guards are feel tense and worried with what's taking place; the role-play.
- Andrew has no problem giving up his game whereas "Chuck" (the doctor) has trouble getting it out.
- There is water and blood running down Dolores's front in the first flashback or hallucination he has, when she disintegrates he is left soaking wet - notice the water theme.
- The photo of his daughter Dr. Cawley showed Andrew at the end was the same girl from his hallucinations. There's pretty much no logical way to explain how the doctor could fabricate that since the only time we see the little girl is in Andrew's mind.

I'm sure if I were to watch the movie again, I could notice other clues.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Assuming the standard interpretation is correct, here are a few anomalies in no particular order.

First, why would the warden have such a grim conversation with Edward?

Second, why would Andrew be left loose in Ward C?

Third, why tell Andrew that staff has consulted for a bunch of military agencies?

Fourth, why would they lobotomize Andrew when they clearly knew he was faking it as Edward?

Fifth, why would the "crazy" lady write "RUN"?

Sixth, why the closing shot of the lighthouse if they didn't perform lobotomies there?

Seventh, why bounce the wedding ring in and out?

Eighth, why have the old German shrink present at all?

...

As an aside, MK Ultra did happen during this time period.

I'm sure there is more, but I only watched the movie once.[/QUOTE]

1. Edward? If you mean with Andrew and when he picks him up on his jeep, he was practically daring Andrew to come to the realization that he was insane. I don't think he really gave a crap about the role-play and he just wanted to mess with him; most wardens are supposedly douchebags.
2. Part of the role-play.
3. Not really relevant.
4. Teddy, not Edward. He wasn't clear, he faked being Teddy in front of the doctor (Chuck) on the steps, he signaled over to Dr. Cawley that the experiment failed, here comes the lobotomy committee. It was the 1950s, lobotomizes did take place, but Dr. Cawley was against them, like I said earlier, and wanted to cure patients by other means.
5. Like Dead of Knight said, why shouldn't she? She knew he was part of the experiment. I guess you could also think they told her to write it to further the role-play and have Teddy believing there was a conspiracy going on. You could also think maybe he wrote it himself.
6. They (more importantly, us - the viewers) came in from the mist having no clue what the situation was. We left with seeing the lighthouse (which I associate with being found); finding out that Andrew was insane. So my take on it was just Scorsese using symbolism.
7. I don't know remember anything with a wedding ring.
8. I believed he believed in lobotomies whereas Dr. Cawley didn't. I guess it also fed us to believe that a government conspiracy could be going on and Teddy wasn't crazy.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL']- He feels uncomfortable with the water when he came on the ferry.
- The guards are feel tense and worried with what's taking place; the role-play.
- Andrew has no problem giving up his game whereas "Chuck" (the doctor) has trouble getting it out.
- There is water and blood running down Dolores's front in the first flashback or hallucination he has, when she disintegrates he is left soaking wet - notice the water theme.
- The photo of his daughter Dr. Cawley showed Andrew at the end was the same girl from his hallucinations. There's pretty much no logical way to explain how the doctor could fabricate that since the only time we see the little girl is in Andrew's mind.[/QUOTE]

He was seasick. That isn't a sign of insanity.
The guards work in a place where many are insane and violent. There is an escaped patient and they're standing at the only real exit.
In the standard interpretation, Chuck is a doctor with no gun experience. In an alternate interpretation, Chuck isn't necessarily somebody with gun experience. If he is "in" on the conspiracy, he could be an actor or some government stooge who usually flies a desk. Also, why wouldn't Edward/Andrew notice his gun made out of steel is light plastic?
Dreams are horribly subjective. If he is being drugged, they're even less reliable.
I think I'm forgetting a family photo. If there wasn't a family photo, then the only photos were crime scenes photos Edward/Andrew could very well have seen before boarding the boat.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL']1. most wardens are supposedly douchebags.[/QUOTE]
Why have him pick up Edward/Andrew? Cawley/Kingsley had no problem confronting him alone in the lighthouse.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] 2. Part of the role-play.[/QUOTE]
Ehh... Leaving him alone is akin to letting an audience member walk around backstage during the performance.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] 3. Not really relevant.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is. If the institute could claim no connections to MK Ultra, it would strain Edward/Andrew's conspiracy theory.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] 4. Teddy, not Edward. He wasn't clear, he faked being Teddy in front of the doctor (Chuck) on the steps, he signaled over to Dr. Cawley that the experiment failed, here comes the lobotomy committee. It was the 1950s, lobotomizes did take place, but Dr. Cawley was against them, like I said earlier, and wanted to cure patients by other means.[/QUOTE]
I just don't think the doctors are that dense. They have to deal with patients who fake lots of things. As far as Teddy, it is an alternate way of saying Edward such as Bob for Robert or Bill for William. (IE. Ted Kennedy)

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] 5. Like Dead of Knight said, why shouldn't she? She knew he was part of the experiment. I guess you could also think they told her to write it to further the role-play and have Teddy believing there was a conspiracy going on. You could also think maybe he wrote it himself.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that shot of his notebook requires a second or third look. If the handwriting was the same, it would indicate Edward/Andrew wrote it. Also, it could be compared with the "Who is 67?" note.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] 7. I don't know remember anything with a wedding ring.[/QUOTE] It bounced in and out. After "Chuck" asked if he has a girl, Edward/Andrew is wearing a wedding ring. A shot later, it isn't there. During the confrontation, he is wearing a wedding ring. There was enough going on during the movie that I didn't keep track of when he was and wasn't wearing it.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] 8. I believed he believed in lobotomies whereas Dr. Cawley didn't. I guess it also fed us to believe that a government conspiracy could be going on and Teddy wasn't crazy.[/QUOTE]
I could see the old German doctor as an observer to verify Cawley's results. Then again, there was very little need for him to try to sedate Edward/Andrew.

Let me clear one thing up. The book was predictable (not the movie) because about 50 pages in, I got a premonition that Teddy Daniels was patient #67. That is *not* to say that the "you're role-playing to confront your trauma" was predictable; I kinda picked up on the "you've been here the entire time" thread about halfway through the book.

But what was predictable was the book's heavy-handed suggestion that Teddy went to Achecliffe for a reason - the murder (his wife's as his motivator, I mean) didn't wash with me.

Worse yet, the first time I got the premonition about what was going on, I thought "wait - what was the preface of this book all about again?" And it was a note from an elderly Dr. Sheehan, mid-90's, writing about Ashecliffe, about Laeddis and Solando, and about Teddy. Something struck me about the final two lines of the preface which went something like (working from memory here):

"Teddy?

He would have clapped."

And after seeing that line I just knew that Teddy was going to be a patient. I didn't really figure out all the small stuff ahead of time (Teddy and Rachel were manufactured by Andrew's mind; he killed his wife himself; etc.) though. Once the big reveal happened in the book (Teddy shot Cawley with a watergun), I was devastated. But to be honest, the denoument of the book wasn't half bad when you consider the material they had to work with.

I'd agree with foc that there's a boatload of deus ex machinas at work to hold the plot together once they reveal that Teddy's in a big role-play.

I think what was most disappointing was that this plot twist struck me as some kind of hackneyed M. Night Shyamalan nonsense - not the domain of Scorcese.

I still wanna see the movie, to be fair. But I'm a Scorcese fanboy for sure.

Boo! Why watch a movie after reading a book the movie is based on?

It was less than satisfying to read the book after the movie, like I did with Robocop 2. - or was it 3? Whichever one was centered around a drug called "nuke," I think.

Evidence that it was roleplaying from the beginning: Chuck didn't know how to take out his gun and hand it to the security people. That's pretty sad for a federal marshal.

[quote name='gregthomas77']Evidence that it was roleplaying from the beginning: Chuck didn't know how to take out his gun and hand it to the security people. That's pretty sad for a federal marshal.[/QUOTE]

There is no requirement for Chuck to be a federal marshal.

In we're going to stick to that scene, why wouldn't a "legendary" federal marshal notice his gun was made of plastic?

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']There is no requirement for Chuck to be a federal marshal.

In we're going to stick to that scene, why wouldn't a "legendary" federal marshal notice his gun was made of plastic?[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

I'm not going to argue trying to convince the OP anymore after this post. It was clear as day he was insane and everything I said shows it. Your basing your info of a lot of illogical sense that the movie never provides.

- He never said he was seasick. He said something along the lines of him not liking water.
- The guards were tense because he was the patient lose on the island; Rachel never existed. Why would they tense up with two Federal Marshals just arrived on the island to help with the "case?"
- The gun could've been real in the first scene but with no bullets or else he should've noticed it.
- The first hallucination/flashback/dream, there is blood on the front of Dolores, where Andrew shot her. She is also soaking wet, coming out of the lake. This was the FIRST hallucination, before we knew anything about Andrew's wife.
- Family photo? Crime photos? Now that's stretching it. There is no evidence of that.

Believe what you want, but your wrong. The book ends with him being insane and from what people who have seen the movie and read the book, they've said it's practically a word-for-word adaption.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL']I'm not going to argue trying to convince the OP anymore after this post. It was clear as day he was insane and everything I said shows it. Your basing your info of a lot of illogical sense that the movie never provides.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you have to make some logical assumptions in a movie. What was the day before the movie like for the main character? Was he being put on a boat headed for the mainland to turn around and head for the island? Did he wake up in his home and drive or walk to the docks?

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL']
- He never said he was seasick. He said something along the lines of him not liking water. [/QUOTE]

He is on a boat and vomiting. http://www.medicinenet.com/motion_sickness/page2.htm#2whatare
OK. He had motion sickness.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL']
- The guards were tense because he was the patient lose on the island; Rachel never existed. Why would they tense up with two Federal Marshals just arrived on the island to help with the "case?" [/QUOTE]

I don't know. I'll need to see this again.
Feds and local cops butt heads. Why would they tense up with one patient clearly within dozens of gun sights packing a water pistol?

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] - The gun could've been real in the first scene but with no bullets or else he should've noticed it. [/QUOTE]

So, we agree on a fuzzy point.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] - The first hallucination/flashback/dream, there is blood on the front of Dolores, where Andrew shot her. She is also soaking wet, coming out of the lake. This was the FIRST hallucination, before we knew anything about Andrew's wife.
- Family photo? Crime photos? Now that's stretching it. There is no evidence of that.[/QUOTE]

Correct. Before we knew anything about Andrew's wife. If the prison was a trap to brainwash him, they would know everything about him before he stepped foot on the island. Making that large assumption, the people brainwashing Andrew/Edward would have everything planned out on how to break him. Brainwashing isn't done on the fly.

The three pictures of "Andrew's" dead kids were there. He was confronted with them in the lighthouse. I can't remember if there was a family photo or not. If there was, that leans things closer to Andrew than Edward since Photoshop was nonexistent.

[quote name='oNeWiNgEdAnGeL'] Believe what you want, but your wrong. The book ends with him being insane and from what people who have seen the movie and read the book, they've said it's practically a word-for-word adaption.[/QUOTE]

The movie didn't have a preface from Dr. Sheehan. From what I understand, there are multiple references to unique markings on Andrew/Edward's gun in the book. However, the movie only mentions it only once. By then, Andrew/Edward is pretty far gone.

Foc, I prefer your Alternate interpretation. I want to see a 'retcon' version, a la George Lucas and his edits.

FoC, it pretty much sounds like you are grasping at straws to make what you believe would be a better ending make sense. OneWingedAngel is undoubtedly right, he was crazy the whole time. It was a giant role-play. The end.

Good movie though, honestly. I feel like it's getting some unwarranted hate because people are upset that it wasn't a giant conspiracy. Admittedly, about a quarter of the way through the movie I was getting the vibe that he was a patient the whole time, but it was very interesting to watch it all play out. I really dug it.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What makes, I presume, the standard interpretation clear to you?[/QUOTE]
There was nothing left open to interpretation. He obviously still thought he was a US Marshall and his "partner" obviously was his doctor. They were taking him to be lobotomized. If you think he was sane and the whole place was some sort of government installation, thats just you wishing the movie had a better ending.

Of course they were guilty about having to lobotomize him, i'm sure they had hoped they wouldn't have to remove part of the guy's brain.

Part of me wonders if the cinematography (again, haven't seen it yet) brings you back and forth between reality and Andrew's delusion (conveniently long enough to withold the twist from you).

So the plastic gun isn't noticed, or his plastic marshall badge (was that mentioned in the film?) until the reveal in the lighthouse w/ Dr. Cawley. That's not really inconsistent (e.g., a real marshall would have noticed it was plastic) - keep in mind that we're working with a delusional character who believes people exist - Daniels and Solando - who don't. There's the belief that his wife died in a fire, there's the mythical Senator Hurley, and his belief that George Noyce is a government project and not someone who Laeddis himself kicked the shit out of a week prior.

foc, your "the government project is still plausible" hypothesis seems, to me, to have been covered by the exposure of the lighthouse as just a lighthouse. In terms of direction, Daniels was always concerned with getting access to the lighthouse, to see what went on there. When it was revealed to be nothing more than a lighthouse, well, I know it may not satisfy you, but as a literary concept, the 'holy grail' in the book is just a mirage, then the reader is supposed to abandon the assumptions of the main character at that point.

There are probably some plot holes, but like Heroes as a show always comes up with some 12-step-program of deus-ex-machinas to resolve the plot holes, this film can rely on (1) Teddy's delusions and (2) Cawley's experimental methods as ways of covering up what appear to be inconsistencies.

[quote name='Jimbo Slice']FoC, it pretty much sounds like you are grasping at straws to make what you believe would be a better ending make sense. OneWingedAngel is undoubtedly right, he was crazy the whole time. It was a giant role-play. The end.

Good movie though, honestly. I feel like it's getting some unwarranted hate because people are upset that it wasn't a giant conspiracy. Admittedly, about a quarter of the way through the movie I was getting the vibe that he was a patient the whole time, but it was very interesting to watch it all play out. I really dug it.[/QUOTE]

I like grasping at straws. It's fun.

Many of the people claiming the standard interpretation is the correct interpretation also read the book. That's cheating. You get to pause, rewind and replay a book. You can't do that in a movie theater.

I'm sure most if not all of the anomalies would be explained after watching the movie a few more times, but I'm not spending $9 an attempt.

I could read the book, but that would be corrupt how I look at the movie. The two are related but separate entities.

I've never read the book, i didn't even know it was based on one until after seeing the movie. This was one time where Scorcese just fell flat. Hopefully his next film will be better.

I'm going to run around and scream, "I'm crushing your heads!" while putting my thumb and index finger close to my eye and putting said heads in the crossfingers so to speak.

If I made this the central point of my life, should I be lobotomized?

Let's pretend the answer is yes because I'm willing to beat somebody's ass if they don't accept their head has been crushed.

If I was wearing a "Kids in the Hall" shirt while acting in this bizarre way, should I still be lobotomized or just locked up?

Yes, yes you should.

It's cool, we'll stitch a "Shadowy Men on a Shadowy Planet" logo on your straightjacket.

I didn't read the book.

FoC, though, if that helps you enjoy the movie then by all means.

myke, they never mentioned a plastic badge. I know you have some apprehension about seeing the movie but you should check it out. It really seems to be one of those movies that there is no group consensus on... you just have to see it. I dug it.

I haven't read the book either. I just know have good movie watching skills, can put two and two together, and follow Occam's razor.

[quote name='Jimbo Slice']I didn't read the book.

FoC, though, if that helps you enjoy the movie then by all means.

myke, they never mentioned a plastic badge. I know you have some apprehension about seeing the movie but you should check it out. It really seems to be one of those movies that there is no group consensus on... you just have to see it. I dug it.[/QUOTE]

Eh, the apprehension is more along the lines of not wanting to see a mediocre Scorcese film. I'd hate for my perception of him to be ruined by this pic.

But he's bar none my favorite filmmaker, so I'm probably going to see this for sure.

As someone who has seen the movie twice,
I can honestly tell you op that there are several scenes, particularly in the beginning that reinforce the "classical" interpretation. Most of them support you interpretation as well though. I did notice other things on my second 11 dollar sit through though:

1.the main character has a scar on his temple, from a recent fight possibly....
2.there are no family pics
3. not sure if anyone else noticed this but there was no storm.

I think his sea sickness at the beginning of the film is due to his withdrawal from the meds he was taking months before. Dr. Cawley tells him that he's been feeling sick because he "hasn't taken the meds we've been giving you for months...". Perhaps the movie starts with him being sick because this represents the start of his relapse (or the tipping point at least, where they take him off his meds and the "role playing experiment" begins as they try and reason with his sober insane state).

Despite the movie being predictable (my friend literally said before we walked into the theatre "I bet you the twist is that he is insane") I really did enjoy it and there were several things I did not see coming.

[quote name='antlp89']Despite the movie being predictable (my friend literally said before we walked into the theatre "I bet you the twist is that he is insane")[/QUOTE]

Everybody should have that thought going in even if it is just in passing.

[quote name='Doodil']As someone who has seen the movie twice,
I can honestly tell you op that there are several scenes, particularly in the beginning that reinforce the "classical" interpretation. Most of them support you interpretation as well though. I did notice other things on my second 11 dollar sit through though:

1.the main character has a scar on his temple, from a recent fight possibly....
2.there are no family pics
3. not sure if anyone else noticed this but there was no storm.[/QUOTE]

1. I noticed it fluctuated during the film. There was a scratch. Then, a bruise. Then, a scratch.

2. Excellent. Do you remember him being shown three separate pictures of dead children?

3. Do you remember how "long" it took to recover from the storm? If there was no storm, then everything from the walk to the graveyard with Chuck to the lighthouse confrontation with Dr. Cawley scene is suspect. That's about a hour of film that "didn't happen". I would say up to hitching a ride with the warden would be a definite break back to reality, but I thought I saw storm damage while Andrew was blowing up Cawley's car.

What do you mean there was no storm? You don't remember them being in the woods when a storm came up and they took shelter in the mausoleum?

[quote name='JolietJake']What do you mean there was no storm? You don't remember them being in the woods when a storm came up and they took shelter in the mausoleum?[/QUOTE]

My memory is failing me, but there are scenes after the storm when there is no storm damage.

There is no storm damage in the last scene, but that could have been months after the grand reveal.

Neither my wife nor I could remember if there was storm damage when Andrew blew up Cawley's car.

If there is no storm damage when Andrew blew up Cawley's car, then every scene between the masoleum and the grand reveal didn't happen.

Seems to me that there was storm damage visible during that point.

Without having seen the movie and just reading the discussion, this movie sounds like major bullshit. The surprise twist and all the unexplainable events that people keep going back and forth about make it seem less like a convoluted thriller and more like a typical cluster mystery. I may see it now whereas before I wasn't going to but generally I don't like to induce headaches.

[quote name='davo1224']Without having seen the movie and just reading the discussion, this movie sounds like major bullshit. The surprise twist and all the unexplainable events that people keep going back and forth about make it seem less like a convoluted thriller and more like a typical cluster mystery. I may see it now whereas before I wasn't going to but generally I don't like to induce headaches.[/QUOTE]

If you already read through this thread, why even bother watching the movie?

Watching it the first time and not knowing what will happen next, this movie is very entertaining. The twist at the end only makes you think about what happened earlier in the movie, as the whole time watching it you are second guessing yourself if it's a) real or b) an illusion of an insane.

But if you've already spoiled all of the main plot, I don't see why you would bother watching it.

To see it play out for myself. I'm not even particularly sure what the ending is to be honest.

I thought the movie sucked ass.

[quote name='davo1224']To see it play out for myself. I'm not even particularly sure what the ending is to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Youve Completely ruined the movie for yourself already. If you went to see the movie at this point, it would be to do what i HATE people do......watch it with a premeditated score for the movie just so that they have the right to actually call it a bad movie.

@Everyone else: I thought this movie was great. Im a bit confused at alot of this though. For one thing, what i thought happened in the end is that he came back to his senses, and consciously agreed to get lobotomized because everything that he was told by that "Rachel" from the hidden cave was true.

So basically the place actually is everything she said it was even though he was just hallucinating. At least thats what the ending scene where they just show the lighthouse after showing the hidden ice pick when they went to pick him up made me think.

And this is why this is a great movie.....its not easy to interpret.

I'm going to agree with onewingedangel here, he was insane the whole time. It was a shitty ending and I think foc is just trying to think up something to make the ending seem better.