Ebert has at last stopped dolling out the four stars and gave Benjamin Button a mere two and a half stars. The last time he was this wrong, I think, was when he and Siskel gave Unforgiven a bad review but then changed their minds years later. Ebert hates the whole premise of Button in the first place and can’t ever get beyond it. I guess it’s more interesting than the usual lament of it being too long (that’s the most popular complaint), cold (second most popular) and too much like Forrest Gump. Ebert writes:
Yes, you say, but Benjamin Button’s story is a fantasy. I realize that. It can invent as much as it pleases. But the film’s admirers speak of how deeply they were touched, what meditations it invoked. I felt instead: Life doesn’t work this way. We are an observer of our passage, and so are others. It has been proposed that one reason people marry is because they desire a witness to their lives. How could we perform that act of love if we were aging in opposite directions?
How indeed? The movie asks these questions and no more answers them than life, or religion, does. No, these aren’t questions that CAN be answered. Time is cruel. Aging backwards seems like a perfect way to go through life so that youth isn’t wasted on the young but in fact, it’s a horrible curse.
122 Responses for "Ebert Breaks Pattern of Four Stars All the Time"
This movie is a critical flop already. Missed the easiest of all approvals – Ebert’s.
It’s Australia all over again. Well not quite. But still may be a technical hit that really misses in the big categories. My expectations aren’t high at all.
If we skipped every movie that got **1/2 from Ebert we’d have missed all these:
Rushmore
Spider-Man
The Fountain
Donnie Darko
Reservoir Dogs
The Untouchables
Empire of the Sun
The Counterfeiters
The Color Of Money
Sense And Sensibility
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
I think Ebert is trying to compile titles for another one of his anthologies: “The Great **1/2 Movies”
Lucky he reserves his worst wrath for the real ** junk.
Gladiator **
Fight Club **
The Devil Wears Prada **
This could make it easy for Doubt to get in followed by either Dark Knight or WALL-E. I can actually see Benjamin Button missing Best Pic.
Frankly, Ryan, those movies deserved **1/2, and some of them would get even less than that from me.
Donnie Darko is the only glaring mistake I see, except S&S, which Ebert certainly over-rates.
I have been saying that Ebert is a HACK for years. Well-meaning, and amiable, and a good writer, but he has never been able to separate his passion for sentimen and subject matter from the art of filmmaking. If somebody else had been on television before him and Ebert, he would still be a second tier credit. And don’t give him credit for having any sway in Hollywood, he doesn’t (including his push for Crash over Brokeback Mountain…that had nothing to do with him, it had to do with homophobic cowardly Academy members like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine and “all their friends”, that John Wayne generation). Benjamin Button will be an Oscar nominee. Of course, in some ways, its a greater honor NOT to be nominated, e.g., The General, City Lights, Duck Soup, King Kong, Bringing Up Baby, Brief Encounter, Notorious, The Third Man, The African Queen, Singin’ in the Rain, Night of the Hunter (#2 at Cahier du Cinema!!), The Searchers, Touch of Evil, Vertigo, Paths of Glory, Some Like It Hot, Psycho, Spartacus, Manhcurian Candidate, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Wild Bunch, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Days of Heaven, Manhattan, Blade Runner, Sophie’s Choice, Brazil, Blue Velvet, Do the Right Thing, Toy Story, Breaking the Waves, The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, Almost Famous, Eternal Sunshine, A History of Violence, United 93, and the goes on and on. Not to mention eligible foreign language films from L’Atalante and Rules of the Game to City of God.
I’m really shocked how divided critics are on ‘Button’ — it’s definitely NOT a Best Pic frontrunner right now. Very dissapointing to see.
When did Ebert decree the final best picture line up? At the end of the day he is another critic. His opinion is worthy, but I don’t think he can stop Button’s momentum entirely. I think that we may still see Button on the final line up. People love the film. SAG loves the film.
you can add ‘Children of Men’ to that list, Jay.
Seth, he sees how Oscar voters see most of the time.
“This movie is a critical flop already. Missed the easiest of all approvals – Ebert’s.
Please. So now we are supposed to ignore all the equally capable reviewers praising this movie? Perhaps the fact that Ebert has become one of the easiest should tell you something about his current ability or maybe even willingness to critique films. This may not be the kind of movie a man facing his own death wants to delve into.
Why does Ebert have to bang the drum for the “poop” drama, ‘Synechdoche, New York’? Talk about a movie I shouldn’t care about…
Maybe he passed a bad bowel movement. Also, why doesn’t he marry Charlie Kaufman. What’s with all this love for Synecdoche. That movie is a mess and fell apart in the second half. Too far reaching, about too many things – almost the rantings of a schizophrenic. I find it much harder to believe in a super hero than a premise like Button. Why not applaud an artist like Fincher because there are so few of them working in the Hollywood system making challenging films. I would take Fincher any day over Kaufman.
Scott Foundas at Village Voice (pan) and Wesley Morris at Boston Globe (2 1/2) also didn’t appreciate it much. Austin Chronicle just ripped it to shreds, as well.
I don’t disagree with his assessment or rating.
“I felt instead: Life doesn’t work this way.”
Ebert to WALL-E: Fuck you.
This is a weird review. He writes Brad Pitt’s character is old while Cate’s is young however both character are young kids at the time.
Sasha, thanks for the notice in the other posting.
I have yet to see this film, so I will reserve my own judgment until that time. Hopefully I will get to see it this weekend, as I am greatly looking forward to it, lukewarm reviews and all.
Even still, I feel that Ebert, whose reviews I highly respect whether I agree or not, did in fact miss the mark with this review. It appears that the film’s point eluded him, or he simply did not care for the point. Youth is wasted on the young whether we experience “youth” at the beginning or end of our lives. Benjamin can still experience love, and the ravages of time will take it away. The overall concept is not wholly original, but the presentation of it here is.
As for the race in general, given the lukewarm reception for this film by a number of critics, it strikes me that there is no darling film that all of the critics will stand behind unanimously like they did for No Country for Old Men. Not even Milk, Slumdog, or WALL-E. If nothing else, the home stretch of the race will be very intriguing.
“Why not applaud an artist like Fincher because there are so few of them working in the Hollywood system making challenging films. I would take Fincher any day over Kaufman.”
Seth, you’re acting like that guy who criticized Manohla Dargis for not applauding The Reader when he thought the idea alone should be celebrated for its boldness.
I didn’t really like “Button” as much as I’d hoped. It didn’t move me much at all, and I felt Pitt’s performance lacking, which is odd because I love Brad Pitt (I think he’s given several severely underrated performances). Also, the whole thing was about storytelling and yet it never let the story just sit there. It moved far too quickly, never letting the story breathe. I thought it was a good movie, but not nearly as smart or great as many others believe it to be. One person’s opinion.
Can you imagine Dargis destroying this movie?
@ Scott Feinberg
“I don’t disagree with his assessment or rating.”
Hey, Scott Feinberg, are you the same Scott Feinberg who told us last year that Juno would win the Oscar for Best Picture?
You didn’t disagree with Ebert about Juno either, and see where that got you.
Scott Feinberg Headline *:
(LOL)
(* actual headline)
But why does his opinion about the movie have to have anything to do with its Oscar prospects, Ryan?
“But why does his opinion about the movie have to have anything to do with its Oscar prospects, Ryan?”
Because he sells himself as an Oscar “expert”
The same “expert” who predicted Julie Christie and Ruby Dee were winning last year.
If you lost money in your Oscar Pool last year, you were probably paying too much attention to people like Ebert and Feinberg.
Button is not looking like a best pic frontrunner, but neither is it looking like a snub. It hit SAG (with 3 nominations, in fact, none of them considered locks on nomination day). It also leads the globe nods. It also looks lock-ish in many technical categories. Snubs in screenplay or director would be very surprising. It also looks to be competing in at least one, probably two, acting categories. All this adds up to an easy best picture nom. And it will most likely lead the nominations, with a double digit haul. Even though it’ll lose best picture.
And to those who say voters will find it cold, won’t relate, don’t love it, etc: Remember, this is HOLLYWOOD and it’s a film about the PERILS OF AGING. They’ll eat it up. Probably 11 nods, when all’s said and done.
This happens almost every year and it’s a wonder we’re all surprised. Whenever a film is put out there as THE FRONTRUNNER it is pummeled to death by critics – it is the most predictable part of the race, which is why I have been anticipating this from the major critics – I would have been shocked to see them embrace the film. Unfortunately, the movie was put up front by Entertainment Weekly, the Gurus, this site, etc. It didn’t have a chance. That is why I tried really hard to keep quiet about it, even though I failed at that. What the critics are railing against isn’t so much the film (time has bore this theory out) but the status quo – they don’t want to like the presumed frontrunner unless there is something so horribly wrong with it it can’t possibly win.
I always feel bad for the film that gets tangled up in this predictable clusterfuck – they never deserve this kind of treatment yet for the critics they relish this moment. It is their chance to pick up the stones and start hurling. And then they get defensive when they say they’re not in the business of protecting studio fare. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Remember, both No Country and The Departed weren’t being hailed as frontrunners until after the reviews came out. But if a movie is out there for the win before it’s opened and been reviewed, watch out. No one wants to be in that position. I have been nervous about Ben Button from the outset simply because it was everyone’s number one WAY Before it was even seen. This isn’t to say it won’t be nominated – I think it will, I hope it will — it should — it’s just that it doesn’t spark of “the new,” which is what many voters, and critics, need to feel.
Ryan, this guy has TCCOBB as his number two. Ebert’s assessment or rating is not stopping him from predicting it the way he probably should.
Since I haven’t seen the film, I don’t have any business criticizing Roger Ebert’s reaction to it. On the face of it, though, it seems like he lost his capacity to “what if . . . ?” Maybe Mary B (above) is onto something.
Ebert wasn’t crazy about Memento, either, though he did like Betrayal.
Despite his tepid review, he did predict a best picture nomination as well as a best actor nod for Pitt.
Maybe Ebert, because he can’t — or won’t — wrap his head around the idea of the film, considers it to be artifice.
“Ryan, this guy has TCCOBB as his number two.”
For now.
Keep me updated, ok Gustavo?
I don’t have time to keep checking his site.
Please Sasha, you’re basically saying they don’t have the right to actually dislike the movie.
Being the frontrunner never hurt No Country for Old Men, and predictability didn’t stop critics from loving WALL-E this year, when it was obvious they would love the new Pixar movie as they always do.
The reviews are decidedly mediocre. I’m beginning to wonder if it deserves a Best Pic slot.
Here are this years movie still in contention ranked by RT’s Top Critics
Wall-E 8.5 (Hands down the critical favorite)
Milk 8.3
Ballast 8.3
Slumdog 8.2
Happy Go Lucky 8.1
Rachel Getting Married 8.0
The Dark Knight 8.0
The Visitor 7.9
The Wrestler 7.8
Frozen River 7.8
Frost/Nixon 7.5
Vicky Cristina Barcelona 7.0
Benjamin Button 7.0 (???????)
Gran Torino 6.8
Doubt 6.8 (???????)
The reviews for Button and Doubt are really second rate. I wonder if these movies will get in at the expense of much better and much more deserving films. Both are not even in the top 10 best reviewed films of the year.
But the critics just last year totally missed the boat on Zodiac and I’m Not There. So their word isn’t final.
Of the current contenders, Wall-E, Milk, Slumdog and The Dark Knight have acclaim to back up their claim for Best Pic slots. You can also add Happy Go Lucky, Rachel getting Married & The Visitor.
Sasha, No Country had Oscar buzz since Cannes, before most American critics were able to review it.
@ Adam Keller (#26)
Look at you and your voice of reason.
Cheers.
Ryan’s immaturity in the comments section is pretty despicable.
With that said, I doubt that Button will be denied a BP nom, and I think it’s still in the hunt for a win.
Wrong, Gustavo – they have an absolute right. It’s just that when a film is hailed as a frontrunner before it’s been reviewed it almost always is treated far more harshly because the expectations are unrealistically high. And anyway, sometimes a film can have the best reviews and it still won’t be an Oscar movie.
No Country was being hailed as a masterpiece out of Cannes – it was that early. It wasn’t being hailed the best picture frontrunner before anyone saw it. My expectations were quite low, being that the frontrunner usually disappoints — and I was pleasantly surprised – this is one of the best movies I saw this year. So I can’t relate to these bad reviews except to say that I think they’re too reactive to be taken seriously.
“No Country had Oscar buzz since Cannes”
No Country had Cannes buzz at Cannes.
Because, yeah, Cannes is always such a foolproof Oscar bellwether.
Barton Fink
Dancer in the Dark
Elephant
Pulp Fiction
Cannes buzz was their first step to Oscar destiny.
Is it a coincidence that Sasha and Ryan are acting deffensive when they have a big advertisement for the movie on the top of their website?
Gustavo, how do you think that “buzz” got started exactly? PEOPLE SAW IT. Benjamin Button’s “buzz” was based on nothing more than the who, what and where of the project.
Gustavo, you can lodge that complaint if you want to — again, a cliched and expected response. Defensive because I loved the movie – that’s the only reason. It isn’t because there is an ad on my site — it isn’t even the highest paying one. I am also running ads on this site that I’m not getting paid for because I loved the movie. Not saying which one. I am also running ads for a movie I thought was terrible. I loved The Wrestler and Slumdog and yet you see no ads for those movies on this site – ditto for Frozen River. But if you really think that my passion for this film is based on money you are in the wrong place pal and I really hope you find another place to hang out. People who’ve been around me for the last ten years know better.
Gustavo, Sasha praised ‘Button’ a month ago…
Sasha, bet the one movie you didn’t like is Gran Torino, and the one you’re not being paid for is The Dark Knight.
Sasha if you really run ads for free, please run ads for Wall-E. Its a miracle it has managed to get this far with zero campaigning.
lol, Gustavo
Ask my lawyers how much of that CCoBB kickback I’m getting.
Someday. When I can afford a lawyer.
I agree with red_wine
Red Wine, Wall-E doesn’t need anyone’s help. And it’s been doing plenty of campaigning – a subtle non-campaign is one of the most powerful ways to make a point. And don’t be so sure you’re right, Gustavo – you’re only half right.
I am pretty sure I’m right on Gran Torino (is there something more predictable than an Oscarwatcher disliking Eastwood?), so I’d say Burn After Reading is the one you’re not being paid for, which is also predictable if you look at who directed it. Am I 100% now?
Nope, you’re wrong on all sorts of points, Gustavo, most notably that “all Oscar watchers hate Eastwood” or some such nonsense. Eastwood is one of my favorite directors and always will be.
It’s a man’s opinion, nothing more. Why anybody would see fit to be hostile towards a simple opinion is beyond me. Furthermore, the weakest argument anybody can ever make against someone’s opinion is, “Hey, here’s a list of past films that lots of people liked that he didn’t like.” Such an argument can be used to devalue the opinion of pretty much anybody.
alynch, nobody has the power to “devalue” anybody’s opinion.
What’s wrong with reminding myself that Ebert’s opinion is not handed down from Mt. Sinai?
I did not understand why Sasha said that Ebert got it wrong? Isn’t he entitled to his justified opinion? Or is it a bad thing that he broke the 4 star routine?
Could this finally mean that EBert will stop having a million **** each year?
I got so interested in the interchange between Sasha, Ryan, Gustavo and a couple others that I can’t remember what this thread is about.
Jeepers.
Oh, yeah.
If you lost money in your Oscar Pool last year, you were probably paying too much attention to people like Ebert and Feinberg.
Roger Ebert has squeezed a lot of mileage outta that Marisa Tomei call some years back.
“Very little about the first half of the film invites us in or gives inner life to the characters; the movie finally gives off a spark or two at exactly the midpoint.
But it speaks to the treacly (cloy) nature of the entire film that most of the scenario’s potential unpleasantries are carefully elided.
In order for Benjamin Button to succeed on its own terms, there shouldn’t be a dry eye left in the house. Yet, when the lights came up, mine were like sandpaper.”
- Scott Foundas
Ouch. Certainly this is one opinion, but it mirrors many others. Mostly, that the film doesn’t develop any of its characters, especially Button; also, that it’s a spectacle of masterful special effects, not of story-telling.
benjamin is the dreamgirls, sweeny todd, memoirs of a geisha, evita, ali, frida, and big fish of this year… there’s always one..
I’m still not convinced Benji Button is in any real danger with the Academy. This situation reminds me a little bit of when “Gangs of New York” was released–cursed with Oscar BP “frontrunner” status, then the reviews came out and they were mixed, so there was much panic that Gangs might bomb with the Academy etc. And it ended up getting what–10 nominations?
I expect something similar with Benji Button. It’s still hard for me to imagine that it won’t be the most-nominated Oscar movie this year, when all is said and done.
Now if CCoBB is left off the PGA and DGA lists, then we might want to start reevaluate. But for now, with its good showing with Critics Circle, Globes, and SAG, it seems like it’s performing exactly as it needs to as we move into guild nominations.
Ebert, you homophobic trash.. some of us REAL human beings don’t give a SHIT about your senile opinions. Retire already.
T.
Oh ho ho, so now people are starting to believe that BB might miss out on a Best Picture nomination. I’ve been saying it for weeks, people!
And don’t let its predictable showings at the guilds fool you into thinking it’s locked, either. Remember Dreamgirls.
PS, Ebert was dead right about Fight Club. What a freaking sham that movie was.
[...] Stone over at Awards Daily points us to Roger Ebert’s two-and-a-half star review of “The Curious Case of Benjamin [...]
PS: Fight Club is considered by many of the industry as one of the greatest films in the past 20 years, but of course everyone is entitled to his / her (lameass) opinion.
T.
I’m aware of the general high opinion of Fight Club. Look at the IMDb top #250 for example. I wonder what everyone loves about it most: is it the bargain-bin philosophizing? Or the obvious, pointless “twist”? Or the aimless, cacophonic final act? Such a garden of delights, it’s hard to choose.
Fight Club is to movies as the Baconator is to hamburgers. Cinema is a kind of willing deception, in which the filmmakers weave an immersive falsehood and the audience agrees to go along. And a hamburger is beef on a bun, with possibly some cheese or bacon.
Now, for a lot of people, there is no such thing as excess. If you like a hamburger with beef, cheese and bacon, then a hamburger with three patties, six slices of cheese and eight strips of bacon must be even better, right? Many people think so. And why not two, with double chili-cheese fries and maybe a vat of ice cream?
Fight Club is like that. The willing deception spills over into a greasy, soggy mess of outright deceit, pandering, and condescension. Which is great, if all you want is junk food, and as much of it as possible.
ETA: Actually, I know what keeps Fight Club in the collective consciousness. People love quotable movies, and it’s a doozy. You are not your flippin’ khakis, etc etc. I just wish all the quotes had gone directly to frat boy t-shirts, bypassing the middleman of the screen.
Geez, I leave the house for a few hours to finally see Changeling (”close but no cigar”) and look what I come back to. Tsk, tsk.
Benjamin Button would have to be a real stinker for the admirers of Fincher, Pitt, Blanchett & co. to avoid it at theaters and diss it on the Oscar ballot. And it’s not. It’s a stunning little jewel.
That’s the thing though, Paul. They don’t have to diss it for it to miss. They just have to put it at #2 or lower.
I was just thinking about that, Benj. What happens if no one movie gets unanimous #1s, but one movie is everyone’s #2? Isn’t that movie assured a place on the ballot? Or am I still not getting the process?
Hmmm… well, if they go through all the #1s on the ballots and only one or two films have come close to the magic number, then yes, a movie that has scads of #2s is sitting very pretty.
I’m not sure this is that kind of year, though. The Dark Knight, Milk, Wall-E, and Slumdog are all the sort to pull lots of #1s. Those films inspire tremendous fervor and loyalty in their supporters.
There have been BP nominees in the past that seem unlikely to have earned a lot of #1s: Gangs of New York, Master and Commander, Munich, and so on. But in those years, there were one or two films that were eating up all the #1 votes: Chicago & The Pianist, ROTK, Brokeback & Crash. This year seems different; much more like a 2006, when The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen, and Babel all had hardcore fans.
Junk food: Crash, Chicago, A Beautiful Mind
not Fight Club.
T.
Ebert is no more wrong here than he was about Gladiator. But my guess is that many of those who would say he is wrong here would say he is right about Gladiator. Anyways, who cares, Ebert’s not always that predicable, and I don’t think that his reviews have that much affect on the oscars. Again, see Gladiator.
@ Tufas: I won’t argue with you about A Beautiful Mind or Crash. For me they committed the same crime Fight Club did: they talked down to their audience.
Chicago, though, I like. Its themes are clear, but it doesn’t browbeat. I’ve been kind of dismayed by the revisionist thrashing it has taken in the years since it won the Oscar.
Benj, I think this year The Dark Knight, WALL-E, Slumdog, Milk, Button, Wrestler and Revolutionary Road will all have those kind of hardcore fans you’re talking about. Frost/Nixon, The Reader and Doubt not so much.
I’m not an AMPAS member, but if I were, I’d be struggling with which one to put at #1. I know I’m wrestling with my SAG ensemble vote.
say what you want about roger ebert but the man is the top critic in the world. so he gave it a two and a half star rating. get over it. he didnt care that much for it. would you rather him lie. what good would that do.
“Life doesn’t work this way.”
That’s exactly how I felt (and feel) about Slumdog.
I do laugh at some of you people thinking this won’t get anything come Oscars. It’s on a lot of critic’s Top Ten -far more than Doubt, Revolutionary road, or Frost/Nixon-, it already has above par reviews (see HR and our own Sasha Stone), its RT and Metacritic score as of now is 77 with not that many reviews in, it does have a 90 on BFCA, it also won a couple of critic awards, and has pretty much gotten all the major nominations. The likes of Dreamgirls and Sweeney Todd didn’t have most of that.
He is my favorite critic although he has been too generous with his four stars recently (”The Great Debaters” in the top 10? “Babel” in the greatest movies? Come on, even his review was badly written). I think this was because of his cancer scare. This is perfectly acceptable: anyone who has been close to death has a right to do whatever they want in my opinion (I have been close to, but I was a baby, so it doesn’t really count I think).
Off-topic: Ebert was unfair with EMPIRE OF THE SUN.
I’m not an AMPAS member, but if I were, I’d be struggling with which one to put at #1. I know I’m wrestling with my SAG ensemble vote.
*****
When I think of giving an award to an ensemble, I think about a movie that has stellar casting not only in the leading roles but in the smaller roles among a large cast. Milk really stood out for me in those terms.
It seems Doubt is the weakest of the five nominated for SAG.
This comment section features Ryan going insane. Love the site but you may want to handle yourself a bit better in the comments area. Just a polite suggestion…
I’m of the opinion that the critical reception from all parts is one of ‘it was good, but flawed.’ Even many of the positive reviews state there was something amiss. And I don’t think everyone is conspiring on some Oscar backlash, nor do I think many critics are even cognizant of it being the frontrunner.
You’re right that some critics do, and it IS offputting. Travers ended his review of Button saying it’ll get nominated (after only giving it 3 stars and tepid praise). The ending line says a lot about the big critics these days: they’re fully aware that they’re being analyzed by Oscarologists.
Ebert really changed a lot after the operation, and also I think he has watched so many films in his life that he no longer knows how to feel a movie. It’s sad because people like Ebert show exactly what is wrong with the cinema critics of today, with the way people approach movies and why so many people prefer the simple Will Farell comedies. It also shows what is wrong with the Academy, awarding movies that are NOT FELT by the general public. (You all know what I mean, last year’s so called Best picture is an example) It’s sad but that’s the reality, and that’s why Cannes is the only movie festival that borders reality.
I feel like a lot of potential oscar nominees for best picture are running out of gas.
I think that, at this point, The Dark Knight is well likely to get a nomination. Wall-E and The Dark Knight scored a lot higher with critics on Rotten Tomatoes than Benjamin Button, Gran Torino, Australia for sure, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road, Synechdoche NY, Slumdog Millionaore, Doubt, and well, everything else except indie hits like Man on Wire and The Wrestler.
In my opinion, Wall-E should win best picture. The fact that it will only get considered in the animation category is a bit demeaning (do movies like “Bolt” or “Kung Fu Panda” really think they have a shot?)
Plus, they made tons of ca$h and everyone on earth had to see these films more than once. What else could you need?
That’s the other problem – people who think that Rotten Tomatoes is Holy Divine, and whoever wins there is the best. That’s completely taking away the feeling of a movie, which is more of a personal thing…
Think what you will of Ebert – but the man knows how to predict, and he knows his shit when it comes to the Oscars. BB will not win Best Picture.
It’s all about Slumdog vs. Milk at this point, imo.
Then let Milk win BP.
Ebert is one of the greatest film critics. There are people who cannot forgive him for disliking such revered (in some circles) movies like Fight Club, Memento and The Usual Suspects. Fanbois and fangirls no doubt.
Mr. Ebert has a point.
“Fitzgerald (the author) wrote a comic farce, which Roth (wrote the screenplay for the movie) has made a forlorn elegy. Roth’s approach makes Benjamin the size of a baby at birth. Fitzgerald sardonically but consistently goes the other way: The child is born as an old man, and grows smaller and shorter until he is finally a bottle-fed baby. Not much is said about Benjamin’s mother, which is a pity, because he is 5-feet-8 at birth, and I wonder how much pushing that required.”
Admirers of the story (who really knew the short story), might not get past the totally different premise of the movie, which is understandable.
Let us be more respectful towards each other’s POV. It’s CHRIStMAS for christ sake!
I’m not an AMPAS member, but if I were, I’d be struggling with which one to put at #1. I know I’m wrestling with my SAG ensemble vote.
*****
When I think of giving an award to an ensemble, I think about a movie that has stellar casting not only in the leading roles but in the smaller roles among a large cast. Milk really stood out for me in those terms.
It seems Doubt is the weakest of the five nominated for SAG.
Daveylow, the award is not actually “Best Ensemble” but “Outstanding Performance by the Cast of a Motion Picture”. (Since it has a small cast, Doubt is the easiest film to judge and is by no means the weakest.) With that in mind the only nominee that I know I will not be voting for is Slumdog Millionaire. The other four nominees — Milk, Frost/Nixon, Doubt and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — are all worthy in my opinion. I’m just trying not to vote based on how much I liked the whole movie and to just focus on the performance of the casts.
The good thing is that I saw them all roughly in the same two-week period a few weeks ago, so there’s no chance of me seeing one now that blows me away and is in the forefront of my mind while I am filling out the ballot.
“Mr. Ebert has a point.”
If Mr Ebert’s point is that Fincher’s epic Benjamin Button is not a carbon copy of Fitzgerald’s slender tale, then he’s undeniably right. But if Mr Ebert is flustered about the reverse aging and complains “Life doesn’t work this way,” then I hate to think what he’d say about a movie in which a woman gives birth to a full-grown 80-year-old man.
I don’t even like to visualize Ebert visualizing it.
I shouldn’t drop the P-word without seeing Button (as Kate Winslet warns regarding The Reader), but this is what 1 reviewer at RT has to say
By the time Pitt’s lover is clutching her object of erotic desire as he squirms around in her arms in diapers and all of one foot long, let’s just say that it’s more than a little on the kinky side.
red_wine, that is nonsense. Honestly. At that point he is long past being an object of her “erotic desire.”
Just thought I’d have a laugh. It sounds hilarious.
Don’t hold back, red_wine. Name this wit. It’s Prairie Miller.
Since it’s Christmas Eve I’ll just say Prairie Miller will be fortunate if someone still cares about her when she’s back in diapers. She can talk to us about kinky when her Depends are full of poop.
But honestly, you have to agree, the review is extremely amusing. Here’s the link for those of you who care to have a good laugh. I haven’t read such a good pan of a film in a long time.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20081218092539mill.nb/topstory.html
Not so much, red_wine. The review just seems shallow and not very clever to me. For a good pan, I prefer Dargis, Lane or Reed.
Ryan, you’re too serious that’s why you’re missing the point. Once again, Fitzgerald wrote it as a COMIC FARCE on which the whole visual is meant to be funny or rather unthinkable to those who are reluctant to think about it.
Honestly, I do not have to agree.
Is a person defined by the size of his body or by his age, experience and personality? I guess to some it’s really cute to titter and fidget about Benjamin Button getting smaller — but if you insist on getting technical, I’m sure any court would rule that an individual who’s been alive for 80 years is legally “of age.” It takes a pretty sick and frankly fucked-up mind to imagine Daisy intends to romp around in bed with Benjamin Button at the end stage of his life.
Does Prairie Miller get moist and squirmy about The Beauty and the Beast, too?
I’m not missing the point. Ebert is missing the point if he doesn’t know a movie can be inspired by a concept without slavishly adhering to every single plot point.
The short story is the short story, and it’s a fine thing.
The movie is something else.
Who wants to see Jim Carrey and Fran Drescher in Ebert’s adaptation of Benjamin Button? That might be a fine movie too, for some people. But it’s not the one Fincher chose to make.
you must understand that I’m not speaking on behalf of Mr. Ebert. However, it is very apparent that you have deep personal issues against Mr. Ebert way beyond the movie.
Nonetheless, I admire you for defending a movie you believe in despite of the quality.
Silvester, if Mr Ebert has a point, how do YOU know – have you seen any advanced screenings of the movie. And what about Milk, or Doubt – predicting Oscars is all right, if you first see the movies and then choose those that really touched you.
“very apparent that you have deep personal issues against Mr. Ebert”
Have to side with Jokero, Silvester. It’s impressive how you’re able to see things you’ve never seen with such crystal clarity. Please don’t try to psychoanalyze me from the vantage of your laptop screen, ok?
I can sum up my personal feelings about Mr. Ebert, so you don’t have to make blind guesses: I have a lifelong admiration for Roger Ebert as one of the few critics I regard as a brilliant guide through film history.
I don’t see eye to eye with God on everything either.
yes. I am fortunate enough to have been granted early screening. thank you very much.
The premise is dopey, whatever chrome is electroplated to it. IMHO. I’ll watch it on DVD, maybe, but I’ve read enough to know it’s not the kind of movie I like shelling out $12 bucks for. I am grateful for reviews that down pander.
Dopey Premises 101: Watch These Movies Only on DVD*
The Dark Knight
Insomnia
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles
Toy Story
WALL-E
I’m Not There
Fight Club
Adaptation
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Being John Malkovich
Synecdoche, New York
The Lord of the Rings
The Hours
Chicago
Moulin Rouge!
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
* because who cares about cinematography
god, not liking a film you’re pimping doesn’t make one “wrong”!
it’s called an opinion! we’re all entitled to it!
Ebert needs to remember and take to heart Oscar Wilde’s observation that life imitates art much more than art imitates life. Good art is usually original, and though I hardly suggest that aging will reverse as a result of this film, it still might inspire new thoughts pertaining to their own life. Besides, the point of the supposed gimmick in “Button” isn’t to directly open a view into man’s dilemma: instead it is a mirror, a foil that is used to illuminate life by expressing it in a different context, where you might see things that you never saw before. Specifically, this foils man’s longing to age backwards instead of forwards, so that all the good parts are at the end, forging another, stronger purpose towards simply surviving (this thought, as I recall, was an observation made by the short story’s author, F. Scott Fitzgerald). The end result, I think is to show that wish is negatively solipsistic, because a person is so dependent upon others. Of course, that is but one observation from Button.
Throw out Button from frontrunner list; add The Wrestler.
Ebert liked Unforgiven a lot. Siskel didn’t but Ebert gave it thumbs up at the time. He just had one complaint and that was with the Richard Harris storyline. Seriously just because he disagrees doesn’t mean he is wrong. It is all a matter of opinion. Stop ragging on Ebert just because he didn’t like a movie you loved.
By the film has a 74% on rotten tomatoes so clearly he isn’t alone.
Paul – I like Lord of the Rings as a fantasy story with an internal logic of its own, as for the rest, well, that should be obvious, but the only director I hate more than Woody Allen is Charlie Kaufman, and after that, Ang Lee.
It is impossible to suspend disbelief. That is the issue. I’m glad other people have stated this, obvious as it is.
…the only director I hate more than Woody Allen is Charlie Kaufman, and after that, Ang Lee.
“End of discussion.”
(Probably not a big fan of Nolan, Fincher, Luhrmann, Van Sant, Aronowsky and Haynes either, I’m guessing.)
Apparently Charlie Kaufman’s one and only directorial effort left a very deep impression indeed upon our Dan.
Of course he didn’t like it, it’s too close to home. It’s a brilliant film that will get loads of nominations. Time is the bad guy here, just like in real life. The love story is incredibly powerful, and with Fincher, there’s no smaltz ala Gump. You just got to see it…
Ebert did *not* give Unforgiven a bad review. He gave it a “non-enthusiastic” Thumbs Up. Later, he revised his opinion, citing distraction by his impending nuptuals, and ranked it as the #9 film of 1992.
And he’s not wrong about “Benjamin Button”; he just disagrees with you.
[quote]If we skipped every movie that got **1/2 from Ebert we’d have missed all these:
Well, “so what?” to most of those. But he gave 3 stars to the new version of “Donnie Darko”.
I’m sorry, but he is wrong. To say, “Life doesn’t work this way” means he doesn’t understand it’s a fable. He needs to understand the movie in order to disagree, but he just doesn’t get it. The movie is another way of looking at life and the people you meet, and, for me, was profoundly moving.
And, if you have an opinion about the movie, see it first…
One more thing:
What’s this about “Ebert’s pattern of four stars”? Have you looked at his page lately?
“This may not be the kind of movie a man facing his own death wants to delve into.”
As far as I know, Mr. Ebert is in no mortal danger at this time.
“Ebert is missing the point if he doesn’t know a movie can be inspired by a concept without slavishly adhering to every single plot point.”
Do you really think, after forty years on the job, that Ebert doesn’t know that a film can deviate from its source material, or that he thinks it makes the film worse somehow? Perhaps he simply preferred Fitzgerald’s version. Have you never heard someone say, “The movie wasn’t as good as the book?”
On the other hand, this guy thinks “Benjamin Button” is the best film of the year:
http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2588
http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2548
Ebert didn’t change his mind about Unforgiven “years later” – it was on his Top Ten list of 1992. And Siskel never revised his review.
** I’m sorry, but he is wrong. To say, “Life doesn’t work this way” means he doesn’t understand it’s a fable. He needs to understand the movie in order to disagree, but he just doesn’t get it. **
I’m pretty sure he didn’t mistake the film for a documentary.
I really admire Ebert. I really do. He’s one of the three reviewers writing today I respect. However, having just seen BB, I think he’s flat out wrong. Not because I loved the film — sadly, I didn’t. But because the review is so strange — he can’t “believe” it, “life doesn’t work this way”? Frankly, those are quite absurd reasons to dislike a film. While I think this is a flawed film, it succeeds in many aspects, and the relationship between Daisy and Benjamin is the most plausible aspect out of the whole enterprise (mainly because of Blanchett’s performance). The film makes you contemplate life, death, love, friendship, beauty, and evil. I mean what else did he want? It seems like he got too hung up on the premise (his dislike of it) and its deviations from the Fitzgerald short, and failed to give it a chance. That’s a pity.
I HATED BUTTON. IT’S STUPID.
Not a movie for 12 year olds…
hated Benjamin Button
I didn’t care for Benjamin Button, both the film and the character. It was well made, but Button was so monotonous, so boring, he had almost no personality at all. There was nothing he seemed to really give much of a hoot and a holler about. Don’t believe me? For those who have seen the movie (I won’t spoil it for people who haven’t) think about the last words of the movie. Of all the people that were shown, there was one person who was absent, and he was the main character for God’s sake.
Fincher is a good filmmaker, but he should stick to serial killer movies.
Maybe you are just at the wrong point in your life to get this movie. There is a big metaphor at the end of the movie, that Katrina washed away the clock, just like time washes away everything. The moral of the whole story is appreciate the now, nothing will last forever and it is never too late to follow your dreams. In what is now becoming more and more of a materialistic world, all work no play and full of greed, this movie helps to capture the way life should be seen and how you control your own destiny. It’s about opportunities, those taken and those missed, what life is all about…
And Nick, the reason the person you are speaking about that wasn’t shown at the end was, he was narrating the images and talking about his life…
Leave a reply