Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:23 pm**

Sabin wrote:
The movie does take its time telling its story, but much like Pitt's previous effort, Jesse James, the story is compelling and it's just so beautiful to look at.

I have to take slight umbrage at criddic's assertion. I may be biased in my thinking that The Assassination of Jesse James... is one of the best American films of the decade, but Jesse James' strength is exactly what The Curious Case of Benjamin Button lacks. They both take their time but doing what? Every frame of The Assassination of Jesse James... invites contemplation, and every frame is juxtaposed with insightful commentary that deepens what is going on. You almost want to watch it twice to see what exactly it means. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is the exactly opposite. Every frame invites admiration. There are no mysteries. There are no insights. It's just there and lovely...and with a story as immediately intriguing as the Fitzgerald story, this is not enough.

Well, no two films are the same. Even more obvious may be that these stories had different goals. The Jesse James epic was about a an outlaw who is so tired with his notoriety that he eventually allows himself to be killed, which necessitates more tension than the Benjamin Button film, which is essentially a romantic drama about a man who lives his life to the fullest despite knowing that he'll never grow old with the woman he falls in love with. Not much intensity is required to tell the story of Benjamin Button for it to work.

Edited By criddic3 on 1231021461

Posted: **Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:43 am**

And oh how far we've come in the makeup department since Bette Midler in For the Boys.

I think Bette Midler looks worse now than she did at the end of For the Boys.

Posted: **Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:34 am**

More to say later on this film later, but for a quick review: I really liked it.

I thought that Cate Blanchett (who, quite frankly, I was already prepared to be bored and unimpressed by in this) was the clear standout. I thought she gave a subtle and thoughtful performance that matured into something beautiful right along with the character's well-worn age. She could be a "surprise" nominee in Best Actress if the film hits big on nomination day.

Swinton gave another one of her dependably excellent performances.

And oh how far we've come in the makeup department since Bette Midler in For the Boys :p.

Edited By flipp525 on 1230759920

Posted: **Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:23 am**

The movie does take its time telling its story, but much like Pitt's previous effort, Jesse James, the story is compelling and it's just so beautiful to look at.

I have to take slight umbrage at criddic's assertion. I may be biased in my thinking that The Assassination of Jesse James... is one of the best American films of the decade, but Jesse James' strength is exactly what The Curious Case of Benjamin Button lacks. They both take their time but doing what? Every frame of The Assassination of Jesse James... invites contemplation, and every frame is juxtaposed with insightful commentary that deepens what is going on. You almost want to watch it twice to see what exactly it means. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is the exactly opposite. Every frame invites admiration. There are no mysteries. There are no insights. It's just there and lovely...and with a story as immediately intriguing as the Fitzgerald story, this is not enough.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:48 pm**

Jim20 wrote:From Jack:
In my opinion this year the two best are Wall-e and The Dark Knight. Why are these two films not getting the respect they deserve?

I definitely agree with this. How is it possible that two films, both successful financially, well-told and well-made all around, are being pushed aside by two less-deserving films? Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button should not represent what is the best of 2008.

Not quite. Slumdog Millionaire does represent the best of 2008. My point was the The Dark Knight and Wall-e do as well... I'll go further and say Wall-e represents this year in film better than Slumdog.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:08 pm**

WALL-E is a victim of the Animated Feature category ghetto. THE DARK KNIGHT lacks the "beyond-all-odds" production history that tends to accompany serious Best Picture contenders these days. Making a sixth Batman film after the financial success of BATMAN BEGINS was kinda a no-brainer, not an uphill struggle. The fact that it turned out to be an actually great movie (in the opinion of many, not including me) is not enough to command respectability in the Best Picture category- maybe if there were separate categories for Best Production and Best Film THE DARK KNIGHT would have a legitimate shot at the latter, but probably not the former. It may have a shot at Best Picture nonetheless, but I understand why it isn't being taken as seriously by pundits and precursors as many might wish.

Off to (finally) see SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE...

Edited By rain Bard on 1230602975

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:59 pm**

Jim20 wrote:From Jack:
In my opinion this year the two best are Wall-e and The Dark Knight. Why are these two films not getting the respect they deserve?

I definitely agree with this. How is it possible that two films, both successful financially and well-told, are being pushed aside by two less-deserving films? Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button both should not represent the best of 2008.

it is ironic that past best picture line-ups are littered with artistically unimpressive and undeserving films which were simply nominated because they were big box office successes (THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, FUNNY GIRL, etc.) and even big movies which were not box office successes (DOCTOR DOLITTLE, HELLO DOLLY, etc.); but now two of the most well reviewed films of the year which also were huge box office successes are being sidelined for less successful films both commercially and artistically. very strange.

Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1230602397

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:46 pm**

From Jack:
In my opinion this year the two best are Wall-e and The Dark Knight. Why are these two films not getting the respect they deserve?

I definitely agree with this. How is it possible that two films, both successful financially, well-told and well-made all around, are being pushed aside by two less-deserving films? Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button should not represent what is the best of 2008.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:40 pm**

Having seen both Button and Slumdog, I hope and pray that Wall-e builds up momentum and joins them both. If the race does come down to Button and Slumdog, Slumdog should and deserves to win. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was fantastic to look at, but I stick by what I said calling it unspectacluar overall. In a way it should be this year's The Aviator, but Slumdog Millionaire doesn't feel like this year's Million Dollar Baby... Milk does, however.

In my opinion this year the two best are Wall-e and The Dark Knight. Why are these two films not getting the respect they deserve?

Edited By jack on 1230597637

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:23 pm**

Big Magilla wrote:Happens some times. Think 1981 when Reds and On Golden Pond, though appealing to different groups, both had strong support but ended up losing to Chariots of Fire.

Ah ok, but it's not like they "canceled each other out", there was no vote splitting. They just lost to Chariots of Fire. It happens.

But not this year. This year it will only be between Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button. And I wished I had seen Benjamin Button to have a clear idea of its potential. I HOPE, frankly, that Best Picture and Best Director will become a more competitive race than they seemed to be till now.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:30 pm**

Penelope wrote:what, really, does Benjamin have to fight against, what does he triumph over? In spite of his "condition," he's never treated as an outcast by those around him (which certainly would've added more depth to the proceedings; Benjamin literally has everything handed to him--women throw themselves at his feet, he inherits millions of dollars.

well said. that might have been part of why i did not respond emotionally to the film. the only times his condition really made him seem different were at the very beginning and the end. the middle part of his life really should not have been any different than anyone else.

it frustrated me that fincher and roth seemed to feel the middle parts of benjamin's life were more interesting. in the beginning, when benjamin is "old" there are so many different things they could have explored. it seemed like everyone either did not know about his condition or just accepted it with no problem.

the only time benjamin seemed to be treated differently was when he and daisy were under the table talking and then daisy's grandmother pulled her away and told benjamin he should be ashamed of himself. i bet most people in the audience did not get the reason daisy's grandmother was acting that way was because she assumed benjamin was an old man "playing" with a young girl. all we get though is queenie telling benjamin people do not understand him and will treat him differently.

equally toward the end, i thought it would have been fascinating to see daisy having to deal with benjamin's dementia like something out of AWAY FROM HER. no longer being able to be physically intimate with the person you have loved all your life because he is now in the body of a small child. that would have been interesting to see explored.

it just seemed like fincher and roth wanted to make a big movie rather than a comlex movie. THE DARK KNIGHT explored more thematic depths and asked more relective questions of its characters and the audience than THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON did.

it felt like they were just telling benjamin's story to show off the nifty special effects rather than say something interesting. fincher is no stranger of using fx to tell a great story. FIGHT CLUB started with a great premise and interesting ideas about consumerism and anarchy and our culture, and fincher found a way to make the language of cinema service and strengthen those themes.

still, the movie was cinematically flawless. quite beautiful and spectacular. fincher did his job well, but roth let him down. fincher should have demanded rewrites to add depth to the story he was telling.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:13 pm**

ITALIANO wrote:what do these two movies have in common to lead to this absurd idea?

I believe the theory is that they are both "fables." But Benjamin Button is much more a fantasia about life and (lots of) death than Slumdog, which is much more a feel-good tale of triumphing over adversity.

This is partly why I think Slumdog will win versus Benjamin Button: in the latter film, what, really, does Benjamin have to fight against, what does he triumph over? In spite of his "condition," he's never treated as an outcast by those around him (which certainly would've added more depth to the proceedings), whereas Jamal is always an outsider, and treated as such by practically everyone; Benjamin literally has everything handed to him--women throw themselves at his feet, he inherits millions of dollars, whereas Jamal must constantly struggle to achieve anything, and must, at the very least, use his wits to win his millions.

This, I think, is part of the reason that people are responding to Slumdog (along with the energetic direction and pacing and exotic location); Benjamin Button is clearly getting a response from audiences, but not, I believe, to the level that Slumdog is getting a response. As Sabin indicated below, Benjamin Button will literally have to make $300 million just to begin showing a profit; with a current gross of $20 million, Slumdog is already in the profit area, and will certainly gross far more.

Edited By Penelope on 1230592464

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:13 pm**

criddic3 wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:
Zahveed wrote:I'm 20, I loved it. My mom saw it. She's 37. Under forty and loved it.

wow. that is a very small age difference. when you guys hang out you probably look more like friends than parent-child. sorry, totally unrelated to the thread, but it surprised me.

I'm 31 and my mom is 49. It's kind of an odd thing in a way. I never think of my mom as old.

i am 25 and my mom will soon be 59. she is young at heart, and in many ways i am old beyond my years. still, to have so little age between myself and a parent would feel strange.

Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1230592429

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:06 pm**

rolotomasi99 wrote:
Zahveed wrote:I'm 20, I loved it. My mom saw it. She's 37. Under forty and loved it.

wow. that is a very small age difference. when you guys hang out you probably look more like friends than parent-child. sorry, totally unrelated to the thread, but it surprised me.

I'm 31 and my mom is 49. It's kind of an odd thing in a way. I never think of my mom as old.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:50 pm**

Zahveed wrote:I'm 20, I loved it. My mom saw it. She's 37. Under forty and loved it.

wow. that is a very small age difference. when you guys hang out you probably look more like friends than parent-child. sorry, totally unrelated to the thread, but it surprised me.