Peter Travers is mad as hell and he won’t take it anymore.
“Can you believe it?,” the film critic rants and raves on Rolling Stone about the now-infamous “Shutter Island” push from Fall 2009 to February 2010. “Why? Why? Because Paramount, who put out two shit storms this year — “Transformers 2” and “G.I. Joe” — says , ‘we don’t have the money!’ Can you believe it? We don’t have the money for [Marty] Scorsese, but we can put out this crap??”
Travers saw “Shutter Island” and says, “It was great, it would have been a major Oscar contender, but because of this stupid lame excuse, we don’t see ‘Shutter Island’ in the year 2009.” But he really doesn’t say anything of substance to back this up.
Travers is a nice guy and gets maligned pretty badly as evinced by one of our contribs who says, “He’s a quote whore and also, he said that the deeply flawed ‘Gangs of New York’ was the best movie of the year.” Good point, ‘Gangs’ wouldn’t even make our Top 20 of that year (2002, a rich year for film). Others point out that he’s sort of friends with Scorsese too…
Either way, some, who were outraged by the 2010 bump — not us, “Shutter Island” read like a B-movie and feel Paramount is smart to angle “Up In The Air” instead for Oscar — will likely glom onto his thoughts to further fuel hate towards the studio’s “questionable” move. We guess this is our preemptive: don’t believe the [Travers] hype (though yes, an avuncular nice dude).
Where I live, a writer on the local paper actually called "Gangs of New York" "the best movie ever made". Top that, Travers…
Even if it didn't read like Oscar quality, now with 10 nominations it would have had a shot.
That being said, and with the decision to push 'Up in the Air' in 2009, I like that they put it in early 2010 because we finally have some films to look forward to early in the new year. You mentioned before that Paramount still believes it's Awards consideration worthy (comparing it to Silence of the Lambs which opened early in its year).
At least by releasing it in Q1 of 2010, they can gauge whether it will be worth it to spend considerable money promoting it in late 2010 for awards buzz.
The 10 months to think about it will be good for their bottom line (after GI Joe didn't do well), audiences and critics who do and don't like it. What's the rush in trying to push two films in 3 months?
it would definitely have a shot. So far this year I can't even think of 5 movies that are of best picture quality. and the upcoming slate doesn't look too promising either. While films like the Informant and Serious Man excite me, something tells me the Academy won't bite. Even Avatar will probably get nominated (even if it's a fluke)just because of it's technical achievements. Also, wtf do we have to look forward to in October now?
ok, well now you have to start a post with the "20 other better films than 'Gangs of New York' in 2002." just for shits and giggles.
i'm not saying it was the best of the year or anything, but come on, it wasn't thaaaaaat baaaaaad.
i have a doc with about 25 film son it. won't post now.
Gangs of New York is awesome. Hokey, clumsy, and deeply flawed, but still exhilaratingly entertaining.
Had it not been for the interference of the Weinsteins, I'm sure it could have been so much more.
I'm rather partial to Gangs of New York, but it definitely wasn't the best film of 2002… at least he didn't say Jason X :). Granted I'm still not convinced Chicago was either.
Chicago was great. I'd take it over Gangs of New York any day.
Catherine Zeta-Jones looked like a horse in CHICAGO. and Renee Zellweger's face like a pizza (but then again, it always does). What I meant to say: Come on, people, Paramount did not postpone SHUTTER ISLAND for monetary reasons, but clearly because of fiscal considerations. They have made money more than enough already this year (more than they anticipated to be sure – espacially STAR TREK performing way better than anybody would have thought), they don't need another earner this year that could even impede their Oscar chances for UP IN THE AIR or LOVELY BONES. What they do need, though, is a quality B-movie that rakes it in in February.
Cheers, Thomas
The intro alone to Gangs of NY puts it over the deeply uncinematic "Chicago." Any other thinking is useless contrarianism.
Uhh, Absolutely not. Chicago is a genuinely great. Sorry it doesn't have flying knives and shit.
I'm with you about "Shutter Island," I'd rather see Up in the Air instead, looks pretty darn good. I might be in the minority, but I'm not a fan of Scorsese's work.
I wish IMDB would sort their titles better and allow sorting of films, tv, and video games. I need to find a list of 2002 films but IMDB can take a while (I know it's not the best source but it's a decent place to start given that foreign and domestic films are tracked together). I don't understand why I have to see video games and tv specials rated alongside films.
Any suggestions for sites keeping a list?
Rod, I gotta be honest, a defense of Chicago vs. Flying Knives is a must-hear. Because Flying Knives wins nearly every time.
We are talking Chicago, right? From Rob "I don't do cinema" Marshall, Richard "Milqueltoast" Gere and Renee "Sucking On A Lemon = Acting" Zellweger?
Chicago is a lame movie and Gangs of New york was not one of Scorcese's best but still proabably the best film of the year…
Shutter Island looked amazing and someone needs to be blamed for it being pushed back because based on the trailer and the source material it would have been on of the years finest…no doubt…