> I thought it was a fantastic movie, definitely one of the best I've ever seen. I really wonder what the other best picture contenders look like, since I haven't had the chance to catch all of them yet, but they must be pretty terrific if they can beat Slumdog.

Well, I guess now we know what the other contenders look like, since the nominations have been announced. I suppose now I actually have to go and see Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader -- all movies I've wanted to see, but without any real sense of urgency. I have to say I'm not terribly excited about the 2008 movies, especially in contrast to the wonderful year we had in 2007.

That said, I enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire, though obviously not as much as you, johnleemk. While I thought it was a well-told story, I also got bumped a little bit by the fact that it's ultimately a pretty formulaic story. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but it just didn't feel super authentic. I guess the point is it's supposed to be a fairy tale, but it just didn't quite resonate with me.

Not to get too film snobby, but part of my problem with it was it seemed to constantly remind me of City of God, a wonderful 2002 film from Brazil. I'd recommend City of God to anyone, but especially to Slumdog fans -- both are stories about kids growing up in similar situations, told in flashback, with a very frenetic and crazy energy. City of God is quite a bit more grim than Slumdog, but it draws more from reality than Slumdog does. I know at least Sam will agree with me that City of God is one of the better movies of this decade, a really crazy ride and amazing movie.

OK, back to Oscar talk:

So it looks like I'm now rooting for Benjamin Button to win, a film that really moved me. But I have a problem with it, and maybe other people can help me out: on retrospect, I have a lot of problems with the movie.

The criticisms leveled against the movie are fairly accurate. The title character is a blank slate pretty much the whole movie, with no real personality to him other than a sort of general niceness and wonder. Most of the supporting characters are also pretty thin, and the central romance is something of an enigma in that it's never really clear what the two leads have in common. And the film's framing story is just weird and totally pointless. (Can you tell this was written by the same guy who wrote Forrest Gump? I could level every one of those charges against the Gump screenplay as well.)

But. David Fincher is an amazing director, and the movie has a great look all the way through. The performances make the characters come far more alive than the script does (Tilda Swinton, in a very small role, once again makes an argument for her being one of the best working actors today). And I almost wonder if the lack of depth to our protagonist isn't deliberately to provide the audience a vessel, to put ourselves in his shoes and ponder the themes of the story. As a chance to sit and reflect on aging and death and the fleeting nature of life, it worked for me, and it really worked. It is very rare for me to be emotionally moved by any film, but this one did it to me -- despite my being aware of many of its flaws.

How do I reconcile this? The fact that I see tons of major problems with the movie, but can't deny its effect on me? Do I like it? Love it?

Ste "Is there any real chance that Frost/Nixon was a better movie than The Dark Knight or that Ron Howard did a better job directing than Christopher Nolan?" phen