quote:

M.
Participant
Posted 02 February 2009 08:25 PM
quote:
By the time the film got back around to showing Benjamin's development - and a 10 year old with dementia is a fascinating concept - I frankly didn't much care anymore, and it didn't help that the final years of Benjamin's life were shown in a whirlwind.

I bought into the love story but it bothered me also the way the film just quit following the life of Benjamin for a dozen or so years. To me those years would have been the most curious of all -- a young guy with the viewpoint of an old man with an increasing awareness of death. I kind of wonder if the reason for this was simply that Brad Pitt (or perhaps anyone - except maybe Dustin Hoffman in his prime) could not have acted this role. Special effects would not have helped so acting would really have been necessary. The abrupt cut kind of ruined the love story for me. He can come back for a little sex but can't stick around to grow old and take care of a kid! What kind of love is that?

You may be asking for too much. The movie's critics have already panned this movie for how long (at two hours and 36 minutes) and, for some, how dull and boring (I disagree with this personally) the movie was. To have extended or included an additional scene for the sake of addressing another period in Benjamin Button's life would have likely killed the movie. For me, the important periods of Mr. Button's life and the ones that may have had the most significant in his life had been presented. To ask that even a fictional character's life (except for Forrest Gump) include interesting and riveting, exciting moments through out one's life is impractical. What makes this movie powerful is its fantastic premise along with the possibility of the authenticity and feasibility of the rest of Mr. Button's life (including portions of which may actually have been dull and boring and thus not particularly interesting to shoot).

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
To ask that even a fictional character's life (except for Forrest Gump) include interesting and riveting, exciting moments through out one's life is impractical. What makes this movie powerful is its fantastic premise along with the possibility of the authenticity and feasibility of the rest of Mr. Button's life (including portions of which may actually have been dull and boring and thus not particularly interesting to shoot).

No one's necessarily asking for "exciting", but after all, it is a movie. Everything included should at least move the story along. After all, you've only got a couple hours to tell a story. Why waste even a minute of it on something irrelevant?

quote:

EricG75
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 02 February 2009 09:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
To ask that even a fictional character's life (except for Forrest Gump) include interesting and riveting, exciting moments through out one's life is impractical. What makes this movie powerful is its fantastic premise along with the possibility of the authenticity and feasibility of the rest of Mr. Button's life (including portions of which may actually have been dull and boring and thus not particularly interesting to shoot).


No one's necessarily asking for "exciting", but after all, it is a movie. Everything included should at least move the story along. After all, you've only got a couple hours to tell a story. Why waste even a minute of it on something irrelevant?

Since I didn't find really anything significantly "irrelevant" in the movie and since both my wife and I were pleasantly surprised by how the time passed entertainingly (something that rarely happens as we usually disagree on many movies), neither of us had anything to complain about. But after "couple hours" plus thirty more minutes, another scene might have been asking a wee too much as this is America and our penchant for shorter the better needs to be taken into consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
this is America and our penchant for shorter the better needs to be taken into consideration.

Most of the time, I'd agree, but The Dark Knight was over 2 1/2 hours long, and I thought that was an incredibly tight script.

quote:

To have extended or included an additional scene for the sake of addressing another period in Benjamin Button's life would have likely killed the movie. For me, the important periods of Mr. Button's life and the ones that may have had the most significant in his life had been presented.

I think a theme of the movie was to show how growing old and growing young were in many ways equivalent. On this point the film faltered. Benjamin hits the mid-point and then just disappears. I think the decision on what to include in the movie seemed often to have been based more on what time periods made interesting pictures rather than on what contributed to inner themes and to the story. I think that is what made the film seem long and boring to people, not its actual length. I didn't really think the film was all that long so I think I was more engaged than many people. However, I wasn't as engaged as with The Return of the King or The Godfather which are very long movies also. I dont think it is a question of length so much as a question of being engaged by the subject matter, characters, and plot.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dale M.,

quote:

EricG75
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 03 February 2009 06:54 AM

quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
this is America and our penchant for shorter the better needs to be taken into consideration.


Most of the time, I'd agree, but The Dark Knight was over 2 1/2 hours long, and I thought that was an incredibly tight script.

It's interesting that you would have a positive opinion about The Dark Knight because I had problems with the plot unfolding and the script's continuity in The Dark Knight. I found the movie overly dense with twists and turns, hypercritical fusion of predictable scenes, dark (almost impossible to see) action shots, and more of a movie with smoke and mirrors to look better than it actually was. There were the typical chase scenes with artificially placed cars, the Joker's ludicrously easy escape as opposed to something like Hannibal Lector's escape. The mean spirit of this movie for an action hero movie really turned my conception of the comic book upside down (I must be corrupted by Spiderman). I had other minor problems with this movie that made what could have been a classic into a solid, entertaining but sometimes irritating movie experience. It was the background having to feel this irritation that begin to drag this movie down over its extended length.

quote:

Dale M.
Participant
Posted 03 February 2009 06:58 AM

quote:
To have extended or included an additional scene for the sake of addressing another period in Benjamin Button's life would have likely killed the movie. For me, the important periods of Mr. Button's life and the ones that may have had the most significant in his life had been presented.

I think a theme of the movie was to show how growing old and growing young were in many ways equivalent. On this point the film faltered. Benjamin hits the mid-point and then just disappears. I think the decision on what to include in the movie seemed often to have been based more on what time periods made interesting pictures rather than on what contributed to inner themes and to the story. I think that is what made the film seem long and boring to people, not its actual length. I didn't really think the film was all that long so I think I was more engaged than many people. However, I wasn't as engaged as with The Return of the King or The Godfather which are very long movies also. I dont think it is a question of length so much as a question of being engaged by the subject matter, characters, and plot.

If you considered the theme of this movie was the symmetry of growing older and growing younger, then I would say that you have a good point. However, I didn't view this parallel as a theme for this movie. Instead I took satisfaction in the theme of this movie as an experiential exploration of life and death, relationships both in passing and durable over time without requiring any direct connections. For me this movie was a snap shot of experiences over a person's life (as any of us might have). To expect some overarching unified field theory of human behavior to be revealed in this movie (again) would be asking too much from this movie.

I took what I wanted from this movie and found each scene (like a course in an dinner) delectable until I ended with a pleasurable sensation like the sweetness of desert by the end.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
The mean spirit of this movie for an action hero movie really turned my conception of the comic book upside down (I must be corrupted by Spiderman).

The Spiderman series, especially the last one, was far too campy for my taste.

I've heard a lot of complaints that The Dark Knight was too dark for a super hero movie and not "fun" enough, but when I grew up reading comics in the '80s (mostly X-Men), they were incredibly dark and serious, at least how that's how I remember them. There was no campiness.

When I hear those complaints, I always get the feeling that the person has never read comics, or at least they have read one since the '50s.

For me, The Dark Knight comes the closest to what I always wanted from a super hero movie. You've got a protagonist who's nearly an anti-hero, real adult problems, and villains who are actually scary.

The best part about The Dark Knight was that it managed to take the Batman/Joker story, which has been around for nearly 70 years, and make it into a story that's relevant to the times we live in.

This will be ranking very high on my list of 2008 films.

quote:

EricG75
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 03 February 2009 11:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
The mean spirit of this movie for an action hero movie really turned my conception of the comic book upside down (I must be corrupted by Spiderman).


The Spiderman series, especially the last one, was far too campy for my taste.

I've heard a lot of complaints that The Dark Knight was too dark for a super hero movie and not "fun" enough, but when I grew up reading comics in the '80s (mostly X-Men), they were incredibly dark and serious, at least how that's how I remember them. There was no campiness.

When I hear those complaints, I always get the feeling that the person has never read comics, or at least they have read one since the '50s.

For me, The Dark Knight comes the closest to what I always wanted from a super hero movie. You've got a protagonist who's nearly an anti-hero, real adult problems, and villains who are actually scary.

The best part about The Dark Knight was that it managed to take the Batman/Joker story, which has been around for nearly 70 years, and make it into a story that's relevant to the times we live in.

This will be ranking very high on my list of 2008 films.

We apparently come from different worlds, well different life experiences. Growing up my interest lay in hard core science fiction and not comic book superheros. I didn't really read and look at graphic comics much and still don't, as I recall my comic book reading took consisted more of:

Classic Illustrated (series)
Kidnapped
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
First Men in the Moon
Lady of the Lake
The Time Machine
From Earth to the Moon
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Kit Carson
Buffalo Bill

March of Comics

Woody Woodpecker
Donald Duck
Daffy
Lassie

Gold Key
Top Cat
Three Stooges
Flintstones
Mighty Mouse
Tarzan of the Apes
The Twilight Zone
Space Family Robinson
The Jetsons
Bugs Bunny
Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Even Jack and Jill series.

I'm light, you're dark (non-racially speaking)

Your explanation, however, does resonate and I really understand and agree that with your interests and the graphic comic books you enjoy, The Dark Knight really hits home for you.

But especially now during this real life experiences America and the World are going through, I need something much more emotionally uplifting to hold on to that I can appreciate and experience. It's deeply personal.

i didnt have a problem with dark night being too dark or anything. but i did not walk out of that movie taking any of it seriously. yes it was kewl to watch batman and joker, and by industry standards it was well made film but the politics that it tried to infuse to make it more "of our times" was almost laughable.

am i the only one who felt like Benjamin Button felt, at some points, like a really beautifully shot version of Forrest Gump?

I'm rooting for Milk 100%. And Kate Winslet, of course.

benjamin button is gorgeous, but milk is simply astounding.

quote:

I've heard a lot of complaints that The Dark Knight was too dark for a super hero movie and not "fun" enough, but when I grew up reading comics in the '80s (mostly X-Men), they were incredibly dark and serious, at least how that's how I remember them. There was no campiness.

The Dark Knight not campy? Try comparing it to No Country for Old Men. No Country for Old Men tells about the same story and really is dark, serious, and scary. The two movies even use the same symbol of a coin flip for the randomness of evil. Let's face it, however, the Joker is just a joke compared to the guy in No Country for Old Men. The Dark Knight really wants to have a dark ending but it is all just campy symbolic darkness and woe. No Country for Old Men really has a dark ending.

If you mean by campy something artificial, affected, and exaggerated, then you must grant that the Dark Knight is campy. Yet it really wasn't enough fun for me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dale M.,

Compared to the bleakness of NCfOM, yes, The Dark Knight was campy. Compared to films within it's own genre, it wasn't.

quote:

The Dark Knight not campy? Try comparing it to No Country for Old Men. No Country for Old Men tells about the same story and really is dark, serious, and scary. The two movies even use the same symbol of a coin flip for the randomness of evil. Let's face it, however, the Joker is just a joke compared to the guy in No Country for Old Men. The Dark Knight really wants to have a dark ending but it is all just campy symbolic darkness and woe. No Country for Old Men really has a dark ending.

If you mean by campy something artificial, affected, and exaggerated, then you must grant that the Dark Knight is campy. Yet it really wasn't enough fun for me.

I'm confused as to where the No Country for Old Men comparison came from, but I'll bite.

I'd say the Joker and Anton would be pretty good buddies, in terms of their motives for destruction and killing: they don't have a motive. They both just want chaos from the world, and they don't adhere to any rules, except their own.

As for the coin flip "symbol," that's been Two-Face's calling card for as long as he's been around in the comics (30's? 40's?). Nothing original there, but the TDK filmmakers hardly borrowed it from No Country.

I agree that the Dark Knight's ending is "campier" than No Country's. But at least it made sense. No Country's ending was awful...
actually, let me clarify. When Josh Brolin dies without anything being shown, that is just pathetic filmmaking. To set up such a hardcore character like his in the movie, and to have him go down so easy... depressing and uncalled for.

The television 2008 Academy Award Ceremonies wrapped up about half an hour ago, taking in three and a half hours with Hugh Jackman as host. I wasn't going to comment on the Ceremonies themselves, but after the terrible, botched awards, I can't help myself, it needs to be said.

2008 Academy Awards

Perhaps one of the worst Academy Awards Ceremonies yet, the bold attempt to add glamour and appeal fell terribly flat.

1. The beginning musical rendition by Hugh Jackman was an insult to the movie "The Reader" having literally no redeeming or informative value of the movie with people just almost parodying reading in mime form.

2. Ben Stiller was horribly disrespectful, attempting to be silly and funny but only coming off as major distraction to the serious video presentation of serious movie clips nominated for Best Cinematography leaving poor Natalie Portman to somehow keep the audience attention on the real reason for the awards while the audience begins to laugh at Ben Stiller's antics, forcing the camera to pan out to reveal Mr. Stiller taking away from the movie clips!

3. Except for the animated feature film title legends, the interesting attempt to showcase 2008 comedy, adventure, romantic films were a collection of montages without any reference to what films were being shown, a poor way to promote and get the television audience to perhaps actually become interested in renting or purchasing some of the films they haven't seen.

4. The comedy montage was corrupted by the dumb antics of two crazy guys on a couch and the inclusion of some serious movie scenes, almost belittling the dramas. It was embarrassing. Let the comedy scenes speak for themselves, no editorial comments were needed.

5. The old time tribute to the musical was introduced in a confusing way, inconsistent with other tributes and had way too many musical numbers that did not do justice to the many musicals and there were no credits or references to what numbers were performed.

6. The performance of the musical songs was botched by the absence of specific legends telling the audience what pieces were being performed and the song nominee from Wall*e seemed to be overshadowed and unfairly squeezed between Slumdog Millionaire's songs without sufficient distinction of the set or performers. It also seemed that the last musical song at the very end became a fusion of a duet of melodies and lyrics from both Wall*e and Slumdog Millionaire.

7. Another potentially fascinating cinematic area that keeps getting insufficient attention is documentaries and it would be helpful in the future to include "more extended" scenes from the Documentary nominees because they sometimes offer some of the most provocative and fascinating subjects using their real life appeal (anybody heard of the mass appeal of real television?).

8. Also it seemed that the tribute to Jerry Lewis wasn't as comprehensive nor as poignant as I recall other past tributes have been.

9. The "in memoriam" was also horribly botched with the camera work attempting to be cute only to begin with a long shot that the television audience couldn't even see who died and then later on a frequent basis the in and out shots made many of the brief movie montages of the dead either illegible or difficult to read while Queen Latifa provided an accompanying song that while melancholy seemed more to detract from the observance of the dead's past works and prevented until the end hearing their actual words and works when some brief words of the late Paul Newman was heard.

10. Finally, the extended scenes from the best movie nominees were seriously distorted, poorly edited with inserts from other movies that only detracted and took away from the impact of the nominated movies themselves.

Other thoughts -

* I appreciated Hugh Jackman involving Anne Hathaway in a number about Frost/Nixon, and allowing her to show off her singing and also knowing that she would likely not win the best actress award, a nice consolation event for her.

* The use of past award recipients to recognize the nominees of the major acting awards was a very nice touch, though some of the past award recipients were inconsistent.

* Both Kate Winslet and Sean Penn had some of the most captivating speeches or portions of the evening.

* Reese Witherspoon did an entertaining job of introducing the Best Director nominees.

* Appreciated Best Actor winner, Sean Penn acknowledging Mickey Rourke at the end of his speech.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tabuno,

I thought Hugh Jackman's opening skit was mildly amusing but spotlighting Anne Hathaway for Frost-Nixon was rather unnecessary. I haven't seen the Reader so I'm out on the gaff, nor did I see the events you mention in 2-3, but as you mention the tributes, in memoriam, and montages were pretty awkward though. I really only saw Wall-E from this year so yeah...

Though I felt Hugh Jackman could host in the future, this was a pretty lame Oscar night. It's certainly not the kind that will draw more people in.

Mickey Rourke was robbed plain and simple. Hollywood went with the politically correct nominee as opposed to the one who produced the best acting performance in years.

quote:

chaos
Slacker First Class
Posted 23 February 2009 05:53 PM Hide Post
Mickey Rourke was robbed plain and simple. Hollywood went with the politically correct nominee as opposed to the one who produced the best acting performance in years.

It's hard to respond adequately knowing that I haven't seen Sean Penn in Milk, but since seeing Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler, it's hard for me to imagine a better performance this year. The gay and lesbian issue that flared up during last year's California ballot voting, didn't help to level the playing field at all. Thus in the context of the times and culture, it's impossible to separate and judge a film based entirely on its isolated presentation without introducing what is happening in the outside world and how it effects people and their feelings. What I can say is I would have wished that the gay and lesbian issue hadn't become such a problem late last year, otherwise we might have had a better awards vote that would have stood the test of time.