Benjamin Button!?!? What the Hell?
Brandon, I think I love you.
David Fincher is actually an important director in regards to present-day cinema. I’d say blockbusters that fuse art with mainstream glitz such as The Dark Knight owe a lot to Fincher. I think Criterion realizes this, but sadly all his movies (Seven, Zodiac, Fight Club) already have great special editions, so why not just jump on his newest film?
In the end Criterion knows what’s best for them. I doubt they even attempt to please everyone who buys their dvds…that would be impossible. A lot of people seem to like ‘Benjamin Button’ and lets face it…it could be a lot worse. Another thing about Criterion releasing such big titles is that it can help people who usually only buy popular blockbuster type movies discover other kinds of films through the Criterion name. Well…I hope so.
I think Criterion is cheating people. When I buy Criterion I know that even if I’m not familiar with the film or director, it will be somehow special or interesting. Benjamin Button is neither.
It has nothing to do with commercial films or Hollywood films. It has everything to do with good films and bad films.
Benjamin Button is a bad film.
So therefore, the Criterion release is a travesty.
It has nothing to do with commercial films or Hollywood films. It has everything to do with good films and bad films.
Benjamin Button is a bad film.
So therefore, the Criterion release is a travesty.
It has nothing to do with commercial films or Hollywood films. It has everything to do with good films and bad films.
Benjamin Button is a bad film.
So therefore, the Criterion release is a travesty.
Matt Jay summed it up (three times).
Not that I need to add to the 5 pages of moaning about this but, yes, it’s horrible. The movie was infuriating, the Oscar nominations were infuriating and this is just sad.
I’m glad there are optimists here to put in perspective and point out how Criterion could reach a wider audience through a movie like this. Still, is that really the point?
Really? that smoke should bend backwards. Putting it in proper perspective, it’s okay for Benjamin Button to be in Criterion. I’m not taking away from the people who think otherwise, but whose to judge what gets the criterion treatment and what doesn’t? there’s a double standard at work at the auteurs, where the haters think every movie that should be in criterion should be an artsy fansy or classical obscurity from a place where subtitles are needed. Like the movie or not is your opinion, but gimme a break it’s getting a little ridiculous…
About the movie, my post says my thoughts on it: http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/746/comments
Alandiet: you read my mind.
Brandon: How did you get a picture into the thread? or anyone else who knows….
David, you paste a direct link to the url of a photo, with one exclamation point at the beginning of the link, and one at the end.
Like this…
!url of your photo!
cool, thanks a bunch.
Torches and pitchforks, anyone?
B. Button is a good lazy Sunday film (hangover from Sat night).
Yeah I was pretty amazed by this pick myself. I can think of plenty of films more deserving than this one to make the list. I think it’s getting in on conept more than how well made the movie was. it has its satisfying moments but it definitely isn’t one of the best new films let alone one deserving of criterion listing.
http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/1990/comments
i was just surprised how Brad Pitt’s role in the entire movie was so reserved. Kudos to Fincher for not letting him run amok all over the script.
Actually this is the original post for Benjamin Button. If you should be ranting about how you actually liked this steeming pile it should be on this thread. Let the other ones die, though.
People really like to complain a lot about this film for some reason. Who cares if Criterion is releasing Benjamin Button? It’s nowhere near as bad as some of the other ones I’ve seen in the collection, and I will not repeat those titles because I know you all know what they are, for they appear to have gotten their equal share of gripes in this forum as well. I recommend Criterion release “Showgirls.”
I had pretty low expectations going in to see this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was going to be a lame Forrest Gump-style nostalgic, sentimental recap of the 20th century, a Brad Pitt glamour pic. Instead, the movie I saw was very similar to Criterion’s description: ‘a powerful testament to life and death, love and loss’.
Though long, it was much more subtle than I expected. Instead of it being all about Brad Pitt (in the Gumpy mess I was expecting), Pitt played the role very understated – he was almost invisible in the role – which I think suited Pitt well. It made the story more about the people in his life, which I really liked. I think that’s true to life – the people and moments in our lives are what makes life special – a beautiful theme. I think Fincher’s directing really carries the film where it could have failed in the hands of a weaker director – he carries these themes strongly through the end.
True, it is a Hollywood-style film, but a rare good one in my opinion – you don’t normally see something this good as a major Hollywood release. Unfortunately it does go the conventional, Oscar-friendly route stylistically, but it actually works well within those boundaries.
I find this thread, ‘BENJAMIN BUTTON!?!? WHAT THE HELL?’ strange, because it seems to be referring to what I perceived Benjamin Button to be before seeing it, rather than the film I actually saw. This of course is just my opinion. I was skeptical, but kept an open mind, and enjoyed it.
Its certainly not the greatest movie ever, but is definitely a unique, strong work that does deserve to be in the collection – even if it has already gotten more mainstream attention than the films Criterion usually releases. In other words, it’s not a film that needs to be in the collection, but I think it fits nonetheless.
Sadly Harry Long, a lot of people don’t know who Blanchett is. BB wasn’t all that bad in my opinion, but not worthy of Criterion. As long as Slumdog Millionaire doesn’t enter the Criterion Collection, I’m happy.
The only thing I can think of is that the film is a triumph of make-up and blue screen animation, and they’re saluting it for technical reasons. Which can be kind of valid. That’s the main reason to watch Thief of Baghdad, imo.
i questioned it being added but that doesn’t matter near as much as the incredible films that will also be added this summer. most importantly Made in U.S.A. {NEVER BEEN IN PRINT IN AMERICA}, Last Year At Merianbad, and 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her. One tends to over look things like Benjamin Button when they finally get the chance to see these other movies. i personally couldn’t be happier.
It doesn’t even say “David Fincher” on the cover. Pretty sad I must say.
this film is just like Zodiac…. it grows on you. If this film had been made for less money and was not made with an american studio…..nobody would be debating it being criterion.
I would Peter. I think Dark Knight was a good film made for a ton of money, and by an American studio. The problem with this film is it’s not very good. Technically impressive, but vapid, and in the end completely uninteresting.
Random Points:
1. I can’t believe I just read through all five pages of this.
2. I can’t believe that I’m posting after seeing the futility of doing so and also seeing that none of the original posters are even paying attention anymore.
3a. Yes, Criterion can release whatever they want, I get it, they can, great. This is so clear from the top, I can’t understand why anyone would ever feel the need to say it. A non-statement. So, supposedly can anyone or company or entity. Hurray. But Why am I not allowed to dislike what they do, disagree with what they do, persuade through means available to me for them not to do it? Why are my only options allowed to be either supporting them or not caring?
3b. Does anyone here telling people to stop complaining/wasting time/caring/etc realize they are on an internet message board?
3c. Yes, Criterion has released stupid garbage in the past. Why am i not allowed to hope they never do again?
4. Where do I have to go to stop hearing the phrase, “it’s only a movie”?
5. Where do I have to go to stop hearing the phrase, “artsy fartsy” used in a way that is supposed to mean anything?
6. I actually went into watching BB with sort of medium-high expectations, as a number of critics seemed to think it was kinda alright. Yes, I was suspicious. But I wasn’t yet annoyed by hype or looking to shoot it down. I don’t know why I would ever go to a movie hoping it was bad. Although people seem to think that “film snobs” (whoever the hell they actually are) do this, I doubt anyone ever does this. Nobody goes to see a movie in order to hate it! what? I hope that every movie I watch will be the best movie I’ve ever seen. why wouldn’t i do that?
7. I couldn’t believe how much it sucked. We are talking in the range of “Ray” or the remake of “The Manchurian Candidate.” I’m not sure I can take David Fincher seriously as a director ever again. The only redeeming value for me was seeing a baby looking like an old man, which I have never seen before. great.
8. Who loves absurd overstatements and exaggerations? language is boring with them, especially on the internet.
9. “If this film had been made for less money and was not made with an american studio…..nobody would be debating it being criterion.” It’s interesting that I’m not supposed to let these factors be part of whether or not a movie is good, important, or valuable (three different things those, too). It’s interesting that paying attention to or caring about those things would make me close minded as someone earlier said.
10. It’s fine if you liked it. I don’t understand and I may want to argue but it’s fine. So why can’t you be fine with me hating it? Looking back, I should have known better and just never watched it, thus freeing myself from getting involved in this. but its too late for that now.
11. wow this was long. sorry everyone.
A not-so-random point:
Any film that triggers such heated and lively debate can never be considered unimportant. The very existence of this board, and the passionate responses that the film has generated, proves that Criterion has selected a worthy title.
Whether we’re praising the film or disparaging it is completely irrelevant:
The more we talk about it, the more we validate it’s merit.
Samuryan, I’m not sure where you would get such an idea, but I don’t think its true. If you haven’t noticed the internet practically exists for people to endlessly discuss everything that has ever happened ever. I’m sure with very little trouble I could find hundreds of message board/blog/facebook posts about topics which are not important or of merit. You argument is resting on the old assertion that importance is merely a numbers game. For instance, If you were to poll the entire world, about which musicians or filmmakers where their favorites, you would arrive not at the most important artists or even the best artists, but only who the most people have heard about at that given time in history. Worse, probably most people’s favorites would not get enough votes to show up, therefore the list would merely be who everyone in the world maybe kinda likes, but would pass as The Ultimate Standard. This is of course the hollywood business model, and the reason anyone cares about the box office (which boy would i be glad to never hear those words again). This is also incorrect.
BB is not so lucky as to be a true controversy for Criterion. Its just a lame middle of the road blockbuster by a sort of good director, that some people like and some people hate.
but in anycase the more i write does not do more to validate it. i realize that is an argument people use for things but its one that doesn’t make sense. people have stated this better than me but its so late at night i don’t know why i’m sitll awake.
Sugith Varughese
Given that I literally fell asleep during BB, I won’t be springing for the DVD. The film’s a shining example of the death of cinema. Such talent working for no purpose.
Am pre-ordering Wise Blood instead. Now THAT’S a movie.