Topic: Benjamin Button (Read 15349 times)

Aurjay · « **on:** 27 Dec 2008, 20:11 »

Ok so just got done watching this and I'm not really sure if I liked it or not. Reminded me a lot of Forrest Gump actually. Replace a mentally handicapped guy with a guy that grows young and you basically have the same movie. Both had strong and/or unique characters in their lives. Both were privy to World Events without realizing it. Both had a woman in their lives that loved them but they couldn't be with them. Both were extremely long movies as well. So has anyone else seen it and thought this as well? And did you like it or not.

De_El · « **Reply #1 on:** 27 Dec 2008, 21:43 »

It was okay. The old man with his lightning stories are basically the most memorable moments. Otherwise it is usually just kinda eh, and also the hummingbirds were kind of silly and perplexing because they didn't really add anything.

Also, I distinctly remember something about an early part of the movie making me think, "What a hilariously idiotic time to live in!"

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #2 on:** 27 Dec 2008, 22:05 »

Quote from: De_El on 27 Dec 2008, 21:43

the hummingbirds were kind of silly and perplexing because they didn't really add anything.

Other than making me cry like a manchild.

The ship captain said earlier that 1. their hearts will explode if you hold their wings still, 2. their wings beat in an 'infinity' pattern. Given these two pieces of data, I think they made a fairly good emblem for death as portrayed by the film. It is impossible to halt its passing, and it continues ad infinitum. Also I may have heard wrong but didn't the tugboat captain have a hummingbird tattoo? That would justify the repetition of his story and his various states of undress while telling it.

De_El · « **Reply #3 on:** 27 Dec 2008, 22:10 »

Well okay, they added something, but what it added I thought was kind of dumb and obvious.

ampersandwitch · « **Reply #4 on:** 27 Dec 2008, 22:14 »

The hummingbird at the end was dumb as shit. I will grant you that.

De_El · « **Reply #5 on:** 27 Dec 2008, 23:28 »

Also what was with that voice-over at the very end? Way to get non-diegetic all of a sudden. It was really incongruous and annoying.

KvP · « **Reply #6 on:** 28 Dec 2008, 00:04 »

Quote from: Aurjay on 27 Dec 2008, 20:11

Ok so just got done watching this and I'm not really sure if I liked it or not. Reminded me a lot of Forrest Gump actually. Replace a mentally handicapped guy with a guy that grows young and you basically have the same movie. Both had strong and/or unique characters in their lives. Both were privy to World Events without realizing it. Both had a woman in their lives that loved them but they couldn't be with them. Both were extremely long movies as well. So has anyone else seen it and thought this as well? And did you like it or not.

Perhaps you know this, perhaps you don't, but both films are written by the same guy. This is our old Fincher's Oscar ploy. He tried at it before with Zodiac (which was fucking awesome) but it was released way early in the year, unlike this film. Also, Oscars are dubm.

Aurjay · « **Reply #7 on:** 28 Dec 2008, 01:40 »

Ya the captain had a hummingbird tattoo and just also happened to know how many times its heart beats a second which during that era seemed kinda like a incredibul piece of knowledge to know. The lightening strike guy was awesome but didn't make much sense until he mentioned knowing how precious life was. Creepiest part was Brad Pitt being young. I understand how they can add makeup and prosthetics to make him look old but when he started to look young like say in his 20's that was just creepy to me cuz he really looked that age.

Inlander · « **Reply #8 on:** 28 Dec 2008, 03:41 »

I trust Fincher, Pitt, and Blanchett to deliver a pretty damn good film - but the Forrest Gump connection scares the bejeesus out of the movie-goer in me. Really, it's enough to make me never ever want to see this film.

But I probably will.

But I very well might not.

Muppet King · « **Reply #9 on:** 28 Dec 2008, 06:24 »

Quote from: KvP on 28 Dec 2008, 00:04

Quote from: Aurjay on 27 Dec 2008, 20:11
Ok so just got done watching this and I'm not really sure if I liked it or not. Reminded me a lot of Forrest Gump actually. Replace a mentally handicapped guy with a guy that grows young and you basically have the same movie. Both had strong and/or unique characters in their lives. Both were privy to World Events without realizing it. Both had a woman in their lives that loved them but they couldn't be with them. Both were extremely long movies as well. So has anyone else seen it and thought this as well? And did you like it or not.
Perhaps you know this, perhaps you don't, but both films are written by the same guy. This is our old Fincher's Oscar ploy. He tried at it before with Zodiac (which was fucking awesome) but it was released way early in the year, unlike this film. Also, Oscars are dubm.

I'm going to take this as he just used the short story as a jumping off point? Because F. Scott Fitzgerald's story was fantastic....at least from what I remember from reading it about ten years ago.

KvP · « **Reply #10 on:** 28 Dec 2008, 08:33 »

Wrote the screenplay. I've heard that there aren't terribly many resemblances to the original story.

Tom · « **Reply #11 on:** 29 Dec 2008, 01:22 »

The only major similarities are Benjamin's affliction and his later dementia as he unlearns everything. Basically the plot structure and story are completely different, Benjamin does not have the personality of an old man a few hours after birth, his mother doesn't die and the father's resentment is not as great although he does feel a degree of shame and just decides to colour the child's hair than abandon him in his grief. Ben and Daisy's relationship and love story are more complex and elaborate respectively than that of Ben and Hildegarde's in F. Scott Fitzgerald's original short story.

It's a good movie, nothing more nothing less, that could have been so much more if perhaps written by someone else; towards the end I couldn't help but wonder what the film would've been like if Rushdie wrote it. Don't get me wrong, Forest Gump was great but that doesn't mean that it should be re-written with painfully annoying and obvious hummingbird crap and the trite "box of chocolates" character summaries summary.

mbb · « **Reply #12 on:** 01 Jan 2009, 22:33 »

I thought it was a very solid film. If you're looking for a very cathartic movie with phenomenal special effects, then this is a great movie to see. Everything is very predictable...there's nothing to "figure out", which drives people like my boyfriend nuts. I was personally a bit baffled this hadn't been done before, because this just seems like such an obvious premise. I do feel like they could have done a lot more with it, but the film makers definitely accomplished what they were trying to with this film.

Inlander · « **Reply #13 on:** 02 Jan 2009, 05:45 »

So I caved in and went and saw it, against my better judgment.

Now, I'm someone who's more than happy to adjust my preconceptions if something turns out to deserve my respect - but this film was everything I expected it to be: superbly acted, directed, and designed - and with an awful, shitty, abomination of a script. Seriously, fuck Eric Roth. Fuck that Forrest Gump-writing prat and his shitty pseudo-profound aphorisms and his laid-on-with-a-trowel sentimentality that pretends to be deep and meaningful when it's really just paper-thin and fuck his stupid "messages" and his shitty unnecessary cloying cod-philosophical ponderings. That whole cab sequence in Paris? Bullshit! All that tedious and obvious build-up just to say "Shit's random, yo". The whole Hurricane Katrina angle? Completely unnecessary and border-line offensive in the way it desperately tries to anchor his shitty script onto a genuine tragedy like a leech to try and suck some kind of pathos out of it. If I ever see Eric Roth walking down the streets I'm going to kick him in the word-nads so he can never father another shitty, shitty screenplay ever again.

So, first impressions: if you liked Forrest Gump you'll probably like Benjamin Button.

Ikrik · « **Reply #14 on:** 11 Jan 2009, 12:19 »

Took my girlfriend to see it last night, we were joined by two friends. I wanted to see Gran Torino, I tried for 15 minutes to convince them to see Clint Eastwood but they wanted to see Brad Pitt. When the hell did Brad Pitt become sexier than Dirty Harry? I knew before I stepped into the theatre that I was probably not going to enjoy this, I don't like Forrest Gump and Brad Pitt really irks me. Two hours and fourty seven minutes later I stepped out of a movie I loathed. Whether it was the fact that Button is EXACTLY like Forrest Gump: an unordinary main character, a love interest he can never be with, Captain "Dan" or in this case "Mike." The fact that there were no ordinary people in the entire movie, every single one taught Button something. The Hummingbirds were stupid....it was an incredibly stupid thing to add in..completely unnecessary...but that's the whole film. The only parts of the film I enjoyed where the ones when Brad Pitt was old..not decrepid, but the old when he's staying in The Winter Palace. He really HAD to act and he did a fine job. As SOON as he wasn't wearing the makeup I went "Oh, it's Brad Pitt being...Brad Pitt." and the film was ruined for me. I would slap Eric Roth alone for the way he wrote Queenie. I know that some people actually might have talked like that but WOW did it irritate me. What would have really helped the film out for me would be if Button had a different personality, something more so that he wouldn't just be Forrest. But that's all it was.

ummmkay · « **Reply #15 on:** 11 Jan 2009, 14:42 »

Wow...I saw this movie last night, not knowing a thing about it except that the main character was born old and aged backwards. I didn't even know Brad Pitt was in it, and I definitely did not know it was three hours long. A little over an hour in I was glancing at my watch, hoping it would be ending soon. If I hadn't been with a big group of people, I probably would have left out of sheer boredom.

Re: terrible dialogue

Sleep with me? Absolutely.

Be My Head · « **Reply #16 on:** 12 Jan 2009, 14:44 »

My impression of this movie (when I saw the trailer on television) was that it was supposed to be "sophisticated" for the sake of being sophisticated and supposed to appeal to people who like "artsy movies" but don't really.

Basically, looked boring as fuck and I probably won't watch it.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #17 on:** 12 Jan 2009, 15:06 »

Man I would not consider this an artsy movie.

Be My Head · « **Reply #18 on:** 12 Jan 2009, 15:40 »

Like I said, that was my impression from the trailers. I could be wrong. I think I'd rather go see Milk when it comes out in theatres here, and I might go see this one, since it's playing relatively close to here and looks like a really good movie. Benjamin Button, clocking in at over 2 and a half hours looks like it could be pretty damn boring.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #19 on:** 12 Jan 2009, 16:06 »

I'm just saying I consider artsy to be stuff with abnormal cinematography as well as vivid color pallettes, unusual narrative structure and just plain old really weird shit. Not strictly movies that are Oscar-baiting. First time I saw the trailer I immediately thought of Forrest Gump 2: The Time Machine.

De_El · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 Jan 2009, 09:15 »

The Wrestler, with its grainy, documentarian camerawork and Milk, with its sundrenched '70s color quality and seamless blending of archival footage and the film's own, are both far more "artsy" than the heavy-as-a-walrus-and-just-as-smelly visual metaphors of Benjamin Button.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 Jan 2009, 09:35 »

That's more along the lines of what I was talking about (I still tend to think it's a little more offbeat than that, but it's so subjective that there's no point arguing about it). I'm just saying that every movie that gets nominated for best picture is not artsy by default.

KvP · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 Jan 2009, 19:52 »

Quote from: Be My Head on 12 Jan 2009, 14:44

My impression of this movie (when I saw the trailer on television) was that it was supposed to be "sophisticated" for the sake of being sophisticated and supposed to appeal to people who like "artsy movies" but don't really.

Basically, looked boring as fuck and I probably won't watch it.

The word you are looking for is "middlebrow".

God, is this movie middlebrow.

TheDozarian · « **Reply #23 on:** 20 Jan 2009, 18:21 »

I really thought the movie was pretty good... I'm a sci-fi guy... and I thought it was really good. I didn't know about the screenplay writer... but I did think there were similarities while I watched it. The acting was excellent. The story was as well...

If you can't sit still for 3 hours and watch something that requires a little bit of thought and attention, it's definitely worth the time spent to see it...

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #24 on:** 21 Jan 2009, 15:10 »

A friend of mine whose opinion I trust in nearly all matters walked out of this part way through. That's all I had to hear. Brad Pitt tends to be immensely bland and the last thing I need is Brad Pitt as a ancient looking 7 year old, much less as plain old Brad Pitt. I've never really liked Fincher. I thought Fight Club and Se7en were both fairly weak, not nearly as impressive as their cult following led me to believe. Another Fincher/Pitt collaboration simply doesn't appeal to me. Fincher doesn't seem to get impressive performances from Pitt, something that, while apparently difficult, has been done by others. Long story short, I'll be skipping this one gladly.

KvP · « **Reply #25 on:** 21 Jan 2009, 23:24 »

Gump and Button are more similar than you might think at first.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #26 on:** 22 Jan 2009, 14:06 »

knives · « **Reply #27 on:** 22 Jan 2009, 15:05 »

Quote from: TheDozarian on 20 Jan 2009, 18:21

I really thought the movie was pretty good... I'm a sci-fi guy... and I thought it was really good. I didn't know about the screenplay writer... but I did think there were similarities while I watched it. The acting was excellent. The story was as well...

If you can't sit still for 3 hours and watch something that requires a little bit of thought and attention, it's definitely worth the time spent to see it...

This in't sci-fi in the least. It's fantasy, with the worst script to be nominated this year. God this is so below Fincher.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Benjamin Button (Read 15349 times)