criterionforum.org

swo17 wrote:

zedz wrote:nothing about the movie

Sigh. I guess I will have to wait 'til another day for zedz to regale TCCOBB with the Alexander Kluge treatment.

Don't hold your breath!

(And since when has this thread been about the movie?)

zedz wrote:(And since when has this thread been about the movie?)

I know, I know, and yet the first thing I thought when I saw you had posted here, for whatever reason was: "I bet zedz has something long and insightful to say." I guess the one thing this proves is that the zedz branding has not been diluted!

swo17 wrote:

zedz wrote:(And since when has this thread been about the movie?)

I know, I know, and yet the first thing I thought when I saw you had posted here, for whatever reason was: "I bet zedz has something long and insightful to say." I guess the one thing this proves is that the zedz branding has not been diluted!

Anyways, I'm making a killing renting out these posts to Paramount.

By the way, have you ever wondered what highly-respected and not at all disgruntled Godard biographer Richard Brody had to say about this "sumptuous and stirring work of art"? We thought you would like to know.

We're thrilled that this multiple Academy-AwardTM-nominated modern masterpiece has joined the prestigious Criterion Collection alongside such other classics as The Seventh Seal, La Strada, Seven Samurai and Border Radio.

I read all the arguing about this release and how it doesn't fit to the Criterion standards or mission. I would just like to say that I agree with the people saying that, if they do a lot of money with it so they will be able to keep on releasing 'non-commercial' movies, that the best it can do.

They already have The Rock, Armageddon, and other controversial inclusions like The Royal Tennebaums or The Life Aquatic (in partnership with Buena Vista, as Button is in partnership with Universal). Now, it's kind of admitted they sometimes need money. Large, huge frakking amount of money. It could have been worse.

It's still some 'author' work. It could have been Transformers, stuff like this. But, in a few years, it will be completely forgotten, imo.

People seem to be forgetting that Criterion is a business entity. Of course, they are all about making money while at the same time publishing great editions of films. I'm no completist however, so I'm not complaining. Don't like the film, don't buy it.

I think as with most controversial and criticized films at the time of their release, Button will be embraced by both critics and film lovers in, lets say, 10 years from now.

The only thing controversial about this film is how mediocre it is. We're not talking a Fight Club situation here which seems to have been embraced in the last few years. This is simply the most bland film from someone who is otherwise an auteur. There are some Fincher-esque visual floursishes (granted, the use of HD probably makes it look more Fincher than he can really be credited with), but content-wise, it seems even less distinct than Panic Room or Alien³.

Dr. Snaut wrote:I think as with most controversial and criticized films at the time of their release, Button will be embraced by both critics and film lovers in, lets say, 10 years from now.

Why?

Ever seen Idiocracy?

Dr. Snaut wrote:I think as with most controversial and criticized films at the time of their release, Button will be embraced by both critics and film lovers in, lets say, 10 years from now.

Really? "Most" criticized films are embraced by both critics and film lovers 10 years after they come out?
As for controversial, what controversies have this film inspired?

It just wasn't banal enough. WE DEMAND MORE BANALITY

Forest Gump: Directors cut; with more CGIed stock footage banal enough for you?

Now, now. Comparing this to "Forrest Gump" is unfair...it was more like "Forrest Gump" meets "The Elephant Man."

MoonlitKnight wrote:Now, now. Comparing this to "Forrest Gump" is unfair...it was more like "Forrest Gump" meets "The Elephant Man."

How dare you besmirch two fine films by comparing them to Forrest Gump.

cdnchris wrote:I do have to admit after watching the documentary and learning that either Spielberg or Ron Howard could have directed this that it could have turned out a lot worse. I don't hate Spielberg like a lot of members here but I can only imagine how much sappier this film could have been if he had done it. I can also only imagine how much more uninteresting and stale this film would have been if Howard had done it.

Yeah but it would have been far more honest about what it was. No dressing up the banality with Fincher's fancy tactics.

This is truly the worst film Crit has ever released. Makes Armageddon look like Au Hasard Balthazar.

rs98762001 wrote:This is truly the worst film Crit has ever released.

Come now, they released Spielberg movies on laserdisc.

The Life Aquatic was pretty horrible, and I like Wes Anderson and his style in Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums, and even Darjeeling a little bit.

Button is definitely not the worst, but nowhere near the best or even the average films released by CC. It was more of shock release, and I think that films like Robocop, The Rock are worse than it too.

psufootball07 wrote:I think that films like Robocop, [...] are worse than it too.

Blasphemy, sir.

psufootball07 wrote:Robocop... worse than it too

Oh, so tempting to hit the ban button right now...

And The Rock is awesome, too

Button is on par with and maybe better than those films in my opinion. Yes, ultimately I believe that Button has many faults, but many films do. And the film is at the very least, a visually strong film through the DP's lighting.

RoboCop's a sharp and exciting satire on corporate America* where Button is an aimless waste of 160 minutes that doesn't seem to know what its point is.

*and a guy explodes when he gets hit by a car!

And in The Rock, a man melts!

It really is a pretty great action film.

kaujot wrote:And in the Rock, a man melts!

Ooooh! I forgot about that. Plus it has the "prom queen" line.

cdnchris wrote:RoboCop's a sharp and exciting satire on corporate America* where Button is an aimless waste of 160 minutes that doesn't seem to know what its point is.

*and a guy explodes when he gets hit by a car!

What I love about it is that it's supposed to be in Detroit...yet it looks absolutely unlike anyone's conception of Detroit past, present or future...

Except me I guess.I have and will continue to believe that the whole of Michigan looks like robocop, minus the robos, with varying degrees of snow. How could you you not love a film where Red tells some bitches to leave? Also acid man.