The real mystery of Shutter Island is why?!

Rating: 3/10 (21 July 2013)

I will follow dutifully the responsibility of not leaving any spoilers present in my review. My review is also purely one of opinion, and may be discarded as such, if the reader finds it necessary to do so. Let any who read the following do so with a grain of salt ready, as they may surely differ in opinion in regards to this movie!
First off, let me state that the actors and actresses of this film are not lax in their ability to portray characters assigned them accurately. Secondly, the script is compelling in its accuracy of feelings and thoughts of people who populated the time in which this film took place. So far, I have admitted that the accuracies were pursued with laudable diligence, and all steps were taken to transport the viewer back to the time where the alleged events took place. Okay.
So why the three out of ten rating? Why, indeed? I must phrase my reasons carefully, lest I give away even the least of the plot goods to those who have not spent the time to experience this film themselves. I am not understating the presence of suspense, or doubt as to what's truly going on. It is rather that for who was involved in the making of this film, I was sorely disappointed in its structure- that I felt the whole style of leaving solely questions, and only so very few answers, was no way to end a movie, when it was made by who it was made by. Like some amateur throwback style of film making where we throw all our eggs into the sequel or ****ty movie basket. And make no mistake- I honestly feel without a followup movie, there is no doubt a loss in my ability to enjoy such a "flick".
I have seen many genres in my day in motion pictures. From artsy to violent action films, I've seen a few different directions a director can take. And when a director is a seasoned pro, you expect answers- you expect mother-! You expect closure. In this film, there are EASILY four different interpretations, most likely more, that a viewer can take from this bastard mixture of mild entertainment and intense puzzlement. And while I could take a direction and run with it, I'd be sorely ignorant to think my money well spent, when I had to fill in many of the blanks myself. I may as well have wrote a suspense-crime-drama. Solely for my own pleasure. Except there was no pleasure in it.
You, the Reader, know the state of the world well enough to think carefully on financial expenditures. Especially entertainment. It comes in many forms, most of them unreasonably high in cost. And we are not all pedantic fools, just because we want what we want wrapped up pretty. Maybe some wish for mystery in life, but that's what religion, death, and who wins the Super Bowl is for. In a motion picture, you want the concrete. If you wanted wispy possibilities, random chance, and such dramatic unexpected things, you can gamble. Play video games. Or bet on anything at all. If films were to be finished in the mind, it would amount to a medium an hour or less in length, at less than half the cost to acquire, since you have to finish the story yourself. I feel this motion picture was ultimately a slant against Scorsese, a permanent back-step for his directing career. I do not watch movies for a chance to make wild guesses, and I choose one of the three aforementioned ways to gamble, and only that one as it's mandatory. That is all.