Comments on: Peter Travers Has ‘Seen Shutter Island,’ Thinks Its Great, Says “Damn You, Paramount”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:38:13 +0000

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…

By: gabetoro

gabetoro — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:52:57 +0000

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?

By: SK

SK — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:52:19 +0000

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?

By: RTM

RTM — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:29:34 +0000

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.

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:48:07 +0000

Uhh, Absolutely not. Chicago is a genuinely great. Sorry it doesn't have flying knives and shit.

By: gabetoro

gabetoro — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:46:14 +0000

The intro alone to Gangs of NY puts it over the deeply uncinematic "Chicago." Any other thinking is useless contrarianism.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:49:35 +0000

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

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:54:38 +0000

Chicago was great. I'd take it over Gangs of New York any day.

By: Univarn

Univarn — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:44:17 +0000

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.

By: Cde.

Cde. — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:25:00 +0000

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.

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:56:14 +0000

i have a doc with about 25 film son it. won't post now.

By: Mark A. Fedeli

Mark A. Fedeli — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:37:56 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:19:13 +0000

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?

By: SK

SK — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:37:20 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:24:03 +0000

Where I live, a writer on the local paper actually called "Gangs of New York" "the best movie ever made". Top that, Travers…