| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 12/17/2008 : 23:00:04
Ms. Randall and I saw it last night, and I must say we were disappointed. Not so much by Brad Pitt's bravura thespian turn [was "a" the proper end vowel?] as by the whole production. The screenwriter, Eric Roth, was assigned to find the thru-story in this one as well as he did in FORREST GUMP. Sadly, the writer fell back upon his previous triumph, a repetition which I and other FSLC viewers took as a thud. This movie is too long, and Roth's solution resembles FORREST GUMP so closely that you THINK about the previous movie many times while you're watching. "Tech creds," as they would say in VARIETY, are sumptuous.
Rex Reed in the NY Observer has already anointed this as one of the greatest movies of all time. Hey Rexy: bull. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 14:15:48
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Brad Pitt has slowly erased his unearned reputation as a Keanu-esque wooden actor, but he certainly deserves no Oscar here. One astute film critic pointed out that all his best work is not as the main character but in supporting roles: Kalifornia, Se7en, 12 Monkeys, Fight Club, Snatch, Thelma and Louise, Burn After Reading. Brad Pitt sucks as a leading man and always has.
Well put and you left out my favourite role of his (alongside 12 Minkeys) in True Romance!! |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 04:05:16
His role in "Assassination of Jesse James" certainly plays off his leading man status -- Jesse James is played by the Sexiest Man Alive and the Coward Robert Ford is played by a movie star's kid brother. But yeah, honestly, I'd call that a supporting role too -- that's definitely Casey's show. It is one of Pitt's better performances though. |
| demonic |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 03:14:04
You might be right. I think his leading performance in "The Assassination of Jesse James" is superb - but it might be up for debate if that is a supporting role too. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 22:21:36
Brad Pitt has slowly erased his unearned reputation as a Keanu-esque wooden actor, but he certainly deserves no Oscar here. One astute film critic pointed out that all his best work is not as the main character but in supporting roles: Kalifornia, Se7en, 12 Monkeys, Fight Club, Snatch, Thelma and Louise, Burn After Reading. Brad Pitt sucks as a leading man and always has. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 22:00:49
Yep, the whole cinema laughed every time. |
| demonic |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 19:56:18
Thought "BB" was pretty decent on the whole. It did feel long, and thanks to the script was unbalanced as to what was genuinely interesting to watch and what wasn't... really liked the childhood and war time sections for example, but later it struggled to maintain my full interest. Was more involved with Benjamin than Forrest Gump, who I've always been annoyed by. Didn't like Daisy as a person very much. I find Fincher a very hit and miss director and this is one of the films of his I would consider a hit.
Best thing in it was the lighting strike man though ... a hilarious concept. |
| randall |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 15:38:30
OWEN MEANY is one of Irving's best. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 14:44:31
On Owen Meany, I'm afraid that people always banging on about how terrible Simon Birch is in comparison (I don't just mean here -- it's everywhere!) just makes me react against it and not want to read it at all. 
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
He's not all that great of an actor.
I dunno, I don't think he's too bad actually. His range is pretty good compared to most people. He's just not great in this, although he's probably better than the film in general.
quote:
I also don't find him to be all that attractive.
Then you are clearly insane and we can disregard all your views from now on.  |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 14:34:45
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Back to Benjamin Bunny Button, the last film I saw Pitt in was the other one he was in with Cae Blanchett and he wasn't very good in it either.
He's not all that great of an actor. I find him stiff and unconvincing, and frankly, boring to watch. In fact, I don't think he's ever topped his performance in A River Runs Through It, and even that wasn't all that amazing.
(I also don't find him to be all that attractive.) |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 14:19:42
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
(p.s.) now they have the technology to make a proper version of Owen Meany.
Oh, please NO! That would be just horrid, if you ask me.
I think a HBOesque miniseries wouold suit it perfectly, there's so much in it that a film or adaptation couldn't do it justice (simon birch) as you well pointed out CL, but it may be his novel but he already gave/sold it to us so he has lost some ownership of it already.
Back to Benjamin Bunny Button, the last film I saw Pitt in was the other one he was in with Cae Blanchett and he wasn't very good in it either.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 07:27:21
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
(p.s.) now they have the technology to make a proper version of Owen Meany.
Oh, please NO! That would be just horrid, if you ask me. And anyway, I doubt that Irving would agree. He's used the basic idea of the novel already and while it wasn't perfect, it certainly could have been a whole lot worse. He's also said that he never really wanted to use "Owen Meany" as a basis for a film to begin with, because it was such a popular book, and he had fans writing to him angry about how Simon Birch came out - to which he replied to them that it wasn't meant to be a film version of "Owen Meany" despite the many similarities.
Instead, let them use one of his lesser novels for a new movie. I'm thinking they could do "The Fourth Hand", since the novel was only just okay, but it would translate pretty nicely onto the screen - especially the bits with the lion biting off the guy's hand and all the subsequent hand transplants. That might be pretty cool, actually.
|
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 02/07/2009 : 16:18:05
Beautiful, funny, interesting, sad, but ultimately pointless.
Though I'd still recommend it.
and
(p.s.) now they have the technology to make a proper version of Owen Meany. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/07/2009 : 01:57:25
I didn't notice any similarities to Forrest Gump while watching it, but I suppose there are some insignificant ones.
A much bigger problem with the film is that its internal logic is just horrible. SPOILERS: Benjamin starts off with geriatric tissue but like a normal baby in mind, size and shape. The former develops in reverse and the latter features do so as normal. After fifty years of this, he is suddenly worried about his mind going in reverse and what does happen is that his body size and shape do. Just makes no sense at all.
Other ageing is also ridiculous. At almost 17, Benjamin should be virtually fully grown but he's still quite small. Daisy hardly looks any older from 20 to 55 but then twenty years later looks ancient.
It's rather disturbing too that a 16-year-old who has been to a brothel is interested in a 10-year-old.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 05:31:58
quote:
But in the end you're left with a vague impression. "I wish I knew him," says the daughter. "You do," replies the mother.
But you don't.
Damn. Straight.
There are many differences between Forrest Gump and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button but the main one is that Forrest Gump is a lively, kinetic, upbeat Robert Zemeckis film and Benjamin Button is a dour, stately, downbeat David Fincher film. Take Fincher away from his psychopaths and serial killers and he's got nothing to hang his style on. |
| randall |
Posted - 12/18/2008 : 23:05:30
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
1) Who cares, and still *doesn't* know, that it's based on an FSF short story, emphasis on the *short*?
2) The audience's empathic suffering for Forrest/Benjamin is equally vivid, no matter which are their particular problems. I remain steadfast in my belief that screenwriter Eric Roth solved both story problems the same way. Everybody, including Brad, goes on all the TV shows saying, "It's the script, man!" It ain't there, man.
I'm agreeing with you and still you're kvetching! Oy vey already!
Naw, I just sat there and watched the movie. I love that they show us these things on a big-ass screen; INLAND EMPIRE, for example.
The kvetching was done both by my brain and by listening to other FSLC cineastes at the exit.
History will tell. |
|
|
