Out.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/s ... uary-2010/

Post-Picture win curse continues!

Out for next year as well. Being delayed is never good; delayed to Feb, the worst part of the year for an award-aspiring film, is even worse.

they're using Silence of the Lambs as an example for Feb Oscar releases but no, no way.

Was never confident in it after the trailer. Not really an Oscar film. Looked a bad M. Night. rip-off

Dead. This is dead.

OH COME ON.

The trailer was great.

Yes the trailer is great and if they stick with 10 nominees then it is still not completely out. Just mostly...

SON OF A BITCH

The "can't afford to mount an Oscar campaign" line doesn't make a lick of sense. If it's actually an Oscar picture, they aren't going to release it in February.

There's certainly something they aren't telling us. I just hope it isn't "our film sucks" and more "Scorsese made something too wild for us to handle."

Exactly yoshue

1. Paramount did almost the exact same thing with Zodiac after seeing the movie
2. Paramount has undoubtedly seen Scorsese's cut of Shutter
3. Paramount has enough money for an Oscar campaign, but doesn't want to say that the movie isn't up to par (in their opinion -- they were wrong on Zodiac)
4. So to protect their movie and the director and everyone involved, they say they don't have enough money and move the film into 2010. But it's basically a big F-- Y-- to Scorsese just as it was to Fincher.

What I don't get is that Shutter Island (the novel) isn't really that insane of a read. If anything, it's fairly straightforward for a mystery/thriller.

EDIT: And from what I skimmed looking at the rough script, there's not much of a difference. So basically what I'm saying is it's hard to believe Scorsese made something they couldn't handle, unless it's just not being received well.

Yet zodiac hardly got any nominations.

Mostly thanks to the release date, I'd say.

I believe that's what Kenspy meant. He is saying the move is not necessarily because of the quality, but rather Paramount saying a big fuck-you to Scorsese as they did to Fincher by dumping their respective film based on the studio's own opinion after seeing the cut.

Hmm, I am not giving this up completely.

The move to 2010 hurt it big time. But it still has a big name attached to it. The reviews are okay, so far. 68% at RT, 68/100 at MetaCritic.

However, it looks to make a killing at the box-office, probably becoming Scorsese's third $100+ million film. That should help it to be remembered.

I still think it has a chance if they stick with ten (which unfortunately will probably happen). It's looking to be a whole lot bigger than Zodiac, so that comparison doesn't really hold anymore. And A Serious Man still managed to get in despite being tiny and having no big names, aside from the Coens, attached.

I'm afraid the 10 nominees thing is not a probable for next year, but pretty much a definite. At least according to the AMPAS president a few days ago.

Out.

Audiences will either love or hate it. Some will find it interesting and others will find it ridiculous. It's release date should eliminate it's BP contention.

Course, it could just gross 12 million and be a critical darling too. Who knows...

I saw the film last night (and loved it), but I highly, highly doubt it's nominated for Best Picture. I just don't see Scorsese's name overcoming a February release, a very quirky/"genre" tone, and plot twists and themes destined to polarize viewing audiences.

It would be nice if it were nominated in the technical categories, though. Rare is a film so impeccably shot and designed.