Live a monster, or die a good man...

Rating: 8/10 (16 May 2010)

There seems to be a divide among critics and audiences on the twist and ending to "Shutter Island," with some calling it brilliant, and others calling it cheap. I found the ending to be effective, and here's why.
I think it helps cement the picture as a statement on what a person will do to block out (or warp) a bad memory. Keep in mind that Andrew Laeddis (I will refer to Leo's character by his real name here) did not want to be associated with killing anymore after the incident in Dachau. Because he was so traumatized by that, and by the actions of his wife, he tries to fulfill his commitment by putting the murder on someone else. The reason he goes insane is because his mind will do anything to deny the truth, even if it means falling into delusional traps. The last scene may also show how far he is willing to go to wash out the memory of him murdering his wife. Has he really regressed, or is he just pretending so the memory can be gutted out?
Laeddis wants to remain a good person. Yet not only does his insanity block him from the dark truth, but it also makes the other people on Shutter Island not trust him or take him seriously (Laeddis once remarks that once you're declared insane, anything you say or do is perceived with a wary mind). He's a war veteran, he is a former U.S. Marshall, and he's living in the era of Cold War paranoia. How far will he go to avoid, as he puts it, to "live a monster"?
Yes, "Shutter Island" plays numerous mind games and misdirects us. But not only do I feel this is understandable (since the protagonist is an unreliable narrator), but I feel it all plays into the film's themes of denial and sanity (or lack, thereof).
I give it an 8.5/10, and I will stand by my belief that this is another solid film from Martin Scorsese.