Review the Movie You Viewed VII: We're Done, Professionally

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Acting hardly even matters in Kubrick's films though. He's much more interested in just getting his actor's to behave exactly the way he wants within the frame and to be "interesting."

And Kubrick was really one of the few people in the industry who truly understood how to adapt something to the cinema. In most cases a novel or whatever should be altered and creatively build upon/stripped down and reimagined for the screen. Novels and feature length films don't share all that much in common, and are wildly different media. Not to say faithful adaptation haven't been made and resulted in good films, but they're almost inviting fundamental flaws into their form and unfavorable comparisons to their source *coughwatchmengrumble*

Which is why Lolita's so fucking awesome. Well, that and James Mason.
 
I don't find Lolita to be a good adaptation OR a good re-imagining of the material. I see Peter Sellers getting free reign to be a jackass, which is entertaining at times but seems like he's in a completely different film than Mason (who I agree is fantastic).

The Adrian Lyne version may be too faithful, and missing some of the source material's black humor, but it moved me, something Kubrick completely failed to do. Not that he usually does anyway, but there's not a whole lot of empathy or tragedy in the film, just a lame bit of farce.
 
Just finished Benji Button. I understand the Gump comparisons, but I liked it considerably more.
 
That you give these films anywhere near the same credit is a FAIL beyond epic proportions. Fincher may not be Malick but he sure as hell isn't Zemeckis.

Please turn in your cinema cred card on the way out.
 
You've said that like three times now for my opinions on these two films, and as long as people keep comparing them, I'll keep doing the same, and you'll keep shitting on me for it, and I'll keep not giving a shit.

That you so vehemently hold that Ben Button is worth even a second glance is perhaps equally laughable.
 
esb_luke73.jpg


"I'll never join you!"
 
That you so vehemently hold that Ben Button is worth even a second glance is perhaps equally laughable.

Not really. Forrest Gump, is a complete joke within the critical community. Button, on the other hand, is much more divisive in those quarters, with indifference from some and scorn from others, but also some very heavy praise. I'd post links from some very credible writers in defense of the film, people you wouldn't even expect to like it, but I imagine you probably don't care.
 
Not really. Forrest Gump, is a complete joke within the critical community. Button, on the other hand, is much more divisive in those quarters, with indifference from some and scorn from others, but also some very heavy praise. I'd post links from some very credible writers in defense of the film, people you wouldn't even expect to like it, but I imagine you probably don't care.

I also imagine the vast majority of the critics fell in that first category, much like myself... somewhere between indifference and tepid enthusiasm. I'm with you that the authorial comparison is ludicrous, Fincher is much more of a filmmaker than Zemeckis ever was, but we're comparing a typically lousy film with enough memorable moments to burrow its way quickly into the pop culture lexicon to what's most likely "minor Fincher". For better or worse Gump is something that won't be soon forgotten. However, I seriously doubt most people are going to be talking much about Benjamin Button 15 years from now in any context.
 
I also imagine the vast majority of the critics fell in that first category, much like myself... somewhere between indifference and tepid enthusiasm. I'm with you that the authorial comparison is ludicrous, Fincher is much more of a filmmaker than Zemeckis ever was, but we're comparing a typically lousy film with enough memorable moments to burrow its way quickly into the pop culture lexicon, and for better or worse is something that won't be soon forgotten. However, I seriously doubt most people are going to be talking much about Benjamin Button 15 years from now in any context.

It'll be remembered for its special effects, which ironically is more of a Zemeckis staple than anything else.

Hell, watching the docs on the Roger Rabbit DVD made me have even more respect for that film, at least.
 
You're right, though it's likely going to be just one more footnote in the "Fincher as meticulous digital technician" chapter of film history. I doubt it will stand out in his own oeuvre (among otherwise superior films) even if its visual effects are the most advanced (until his next film, surely).
 
You're right, though it's likely going to be just one more footnote in the "Fincher as meticulous digital technician" chapter of film history. I doubt it will stand out in his own oeuvre (among otherwise superior films) even if its visual effects are the most advanced (until his next film, surely).

It'll stand out if he dips back into the "crazy thriller" or "insanely dark comedy" pool again, since it's his stab at a romantic epic. Who knows, maybe his chef comedy with Keanu Reeves will be something good...
 
However, I seriously doubt most people are going to be talking much about Benjamin Button 15 years from now in any context.

That's the beauty of the auteur theory. If the director is good enough, even the minor works will continue to get studied and find fans. You'd be surprised how many people discuss and love lesser-known Vincente Minnelli, Fritz Lang, or John Ford films, for example.

For what it's worth, a very good essay on Button (with an optional video accompaniment) from a great writer I mentioned a couple days ago:

Present Tense by Matt Zoller Seitz - Moving Image Source

Let me know what you think.
 
That's the beauty of the auteur theory. If the director is good enough, even the minor works will continue to get studied and find fans. You'd be surprised how many people discuss and love lesser-known Vincente Minnelli, Fritz Lang, or John Ford films, for example.

For what it's worth, a very good essay on Button (with an optional video accompaniment) from a great writer I mentioned a couple days ago:

Present Tense by Matt Zoller Seitz - Moving Image Source

Let me know what you think.

I'll give that a read in a few minutes.

You're right though, and that really is a lot of fun, given the auteurist context, to find or attribute value to artists' lesser works.
 
That's the beauty of the auteur theory. If the director is good enough, even the minor works will continue to get studied and find fans. You'd be surprised how many people discuss and love lesser-known Vincente Minnelli, Fritz Lang, or John Ford films, for example.

For what it's worth, a very good essay on Button (with an optional video accompaniment) from a great writer I mentioned a couple days ago:

Present Tense by Matt Zoller Seitz - Moving Image Source

Let me know what you think.

I'd love to read the essay or so including in the Criterion release as well.
 

Well, he's certainly a good read. I'm browsing other stuff on this site now.

However, I must say, the film he seems to be describing here sounds really fantastic. Unfortuantely, I still can't escape all the criticisms he quotes from other critics in the first 3 paragraphs of his piece, and I'm not sure he attempts to do much to disqualify many of them. He expounds beautifully on many of the films ambitions and I'd probably agree with him if I thought the movie succeeded in any of them. But so many of the films flaws continually undermined any of those artistic merits for me, where it appears they were pretty much negligible for this writer. Which is fine, but as lame as I continue to sound, it's still so hard for me to care given how indifferent my own viewing experience was.
 
Yeah, I need to pick it up at some point, but I feel weird about buying big releases non-Blu Ray now. I still don't own The Dark Knight.

Indeed. I'm even more surprised that some of the Criterion Blu Rays are cheaper than the 2-Disc DVD editions, Ben Button and Bottle Rocket being prime examples.

Well, he's certainly a good read. I'm browsing other stuff on this site now.

However, I must say, the film he seems to be describing here sounds really fantastic. Unfortuantely, I still can't escape all the criticisms he quotes from other critics in the first 3 paragraphs of his piece, and I'm not sure he attempts to do much to disqualify many of them. He expounds beautifully on many of the films ambitions and I'd probably agree with him if I thought the movie succeeded in any of them. But so many of the films flaws continually undermined any of those artistic merits for me, where it appears they were pretty much negligible for this writer. Which is fine, but as lame as I continue to sound, it's still so hard for me to care given how indifferent my own viewing experience was.

There's a 5-piece dissection of Wes Anderson that looks to be pretty interesting.
 

Thanks for this.

I agree with everything about Benji being an excruciatingly passive protagonist, but I still liked it. It never felt overly long to me, either. I found Daisy much more compelling than Jenny, who was an extremely broadly drawn character. I don't know, I just liked it all quite a bit. I'm a big fan of Fincher's*, so that might help.

One complaint: I don't know if Seitz hit the nail on the head when mentioning the "beautiful" swimmer. Tilda is a certified boner killer. Cate, on the other hand. Fuck. I couldn't get over how amazing she looked.

Look for Benji to clean up its one nomination for the Teen Choice Awards:

* Hugh Jackman, "Australia"
* Dev Patel, "Slumdog Millionaire"
* Robert Pattinson, "Twilight"
* Brad Pitt, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
* Channing Tatum, "Fighting"

What an honor for the Pitt Dog! Right up there with Cedric Diggory and certified pants pisser Wolverine. And don't get me started on Dev Patel. B. Butts was a much more compelling protagonist than whatever his name was in Cumdog.

*How underrated is The Game?
 
Thanks for this.

I agree with everything about Benji being an excruciatingly passive protagonist, but I still liked it. It never felt overly long to me, either. I found Daisy much more compelling than Jenny, who was an extremely broadly drawn character. I don't know, I just liked it all quite a bit. I'm a big fan of Fincher's*, so that might help.

One complaint: I don't know if Seitz hit the nail on the head when mentioning the "beautiful" swimmer. Tilda is a certified boner killer. Cate, on the other hand. Fuck. I couldn't get over how amazing she looked in it.

Look for Benji to clean up its one nomination for the Teen Choice Awards:

* Hugh Jackman, "Australia"
* Dev Patel, "Slumdog Millionaire"
* Robert Pattinson, "Twilight"
* Brad Pitt, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
* Channing Tatum, "Fighting"


*How underrated is The Game?

Gump essentially demonizes Jenny for her crazy "lefty" ways. And yes, Cate was lookin' all sorts of good in Benji.

The Game is a first-rate thriller until it takes a turn toward the retarded with the final twist. I cannot get over how terrible that last 10-15 minutes are

After Michael Douglas jumps off of the roof and the whole thing REALLY, REALLY is a game... then he ditches the whole thing, including his brother who he thought he just inadvertently murdered to get into a cab with the actress chick. It all felt very cheap and convenient to me, especially when the rest of the film is so inventive.

Over/under on the amount of Teen Choice Awards that Twilight nets? 9? 10?
 

Winner. Plus I see your problem with The Game, but I never had much of an issue with it. And it had one of the better uses of "White Rabbit" I've seen.

Happy birthday, by the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom