Slant Mag’s Nick Schager gives Benjamin Button high marks - the reviewer seems torn but decides, ultimately, that Fincher makes the difference:
Still, Benjamin’s very blankness gives the film—and its central romance—a beguiling measure of dreamy, fabulistic wonder, one that entrances even as Roth’s script regularly missteps, whether it be by referencing Katrina (a tacky symbol of the unpredictable, unchangeable future) or squandering any of the framing story’s potential (with a mid-plot paternity revelation leading to exactly jack squat). Certainly, Pitt’s sentimentally moderated performance and Blanchett’s suitably chilly turn, when coupled with Fincher’s suspiciousness of bald-faced treacle, makes many of these cheesy history-through-the-eyes-of-a-weirdo errors in judgment go down easier. The film’s more cloying inclinations never overwhelm because the director, and his performers, treat their tale with just enough detachment to give it a beautiful, enchanting refracted-through-gossamer (or –time) quality. It’s a subtle balancing act, and one far less obviously dexterous than the vast data-streamlining of Zodiac. Yet his work here is, in a way, no less impressive, exhibiting both a technical deftness and heartrending urgency that’s ultimately overpowering, Fincher (like his spiritual stand-in, the intro’s clockmaker) so in command of his material and his medium that—even in a work as simultaneously rapturous and maddening as Benjamin Button—he seems capable, at any given moment, of producing magic.
No Response for "Slant Likes Benjamin Button"
So glad to seen you guys cite a Slant review. It’s my opinion that these guys have really got a handle on what’s good and bad in movies today, the world over. Their tastes are eclectic and diverse, and they’re not afraid to call out crap, even heavily-praised crap (like every Ron Howard movie made over the past decade, INCLUDING “Frost/Nixon”). They get a bad rap sometimes as cynical and grumpy, but the movies they love they REALLY love, and the movies they dislike they always analyze and explain their view fully.
After reading and respecting Slant for years, I felt I owed them that endorsement.
Also, just to let you know, Fincher’s “Zodiac” ranked #2 (rightfully) on Schager’s list last year, and ‘Button’ received an honorable mention on his top 20 list this year.
I don’t often highlight them because it seems like they always pan the Oscar movies so it’s sort of pointless. And anyway, you know, Frost/Nixon is a good movie. I’ve watched it about four times now and I can tell you – for me, my tastes, admittedly not exactly high brow, it’s a good flick. There is only one scene I really hate. The rest of it, though, is interesting and a lot less heavy-handed than Howard has been in the past.
As far as critics go, Ryan is a lot more open-minded about them than I am – I have tended to focus only on those critics who have an impact on the Oscar race – the fringe ones really don’t. But we’re doing it now because the film is taking forever to open and reviews are hard to come by — they’re trickling in!
But Slant is always a good read, I agree. Oscar crap notwithstanding…
I couldn’t disagree with him more about Katrina–but then again, the whole New Orleans angle is a big part of why this film was so meaningful for me personally.
I get what you’re saying Sasha, Slant’s reaction to a film is certainly not a great gage of its Oscar potential. I disagree with you (and everyone else…) on “Frost/Nixon” though, and I was optimistic about the film, but between the pointless documentary approach (you learn nothing from those talking heads that’s at all necessary to understand the plot, and it’s another example of Howard’s leaden hand-holding, ALSO this is based on a stage play, so why the doc stuff and the freakin’ steady cam?!) and the underdeveloped characters (my writing partner rightfully called Rebecca Hall, who was quite good in Woody Allen’s [not so good] “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”, “arm candy”), the film loses its potency. Above all though, and this is what I think makes the film more than just “not good”, it ludicrously places the shallow and meaningless dynamic of victory/defeat over the really important theme: accountability/exoneration. The only time we begin to feel the gravity that should ooze through every scene is when Nixon watches that tape of Vietnam. The final interview is powerful in its historical context, but these interviews are readily available for anyone to watch, and so this recreation seems superfluous (like an Erroll Morris aesthetic), especially since the film offers little else of interest. Langella is very good in those final scenes (I think in the first half the performance is more bluster, posture, and over-emphasis on the vocals), but Sheen is just obnoxious… with that “Wallace And Gromit” smile of his. I said all of this in my review, but I needed to vent it I guess.
Ha, but your first point I totally agree with, to reiterate: Slant’s attitude towards a film is not a particularly reliable reflection of its Oscar chances, unless, of course, it’s addressing those chances specifically– Ed’s a pretty sharp predictor.
In reply to Comment #4
Cheese, Checkers! Cheeese!
I have no clue what that means, should I?
@ in Review
re: #5
Gromit/Nixon
Ha, that’s great Ryan, I’m going to have you write catchy headlines for my reviews from now on =P
Really wanna see this.
Yeah, I kind of have to agree with In Review Online. ‘Frost/Nixon’ didn’t do it for me, either.
Is it good? Well, yes, kind of. On a technical level, it’s everything OSCARY movies are; or strive to be.
But there was nothing for me to sink my teeth into. Nothing to rivet. And while I enjoyed Langela’s performance (particularly towards the end), what was UP with that vocal inflection? He doesn’t sound a thing like Nixon.
Lots of underused talents, as well. I hope it shows up as lots of 4s and 5s on ballots and doesn’t make it in. But I believe it WILL get in.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.