PDA

View Full Version : The Curious Case of Benjamin Button



EvilShoe
01-05-2008, 08:58 PM
Look, it's baby Pitt!
http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/headlines/temp/temp227.jpg
This should be good: great source material + Fincher.

Watashi
01-05-2008, 09:04 PM
It's pretty much my most anticipated film of the year (after WALL-E of course)

DSNT
01-05-2008, 09:24 PM
It's pretty much my most anticipated film of the year (after WALL-E of course)
Stop anticipating and start compiling (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=131), little man.

It does look quite good.

Ivan Drago
01-05-2008, 09:25 PM
November 2008? Most excellent.

Watashi
01-05-2008, 09:34 PM
Stop anticipating and start compiling (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=131), little man.

All my compilations got erased when my computer crashed. I have to wait until I figure out my new laptop.

Buffaluffasaurus
01-05-2008, 10:22 PM
Fincher is the best director working today. He had too long a break since Panic Room, so the prospect of two Fincher movies in two years might be too much for my little heart to take!

Ezee E
01-05-2008, 11:03 PM
Yeah, I have no idea what direction this movie will go in but it's got me really excited to see what Fincher will do with these effects.

EvilShoe
01-05-2008, 11:09 PM
You can read the short story online here:
http://www.readbookonline.net/read/690/10628/
In case anyone is interested.

Definitely worth checking out.

Bosco B Thug
01-07-2008, 05:21 AM
Fincher's first non-thriller feature film? I'm interested.

origami_mustache
01-13-2008, 11:47 AM
F. Scott Fitzgerald \m/

transmogrifier
01-13-2008, 08:47 PM
2008 begins and ends with this film. Can't wait.

Skitch
01-14-2008, 12:43 AM
I'm always up for a new Fincher flick...and this one sounds just right for him.

Boner M
02-18-2008, 12:49 AM
I just found out this has a budget of $150,000,000. :eek:

Henry Gale
02-18-2008, 04:11 AM
I just found out this has a budget of $150,000,000. :eek:

Wow that's... a little insane. I mean I'm not saying the film won't make good use of the budget or that Fincher won't turn in something great, it's just that no matter how successful it may become I'll be shocked if it made all that back.

It's scheduled to be released at Christmas time too so it'll either be played up as one of the big movies of the season or be an expensive picture that gets sloppily dropped into one of the busiest times of the year leaving it to be lost in the shuffle (like Children Of Men, which still only had half the budget of this). But I really can't see the studio letting that happen.

One of my most anticipated of the year though for sure.

Dillard
05-23-2008, 07:19 PM
Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnd0wsISY0) in Spanish.

-The beginning narration says "My name is Benjamin Button, and I was born under unusual circumstances"

-and at the end of the girl says "You're so young..." to which Benjamin replies "Only on the outside".

Sven
05-23-2008, 07:20 PM
Already gone!

Dillard
05-23-2008, 07:22 PM
The image quality is awful, and the trailer on the big screen is miraculous, so....I'd wait for the Indy IV preview if you can stand it.

Dillard
05-23-2008, 07:23 PM
Already gone!Edit: Try it again.

Qrazy
05-23-2008, 10:37 PM
I'm psyched.

---

Short and Sweet Fincher Commercial:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/brad-pitt-and-david-fincher--softbank/331332271

ledfloyd
05-23-2008, 11:19 PM
this is one case where i'm refusing to read the book first. i alllways read the book and unless it's no country i'm disappointed.

transmogrifier
05-23-2008, 11:28 PM
Looks great. Can't wait.

Qrazy
05-23-2008, 11:38 PM
this is one case where i'm refusing to read the book first. i alllways read the book and unless it's no country i'm disappointed.

Michael Clayton (Gilroy, 2007) *1/2


?

ledfloyd
05-23-2008, 11:46 PM
Michael Clayton (Gilroy, 2007) *1/2


?
the last 20 minutes were great, the previous hour and a half was uninteresting and derivative. clooney was fantastic at the end facing off with swinton. i wanted to like it more than i did, as clooney is one of my favorite actors, but i couldn't.

Qrazy
05-24-2008, 12:31 AM
the last 20 minutes were great, the previous hour and a half was uninteresting and derivative. clooney was fantastic at the end facing off with swinton. i wanted to like it more than i did, as clooney is one of my favorite actors, but i couldn't.

I guess I could see someone being bored but I don't really see the derivative complaint... the approach both stylistically and script-wise struck me as both nuanced and unique if not inspired. What did you feel it was derivative of?

Sven
05-24-2008, 01:30 AM
I guess I could see someone being bored but I don't really see the derivative complaint... the approach both stylistically and script-wise struck me as both nuanced and unique if not inspired. What did you feel it was derivative of?

It exists as an installation in the corporate-crimes genre: Parallax View and All the President's Men are the obvious precursors. Nuanced, maybe, but unique? A film as formulaic as Michael Clayton, that's hard to apply.

Qrazy
05-24-2008, 02:11 AM
edit: moved post to Clayton thread.

Sxottlan
05-25-2008, 07:09 AM
I'm so glad the time between Fincher films is less than a few years this time. So glad that he can keep having apparent final say despite a number of box office disappointments. While I probably wouldn't classify Zodiac as a thriller, I'm very interested in a definite non-thriller from him.

I don't want to say this is Fincher's Forrest Gump, but that was the first thing I was reminded of when I saw the trailer. Not necessarily a bad thing (I just got a little over-exposed to Gump for awhile).

I still hope for his Rendezvous with Rama.

Ezee E
05-25-2008, 07:12 AM
If Benjamin BUtton comes up as a financial and awards disaster, I see him having a tough time getting movies together.

Watashi
05-25-2008, 07:13 AM
If Benjamin BUtton comes up as a financial and awards disaster, I see him having a tough time getting movies together.

Considering it has both Cate Blanchett AND Tilda Swinton, I don't see it being an awards disaster.

Cate will get nominated again this year. Somehow. She finds a way.

Ezee E
05-25-2008, 07:43 AM
Considering it has both Cate Blanchett AND Tilda Swinton, I don't see it being an awards disaster.

Cate will get nominated again this year. Somehow. She finds a way.
It is one of my most anticipated movies, but these are the type of movies that always end up becoming the failures in the end, either due to too much prehype or actually not being that good.

Everything about this movie makes me think it'll be different, so I'll just wait and see.

Plus, I think Fincher is one of the best directors out there. I want him to get projects he wants to do, but if this one doesn't achieve either, it'll put a big dent in his future.

Dukefrukem
05-25-2008, 07:39 PM
i saw this trailer at IJ4... I'm hooked.

Teecee
05-25-2008, 11:08 PM
This looks like an exceptionally elegant film.

Kurosawa Fan
05-26-2008, 01:56 AM
Saw the trailer tonight. Wonderful. It's definitely my most anticipated film of the year.

Morris Schæffer
06-18-2008, 07:09 PM
http://www.davestrailerpage.co.uk/

720p trailer. Top of page.

EDIT: A much belated yowzah!! Looks utterly tremendous!

MadMan
06-19-2008, 03:06 AM
Yeah I also saw the trailer for it at Indy 4, and I'm now pretty interested in seeing this film. Plus at this point I'm pretty much a fan of Brad Pitt, who once again has gone in a different and unexpected direction, which is awesome.

Pop Trash
08-18-2008, 06:08 AM
Anyone catch the teaser for this during the Olympics? I was left a little concerned. It felt more like a Tim Burton movie to me. Not that I hugely dislike Burton but I hope some of the darker Fincher qualities are there.

Qrazy
08-18-2008, 06:13 AM
Anyone catch the teaser for this during the Olympics? I was left a little concerned. It felt more like a Tim Burton movie to me. Not that I hugely dislike Burton but I hope some of the darker Fincher qualities are there.

I think if the trailer had had a different score you wouldn't be thinking this at all.

Pop Trash
08-18-2008, 06:17 AM
I think if the trailer had had a different score you wouldn't be thinking this at all.
You might be right. But if that's the score in the movie I'll be thinking it's Burton-esque the entire time.

Qrazy
08-18-2008, 01:25 PM
You might be right. But if that's the score in the movie I'll be thinking it's Burton-esque the entire time.

I highly doubt that's the score in the film.

Stay Puft
08-24-2008, 07:43 PM
Has anyone here read the novel?

I've read it. It's very short. You can easily find it online if you look.

Kurosawa Fan
08-31-2008, 03:52 AM
So, if you're the kind of person who would take a 20-minute reel of fragmented Benjamin Button footage as a good indication of it's quality ... there you have it (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/08/grain_of_button.php).

He also says that Fincher needs to pay us back for Zodiac, which couldn't be more ridiculous.

Kurosawa Fan
08-31-2008, 04:07 AM
I think Wells might be referring to how the film was robbed at the Oscars with that "Zodiac diss" thing. As in, this film might be pay-back for that ... and get the awards which Zodiac rightfully deserved.

At least I hope that's what he meant. At any rate, he at least doesn't seem to be agreeing with those folks who are tearing down Fincher and Button already because of a 20-minute reel.

Ah. That makes much more sense. Either way, I'm not concerned with 20 minutes of random footage. I'll wait until people have seen the film in its entirety.

Amnesiac
08-31-2008, 04:34 AM
I'll wait until people have seen the film in its entirety.

Ditto.


I've read it. It's very short. You can easily find it online if you look.

Yeah, incidentally someone posted a link to it in this very thread and I missed it initially.

number8
08-31-2008, 06:15 PM
Seeing how Zodiac is Fincher's second best film, the diss did piss me off too. Downhill? Please. Rendezvous with Rama will be his best film. Watch.

Ezee E
09-01-2008, 05:33 AM
I saw this tribute, and for those that have negative reactions based on the footage are crazy. The footage was more or less a reveal of the potential special effects and the look of the movie. I still have no idea what the story will be like in this one, beyond what we already know.

That said, I no longer have the worry of it looking like a "Tim Burton" film as it definitely has the feel of David Fincher all over it, with its lighting and camera positioning.

No need to worry. To be honest, they probably shouldn't have even shown footage. Last year, when they showed There Will Be Blood they took twenty minutes of the film and showed it in continuity, and that made sense.

Ezee E
09-03-2008, 05:32 AM
Out of curiosity, which twenty minutes did they show?
Just complete randomness really. Cate Blanchett dying as she tells the story, flashback.

He's born on July 4th and his father drops him at a party where his new mother adopts him, as he's nearly stepped on.

He walks for the first time as a religious ploy.

He eats dinner with Tilda Swinton.

He watches Cate Blanchett do ballet on a lake during a full moon.

It will definitely be a beautiful movie to watch.

Morris Schæffer
09-27-2008, 06:23 PM
new trailer:

http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/thecuriouscaseofbenjaminbutton/benbutton-tlr2a_h720p.mov

http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/thecuriouscaseofbenjaminbutton/benbutton-tlr2a_h480p.mov

Utterly mindblowing!

Amnesiac
09-27-2008, 06:29 PM
Utterly mindblowing!

Wow. Agreed.

Astonishingly beautiful looking film. This one has officially piqued my interest. Most anticipated, by far.

Thanks for the link.

Morris Schæffer
09-27-2008, 08:56 PM
That shot of the rocket blasting off into space!

eternity
09-27-2008, 10:16 PM
Holy crap that trailer was beautiful. Granted, some parts looked really Polar Express' in the fact that almost didn't look real but animated, but it was consistently beautiful and the last shot of the trailer where Pitt looks to start getting younger, and it was like a spit image of him in the early 90s. It was spine tingling.

Watashi
09-27-2008, 10:22 PM
Best Cinematography and Best Make-Up are both locks.

Can't wait to hear Desplat's score.

Skitch
09-27-2008, 11:19 PM
Fincher's swinging for the fences, yet again.

Sven
09-28-2008, 12:04 AM
I just can't get enthusiastic about Fincher's insistence on sepia. It feels like a schtick. And digital-old Brad Pitt is not working for me.

Ezee E
09-28-2008, 01:01 AM
Most of those scenes were in the twenty minutes I saw earlier. Except for the best-looking scene I've seen thus far.

Brad and Cate dancing near a lake at night with a full moon

Cate Blanchett looks wonderful in this. Moreso then usual.

chrisnu
09-28-2008, 06:36 AM
the last shot of the trailer where Pitt looks to start getting younger, and it was like a spit image of him in the early 90s. It was spine tingling.
I agree.

It also took me a bit to recognize that was Cate Blanchett. Wow.

eternity
09-28-2008, 09:14 AM
I agree.

It also took me a bit to recognize that was Cate Blanchett. Wow.
Yeah, they really made these actors look EXACTLY how they wanted them to look. It's amazing.

Amnesiac
09-28-2008, 10:28 PM
I still get the sense that this year won't be quite as tremendous as 2007, which brought us The Assassination of Jesse James, No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood ... but, regardless, things are looking pretty fantastic.

Australia, Synecdoche, New York, Revolutionary Road, Pride and Glory, The Changeling and Doubt have some serious potential. But I feel they could just as easily tip over the precipice and be revealed as something less than great (once they debut).

The publicity surrounding The Road is slim (or nonexistent) but I at least have the assurance of knowing that it has some of the the right pieces together - a competent director and good acting talent. I really hope that one turns out to be amazing but you never know...

So, the ones above are a bit murky and I feel that they could just as easily teeter into lackluster territory. Or less-than-astonishing territory. The only films that instill me with a similar sense of faith and certainty as I had during the anticipatory months leading to that aforementioned triad of greatness from 2007, are The Boxer and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I just don't see those two disappointing me. Knock on wood.

Ezee E
09-29-2008, 04:11 AM
Yeah. I can't say I'm pumped for movies like R-Road, Changeling, or Doubt. Last year it seemed like there was one every other week.

Pop Trash
09-29-2008, 07:59 PM
I too thought Doubt sounded too Oscar baity, but I was impressed by the trailer. Streep, Hoffman, and Adams tearing into each other and a critique on modern day Catholicism means if the reviews are good, I'll be there.

I'm a Sam Mendes fan so again, if the Revolutionary Road reviews are good, I'll be there.

Watashi
09-29-2008, 08:01 PM
I can't stop watching this trailer. It's like it's own short film.

Brad Pitt can make a trailer automatically better (see Jesse James).

Ezee E
09-29-2008, 08:02 PM
I can't stop watching this trailer. It's like it's own short film.

Brad Pitt can make a trailer automatically better (see Jesse James).
Meet Joe Black strongly disagrees.

ThePlashyBubbler
10-03-2008, 09:13 PM
Brad Pitt can make a film automatically better (see Jesse James).

Fixed.

eternity
11-15-2008, 10:23 PM
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e65/junio2/BenButtonposter.jpg

So fucking awful.

Sven
11-15-2008, 11:15 PM
That poster makes no sense.

chrisnu
11-16-2008, 03:01 AM
A one-sheet that looks like a DVD cover. Too bad.

Raiders
11-16-2008, 03:03 AM
That poster makes no sense.

It's backwards... get it?

Yeah, kind of lame. But, it's just a poster.

Boner M
11-16-2008, 03:31 AM
It's like it's telling you not to see the movie.

Robby P
11-17-2008, 01:23 AM
Zodiac had one of the best posters in recent memory. WTF, Fincher?

Amnesiac
11-17-2008, 01:57 AM
Not too big of a deal. Great movies don't always have great posters.

Watashi
11-24-2008, 07:25 AM
Alexandre Desplat's entire score can be heard here (http://warnerbros2008.warnerbros.com/bafta/#/movies/thecuriouscaseofbenjaminbutton/score/score1).

It's awesome.

chrisnu
11-24-2008, 07:39 AM
Alexandre Desplat is awesome, period.

New trailer. (http://www.badtaste.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5769&Itemid=29)

dreamdead
12-02-2008, 05:08 PM
Expectations significantly lowered (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2008/11/the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button.html). Sigh.

Kurosawa Fan
12-02-2008, 05:45 PM
I don't agree with his opening statement, since I dislike both Lyndon and Gump significantly. I also have heard great things about the Fitzgerald story, though I haven't read it myself. In other words, this review isn't tempering my anticipation in the slightest.

transmogrifier
12-02-2008, 06:57 PM
Word is definitely mixed on this, but in the strangest way; half of the detractors think it is not emotional enough, half the detractors think it is TOO emotional/treacly. There seems to be a split between older and younger reviewers too, with the hipsters :) disliking it in general. Seems like Armond, who detests Fincher, will be on the hipsters side on this one. However, I fully expect him to write a review that slams the hipster strawman yet again, despite evidence to the contrary.

Me, I can't wait to see it.

Ezee E
12-02-2008, 07:57 PM
Can we add hipster to the banned words, where pretentious is?

MadMan
12-02-2008, 09:50 PM
The trailers have actually made me want to see this. Plus I think I'm becoming a fan of Brad Pitt as well, and the fact that it has Cate Blanchett in it as well. As for the reviews, well I find that more and more these days I don't bother to read too many of them. Although I do usually check Metacritic and the Tomatoemeter to see how a film scored, yes.

Amnesiac
12-04-2008, 10:19 AM
I'm not sure how many people are already aware of this but what was slated to be Fincher's next film, Rendezvous with Rama, probably isn't going to happen (http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/13/david-finchers-rendezvous-with-rama-officially-dead/).


"It looks like it's not going to happen. There's no script and as you know, [Morgan Freeman's] not in the best of health right now. We've been trying to do it but it's probably not going to happen."

That's too bad. I haven't read the novel but I was really intrigued by the premise and seemed like it had a lot of potential. Plus, the novel was written by Arthur C. Clarke. Unfortunate news.

Pop Trash
12-04-2008, 06:33 PM
I'm not so sure about this one. Fincher fans may be kind of disappointed. It is very Forrest Gumpy. In fact a couple said exactly that when they walked out of the theater. It's much more in line with certain sentimental past Oscar nominees like Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind, and The Green Mile than any of Fincher's past films. Or you could say there is a certain Zemeckis/Spielberg vibe about it.

The cinematography is, as to be expected, excellent. Also the make-up will and should win an Oscar. The acting is solid but nothing to rave about, even with the usually stellar Pitt, Blanchette, and Swinton.

I didn't really care for the score and it pushed the film into a forced whimsy tone one too many times. It was a little too Hollywoody, especially if you compare it to Nick Cave/Warren Ellis' excellent score for Jesse James last year.

I think the biggest problem is the screenplay but Fincher has to carry some of the judgement blame since he has a lot of clout in Hollywood now. Namely the schmaltzy flash forward scenes with the daughter and an old Blanchette in the hospital. These were distracting and unnecessary and Fincher should know better. The first and last acts were the best but the middle portion, without examining the backwards aging process much, veers too much to a simple well shot nostalgic romance.

Right now I'd give it a low 7/10 but this might drop to a 6/10 if this gets way overrated. Honestly, I'd be surprised if it got over an 80 on metacritic. I also wouldn't be surprised if this got shut out of noms for best pic and best director since frankly they don't deserve them. On the other hand this is exactly the type of movie the Academy used to like to nominate (maybe not as much anymore)

I might write some more thoughts later. Feel free to ask me any questions you have.

D_Davis
12-04-2008, 06:46 PM
Based on the trailers I've seen, and from what I've read, I had always imagined this to be more in line with a Forest Gump-type film in tone and atmosphere than a Se7en or Fight Club. It seems to be to be a very romantic and sweet film. I've also been reminded of Big Fish on a number of occasions. I think these are good things.

MadMan
12-04-2008, 06:49 PM
I'm not so sure about this one. Fincher fans may be kind of dissapointed. It is very Forrest Gumpy. In fact a couple said exactly that when they walked out of the theater. It's much more in line with certain sentimental past Oscar nominees like Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind, and The Green Mile than any of Fincher's past films. Or you could say there is a certain Zemeckis/Spielberg vibe about it.Well I liked Forrest Gump, although I haven't seen the others. And I do like Spielberg and to a certain extent Zemeckis. Still its interesting that Fincher would go down that route.

Morris Schæffer
12-05-2008, 10:55 AM
Stop talking like the Forrest Gump comparisons do it no favour! The Zemeckis movie is wonderful wonderful wonderful times infinity.

Silencio
12-06-2008, 12:35 AM
Best TV spot ever?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HpZGV_m0twg

Yeah, probably.

number8
12-06-2008, 12:47 AM
Stop talking like the Forrest Gump comparisons do it no favour! The Zemeckis movie is wonderful wonderful wonderful times infinity.

I didn't know that (Wonderful x 3) x ∞ = 0.

Henry Gale
12-06-2008, 01:12 AM
Best TV spot ever?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HpZGV_m0twg

Yeah, probably.

Pretty much. I must have watched it 5 times in a row yesterday. Only way it could be better is if it were longer. Possibly my favourite song by them too.

And yeah... I'm looking forward to the movie as well...

Ezee E
12-06-2008, 01:22 AM
Yeah, I wish that Arcade Fire spot was longer too.

Milky Joe
12-06-2008, 01:28 AM
Stop talking like the Forrest Gump comparisons do it no favour! The Zemeckis movie is wonderful wonderful wonderful times infinity.

Amen. I for one approve of sentimentality. The question is, can Fincher do sentimental?

Amnesiac
12-06-2008, 09:09 AM
That TV spot set to Arcade Fire is unquestionably great. Thanks for posting it. I really hope someone will eventually splice up the film and arrange a longer trailer set to that song.

Incidentally, I'm quite fond of "My Body Is A Cage". Definitely a really memorable and affecting track. Although, I seem to remember a lot of people (obviously no one from match-cut) not caring much for it when Neon Bible first released.

Boner M
12-24-2008, 10:36 AM
Pitt displays less character than did Marlon Wayans’ CGI tour-de-force in Little Man—which hilariously said more about man’s stages of life.
No Spielberg mentions, though. Weird.

Boner M
12-25-2008, 11:31 AM
Set my expectations low, was pleasantly surprised. There are a lot of elements that I imagine even fans of the film will have to be forgiving of. In particular, the framing deathbed sequences (replete with Hurricane Katrina as the seemingly nominal historical backdrop) are awful awful awful, and seem only to exist to justify Cate Blanchett's annual Oscar glory for this year. The filmmaking is beautiful and on an image-to-image basis, it's stunning, but the insistently sombre, funereal tone can be exhausting. Also, the characters are largely ciphers, esp. Pitt and Blanchett, and their dialogue comes dangerously close to a Dark Knight-level degree of theme-spouting.

Oddly enough, the film really works because Fincher is such a cold, impersonal filmmaker; while Zodiac worked because of the perfect marriage of material and approach, this works because of the tension between the sappiness of the script and Fincher's detachment and disinterest in sap. You get the sense that he has a distrust of the dramatic potential of fantasy, and so the film is moving for its conceptual weight of the story more than anything, and the iconographic quality of the images and the economy of the storytelling gives every scene a haunting ephemerality. Kent Jones's observation that both this and Zodiac, at their basest, are about 'time passing' could lend itself to some interesting readings that I'm too tired and full of X-mas food to give any thought to.

Very interested to read everyone else's reactions, which I'm surprisingly unable to predict.

Acapelli
12-25-2008, 02:23 PM
that arcade fire trailer is pretty awful. it feels like a fan made trailer

number8
12-25-2008, 04:20 PM
Oddly enough, the film really works because Fincher is such a cold, impersonal filmmaker; while Zodiac worked because of the perfect marriage of material and approach, this works because of the tension between the sappiness of the script and Fincher's detachment and disinterest in sap.

This. I was quite scared for the first 30 minutes because it was shaping up to be a Forrest Gump. Fincher made the sap work, and it ended up working amazingly well in the second half.

NickGlass
12-25-2008, 08:47 PM
Also, the characters are largely ciphers, esp. Pitt and Blanchett, and their dialogue comes dangerously close to a Dark Knight-level degree of theme-spouting.


Yikes.

ledfloyd
12-26-2008, 01:45 AM
I enjoyed it, but didn't think it was amazing. Pitt's performance was unbelievable. The special effects work is great. The irrelevant mention of Katrina kind of irked me a bit. I need to let it stew a bit more before deciding exactly what i think.

Qrazy
12-26-2008, 03:26 AM
Pitt's performance was unbelievable.

In the good sense or the bad sense?

Pop Trash
12-26-2008, 03:29 AM
Set my expectations low, was pleasantly surprised. There are a lot of elements that I imagine even fans of the film will have to be forgiving of. In particular, the framing deathbed sequences (replete with Hurricane Katrina as the seemingly nominal historical backdrop) are awful awful awful, and seem only to exist to justify Cate Blanchett's annual Oscar glory for this year. The filmmaking is beautiful and on an image-to-image basis, it's stunning, but the insistently sombre, funereal tone can be exhausting. Also, the characters are largely ciphers, esp. Pitt and Blanchett, and their dialogue comes dangerously close to a Dark Knight-level degree of theme-spouting.

Oddly enough, the film really works because Fincher is such a cold, impersonal filmmaker; while Zodiac worked because of the perfect marriage of material and approach, this works because of the tension between the sappiness of the script and Fincher's detachment and disinterest in sap. You get the sense that he has a distrust of the dramatic potential of fantasy, and so the film is moving for its conceptual weight of the story more than anything, and the iconographic quality of the images and the economy of the storytelling gives every scene a haunting ephemerality. Kent Jones's observation that both this and Zodiac, at their basest, are about 'time passing' could lend itself to some interesting readings that I'm too tired and full of X-mas food to give any thought to.

Very interested to read everyone else's reactions, which I'm surprisingly unable to predict.

Eeeehhhh...Gawd this is what I hate about the "auteur" theory. If Ron Howard's name was on this film people would be trashing it left and right. This thinking makes me like it even less. Having watched both this and The Dark Knight recently...The Dark Knight is much, much better.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 03:32 AM
If Ron Howard's name was on this film people would be trashing it left and right
Useless criticism.

Pop Trash
12-26-2008, 03:35 AM
Useless criticism.
Because...

Boner M
12-26-2008, 03:44 AM
Because...
Because debate ends right there. Besides, I'm not even Fincher's biggest fan (Panic Room is dreadful, The Game and Fight Club are very good but flawed). I simply found that his approach - which I believe would be easily detectable as a cold and removed one had I not known who made the film - worked well in tempering the potential of the film to be excessively sappy and maudlin (stuff like the silent-film inserts of the lightning strikes is a good example of what I'm talking about).

PS, if The Dark Knight was ghost-directed by Marc Forster no one would care about it. ZING!

Pop Trash
12-26-2008, 04:07 AM
PS, if The Dark Knight was ghost-directed by Marc Forster no one would care about it. ZING!

Well it really wouldn't be the same film considering Nolan and his brother co-wrote the script, thus chopping out any potential for eye rolling moments like a flash forward with Maggie Gyllenhaal in old age makeup on her death bed in the hospital telling the story of Batman vs. The Joker to her daughter. Then maybe the big (predictable) reveal would be the her daughter would be child of...wait for it...BRUCE WAYNE! WOW DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!

Melville
12-26-2008, 04:34 AM
Well it really wouldn't be the same film considering Nolan and his brother co-wrote the script, thus chopping out any potential for eye rolling moments like a flash forward with Maggie Gyllenhaal in old age makeup on her death bed in the hospital telling the story of Batman vs. The Joker to her daughter.
They should have chopped out the ferry scenes while they were at it.

Bosco B Thug
12-26-2008, 04:53 AM
They should have chopped out the ferry scenes while they were at it. Hahaha, good one.

Ezee E
12-26-2008, 04:55 AM
Think I'll go see this tomorrow.

Winston*
12-26-2008, 09:39 AM
Argh. Those Blanchett dying scenes. Argh! Argh!

Other than that, Fincher's directorial detachment manages to keep the film from getting too mawkish but unfortunately doesn't keep it from getting kind of boring. Entire Tugboatman segment was very strong, easily the best part of the film; that and the dude getting hit by lightning all those times.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 09:52 AM
Argh. Those Blanchett dying scenes. Argh! Argh!
I know, I really have to purge them from my memory to maintain my high opinion of the film. The hummingbird coming back at the end was like the rotten cherry on top of the shit sundae.

Winston*
12-26-2008, 10:13 AM
I suppose I find it interesting to see what influence a director can have over the tone of a naff screenplay. But I can't help but feel that the film might've been better had the screenplay not been naff.

Winston*
12-26-2008, 10:32 AM
Also, since he starts off as a baby-sized old man, he should have ended up as an old man-sized baby. That would've made more sense.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 10:39 AM
Also, since he starts off as a baby-sized old man, he should have ended up as an old man-sized baby. That would've made more sense.
He could've been born as an old man-sized old man when you think of it. Would've been kinda gross tho.

I think I'm gonna lower my rating. Not so much that my opinion of the film has decreased, but rather just because a 76 doesn't really match up with my essentially positive-with-major-reservations reaction.

More on my numerical evaluation of TCCOBB to come!

Watashi
12-26-2008, 07:16 PM
I think I'm gonna lower my rating. Not so much that my opinion of the film has decreased, but rather just because a 76 doesn't really match up with my essentially positive-with-major-reservations reaction.

Jesus...

Watashi
12-26-2008, 07:17 PM
Anyway, this film is amazing. Yada, yada, yada. The Katrina scenes are perfectly fine.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 07:23 PM
Am I the only one who fails to see the Forrest Gump connections at all? Sure, critics can pinpoint similar connections through the screenwriter and usage of special effects. It's way more Big Fish than anything.

number8
12-26-2008, 07:24 PM
Am I the only one who fails to see the Forrest Grump connections at all? Sure, critics can pinpoint similar connections through the screenwriter and usage of special effects. It's way more Big Fish than anything.

It's the mawkish life story of a strange man's discovery of the big world, narrated in an innocent voice thingie.

Stay Puft
12-26-2008, 07:27 PM
He could've been born as an old man-sized old man when you think of it. Would've been kinda gross tho.

That's what happens in Fitzgerald's story.

Haven't seen the film yet. Maybe this weekened.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 07:59 PM
Jesus...
Huh?


The Katrina scenes are perfectly fine.
Didn't you say the same about the CGI gopher in Indy 4?

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:05 PM
I do admit the Katrina framing device was a bit clunky, but this is Fincher and Roth's eulogy to New Orleans during the Twentieth Century and how Button and Daisy's love story encapsulates the magic and surreal beauty of the city itself. Saying it's "awful, awful, awful" is just gut-reaction hyperbole and boner knows this.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 08:08 PM
Saying it's "awful, awful, awful" is just gut-reaction hyperbole and boner knows this.
No, I thought it was awful awful awful then and I think it's awful awful awful now.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:08 PM
Huh?

Dropping your score because a couple of people here has said thoughts less or more so to reconfirm your own faults with the film? So if Derek comes in and declares it the worst film of the year, are you going to drop it some more?



Didn't you say the same about the CGI gopher in Indy 4?

Yeah. There were far more bigger problems in Indy 4 than a 2 second shot of a gopher. Now you're just reaching, boner.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:10 PM
And the fact that you dropped it from a 76 to a 72 is pretty hilarious. Like those 4 points matter a lot.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 08:10 PM
Dropping your score because a couple of people here has said thoughts less or more so confirm your own faults with the film? So if Derek comes in and declares it the worst film of the year, are you going to drop it some more?
*sigh* One more time:


I think I'm gonna lower my rating. Not so much that my opinion of the film has decreased, but rather just because a 76 doesn't really match up with my essentially positive-with-major-reservations reaction.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:12 PM
Yeah, I read your little post and still found it hilarious.

transmogrifier
12-26-2008, 08:12 PM
I'm going to see this film in two hours. I'm going to come back with a list of grades taken at 15 minute intervals, to truly paint a picture of my reaction to the film that words and sentences just can't even begin to emulate.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:14 PM
I'm just saying that if no one had posted after you in this thread (or a series of universal praises), you would have not made that post.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 08:16 PM
Is this post-Christmas bitterness or something? Jesus, Wats.

transmogrifier
12-26-2008, 08:19 PM
Christmas cheer is difficult to sustain over long periods.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:19 PM
Is this post-Christmas bitterness or something? Jesus, Wats.
I'm actually in a good mood right now. I have the day off and I'm going to see Valkyrie and The Wrestler later on.

Ezee E
12-26-2008, 08:25 PM
Nothing wrong with changing your opinion if others point out a fault that you didn't think too much about, but stands out when noticed. Even if it's just a 4% change.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:26 PM
I'm actually in a good mood right now. I have the day off and I'm going to see Valkyrie and The Wrestler later on.
Also, it just may seem I am much more forgiving when it comes to certain aspects of film criticism and there and things I just don't get. You, Rowland, Derek (or the Heilman Crew as I call you guys) all suffer from the same syndrome. I always wonder if you have a phobia of enjoying well-praised films and seem to have a limited range when it comes to your scale. My personal peeve, of course and I ignore it, but yeah stating how you are lowering your rating by a measly four points makes me reconfirm that your wacky system is bonkers.

I still love you boner and plan to bear your children.

number8
12-26-2008, 08:27 PM
I'm not sure about how the dying Blanchett-daughter relationship is handled, but I thought it was very smart of them to set it during Katrina. Goes with the film's pattern.

Ezee E
12-26-2008, 08:27 PM
The Heilman Crew owns all.

transmogrifier
12-26-2008, 08:28 PM
I don't know, Heilman is all over the place. I can't trust a rating of his for a second.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:28 PM
Nothing wrong with changing your opinion if others point out a fault that you didn't think too much about, but stands out when noticed. Even if it's just a 4% change.
That's not what boner did.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:32 PM
I failed you, boner. Didn't I?

DavidSeven
12-26-2008, 08:43 PM
+5 for 70%+ tomatometer; -10 90%+ tomatometer, +5 for subtitles; -7 for $50 million+ budget; +5 for cynicism; +10 for nihilism; -15 for optimism; +3 Robert Downey Jr.; +2 Samantha Morton; +10 retroactive bonus for overlooked films; -4 to -20 for retroactive backlash for mainstream/critical smashes.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:48 PM
I'm really sorry I brought this up. I feel like an idiot now. Mods, please move this to the "Wats done fucked up" thread.

Raiders
12-26-2008, 08:49 PM
I'm really sorry I brought this up. I feel like an idiot now. Mods, please move this to the "Wats done fucked up" thread.

Can't. It reached its post limit.

Watashi
12-26-2008, 08:54 PM
Can't. It reached its post limit.

:|

To go back to the original topic, I think Jason Flemying gave the best performance in the film in the small yet crucial role as Benjamin's father. His closing scene was the emotional peak of the film for me. An absolute stunning scene of beauty and tragedy.

Winston*
12-26-2008, 09:05 PM
Boner lowered his grade because he saw I didn't like the film that much and he didn't want me to think he was uncool.

Pop Trash
12-26-2008, 09:15 PM
+5 for 70%+ tomatometer; -10 90%+ tomatometer, +5 for subtitles; -7 for $50 million+ budget; +5 for cynicism; +10 for nihilism; -15 for optimism; +3 Robert Downey Jr.; +2 Samantha Morton; +10 retroactive bonus for overlooked films; -4 to -20 for retroactive backlash for mainstream/critical smashes.

:lol: Major rep!!!

eternity
12-26-2008, 10:48 PM
:lol: Major rep!!!

Seconded.

Boner M
12-26-2008, 11:29 PM
I'm really sorry I brought this up. I feel like an idiot now. Mods, please move this to the "Wats done fucked up" thread.
We all could each delete our posts one-by-one in homage to the film.

transmogrifier
12-27-2008, 03:04 AM
I'm going to see this film in two hours. I'm going to come back with a list of grades taken at 15 minute intervals, to truly paint a picture of my reaction to the film that words and sentences just can't even begin to emulate.

After 15 minutes - 52
After 30 minutes - 61
After 45 minutes - 62
After 60 minutes - 62
After 75 minutes - 61
After 90 minutes - 59
After 105 minutes - 59
After 120 minutes - 58
After 135 minutes - 63
After 150 minutes - 65
After 165 minutes - 68

Final grade is therefore 68.

PS: This breakdown is actually accurate to the best of my knowledge.

chrisnu
12-27-2008, 03:22 AM
It's the mawkish life story of a strange man's discovery of the big world, narrated in an innocent voice thingie.
The more I think about it, the more I actually dislike Benjamin's point of view. As if leaving everything behind and starting all over is necessarily a more authentic life than what happened before. I found his and Daisy's mutual decision to keep him a secret until her death to be a very selfish one. Even Caroline said, "I would've liked to have known him". She wasn't given the chance, even as a grown woman.

I also found the logic behind his de-aging to not make a lot of sense. If he was born as an old baby, wouldn't it have made sense to die as a fully grown infant? The whole growing bigger and then growing smaller made no sense. It also makes no sense that he was born with the mind of a infant, and gradually reverts to the mind of an infant again? It really makes the latter part of the film difficult to understand, because you have no idea what the character is thinking or going through. There's no frame of reference for his state of mind.

Nevertheless, I found the middle portion of the film (particularly everything involving Captain Mike and Thomas Button) to be very affecting, particularly in emphasizing the value of living life in the moment, and not running from who you are. I found the episodes involving those characters, as well as Elizabeth Abbott, to make more of an impact than the numerous vignettes of storybook romance.

transmogrifier
12-27-2008, 03:27 AM
I also found the logic behind his de-aging to not make a lot of sense. If he was born as an old baby, wouldn't it have made sense to die as a fully grown infant? The whole growing bigger and then growing smaller made no sense. It also makes no sense that he was born with the mind of a infant, and gradually reverts to the mind of an infant again? It really makes the latter part of the film difficult to understand, because you have no idea what the character is thinking or going through. There's no frame of reference for his state of mind.

I really do think that if you have problems with the "logic" of BB condition, then you are really having problems with the script/story, because it is a simple case of suspending disbelief; it's about someone aging backwards, and thus - and I think I'm correct in this - has no precedent, and thus no rules to break, destroying the "logic". Why does his life have to be so symmetrical for it to be suddenly believable? I don't get that at all.

eternity
12-27-2008, 03:33 AM
So yeah, that Button movie is sort of the best of the year. I need to see it a couple more times at least to fully explain everything that is great about it, but this is definitely something that I can say is truly special.

transmogrifier
12-27-2008, 03:38 AM
Anyway, the film struggles for tone and atmosphere at the start (I hate framing devices, they are so goddamn lazy), but begins to click into a simple anecdote-laden charm as Button goes out on the boat, and meets Swinton. However, it starts to wear thin once we get back to the back-and-forth maybe-maybe not of our central couple - this is by far the weakest section, totally without drama, and merely padding out the film.

Once they get together, though, the film starts to pay back a lot of the time spent floating along with Benjamin, we come to see how disconnected he is from everyone, how the laws of nature that everyone else has to abide by becomes an implacable enemy, a crushing weight. It ultimately turns out to be the anti-Gump, having no interest in polishing the cheap crystal of nostalgia or namechecking historical events, but rather showing how one can coast through life moment by moment without really giving yourself over to anything, or taking anything out of it. It's not until you start to see your loved ones depart, for one reason or another, that you begin to see the limits you have placed on yourself, and the finish line comes into focus. It is the most melacholic big budget film in a long time. It's just a shame it's so lumpy getting there.

EDIT: I do think it's a film that would reward a repeat viewing, and Pitt and Blanchett are very good.

chrisnu
12-27-2008, 03:39 AM
Yes, it is a problem I have with the script. After Brad Pitt's last appearance, we (along with Daisy) can only guess what's going on with Benjamin. He becomes a non-character, because his previous life experience (and our emotional context for the character) is essentially obliterated. All we're given are Daisy's reactions to his condition, and I don't think that was an acceptable resolution to his story. Maybe the reaction that the snuffing out of Benjamin's life being unacceptable was desired, but at least with a normal person dying of old age, we and the character have the context of the rest of their life experience and thus the story. We don't have that with Benjamin's death.

I demand more, dammit!

transmogrifier
12-27-2008, 03:50 AM
Yes, it is a problem I have with the script. After Brad Pitt's last appearance, we (along with Daisy) can only guess what's going on with Benjamin. He becomes a non-character, because his previous life experience (and our emotional context for the character) is essentially obliterated. All we're given are Daisy's reactions to his condition, and I don't think that was an acceptable resolution to his story. Maybe the reaction that the snuffing out of Benjamin's life being unacceptable was desired, but at least with a normal person dying of old age, we and the character have the context of the rest of their life experience and thus the story. We don't have that with Benjamin's death.

I demand more, dammit!

But I think Daisy's reactions are the point of the story - in essence the infant BB is a living depiction of fading memories and experiences that everyone experiences as they get older and loved ones start to pass away. I have no problem with the idea, though I think they raced through it far too quickly - they should have jettisoned the faux-arguments in the middle and spent more time at the end of days.

Qrazy
12-27-2008, 05:05 AM
It's a personal pet peeve of mine that has little to do with hype - I disliked De Sica's Miracle in Milan for a similarly pandering attitude towards poverty.

Anyway, another thread, another day, my apogies, etc.

I disagree with this analysis. In my opinion Miracle in Milan failed because it derailed hard in the last third. Not every film dealing with poverty has to leave being it a trail of tears or astound us with it's gritty realism. The reason De Sica made Milan in the first place was in reaction to his earlier neorealist efforts. While the earlier films certainly bring a lot to the table and are arguably much more valuable films, on a thematic level Milan is a worthwhile counterpoint. The counterpoint being that attitude and imagination are central to both survival and improving one's conditions. Milan is De Sica's Sullivan's Travels in a way. But yeah as soon as the protagonist gets his wish and broom sticks enter the film then the picture divebombs into shitsville.

eternity
12-27-2008, 05:23 AM
In regards to these much criticized Katrina scenes, I felt that it was going to be unnecessary as it usually is in films like Titanic, etc. I was shocked to see how worthwhile it all ended up being. It served as a very good parallel to the life and death of Benjamin Button that Caroline reads to us, as we watch him eventually reach zero. All the while, we see how Blanchett's character reads everything that happens in the story, as misconceptions and misunderstandings between her and Benjamin are revealed throughout the story. We hear her story too and not just Benjamin's, and when he eventually perishes and the journal ends, the Katrina scenes are where her story takes off until she eventually reaches that point. She says at one point of the film "We all end up in diapers anyway." as a joke about how he's getting younger but it isn't much different being on your death bed as an old person than it is as a newborn when you age backwards. Not only does this choice to have the story being told this way allows the film to not just tell Benjamin's story but tell Daisy's as well, documenting not only his journal and re-telling of the events, but her reactions and how what she saw differed, but we get to see how aging backwards and aging forward ends up at the same conclusion.

It was surprisingly necessary, relevant, and powerful. I was really annoyed that it was there just on principle, but ended up being thankful they took the risk and totally ran with it by the end.

Watashi
12-27-2008, 05:35 AM
In fact, I'll start a separate thread and apologize for the unneccesary hijacking.

Ivan Drago
12-27-2008, 05:43 AM
The Heilman Crew? Who's Heilman?

Derek
12-27-2008, 06:11 AM
But yeah as soon as the protagonist gets his wish and broom sticks enter the film then the picture divebombs into shitsville.

This would be the pandering attitude of which I speak. It's been years since I've seen it so I can't argue to the accuracy of that word, but I think you get my drift. I also agree not every film about poverty has to be a trail of tears - Dodeskaden and Sullivan's being examples of how to do it right - but too often these counterpoints, good-natured though they may be stray from presenting the attitude of their protagonists and simply misrepresent poverty to an offensive degree.

Anyway, I've deleted my original post and this can move to the Slumdog thread. But to be remotely on topic, I will be seeing Curious Case in about a week and am fairly excited about it. A lot of critics have liked it though, so I'll have to start crunching the numbers to see what score range is appropriate going in. I'm thinking 45-64.

Raiders
12-29-2008, 01:27 AM
I have absolutely no idea what to make of this movie. I keep starting to flesh out thoughts and try to take it in a certain thematic direction, but I always stop short. There's just almost nothing here. There are pieces strewn everywhere of a greater, epic American tragedy of some sort, but the film just doesn't congeal into... well, anything. Frustrating to the extreme.

Pop Trash
12-29-2008, 01:30 AM
I have absolutely no idea what to make of this movie. I keep starting to flesh out thoughts and try to take it in a certain thematic direction, but I always stop short. There's just almost nothing here. There are pieces strewn everywhere of a greater, epic American tragedy of some sort, but the film just doesn't congeal into... well, anything. Frustrating to the extreme.
:) Rep. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Duncan
12-29-2008, 06:03 PM
Facebook creeping informs me that my ex's house in New Orleans was used for this.

Don't look at me like that.

Ezee E
12-29-2008, 09:30 PM
You'd think for three hours of a movie, there'd be something more to talk about with this movie, but there really isn't. We grow up, see people die, or disappear, and then we die.

The scenes in the hospital aren't necessarily grating, but they are pointless, just a way to tell the story, and have an occassional twist. The twenty or thirty minutes used here could've easily focused more on Benjamin Button's fading memory, which felt rushed.

That's not to say there isn't good in this movie. As trans mentioned, the scenes when Button becomes a tug boat man, up until his first detachment with the mid-20's Cate is excellent. It wasn't mentioned, but the idea of people growing up the same way, but in different directions (eek, pun) worked well for me.

David Fincher may not have had an emotional connection with this movie, but he brought out all the technical wizardry that he is capable of. The special effects don't wow us, because they feel just right with the story. Instead of analyzing how amazing the CGI on Pitt is, I was instead in the story, and those are the best effects of all.

I also couldn't see any actor doing this except for Brad Pitt.

A shame that there's just some large problems with this.

Stay Puft
12-29-2008, 10:44 PM
There's just almost nothing here. There are pieces strewn everywhere of a greater, epic American tragedy of some sort, but the film just doesn't congeal into... well, anything. Frustrating to the extreme.

Full agreement.

I'd say this is a movie I enjoyed watching insofar as I enjoyed looking at it. It's wonderfully shot, and sequences like the submarine encounter exemplify the strong, precise directing I'd expect from Fincher.

But in the end I didn't really get anything from the story, and was never convinced there was much of anything to get beyond a series of pat "reflections on life" (you never know what's coming for you, we're defined by opportunities including the ones we miss, we're on different roads but heading to the same place in the end, life is like a box of chocolates, etc.). That's pretty much worthless to me, but then I never thought there was much to the Fitzgerald story to begin with, either.

Spinal
12-30-2008, 07:51 AM
Beyond the technical wizardry in the use of special effects, this film is almost entirely worthless. You'd think that a film with a premise like this would stumble upon moments of poignancy of the course of its nearly three-hour runtime. However, all it can do it reiterate the same banal "live life to the fullest" platitudes that we are subjected to every year about this time. The film is almost like a deadpan parody of a film that strives to be an Oscar contender. From the sexy leads covered beneath old-age makeup/effects to the bothersome 'disability' that paradoxically makes the protagonist more fully able to appreciate life to the folksy Southern accents to the bookending sections in which the story is read aloud by someone who is closer to the tale than they think. It is like Brad Pitt's own personal Forrest Gump and it will probably succeed in earning him an Oscar nomination. However, while the film unmistakably looks and feels like something that should be an Oscar contender, it is utterly empty inside.

The condition of Pitt's character is so freakish that it makes it difficult for the viewer to see his experience as being in any way relatable to ours. His path should in some way enlighten us, but it does not because he is so clearly a goofy film conceit and never stops being so. Characters marvel at his appearance, but who is he beyond that? He has a black adopted mother, he gets laid at a brothel, he flirts with a married woman and has many people around him die, but he never really amounts to more than his condition. It is also never clear just how his backward aging makes him any more qualified to wax eloquent on the meaning of life than someone who has grown old in the usual way. Consequently, the whole film ends up being something of a waste as we wait for the narrative to justify the ludicrous premise. It doesn't. If you think you've seen anything new, well, then I suggest you stand on your head the next time you get bored with the arrangement of your living room.

Watashi
12-30-2008, 07:58 AM
I'd never thought I'd live to see the day where Spinal rates an Adam Sandler film higher than a David Fincher film.

Oh well. You're all a bunch of loonies.

Watashi
12-30-2008, 08:03 AM
And "live life to the fullest" films are probably my favorite type of films.

I really connected with Button's journey and I liked how Roth and Fincher didn't try to paint him as this great Christ-like man who changed everyone's lives. He was actually rather selfish and prude the younger/older he got.

Spinal
12-30-2008, 08:06 AM
And "live life to the fullest" films are probably my favorite type of films.

Mine too. This particular film would not be a high quality example.

Sxottlan
12-30-2008, 08:51 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but did anyone else notice that Tarsem was credited as the 2nd unit director for the India scenes?

Loved the movie, btw.

Ezee E
12-30-2008, 01:22 PM
The final montage was beautifully done, even if it didn't really make sense in the context of the movie.

I'll give it that.

DavidSeven
12-31-2008, 10:02 AM
It's a good film, but I can see why many felt unfulfilled. I don't really think it has much to do with the film's lack of substance. It's a narrative film, and I think it can get away with being light if it tells its story well. Unfortunately, it fails in a few key points:

- One, there's a total lack of catharsis. I think Fincher/Roth might have recognized this and tried to remedy it with a tacked on and limp curtain call.
- Two, the ending of the second act just doesn't make sense with how Pitt's character had been built up as this folksy hero up to that point. Why does he become a coward all of a sudden? And why isn't this human flaw focused on? It's almost an afterthought or something we're just supposed to accept as being twistedly heroic. If there's a point where this film gets deflated, it's here.
- Three, the use of Katrina as an element hints that the film will attempt to create some sort of modern day relevance when it's chief goal is obviously to tell a timeless story. Fincher/Roth bit off more than they could chew there as the introduction of such a recent and memorable event begs for something more than subtle parallelism. Again, no shame in creating a thematically simplistic film, but be careful of the expectations you set for your viewers.

Those fairly major missteps aside, it's a good picture. Well crafted and well told besides those few bumps. Could have been an excellent piece of narrative filmmaking had they been able to follow through to the end.

Kurosawa Fan
01-07-2009, 04:24 AM
Completely agree with D7. The Katrina connection didn't bother me so much, as I just read it as further evidence that none of us know how long we have, and if we aren't spending our lives the way we want, we need to make a change. Still, I quite liked the film despite its flaws. I was really swept up in the story and the romance of it all, as well as being fairly affected by the somber conclusion to Benjamin's life.

Dillard
01-10-2009, 07:41 PM
I have to admit that I also felt at a loss for words after my first viewing even though I felt like it was a good film, but I really resonated with an idea that Evan Davis, Kent Jones, and Nathan Lee bring up in their podcast (http://filmlinc.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/before-you-see-button-fight-club-zodiac-or-se7en-listen-to-this-podcast-on-david-fincher/) about Fincher (they talk about Button extensively about half-way through the podcast until the end). It is the idea of the incongruity of being a certain age but feeling older or feeling younger than that age at that moment, and that can especially happen socially, or in relationship with other people. You get the sense that Button is conscious of this incongruity throughout his life, and I think that his awareness of the incongruity is something that is very easy to relate to as well.

Boner M
01-11-2009, 01:15 AM
I have to admit that I also felt at a loss for words after my first viewing even though I felt like it was a good film, but I really resonated with an idea that Evan Davis, Kent Jones, and Nathan Lee bring up in their podcast (http://filmlinc.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/before-you-see-button-fight-club-zodiac-or-se7en-listen-to-this-podcast-on-david-fincher/) about Fincher (they talk about Button extensively about half-way through the podcast until the end).
That was great, thanks for the link. Really makes me re-evaluate/rewatch both BB and even Zodiac as well (which was near the top of my '07 list).

Duncan
01-17-2009, 10:58 PM
I thought this was excellent. Agree that some of the hospital scenes were cringe inducing, especially the paternal reveal. Other than that, I actually found the film quite moving.

I didn't think that this was a "live life to the fullest" film at all. I thought it was more of an "even if you live your life to the fullest it all falls apart" film. I have to admit, I have a weakness for the idea of stillness as some sort of ideal. It's the reason La Jetee is one of my favourite films. Given my interest in film I've always found it a little odd that I never got overly interested in photography. I think what it comes down to is the temporal relentlessness that film carries with it, whereas photography is the preservation and extraction of an instant. To get Tarkovsky-ian, you can sculpt time, but you can never relieve it of itself. What's left is still time passing. I think, then, that the impossibility of our longings (or at least my longings) to inhabit a freeze frame for just a little while, or to know what it would feel like for joy to be a more consistent emotion, or even to not feel guilty about re-imagining memories in a better light and dreaming about what might have been - the impossibility of all these things - justifies the impossibility of the film's premise.

Perhaps The Curious Case of Benjamin Button just struck a personal note with me, but my feeling is that it is not a shallow film at all. My opinion of Fincher has certainly changed recently. Se7en and Fight Club are, to me, still rather childish films, but his last two have been really interesting.

Duncan
01-17-2009, 11:03 PM
Eeeehhhh...Gawd this is what I hate about the "auteur" theory. If Ron Howard's name was on this film people would be trashing it left and right. This thinking makes me like it even less. Having watched both this and The Dark Knight recently...The Dark Knight is much, much better.

Ron Howard never makes this film. Not only does he not have the technical craft, he doesn't have the thematic aspirations. Fincher is going after big things with his formalism (and if the script were just a little better he may have even been totally successful). Frost/Nixon's formal insights about the close up are the same as D.W. Griffith's from 100 years ago, except Howard seems to think they're novel or at the very least interesting.

transmogrifier
01-18-2009, 12:32 AM
From Reverse Shot;s "But What About...?" column:


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Shot in colors that evoke liminal states in time—mainly the browns and golds of autumn, amber, dim lamplight, and hourglass sand—The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is one of the strangest and saddest contemporary films to be underestimated by critics as studio schmaltz. At first glance, this knee-jerk dismissal is no surprise. Adapting F. Scott Fitzgerald’s idea of a man born old and growing younger, the film looks ready to pull out all the stops and pigeonhole itself as a Hollywood folly. The technological gimmicks and century-spanning scope seem evidence of cinematic gluttony, as if David Fincher were making claims to deliver us a whole life, the whole world, and then some, unimpeded by his medium’s limitations or conventions.

The surprise of Button, then, is how it weaves itself through a series of omissions. Seeing that this is a film about being trapped in a reverse trajectory, in a body incapable of reflecting either the shallowness or depth of one’s knowledge and experience, it’s appropriate that we never find our bearings in the flow of history, or even inhabit any single scene without anticipating its transience. Time may be the fire in which we burn, but, like Benjamin, we are often floating on top of it, unable to merge with the passing instant. To simulate this sense of existing outside of one’s own time while also being victim to its laws, Fincher shoots the narrative full of holes and absences that complicate our grasp of the moment. On the one hand, this frustrates our expectations of an epic’s obligatory social awareness, as when the film glides between eras without directly acknowledging important cultural shifts, historical milestones, or racial politics. But, more importantly, this evasive style harnesses the poetic suggestiveness of all that is left unsaid and undepicted, best exemplified when Fincher veils what might have been the year’s most devastating love scene behind an exquisitely timed dissolve to black.

Perhaps any new movie that casts Brad Pitt as a lead can be interpreted as an ode to stardom, but Button—with its vivid imagining of the actor across the age spectrum—is especially fascinated by the way we use the most enduring screen careers to compare against our own progression through life. Revisiting the kind of supernatural freak role he attempted in Meet Joe Black, Pitt has at long last matured into an actor of grace and nuance, his beauty made radiant by the impermanence he embodies here. Adding to the film’s heady mix of elegiac mood, cornball wisdom, and suppressed emotion are the love interests, Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton—who, like Pitt, are among today’s most enigmatic and psychologically opaque actors. In their company, Benjamin becomes a mythic figure of minimal heroic delusions but maximum emotional pull, a man so intimately acquainted with mortality that he forms the most desirable attitude toward loss a human being could hope for: neither immune to its sorrow nor afraid of it. Fincher’s most deeply felt work yet might have been a piece of white elephant art if it weren’t located in such a pure, heartbreaking register of acceptance.

Melville
01-18-2009, 01:46 AM
I think what it comes down to is the temporal relentlessness that film carries with it, whereas photography is the preservation and extraction of an instant. To get Tarkovsky-ian, you can sculpt time, but you can never relieve it of itself. What's left is still time passing. I think, then, that the impossibility of our longings (or at least my longings) to inhabit a freeze frame for just a little while, or to know what it would feel like for joy to be a more consistent emotion, or even to not feel guilty about re-imagining memories in a better light and dreaming about what might have been - the impossibility of all these things - justifies the impossibility of the film's premise.

Time may be the fire in which we burn, but, like Benjamin, we are often floating on top of it, unable to merge with the passing instant.
Hm. I guess I should see this.

Pop Trash
01-18-2009, 04:51 AM
Ron Howard never makes this film. Not only does he not have the technical craft, he doesn't have the thematic aspirations. Fincher is going after big things with his formalism (and if the script were just a little better he may have even been totally successful). Frost/Nixon's formal insights about the close up are the same as D.W. Griffith's from 100 years ago, except Howard seems to think they're novel or at the very least interesting.
The problem is that beyond good cinematography, thematically this film is just fucking lifeless. Seriously, Jesse James wipes the floor with this.

Watashi
01-18-2009, 06:31 AM
Lifeless is one of the last words I'd use to describe Benjamin Button.

I really liked the podcast that Dillard linked above especially the mention of Fincher eschewing all of Roth's Gump cliches and delivering a transcendent love letter to the Big Easy.

Izzy Black
01-18-2009, 08:24 PM
Saw this film and thought it pretty good. I have skimmed only this last page so I do not know what all has been written. Can't say I agree with the criticisms that nothing is going on here. It can be somewhat tiresome to look and reduce the film to some easily tangible talking points. The film works more phenomenologically than that, I think. It also has some strong Tolstoyian elements. It plays out like a Tolstoy novel on the screen intermixed with some American myth-making, fantasy, and Fincher's usual style of self-reference and preoccupations with anxious living.

Raiders
01-18-2009, 08:29 PM
I would like to argue with some of the praise on this past page or two, but after only about three weeks I can remember absolutely nothing about this movie. I'll use that to vindicate that, at least for me, this film was about nothing of interest.

Izzy Black
01-18-2009, 08:34 PM
Interesting how the film's value has been assessed from almost entirely subjective standpoints on both sides.

Raiders
01-18-2009, 08:52 PM
Interesting how the film's value has been assessed from almost entirely subjective standpoints on both sides.

Not sure where else you can go. Fincher leaves no doubt that the film is technically perfect, almost transcendent if you will. But, not quite there for me. I can't recollect much in the way of specific detail, but it plays very much all on muted tones and a very straight ahead, even-keeled, sans emotion vibe. I think a lot of it will come down to how much of this works on the individual viewer to place his/her own feelings onto Benjamin and his journey since Benjamin never really tips his hat. It is as Duncan says, the film is all about the image and in this film, its tragedy comes from the fact that Benjamin almost by law cannot truly interact with his own story, not to even mention all that is happening around him. I just ultimately had no entry into this film or these characters and whenever I ran it through my head, I came away with emptiness. I suppose that emptiness does resonate, and it is attributable to the film's style, but when my thoughts end with a shrug, I can only doubt just how successful it all really was.

Spinal
01-18-2009, 09:11 PM
Can't say I agree with the criticisms that nothing is going on here.

There is something going on in the film, but that something is not something very entertaining, effective or noteworthy.

Spinal
01-18-2009, 09:12 PM
Interesting how the film's value has been assessed from almost entirely subjective standpoints on both sides.

I'm not sure why this is interesting or why someone would expect something different.

Izzy Black
01-18-2009, 09:29 PM
There is something going on in the film, but that something is not something very entertaining, effective or noteworthy.

Not much to say on the entertaining mark, but I find the concerns fairly noteworthy.

Izzy Black
01-18-2009, 09:31 PM
Not sure where else you can go. Fincher leaves no doubt that the film is technically perfect, almost transcendent if you will. But, not quite there for me. I can't recollect much in the way of specific detail, but it plays very much all on muted tones and a very straight ahead, even-keeled, sans emotion vibe.

Right.


I think a lot of it will come down to how much of this works on the individual viewer to place his/her own feelings onto Benjamin and his journey since Benjamin never really tips his hat.

Which is precisely what I am saying.


It is as Duncan says, the film is all about the image and in this film, its tragedy comes from the fact that Benjamin almost by law cannot truly interact with his own story, not to even mention all that is happening around him.

Yep. Which is why I brought up the phenomenological point.


I just ultimately had no entry into this film or these characters and whenever I ran it through my head, I came away with emptiness. I suppose that emptiness does resonate, and it is attributable to the film's style, but when my thoughts end with a shrug, I can only doubt just how successful it all really was.

Understood. Take note, I was not criticizing you or anyone else when I made this comment about taste. I was just making an observation. It is interesting.

Izzy Black
01-18-2009, 09:32 PM
I'm not sure why this is interesting or why someone would expect something different.

What do you mean? I am saying that the arguments on this film are not particularly critical. It is not as though everyone is appealing to a shared understanding of criticisms and values. Although, there is some element of this on the Katrina criticism, which I find worthwhile, but on the broader canvas, the argument seems to be a matter of personal taste rather than about anything going terribly wrong or right.

Raiders
01-18-2009, 09:33 PM
Oh, I didn't think I was being criticized. I was simply responding. I hadn't really said much on the film to-date, so I just added a little more.

Izzy Black
01-18-2009, 09:36 PM
Ah, OK. Glad we are in agreement. :)

chrisnu
01-20-2009, 07:00 AM
The Curious Case of Forrest Gump (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1d76506803/the-curious-case-of-forrest-gump-from-fgump44)

number8
01-21-2009, 06:19 AM
The Curious Case of Forrest Gump (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1d76506803/the-curious-case-of-forrest-gump-from-fgump44)

Heh, just saw this today too.

Bosco B Thug
01-23-2009, 10:30 AM
The film has a lot of problems, and "too straightforward" probably lies at the heart of most of those problems. It's a 3-hour chronicle of an unblemished everyman's life, and it is as interminably plot-driven and non-scandalous as it sounds. The film tries to throw a wrench into it by making this everyman tale a fantastical fairy tale. Unfortunately, Spinal's first post gets into a lot of what is inherently arbitrary and pointless about this film, which takes an absurd, ribbing, monkeyshine of a short story and makes it into the most earnest life-metaphor fable you can imagine, where complications do not exist outside the characters' grand and romantic emotional ones. But what exactly does a story about a man who ages backwards have to tell us about anything, especially when the main character is from the get-go already so passively predilected to the "Blessing and a curse!" condition he suffers and bears? In other words, why does he perceive himself as anything more than a freak of nature, a medical curiousity, maybe a victim of a curse? What do piano playing old women, ends of wars, blacks in New Orleans, sexual blossoming, childhood friendships, submarine battles, hotel love affairs, and the dilemmas of backwards-aging fathers have in common? Either very little, or some vague amalgam of ruminations on time and mortality. And finally, the biggest question of all, what the hell do buttons have to do with anything??

So schematically determined to arbitrarily document a man's entire life, from run-ins with button moguls to motorcycling across the world, the film is a loosey-goosey monster of rambling broadness. What was Eric Roth thinking when he decided: "Hmm, I'm going to write a kitschy metaphor film with zero goals for luridness and zero socio-political salience, and I'll do this successfully with the wacky idea that constructing the script upon the depiction of every single notable sequence in this man's entire life will ultimately amount to more than, well... a straight, flat illustration of every important sequence in a man's life." All this without the desire to betray Benjamin's role as a total blank slate, a metonymy for the emotional edification of the everyman's ever-ticking temporal experience. But for a film so logistically conceived upon ideas of bewildering impracticality, the film is saved by a sense of a sensibility conceived upon the seeming opposite: notions of earthy practicality.

I for one sensed maybe an overriding conviction from the film towards the "Take advantage of every moment" platitudes it gives out, to the extent that a major motif of the film seems to be a championing of a sort of selfishness and self-centeredness found in the pride and joy of the bodily (the bodily resplendent, the bodily sensual), the youthful, and the radiant and life-affirming in the purely sensory. The film's two representatives for artists - Daisy and the tugboat Captain - are artists, but of a bodily sort. The film is kind of anti-intellectual - every moment of affirmation in the film has to do with a sort of reverie separate from any social or intellectual perception. Every character is a "common" person, totally invested in seizing the moment with activities of a very physically exhilarating or sensory sort. Mr. Button finds happiness in a sunset, Tugboat Captain in showing off his tatts. Daisy makes her daughter read her Benjamin's diary even though the daughter is clearly uncomfortable (and soon downright upsetted) with it, just so she could get the satisfaction of re-living her saucy youth and relationship with Benjamin. The film seems to reward Daisy and Benjamin's decisions to reject the other in their early meetings, for we sense their rejections of each other have justifications of a cosmic, spiritual value and validity. It is in their knowing sense of self - their knowing where they are (both emotionally and physically) in their life (which is determined within the aging process) - that allows them to stall and finally, in their third meeting, to fulfill the full gratification of Time's occasional glorious gift: in this case, their "meeting in the middle" and the perfection of its momentousness, as that which Time and the processes of aging allows the two lovers. The aforementioned rejections are of the wholesome sort - with that "spiritual validity" mentioned. Clearly not involved are various particular - and particularly "non-everyman" problems of neurotic horniness or repressed sexuality. They are both sexual beings by the time they first meet as adults, so the sparks that fly between them are true sparks and not some sort of arrested psychology. Thus, their rejections and the rejectee's eventual moving on from those rejections appear in the film as a sign of a cosmic wisdom privileging their love connection - this wisdom entails an awareness of Time, maturation, and what those factors will and will not allow.

So with this sort of hedonistic sensibility in the film, we get to the sort of whispy nothingness with which the film presents history. The 60s are glazed over with a love montage, and despite the prominence of a mixed race environment of New Orleans, the Civil Rights movement is no where to be seen. The film promotes the role of the common man as fellow "sufferers" of the social world, but never gives any evidence or consideration to the everyman as activist / participant. We see Benjamin travel the world, we watch him witness and partake in the modest life in poorer nations, but he never becomes a hippie. Same with Daisy, who milks to the last drop the ability of her body as a dancer, all the while picnicking with Benjamin by Cape Canaveral but probably not wondering something like, what NASA was doing during that awful Cuban Missile Crisis that happened not too long ago. They are both happy sensualists who don't worry about other stuff because they're the everyman and not responsible for it. This is a possible justification I can come up with for the film's fairy tale rollick through the 20th century. This, though, is probably what, if anything, would make the film's use of Katrina problematic. The film implies this 'No Country for Old Men'-ish contrast between "back then" (romanticized and narrated by Brad Pitt in non-chalant diary recollection) and "now" (sickness, chaos, taking down the clock), but if "back then" managed to manage itself while Ben and Daisy frollicked about, what can the film be kind of implying with its intimation of death and disease in the near future - violent death and disease which plague pretty much zero characters in the flashback part of the film. Everyone dies of natural causes back then it seems! The end is effective because Daisy stands in as the last "peaceful death" before the film implies modernity will shake things up a bit.

Ideological confusions aside, I'm with whoever defended the Katrina-period framing device, saying it worked to make the film "as much Daisy's story as much as Benjamin's" - I think that's definitely very important to the film. And, while nothing spectacular, I didn't find anything about the hospital scenes particularly aggravating, and I thought the use of Katrina was, superficially, very respectful, unsensationalized, and elegiac. It is then integrated masterfully, IMO, with the final "curtain call" montage, which I can see why it might seem "tacked on," but which I found very necessary and, though I'm not quite sure why now, very moving. Desplat's poignant scoring might've been a big part of why I think back fondly on that last bit.

But the success of a film ususlly distills down to its craft for me, so I'll ditto Boner and say that David Fincher's, I'll just say it as I always do, "touch," is what ultimately makes this very sentimental film work. Fincher is a deft and idiosyncratic director, and if a director is deft and idiosyncratic, I think it usually will always shine through, even with such mediocre material to work with. I'm struggling to generalize because his know-how is diffuse in the minutiae of the film's craft - editing patterns, framing, etc.

One last rant (and of a really literally rantish nature): I've read a number of reviews calling the adoptive mother of Benjamin a "mammy"-type character. Is it just me or is this a really wrong-headed criticism? I thought the mother character was presented with intelligence and particularized agency (such as in her keeping the baby and the companionship of her lover, despite his unease), and no more one-dimensional than every single character in the whole film. Wouldn't reducing every black female character with some particular characteristics (or "demeanor") to that stereotype be in fact revealing a hang-up on the part of the criticizer? A sort of egregiously narrow, limited, maybe non-existent consideration of the sheer range and individuation which is, naturally, possible and so should be allowed to black female characters?

Melville
01-23-2009, 02:32 PM
I think it now behooves Israfel to write a response of at least equal length.

Edit: I'm not sure why you make it seem like a bad thing that the film focuses on sensuous pleasures rather than intellectual ones. If the film is about the direct, sensuous feeling of time passing, as others have suggested, then sensuous pleasures seem to be the more appropriate ones to focus on, even if the movie could be improved with a more variegated perspective.

DavidSeven
01-23-2009, 05:12 PM
Edit: I'm not sure why you make it seem like a bad thing that the film focuses on sensuous pleasures rather than intellectual ones. If the film is about the direct, sensuous feeling of time passing, as others have suggested, then sensuous pleasures seem to be the more appropriate ones to focus on, even if the movie could be improved with a more variegated perspective.

Yep. Said it in my first post: no shame thematically light if the film establishes itself as visceral/narrative experience from the get-go. Many highly-regarded films of the past offer little in the way of intellectual exercise. I still say the problem for many though is that the introduction of the Katrina element sets up an expectation for some viewers of something more. I think a lot of good filmmaking is really just dependent on the type of expectations you set for the viewer and how well you follow through on that. Fincher probably could have avoided a lot of criticism if he never introduced that element (and also executed his third act a little better).

Bosco B Thug
01-23-2009, 07:40 PM
I think it now behooves Israfel to write a response of at least equal length. Uh oh, he has seen the film, too.


Edit: I'm not sure why you make it seem like a bad thing that the film focuses on sensuous pleasures rather than intellectual ones. If the film is about the direct, sensuous feeling of time passing, as others have suggested, then sensuous pleasures seem to be the more appropriate ones to focus on, even if the movie could be improved with a more variegated perspective. Oh! Well, I actually mean for the third paragraph and on to be the start of the "Positive" portion of the review! So I actually am in complete agreement with you and think of the angle you note in a positive light.

But yes, that's not very clear, is it. The statement at the end of the 2nd paragraph that the film is "saved" by a certain sensibility should really be the beginning of the 3rd paragraph, and then should inform the rest of what I say.

Melville
01-23-2009, 08:49 PM
Oh! Well, I actually mean for the third paragraph and on to be the start of the "Positive" portion of the review! So I actually am in complete agreement with you and think of the angle you note in a positive light.

But yes, that's not very clear, is it. The statement at the end of the 2nd paragraph that the film is "saved" by a certain sensibility should really be the beginning of the 3rd paragraph, and then should inform the rest of what I say.
Yeah, that would have helped. The rambling structure of your post (though it's a good ramble), combined with me not paying enough attention, made me misconstrue phrases like "hedonistic sensibility" and "whispy nothingness" as criticisms. Sorry about that.

Dillard
05-11-2009, 06:49 PM
Matt Zoller Seitz responds to some of the film's criticisms in this article at Moving Image Source (http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/present-tense-20090508).

Qrazy
05-11-2009, 08:33 PM
Completely agree with D7. The Katrina connection didn't bother me so much, as I just read it as further evidence that none of us know how long we have, and if we aren't spending our lives the way we want, we need to make a change. Still, I quite liked the film despite its flaws. I was really swept up in the story and the romance of it all, as well as being fairly affected by the somber conclusion to Benjamin's life.

It can also be read as one of those environmentally cohesive unifying events (such as frogs/magnolia) although perhaps Fincher doesn't fully elucidate this point and/or does not belabor the issue which may be a good thing. That is to say we don't have to suffer through a montage of all of the characters we witness (mothers, dancers, etc) at the end all suffering through the Hurricane. However, it is a far reaching environmental event which impinges upon the lives of these characters (those still living... or serves as a closing act for those recently demised) which either necessitates a change in peoples lives via shifting external circumstances (ones house being destroyed) or serving as some uncontrollable event (being born backwards, swimming the channel in bad weather) which we either struggle against or eventually accept.

Yxklyx
05-26-2009, 03:00 AM
Oh what a piece of crap this was.

Mysterious Dude
06-28-2010, 04:26 AM
A baby is born old and grows younger as the years pass. Is that not the most incredible thing that has ever happened? So why is it that no one seems particularly amazed by this? Why do they accept it so easily? Why is it that this man, who should have had a very interesting life, has led one of the most uninteresting lives I've ever seen?

When Brokeback Mountain came out, I remember some criticized it by saying that if the characters weren't gay, it wouldn't be interesting at all. I found it a pretty unfair criticism, because if you change either of the two main characters into a woman, you will have fundamentally changed the story. I mention this because I'm about to make a similar criticism, but I think I'm being more fair. If Benjamin aged like a normal person, what is different about the story? It is a life that anyone could have lived. Lost his virginity in a brothel. Inherited a button factory. That could be anyone. None of it is interesting. What does any of it have to do with growing younger?

I just saw The Lathe of Heaven, about a man whose dreams can change reality. This phenomenon, like Benjamin's reverse aging, is never explained, but at least the story has something to do with it!

The only thing that seems to be affected by Benjamin's aging thing is his relationship with Daisy. If he aged normally, maybe they could've stayed together and raised the kid, etc. I don't find this terribly interesting. Every time she sees him, it's like, "Oh, Benjamin's a little younger again. Huh." Aren't you fucking amazed, bitch?!

Qrazy
06-28-2010, 04:48 AM
The only thing that seems to be affected by Benjamin's aging thing is his relationship with Daisy. If he aged normally, maybe they could've stayed together and raised the kid, etc. I don't find this terribly interesting. Every time she sees him, it's like, "Oh, Benjamin's a little younger again. Huh." Aren't you fucking amazed, bitch?!

Very few films strive for direct representations of reality?

Mysterious Dude
06-28-2010, 05:04 AM
Very few films are direct representations of reality?
It seems to me that if you have a high concept like that, it should affect the rest of the story. Like Children of Men. No one can make babies anymore. Why? Doesn't matter. But the story follows from it! Everything that happens in the story is the result of the infertility.

But in this movie, take that whole episode with Tilda Swinton. What does it have to do with Benjamin's aging problem? That whole chapter could have happened to anyone.

I guess my biggest problem is that the only thing interesting about Benjamin Button is that he ages backwards, and the movie does nothing with it. It is one of the most wasted fantasies I've ever seen.

Qrazy
06-28-2010, 05:22 AM
But in this movie, take that whole episode with Tilda Swinton. What does it have to do with Benjamin's aging problem? That whole chapter could have happened to anyone.


It demonstrates to Swinton that she's never too old to try again? Something that couldn't have happened if Benjamin had seemed as young as he actually was at that time.

Grouchy
06-28-2010, 07:12 AM
Yeah, all of the situations you describe as random are in fact incredibly affected by Button's reverse aging. The brothel experience. The relationship with Swinton's character, which is based on the misunderstanding that he is as old as he looks but still as tender.

I dunno, I'm not crazy about the film, but I don't agree with your point either.

Mysterious Dude
06-28-2010, 07:35 AM
Yeah, all of the situations you describe as random are in fact incredibly affected by Button's reverse aging. The brothel experience.
I'm not getting the "incredibly affected" part. Yes, the whores see him as an old man, but we know he's a seventeen-year-old, and it just doesn't strike me as that unusual for a seventeen-year-old to lose his virginity in a brothel. You could argue that, without his condition, he might have lost his virginity in a different way, but he doesn't have to have done so. If he had been born completely normal, he could still have lost his virginity when his boss took him to a brothel. Aging backwards didn't make his life more interesting than anyone else's. He experiences all the same "growing up" clichés that everybody did.

As for the Swinton episode, I concede your point, but I still find it so mundane.

BuffaloWilder
06-28-2010, 08:15 AM
it just doesn't strike me as that unusual for a seventeen-year-old to lose his virginity in a brothel.

I should know.

Qrazy
06-28-2010, 03:59 PM
I'm not getting the "incredibly affected" part. Yes, the whores see him as an old man, but we know he's a seventeen-year-old, and it just doesn't strike me as that unusual for a seventeen-year-old to lose his virginity in a brothel. You could argue that, without his condition, he might have lost his virginity in a different way, but he doesn't have to have done so. If he had been born completely normal, he could still have lost his virginity when his boss took him to a brothel. Aging backwards didn't make his life more interesting than anyone else's. He experiences all the same "growing up" clichés that everybody did.

As for the Swinton episode, I concede your point, but I still find it so mundane.

Fair enough, I do think you're right that on some level Eric Roth never really accesses something deeper with his work. And Button does have it's failings and those failings are most certainly predominantly with the script.

Dukefrukem
04-07-2018, 12:21 PM
I finally got around to seeing this as the only Fincher film I haven't seen. So torn at my initial reaction, as I do feel it's Fincher's worst structured film and thus has the worst rewatchable factor. The reason why this is important is I can sit down and watch any Fincher film, easily. They all find a way to keep the pacing consistent with the story. I can appreciate the craft here. But it's just so damn monotonous.