Why does everyone hate "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button?"

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

I liked it allot thought it was one of Fincher's best movies. Fight Club it isn't but then again were you really expecting Fight Club? The movie is long and slightly slow at points but so is life and if you are telling someones entire life story its bound to be boring in spots.

On a side note take Schindler's List, great movie maybe Spielberg's best but not exactly something I watch regularly. I think I've seen it twice just too hard to watch.
For me Benjamin Button is sorta like that it isn't something that has the re-play value of say Fight Club. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good/great movie.

Well put.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I think what they are saying is the people who worked on the film did a good job.

Good lighting, great costumes, accurates sets and props, good acting, good camera work and editing. Well made.

The story is separate. The story is before they make the film.

I have enjoyed movies that have great stories, but are poorly made films. The acting was iffy, the lighting was weak, the costumes were wrong for the era etc. Poorly made film, but the story was so intriguing that I enjoyed it.

Yea I guess if u break it down like that I can see your point. While I do look at everything from directing, to settings, atmosphere, acting etc..if i dont like the film I just wont give it props in general but if we are breaking the film down then u speak well. Good example is Shutter Island if we are goin by what most mean in this situation. I believe the categories u mentioned are very good here but didnt care for the story and it was very slow. Got Em!!

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

I liked it allot thought it was one of Fincher's best movies. Fight Club it isn't but then again were you really expecting Fight Club? The movie is long and slightly slow at points but so is life and if you are telling someones entire life story its bound to be boring in spots.

On a side note take Schindler's List, great movie maybe Spielberg's best but not exactly something I watch regularly. I think I've seen it twice just too hard to watch.
For me Benjamin Button is sorta like that it isn't something that has the re-play value of say Fight Club. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a good/great movie.

I definitely agree with you on that one. It's not Fincher's best film, but that doesn't mean that the film sucked.

[jhiggy23]

There's a reason why the short story was meant to be facetious--it was never meant to be taken seriously from a dramatic point of view and was never meant to be extended into an overlong movie. While well-made, there simply is no emotional connection for me personally (and many others). That's not to say that people cannot be emotionally connected to the film, as it's apparent that some are, but I don't get it.

[twc5964]

Originally Posted by ManUtd

Different strokes for different folks, I thought it was a well made movie and I enjoyed it.

x2 for me also !

[Bunker]

Saw it once. Liked it well enough. Have no desire to see it again.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

There's a reason why the short story was meant to be facetious--it was never meant to be taken seriously from a dramatic point of view and was never meant to be extended into an overlong movie. While well-made, there simply is no emotional connection for me personally (and many others).

Exactly--Fitzgerald's story was meant to be a little imitation-James-Thurber trifle, just an exercise (or even magazine story) in the middle of all his other works.
To turn it (literally) into some life-messaging Forrest Gump, spanning decades and flooding New Orleans and looking ominously at clocks, is...pretty much what Hollywood DOES do when it can't really understand reading-stuff.

(Don't believe us about the story? Here--Don't take too long reading it:
http://www.readbookonline.net/read/690/10628/ )

[seigneur_rayden]

The movie is okay. It doesn't have replay value though.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Exactly--Fitzgerald's story was meant to be a little imitation-James-Thurber trifle, just an exercise (or even magazine story) in the middle of all his other works.
To turn it (literally) into some life-messaging Forrest Gump, spanning decades and flooding New Orleans and looking ominously at clocks, is...pretty much what Hollywood DOES do when it can't really understand reading-stuff.

(Don't believe us about the story? Here--Don't take too long reading it:
http://www.readbookonline.net/read/690/10628/ )

Frank Darabont basically did the same thing with The Shawshank Redemption. The short story was little more than a simple prison story, and Darabont turned it into a two and a half hour long movie, and gave it its heart.
Also, comparing Forrest Gump with Benjamin Button is completely ridiculous, because the characters are absolutely nothing alike, apart from the fact that they're both special. It's only mentioned because it happens to be the same writer.

[Deadset]

Saw it and thought it was very Have no intention of ever seeing it again.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Also, comparing Forrest Gump with Benjamin Button is completely ridiculous, because the characters are absolutely nothing alike, apart from the fact that they're both special. It's only mentioned because it happens to be the same writer.

Well, going back to the CollegeHumor clip, there ARE a few more reasons...
(Just in case you missed it: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1897317 )
Which suggests that, with so much filler to be filled, the writer was on autopilot, which is usually how derivative screenplays happen.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Frank Darabont basically did the same thing with The Shawshank Redemption. The short story was little more than a simple prison story, and Darabont turned it into a two and a half hour long movie, and gave it its heart.
Also, comparing Forrest Gump with Benjamin Button is completely ridiculous, because the characters are absolutely nothing alike, apart from the fact that they're both special. It's only mentioned because it happens to be the same writer.

That's the point--Shawshank worked because of the depth of the story when it was extended and the emotional connection that is almost universal. Button lacks both to many people.

[seigneur_rayden]

Originally Posted by Deads3t

Saw it and thought it was very Have no intention of ever seeing it again.

That is how I felt after watching it and I still feel that way to this day.

[Al_The_Strange]

I thought the movie was just okay; it had some interesting parts. For the most part though (and this is something that aggrivates me about other films too), I felt the film had no real story to it. The man lived, loved, and died...while reverse-aging. Great...what's the point?

Without conflict to drive the plot, or any stakes for the main character(s), I couldn't connect to it at all. It became a very long and dull experience for me, despite the film's style.

[Malik True]

I think Buttons is FANTASTIC and is on my tracker list to scoop up during the 2010 holiday run. The first time I saw it as soon as it was over started watching it again for the next 45 min. I saw it again and when it was over I looked to the person I was watching it with and she was crying like a baby...
I always read the Gump comparisons to Buttons but I don't see it, that could be because I have only seen Gump twice, don't own it and don't care to.

Furthermore I think Buttons was anally violated by the Academy by nominating the been there done that a million times film Slumdog as the best movie of 2008. Good movie, but we've seen a love story many, many, many times before....

[mywhitenoise]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Well, going back to the CollegeHumor clip, there ARE a few more reasons...
(Just in case you missed it: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1897317 )
Which suggests that, with so much filler to be filled, the writer was on autopilot, which is usually how derivative screenplays happen.

That was great!

[Lacit170]

not sure... i loved it

[bhampton]

I don't hate it. I haven't seen it and I know almost nothing about it.

I don't have the hots for Brad Pitt so there's no help there.

Is it good? ..... Maybe I should check it out someday.

-Brian

[mywhitenoise]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I don't hate it. I haven't seen it and I know almost nothing about it.

I don't have the hots for Brad Pitt so there's no help there.

Is it good? ..... Maybe I should check it out someday.

-Brian

lol, you're asking if it's "good"...yet you're in a thread about people defending and hating on it. You're not going to get a great response.

[blu-bry]

It's kind of a strange case (no pun intended). I think it's a great film, well acted, shot beautifully, great affects, but I don't care to own it. I would not replay it often enough to pay off. It's one of those films that everyone should see once, and then decide from there if they like it enough to own.