Here you go Angela,
http://mubi.com/topics/1798
Or even here:
http://mubi.com/films/1584
I think it got more attention than it deserved, personally… sorry, Angela. It was really overly long and while the basic concept was intriguing, it was really just an extended bit of melodrama that was not up to David Fincher’s standard. I could hardly believe that the director of Fight Club, Seven and Aliens3 (flawed but intriguingly disturbing) had directed Benjamin Button.
Yes, I didn’t dislike the film as much as many here did and even I felt it got far more attention than was really necessary.
It’s Fincher’s worst since Alien 3 imo. not horrible by any means, but it didn’t particularly interest me.
I thought it was a great movie, don’t know why it’ disliked so much here. Everyone I know outside of the internet loves it.
Among the worst films of the decade. Indefensible.
I’m going to watch it soon because it qualified for the final 100 in a 00’s poll on another site.
I don’t have particularly high expectations. If Fincher can make serial murders boring and totally lacking in narrative focus, he can do it to anything.
Can you believe who he’s casting in the American version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? Ick. I’m glad I saw the Swedish version.
“Among the worst films of the decade. Indefensible.”
This.
Dude, why is there so much love for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? I saw it too, l like it but I don’t understand why it’s so (relatively) popular.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo I have not seen, but from what I’ve been hearing about it from people of the less cinephilic tendencies, it sounds like the type of movie like Amelie or Memoirs of a Geisha that are very visually stimulating “Off Hollywood” dramas that sort of lightly and securely gives them their prerequisite foreign/independent film for the next few years so that they feel like they’re in touch with the rest of the world for a little bit before they return to their regular lives.
Can’t speak to the movie actually itself, but you know how occassionally movies come out that are so palatable that they sort of are the non-cinephile’s equivalent of a civic duty, the way some cinephiles (not as often anymore, but a few years ago the cinephiles I knew were like this) consider it a civic duty to watch the major blockbuster of the year just so that they know what everyone else is seeing, even though they know they won’t like it? That stopped happening around the time Star Wars Episode III came out and cinephiles everywhere finally said, “You know what? I’m not doing it anymore. I’m not sitting through two hours of something I don’t like just to know what everyone else is talking about.”
—PolarisDiB
“It’s Fincher’s worst since Alien 3 imo.”
Panic Room was worse than Benjamin Button…at least Alien 3 is decent for the hardcore Alien fans :P
That movie wasn’t so awful, I think one of the worst movies of the decade is a bit harsh considering some of the releases of the past decade, but definitely compared to his other work The Curious Case of Benjamin Button certainly does stick out like a sore thumb, it is an odd movie for him to have made and he has me even more perplexed with this Social Networking crap, he started off well working within the confines of the thriller, a man in desperate search of something under his very nose, but his last two movies appear as if though they were catered to specifically for awards season.
Actually, I think the Social Network sounds like a very daring film, considering it’s pretty much pre-built for snark and its only rough equivalent is Pirates of Silicon Valley. Which I believe is the first time that movie has been mentioned on nearly any film site I’ve attended. Because that’s how much people cared about seeing it.
(Is it any good? I have absolutely no idea. I saw one trailer for it years and years ago, and it was on the rental shelf at my old work. That’s the only way I know it.)
If Fincher actually succeeds at creating a story that people manage to take seriously, I think he’s more than surpassed everyone’s expectations on this one.
—PolarisDiB
When I first heard he was taking on this subject I wasn’t as disposed to ill will towards it as I am now, it was only until I saw the trailer that I began to feel this way, and from watching the trailer I think that unless the film is a scathing critique against the culture and society from which this “social networking” was bred from I don’t think that I could be take it seriously, because it’s difficult to even take the trailer seriously with the cast constantly banging their fists on the desks, disposed to powerless temper tantrums, they all look like little kids pretending to play adult double crossing each other blackmailing each other as if they had the gravitas to pull off those sorts of procedures, which is not a bad thing at all if that were the point to demonstrate a generation of impotent children who compensate for their shortcomings by living out their dreams of life and potency through a controlled medium such as the internet, I can’t subject it to much judgment because it has even been released yet, I’m just doubtful towards it.
It was a most curious case of hybrid movies from the Amadeus-like telling with a pathetically aged Cate Blanchett to the Gump-like way in which Brad Pitt tries to transcend this movie as Benjamin. It failed on most every count. About the only scene I didn’t find completely insufferable was that between Pitt and Tilda Swinton in Murmansk (I believe it was). It had almost nothing to do with F. Scott Fitzgerald’s original story.
“About the only scene I didn’t find completely insufferable was that between Pitt and Tilda Swinton in Murmansk (I believe it was).”
Yes, I’d agree with this. Maybe a few of the scenes with Jared Harris weren’t completely awful as well (or maybe I just enjoy him in just about anything).
Every moment that Pitt was onscreen was torture, this is one of his very worst performances. Tilda Swinton mitigated the suffering somewhat, it is always a pleasure to watch a real actor blow the Pitt to smithereens, which Swinton did with an almost insulting ease.
@Bryan Angarita: It sounds like you are subjecting this film to what you want it to be instead of what it actually might be. I’ll admit, when I first heard of the project, I did a face palm and shook my head. Then I actually read the backstory about the lawsuits and was intrigued. And then after the trailer, I’m very curious about the film and will probably check it out in theaters.
“they all look like little kids pretending to play adult double crossing each other blackmailing each other as if they had the gravitas to pull off those sorts of procedures”
Um, some of them actually did pull off those sorts of procedures in real life.
“which is not a bad thing at all if that were the point to demonstrate a generation of impotent children who compensate for their shortcomings by living out their dreams of life and potency through a controlled medium such as the internet”
There was a bit of that in the trailer. The Mark Zuckerberg character talked about how he wanted to get into the clubs, the parties, all of that “fun” stuff. That sense of alienation seemed to be the spark for creating Facebook itself. It depicted them as a bunch of Harvard nerds who wanted to fit in and compensated their shortcoming by creating something popular, which would make them popular in real life and across the web. But again, that’s all from the trailer. I am sure they will expand upon that significantly in the film.
Just wait until it comes out and give it a chance! Don’t be so quick to dismiss it, I had the exact same mentality early on, believe me. But then when I actually thought about it, I realized I didn’t have a problem with a film like this itself (rise and fall/tribulations of an outcast who makes it big) but a problem with what you mentioned, how many folks join online networks to make themselves feel important, to feel as if they are contributing or doing something with their life when many of them aren’t. It’s an illusion that people buy into easily because it so quick to obtain. But I shouldn’t let my opinion on that subject taint my view on a film that, although related to that subject, actually focuses on an entirely different story.
Back to the topic though. Yeah, anyone who honestly believes that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is one of the worst movies of the decade has either 1.) not seen very many movies at all that decade or 2.) has some weird hate bias towards Fincher, Pitt, or anyone else involved in the film or 3.) did not find the story to their taste and can’t tell the difference between a genuinely bad movie from a movie that doesn’t adhere to their specific tastes in cinema
“Yeah, anyone who honestly believes that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is one of the worst movies of the decade has either 1.) not seen very many movies at all that decade or 2.) has some weird hate bias towards Fincher, Pitt, or anyone else involved in the film or 3.) did not find the story to their taste and can’t tell the difference between a genuinely bad movie from a movie that doesn’t adhere to their specific tastes in cinema”
Maybe he just left out the implied “that I saw.”
Nope, man, I saw lots of movies in the first decade of this century, and I’d say that THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is among the very worst of the films released during that time. Looks like you disagree. It happens.
It really is quite horrible. Both the concept and the movie itself.
“Nope, man, I saw lots of movies in the first decade of this century”
Dude, Ghost Rider is much worse than the Button mediocrity…I can name 50 more films (at least) that were FAR worse (INCLUDING WATCHMEN)
@Ryan Estabrooks: I think I’m with you on this one. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is surely not a great movie, but it’s not at all as bad as it’s been made out to be here. It’s a bit overdone in some places, underdone in others and just badly done all-around, but I have a hard time believing it’s the “worst film of the decade.” Disappointing to many, perhaps. In general, it’s just a big Hollywood blockbuster… take it for what it is, it’s not that bad.
no,but it is a middlebrow, functionalist piece of mainstream consumer product which might be worse!
“Dude, Ghost Rider is much worse than the Button mediocrity…I can name 50 more films (at least) that were FAR worse (INCLUDING WATCHMEN)”
Dimitris, I think it depends on how you define a bad film. For me, a truly awful film has to involve talented people aspiring to something BIG – some grand and poetic statement about the human condition. Fincher’s film clearly aspires to these heights – and the greater the height, the larger the fall when the film misses its mark so completely. So, yeah, I’m with Roscoe on this one. There are few films from the past decade that I hate as much as Benjamin Button and this is what makes my hatred for Button different from, say, a Michael Bay turd which I can view with casual indifference. That said, WATCHMEN merits a spot on the same list as BUTTON.
^True to that, I can tolerate The Rock much more than looking at that Fincher failure again….but I still think Panic Room was hideous!
Yup, WATCHMEN, 300, Zack Snyder’s wretched output, Anthony Minghella’s unforgiveable COLD MOUNTAIN, and, of course, Rob Marshall’s hellish CHICAGO and NINE. BENJAMIN BUTTON is squarely in their vile company, for all the incredible skill and polish of the production. It remains a bloated knockoff of FORREST GUMP. Adding insult to injury: this was Fincher’s follow up to the brilliant ZODIAC. Jesus.
Angela
A friend lent it me, what a film, funny it didn’t get more coverage around here! One would think that with Brad it should have attracted more curiosity!
Angela,