Xfear gives Benjamin Button 5/5, Sam Confused

[Loveless]

A) Conventional love story? How is it conventional in ANY way? How many love story's involve one person taking care of the other as an infant? None. Please explain what was "conventional" about the love story.

I just bloody explained in nearly 10 ways in how it's conventional. As for that particular point it's pointed out as clearly as possible right at the end that BB is regressing "almost like symptoms of alzheimers" to quote the nurse. It was meant to point out that you start your life, feeble, useless and needing care and that's the way most people end it, being looked after by their loved ones. Throughout the entire film his life is shown to be completely normal apart from his looks.

 

[X]

I just bloody explained in nearly 10 ways in how it's conventional. As for that particular point it's pointed out as clearly as possible right at the end that BB is regressing "almost like symptoms of alzheimers" to quote the nurse. It was meant to point out that you start your life, feeble, useless and needing care and that's the way most people end it, being looked after by their loved ones. Throughout the entire film his life is shown to be completely normal apart from his looks.

I completely understand how his age is used as a framing device, doesn't change the fact that the film is completely unique. There aren't many films about people aging backwards, now are there?

Do I need a reason to enjoy a love story? Romance isn't something that you can judge on any known criteria, because it's intangible and unique to every person who's ever experienced it.

Put away your film critic metaphorical glasses for a minute, and look at the romance on face value and in a literal sense. There has never been a film with a similiar romance to my knowledge. By definition it's unconventional.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I completely understand how his age is used as a framing device, doesn't change the fact that the film is completely unique. There aren't many films about people aging backwards, now are there?

Well, no. But original and good aren't the same thing. The Day After Tomorrow is the one of the only films about an apocalypse world brought about by global warming, but the family drama at its heart is weak.

Put away your film critic metaphorical glasses for a minute, and look at the romance on face value and in a literal sense. There has never been a film with a similiar romance to my knowledge. By definition it's unconventional.

Because he turns into a baby instead of getting old?

 

[X]

Well, no. But original and good aren't the same thing. The Day After Tomorrow is the one of the only films about an apocalypse world brought about by global warming, but the family drama at its heart is weak.



Because he turns into a baby instead of getting old?

I'm not saying those things are what make it a good film, I'm simply defending the fact that they are unconventional. I used that word, Loveless tried to call me out on it, and I responded. Wasn't trying to use the actual plot as a reason it's so good, because the plot is obviously preposterous.

I thought it was a great film. The mise en scene in particular was stunning. The acting was above average. The writing was clever and witty, the romance was believable and heartfelt, literally the only complaint I have is that it was a bit longer then it needed to be. That's a small complaint though.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'm not saying those things are what make it a good film, I'm simply defending the fact that they are unconventional. I used that word, Loveless tried to call me out on it, and I responded. Wasn't trying to use the actual plot as a reason it's so good, because the plot is obviously preposterous.

There's nothing wrong with a preposterous plot. If writers didn't use their creative license to the full extent, we'd have been robbed of many great movies. The actual bit where she looks after him as a baby takes up about 3% of the film. It's a clever touch, yeah, but it doesn't turn it on its head.

I thought it was a great film. The mise en scene in particular was stunning.

Well, obviously. It's a David Fincher film. The man is the shit.

The acting was above average. The writing was clever and witty, the romance was believable and heartfelt, literally the only complaint I have is that it was a bit longer then it needed to be. That's a small complaint though.

The film was bloated. The framing device was clumsily inserted and completely unnecessary. The imagery wasn't really clever at all - it's a clock going backwards, just like Benjamin! Genius!

The love was the same seen in a bunch of other films. Titanic, for one. It was believable simply because they were both immensely pretty and I could see why they wanted to fuck each other.

There's rarely a scene in the film without some sort of horrible piano music over it.

There are some golden scenes in there, and some clever writing. Unfortunately, the only reason it's original is because he has some fucked up genetic disorder. Take away wrinkly Brad Pitt and you have a highly conventional film.

Though this isn't really a valid complaint - it lacked Fincher's usual cynicism. I know it's really down to the writers and not to him, but everything worked out beautifully in the end.

What happened to chaos reigning in Fight Club? What happened to Brad Pitt's beheaded wife? What happened to the loose ends left by Zodiac? Shit, Panic Room and Alien 3 had less Hollywood endings than "and then he looked at me, and it looked like he recognised me, and then he died and isn't it all lovely and now I'm dead and look at this clock."

 

[X]

The film was bloated. The framing device was clumsily inserted and completely unnecessary. The imagery wasn't really clever at all - it's a clock going backwards, just like Benjamin! Genius!

I'm confused, you just praised Fincher's mise en scene, but now you're criticizing the imagery? They're virtually the same thing.

The love was the same seen in a bunch of other films. Titanic, for one. It was believable simply because they were both immensely pretty and I could see why they wanted to fuck each other.

The love story in Titanic is great. Yeah, I know it's the cool thing to do to hate on Titanic, but the film is a masterpiece. So having a similiar love story to one of the most praised films EVER is now a subtractor to the film?

The romance between the two just clicked with me. Some people like certain romances, others don't. Still not seeing what the faults of the romance were. That they fell in love, had a conflict, and then got back together like most other romances? So what?

There's rarely a scene in the film without some sort of horrible piano music over it.

The score isn't that bad at all. It's not amazing, but it's fine.

There are some golden scenes in there, and some clever writing. Unfortunately, the only reason it's original is because he has some fucked up genetic disorder. Take away wrinkly Brad Pitt and you have a highly conventional film.

If you take away wrinkly Brad Pitt then you don't have a movie at all Sam. How can you possibly criticize the film by saying it would suck "IF insert entire plot here was taken away"? That doesn't make any sense.

The message it delivered was that love is timeless. Not the first film to ever deliver that message, but it did so in a completely new way by showing how love is literally timeless.

What happened to chaos reigning in Fight Club? What happened to Brad Pitt's beheaded wife? What happened to the loose ends left by Zodiac? Shit, Panic Room and Alien 3 had less Hollywood endings than "and then he looked at me, and it looked like he recognised me, and then he died and isn't it all lovely and now I'm dead and look at this clock."

Button is completely different from any film Fincher has ever done. How would chaos have helped this film in any way? That's not what this movie is about. It isn't a meditation on chavunistic male violence like Fight Club is, or a neo-noir thriller like Seven or Zodiac. They're nothing alike.

I'm sorry you didn't dig it Sam. I did. I am thinking of knocking it down to a 4.5/5 though.

 

[Tastycles]

I thought it was crap, to be honest. I hate Fight Club too. I just can't stand plot holes as deep as he seems to make them.

 

[Mr. TM]

I liked Forrest Gump more.

 

[Loveless]

The message it delivered was that love is timeless. Not the first film to ever deliver that message, but it did so in a completely new way by showing how love is literally timeless.

Not quite. Throughout the entire film it's pointed out that there is a right time and place for everything and you mustn't waste those times. The time for you to be a father might not be at the moment you choose, there's a time to be with the love of your life while you can. The theme of the film is doing these things at the right time. Love might be timeless but time isn't and whether you're going forward through time or backwards, you're still moving towards an end.
And obviously I still think it's a conventional film. Baby gets rejected by parents, grows up and gets stronger, meets the love of his life but isn't ready, goes off into the world, returns home where his "parents" die, meets love again, has child and leaves when he realises he's getting old and will soon lose his mind. It's a fairly standard story if you ignore that Brad Pitt looks a bit odd.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'm confused, you just praised Fincher's mise en scene, but now you're criticizing the imagery? They're virtually the same thing.

Imagery as in the metaphorical sense of the pictures you're seeing. It was all very pretty, but simultaneously very clumsy and obvious.

The love story in Titanic is great. Yeah, I know it's the cool thing to do to hate on Titanic, but the film is a masterpiece. So having a similiar love story to one of the most praised films EVER is now a subtractor to the film?

When you have to peel through the layers and layers of bulk Hollywood Cheddar Slices, yes.

That they fell in love, had a conflict, and then got back together like most other romances? So what?

I was promised by Mr. Fincher that the two would be totally independent forces that didn't need any love from one another. I was disappointed when I found out he lied to me and I saw the same "they always come back together in the end" bullshit that's been out there since Romeo and Juliet.

The Butterfly Effect had a fresher romance and that film turned to absolute, unintentional comedy shit by the halfway point.

The score isn't that bad at all. It's not amazing, but it's fine.

Compare it with Fincher's previous films and it's sub-par.

If you take away wrinkly Brad Pitt then you don't have a movie at all Sam.

Precisement.

How can you possibly criticize the film by saying it would suck "IF insert entire plot here was taken away"? That doesn't make any sense.

It's not a plot point though. He might as well just be an ugly motherfucker - it'd have the same effect.

The message it delivered was that love is timeless. Not the first film to ever deliver that message, but it did so in a completely new way by showing how love is literally timeless.

It's the same message, only he's a "baby" when he dies, not an old dude. That's the only difference. Like the rest of the symbolism, it's ham-fisted.

Button is completely different from any film Fincher has ever done. How would chaos have helped this film in any way? That's not what this movie is about. It isn't a meditation on chavunistic male violence like Fight Club is, or a neo-noir thriller like Seven or Zodiac. They're nothing alike.

Yeah, exactly. I think Fincher saw Oscar season a-comin' and so made a by-the-numbers film with a couple of big stars and a semi-clever twist.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I thought it was crap, to be honest. I hate Fight Club too. I just can't stand plot holes as deep as he seems to make them.

Hey, Fight Club was adapted by a novel with similar plot holes. Besides, I don't think plot holes/slips in logic make movies bad. If they did, I could sit here for an hour bitching out most films.

 

[X]

Not quite. Throughout the entire film it's pointed out that there is a right time and place for everything and you mustn't waste those times.

Well that's just not true. Pitt's character specifically says this line at one point: "For what it's worth: it's never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit, stop or start whenever you want."

The theme of fate is brought up several times (like how if certain events hadn't happened exactly the way they did, he may not have run into Daisy) but the stronger theme is that age doesn't have to confine you and that age is only a number.

The time for you to be a father might not be at the moment you choose, there's a time to be with the love of your life while you can. The theme of the film is doing these things at the right time.

Not really. The theme of the film is clearly that age and time are only numbers and not definitions to adhere to. He basically says exactly that in the film.

Love might be timeless but time isn't and whether you're going forward through time or backwards, you're still moving towards an end.
And obviously I still think it's a conventional film. Baby gets rejected by parents, grows up and gets stronger, meets the love of his life but isn't ready, goes off into the world, returns home where his "parents" die, meets love again, has child and leaves when he realises he's getting old and will soon lose his mind. It's a fairly standard story if you ignore that Brad Pitt looks a bit odd.

I'm not aware of many films that involve a father leaving his child because he'll soon lose his mind. In fact I'd love for you to show me a film with that same plot point. But again, the plot is really irrelevent compared to the themes and message of the film.

The film delivered a graceful depiction of life, love, and death. Are those original themes exclusive to this film? No, of course not. But they're the three most important themes of any human life. The message delivered by the film was universal.

If you two didn't enjoy it, well, too bad. Your loss.

 

[GSM]

Wow I´m impressed by this discussion, I really am it´s like one of this wonderfull intellactual talkshows where several cultural icons come together to discuss the current situation in the politics, economy and entertainment.