Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 28, 2008 18:59:39 GMT
Saw this today. Seemed well made, directed, acted and all, but for me it lacked that Fincher thumbprint, and I can't figure out why. I was pretty wowed after first viewings Zodiac, Se7en, and Fight Club. Leaving this movie I felt like I did when I left after watching A Beautiful Mind. Wasnt bad, but it was disappointing. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERSI thought that the sequence describing/leading up to the car accident that crippled Blanchett's career was very much like something we'd see in another Fincher film. Really though, that was about it as far as a thumbprint goes. I really like this film a lot, and like you, also need more time to collect my thoughts. I can't imagine many others on here liking it.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 28, 2008 19:16:06 GMT
You'd think a vet like me would know the rules by now. oh well, here's the new thread.
One of my biggest complaints about the movie is it's structure in general. Ive always hated the bookends to Saving Private Ryan....how it goes directly from Ryan's face into Tom Hanks', making the first time viewer think that its Hanks in the graveyard. Its a stupid thing to do in my mind, as there is so much of the story that Private Ryan didn't even experience. The "present day" scenes in Button made me think of those. When we are taken to the general thread of the narrative, there are several pieces that the reminescing characters would know nothing about, as they weren't there. For me, the great Fincher moment you mention was incredibly well done, and wouldve worked a lot better with Button as an "all knowing" narrator throughout the film and not as the voice coming from the journal. I was highly annoyed by the inconsistentsy. They also jump from the story back to the present day scenes about a dozen times...mainly as a device to skip a few years I suppose. I dont mind a long movie, but I do get annoyed when so much of one seems so largely unnessecary.
Those problems aside, this was a really well made mo vie. Beautiful cinematography throughout is what I think of the most vividly looking back. Pitt also does an amazing job throughout, and I wouldnt be remotely suprised to see the makeup and costume crews take home Oscars for their work.
Right now its probably not going to get the FCM Best Picture nom from me, but I want to sit on it a little longer.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Dec 28, 2008 21:20:11 GMT
Right now its probably not going to get the FCM Best Picture nom from me, but I want to sit on it a little longer. Oh yeah, not from me either, but I still liked it quite a bit, and in a year of lacking films, it stands out maybe more than it should. The flaws in the narrative perspective you mention were no where near as bad as those you mentioned in "Saving Private Ryan" (or "Citizen Kane" for that matter). Actually, it seemed pretty consistent to me. At first I did not like the Hurricane Katrina framing device, but once more was made clear, I came around to it.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jan 10, 2009 16:18:07 GMT
This is an odd one. I can't say I liked it much, but the tone it strikes is bizarre and unique, and I'm not even sure it was intentional. It seems like it comes from an unconscious clash of dispositions between Fincher and Roth. The screenplay is essentially Gumpian; whimsical, vaguely mystical and with a floaty sense of historicism. But Fincher seems to have been attracted to it for the technical challenges it poses, both in terms of scope and effects, and he treats the whole thing, which is dripping in melancholy and nostalgia, quite coldly. So it's got a strange emotional minimalism to it, like an emptiness that isn't really a detriment, since it saves it from being the Gumpian monstrosity it might've been, but it's still empty. Actually, it feels pregnant with that melancholy and nostalgia, but it never really delivers.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Jan 29, 2009 18:20:32 GMT
I finally saw the movie. And this movie is a FOREST GUMP for intelligent and adult people. It has the same weakness as FOREST GUMP, but it has them smarter. Really, the difference a director does.
Actualy, BENJAMIN BUTTON doesn't have one weakness that FOREST GUMP had: being a 2 hours and 30 minutes exercise of kissing Ronald Regan's ass and leeway entry into the acceptance of George W. Bush. And no, i'm not being factitious, i truly believe that the mega sucess of FOREST GUMp facilitated the acceptance of Bush. Small wonder, since Robert Zemeckis is a die hard GOPie.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Feb 11, 2009 21:01:04 GMT
Yes you are. Benjamin Button, you migth as well kiss him goodnight. ZODIAC, however, is forever. And dude, trust me, there's no pleasure i get in demoting a David Fincher movie. Thing is, with Benjamin Button, there's no demotiing, there's only the movie, and how an inferior effort from him it really is. ALIEN3 was far more captivating and enthralling. I saw this film with someone special to me. I saw it twice. And while I was not as crazy for it like I was for "Zodiac", I am determined to follow Fincher's career, and ten years from now, I am not likely to forget the film he followed up "Zodiac" with, his first big break in the mainstream, and not to mention the first time he got an Oscar nomination! Just because you didn't like it as much and you feel "The Dark Knight" would be a better nomination doesn't mean it will be forgotten in ten years. I only did that little back and forth with you in the other thread because I feel that some of the generalizations you have made are BEYOND stupid.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 11, 2009 23:18:26 GMT
First of all, all of fincher's movies are mainstream commercial movies. The difference being, adn this include BENJAMIN BUTTON, they are smart movies made by a very intelligent and talented man. It does too make the difference.
And who's to say that i didn«'t liked BENJAMIN BUTTON. i did liked it. As i said many times before, it's FOREST GUMP for smart people. But the fact rmeains, of all of Fincher's work, it's one of his minor works, and migth very well be his less good work he ever did. i say less good, because he never made a movie which could either be called bad or mundane. but it will be forgetable, as much as PANIC ROOM and THE GAME are. Ten years from now, and regardles sof what my personal opinion of this movie is, in ten years form now, people when they talk about Fincher, BUTTON will not come up, the same way THE GAME and PANIC ROOM aren't either. That's the point.
and i like that "i saw this movie with somebody special" deal to be used to praise this movie. if a mvoei truly is special, you don't need that to know it's good. You should feel the same for this movie if you didn't had anybody special in your life and were out of a relationship, if you know what i mean.
It's "personal" stuff like this that do cloud us to understand a movie's true qualities. Alow me to offer you an example from my own experience: i absolutly hate ARMAGEDDON, i think, and rightly so, that is one of the worst piece of shit movies ever made. and ye,t when i saw it, it was one of the best moviegoing experiecne i ever had in my life. I went with two of my best friends, we were in very high spirits, and there was stuff that happened while we went to the theate,r and during the intermission of the movie, which was a non-stop sucession of events that made us laugh liek hell. Hell, even during the watch of the movie, we laugh like hell as ssome of the quips we did while we watched the movie. So, we had a great time that evening. So, by your rationalle, i should have found memories of ARMAGEDDON, and on acocuint of that one great evening, i should had thing highly of the fucking movie. Howeve,r i do see the difference between having a special time with the pals, and the quality, or better, the absolute lack of quality of that piece of fucking shit that is Michael "Piece Of Shit" Bayaas ARMAGEDDON.
I do not mistake the two, you know. If you think that BENJAMIN BUTTON is grea,t then you should think of it as great even if you had saw it alone in a theater with nobody else. The "i saw it with somebody special" doesn't cut it. Actually, stuff like that, i find them unromatic.
you want to know what is romantic? If you and your better half had seen a fucking gorefiest zombie movie and you came out all huggs and kisses, that means you love each other so much, you don't need a romantic dramedy to punch up the feelings, if you know my meaning.
And the "beyond" stupid" coment was uncalled for.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Feb 12, 2009 6:32:08 GMT
and i like that "i saw this movie with somebody special" deal to be used to praise this movie. I do not mistake the two, you know. This is where you've misunderstood me, you know. I don't think it is great because I saw it with someone special. I think I will remember in ten years because I saw it with someone special. I saw "Changeling" with the same person, and I hated that. I'll probably remember it in ten years too! And the "beyond" stupid" coment was uncalled for. Yeah, probably. But so were all the grammatical errors in your previous post.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 12, 2009 7:00:46 GMT
I think Arkady's "grammatical errors" result from him being Portugese, with English not exactly his first tongue.
I'm with you both guys on BENJAMIN BUTTON on all your points. I know I won't exactly fondly remember BB as a film nerd like I do with SE7EN or FIGHT CLUB or ZODIAC...but it did give Fincher an Oscar nod, which is pretty fucking cool.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Feb 12, 2009 14:10:46 GMT
I think Arkady's "grammatical errors" result from him being Portugese, with English not exactly his first tongue. ZING! Well, you got me there. Last night after I posted, I figured maybe it was because he wrote it in a fury/hurry (or maybe it was Mike Sullivan in disguise). I'm not about to disrespect someone because of their background. Not like you guys do with wetdog and his Irish background.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 13, 2009 13:18:18 GMT
This film is nearly three hours of exposition; Button's used as a window into events beyond the necessary story - he's a walking historical punctuation - and as a result I have to disagree with jrod regarding Pitt (or any of the acting, for that matter): all emotion here is invoked by technicalities - I loved the score, and Fincher cuts from Pitt's face to what he's seeing back to Pitt's face, to affecting effect. Some might say it's a (good) minimal peformance from Pitt, but I really don't think he had much to do or work with. Button himself is just a blank canvas; his unique character trait - the "curious case" of the title - is that he's ageing backwards; beyond that, we know nothing about him.
I love the premise, but the first half nearly slows to a complete halt; the central romance isn't central enough early on, not beyond the vague "I would never forget her" clichés, which make the excellent second half a bit of a waste.
Saying that, thoughout the final hour I was on the verge of tears; I cried several times, and the film itself seemed to be taking relish in such melancholy. The tone is at once celebratory (of life) and depressing (in its view of the finality and inevitability of death). I love tainted love as a theme, or the doomed romantic ideal; Benjamin leaving in the night floored me. But talk about milking it; how many failed brief encounters need we have?
I would have warmed to it more had the daughter - the reader of the diary - been more likeable (if she needed to be there at all, of course).
The Finchian set-piece leading to the car crash was neat in itself, but misplaced in the whole. It needed more of that if it was to make anything out of it; as a result, it only vaguely helped towards the (seeming) theme of fate/chance.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 16, 2009 18:02:51 GMT
It's "Portuguese", not "Portugese".
I saw SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, and while it's not a movie i'm inlove with, i reackon it better then BENJAMIN BUTTON. Which pains me to say this, as i have far more respect and devotion to David Fincher then Danny Boyle. But for what those movies are, adn what they wanted to achieve, SD accomplishes it with more sucesss then BB.
"I figured maybe it was because he wrote it in a fury/hurry..."
You figured it right.
"...(or maybe it was Mike Sullivan in disguise)."
Who's the dude?
"I'm not about to disrespect someone because of their background."
Mighty gentlemanly of you.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Apr 1, 2009 5:27:59 GMT
Criterion is picking this up for DVD release. I think their most recent film besides this is "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou".
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Apr 1, 2009 15:04:47 GMT
I didn't know that Criterion picks up recent movies. Is this the first instance?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Apr 1, 2009 15:14:36 GMT
No, they have Wes Anderson's films, aside from "The Darjeeling Limited". They also have Michael Bay's masterpiece "Armageddon".
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Apr 1, 2009 17:36:33 GMT
Omar, you are tempting me, you are tempting me!!!!!
|
|