November
23
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Review
I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on Saturday (following the aborted Thursday screening), and have been trying to sort it out ever since.
David Fincher and screenwriter Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) have delivered an historic achievement, a masterful piece of cinema, and a moving treatise on death, loss, loneliness and love. As the movie proceeds, and Brad Pitt as Button ages backwards, we know where he is headed: it's where we are all going. But he feels he has to go there by himself, without his loved ones. And nobody wants to die alone. (Here is Todd McCarthy's review.)
So when the movie reaches its climax, it is extraordinarily moving (although some find the movie cold and dispassionate). It may pack a more powerful punch the older you are and the more people you have lost. In that case it will score with the Academy, who will also recognize the skillful filmmaking on display.
The movie marks a seismic shift in terms of what is possible in moviemaking. What Fincher and his team have done is no small technological feat. Button starts off as a CG-aged baby, moves through CG-altered older Pitt faces superimposed on small bodies, and then proceeds to the "real" Pitt wearing makeup and then getting younger and younger. Thus the film's central performance is in great part a visual effect. (Blanchett is also made younger digitally, but aged with makeup.) That accounts in part for the movie's high cost (well above $150 million) but is also its primary limitation.
Thus, while I admire the film's amazing accomplishment--it's hard to imagine that anyone but the digitally sophisticated Fincher, who has become adept at "painting" his digital canvases, could have pulled this off--the movie is not entirely satisfying. But given what it is, it's hard to imagine it being done done any better. The actors are superb, especially Pitt and Cate Blanchett, who should earn Oscar noms. What's missing has partly to do with the limitations of the technology. Button reminds me of Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardner in Being There. He's oddly passive and restrained, zen-like as he floats through all the decades, watching, listening, learning. He narrates the tale via his diary, along with his dying love Blanchett. We see him engaging with people, but he never says much. We see him from the outside; we never get under his skin, and we never learn the fruits of his wisdom. He stays much the same.
Still, the movie is sadly beautiful, of a piece, as impeccably wrought as its ornate clock that runs counterclockwise. Do Paramount and Warner Bros. have a prayer of making their money back? This movie needs all the help it can get, from anyone who loves movies and wants the studios to take more risky bets like this one.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Are those reading glasses clipped to Fincher's collar?...
Posted by: Mr. Milich | November 23, 2008 at 06:41 PM
I hear rumors that Brad Pitt has a secret daughter who is 18. Has anyone heard of this rumor?
Posted by: Gentry Dunnn | November 24, 2008 at 03:21 PM
Who cares if Brad Pitt has an 18 years old daughter??? who cares?????
Posted by: Jorge | December 01, 2008 at 01:25 PM
This in my opinion is the best movie to come out in quite a while. A movie that most people shouldn't miss. I was truly impressed by the whole experience.
Posted by: italkfilm | December 06, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know if Brad Pitt has an 18 yr. Old daughter!
Posted by: Laura | December 24, 2008 at 11:53 AM
this movie may have great effects, but the story is not told well, it needs editing (but an hour), and all in all it was boring.
Posted by: Mari | December 26, 2008 at 12:15 AM
More like the Curious Case of Benjamin Gump. Both have silly names, a whimsical element of a feather vs. a hummingbird. An annoying hippy girlfriend who gets sick. An annoying dancer girlfriend who gets hit by a car. Both have a wonderful single mother who dies. Comedic element: life is a box of chocolates, "I've been struck by lightning 7 times." Shrimp boat vs. tug boat. Lt. Dan and the army vs. Captain in the Navy. Running cross country v. motorcycling cross the world. One movie I can't recall all the details, the other, I wish I could forget them. Long, laborious, overly sentimental, implausible, boring.
Posted by: emily | December 26, 2008 at 09:01 AM
I just saw Benjamin Buttons and was struck by several things - the intriguing atmosphere and luxurious visuals, the sensuality of the characters, and the deep meaning and originality of the story. The scope is quite stunning; the pacing reminds one of the contemplative rhythms of the South during the times in which the film takes place. In a word, it is vintage F. Scott Fitzgerald; Forrest Gump, it is not - and any insistence that the comparison to Gump is substantial is most likely made by those who lack depth and are incapable of peering beyond the surface - most likely the young who have not lived long enough to understand true loss and aging. I feel sorry for them - for in one way or another, the true reality of Benjamin Buttons will eventually touch them, as well - long after they have forgotten this film.
Posted by: Janice | December 26, 2008 at 04:27 PM
BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!
GO SEE IT!
LOVEDDDD IT
Posted by: Emiy | December 26, 2008 at 08:56 PM
Just saw the movie and I would have to say, "Two thumbs up." I can't lie and tell you that I didn't have a little deja vous of Forest Gump from time to time. But that was unimportant. What was important was how the movie dealt with issues of loss. It was touching to see Benjamin bouncing his daughter on his knee. You may want to take a box or two of kleenex with you to this one. It might have been wise to edit the movie down a bit. There is some fat that could have been trimmed here and there. I like the Hurrican motif in the background. Very symbolic. Could have done without the hummingbird. Pitt is starting to mature a bit as an actor. He's still no Jack Nicholson, but he not so green any more. Anyone over 30 should go see it. You might come away with some nice sentiments.
Posted by: Ben | December 26, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I couldn't understand why he didn't end his life as a giant man-baby?
Posted by: Mike Sailen | December 27, 2008 at 01:03 AM
As an avid movie goer, this was the best movie I've seen in years. The technological wizardry was amazing, but the acting was superb. The story answers the age old question, is it better to get old or stay young? Most importantly, it renews my faith in Hollywood for making a movie more appealing than a book.
Posted by: Jo Ann | December 27, 2008 at 08:16 AM
Loved, loved this movie! It is a movie in the grand, old Hollywood tradition. The cinematography, the score, the costumes were exquisite. And the acting by Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton and Cate Blanchett is outstanding, although I do agree that Brad's acting is best an an old man. He is a bit wooden as he gets younger and you DO want to get beneath is emotions. However, he also reminds of Robert Redford in "The Way We Were." He didn't show a lot of emotion either, for what it's worth.
Moving on, to me, to take an obscure F. Scott Fitzgerald short story (can't wait to read it) and turn it into this stunning movie is what art is all about.
This movie has Oscar written all over it!
Posted by: Paula | December 27, 2008 at 08:25 AM
I was quite touched by this remarkable film. I found it an allegory on getting older while still thinking you're much younger and watching your life quickly unfold. (How did I get to be this old?) AND the difference in ages (May-September) of someone you love dearly but know you will go first way before the other (why was I not born around the time she was?) AND an aging babyboomer looking back on what might have been...This is a very deep film and brought feelings to the surface that will stay for a long time. I can't rcommrnd this film enough
Posted by: Gary Bart | December 27, 2008 at 10:51 AM
For everyone comparing this movie to Forrest Gump, just remember this is taken from a short-story that was written in 1922 where as Gump was not.
Posted by: Mare | December 27, 2008 at 06:27 PM
This movie sucked. There was no discernible plot, it was hokey, contrived and why does Hollywood always decide to place the crippled, deformed and abandoned with the old Negro grandmother-type?
Posted by: Connie | December 27, 2008 at 08:19 PM
Say what u want. But the movie is too long and boring. Especially the muddled middle.
Posted by: maio | December 27, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I watched this film and entered the cinema with high hopes. They fell flat. The film was too long, the story was very dull and I was extremely disappointed.
The acting was fine but the script was just very flat. I would not watch this film again nor would I recommend anyone see it.
It could have been a great film. Too bad though huh?
Posted by: jade | December 28, 2008 at 01:26 AM
We saw this movie last night. In my opinion it was a very long, uninspiring, and depressing movie. The cinematography was too gloomy. The effects were interesting albeit a little creepy. Brad Pitt played his character way too reactive. He never seemed to develop. When I got home, I had to watch an episode of The Office on Netflix online to brighten my spirits before I went to bed.
Posted by: M Kilarsky | December 28, 2008 at 09:28 AM
one of the most pretentious boring pieces of crap i have ever seen. what a waste of time and money. i am stunned anyone could say this is the best movie of the year.
Posted by: rmonahan | December 28, 2008 at 10:47 PM
People who have lived life or who are older and have known loss will understand this beautiful film. Shallow and emotionless people won't "get it".
Posted by: Hal | December 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM
The characters failed to convince me regarding the psychological aspects and trauma undergone by someone growing younger rather than older, and the developmental aspects were too unreal for the audience to be able to connect. How does one shrink into a baby and what would happen to a brain in reverse?
One might suspect that a person growing younger would have a tremendous impact on people: the younger this person got, the wiser, but even that was left unexplored.
The premise of the story allowed for invention and creativity but there were too many loose ends, too many ideas left unexplored at least for my satisfaction...
Posted by: Valeria A. Palmas | December 29, 2008 at 05:35 AM
I agree that the older and wiser aspect of the story was under-developed. the writer says he figured button's mental capacity would decline as he got older, as in dementia.
Posted by: Variety.com * | December 29, 2008 at 09:27 AM
I'm going to come down firmly on the fence here. There were some good things about this movie -- the acting was really good (I was particularly surprised by Brad Pitt -- he usually does a good job, but he did an excellent job here with a very difficult part, and an excellent job with a very difficult accent, too), the idea was very interesting, the visuals were stunning (New Orleans has seldom looked better, nor has it been shot more poignantly),and parts of it were really moving.
But "best movie in years"? Nah. And I am well over 30 and I don't think I have a particularly short attention span, either.
But it would have been better if it had been shorter. It was just t-o-o-o-o-o l-o-o-o-o-o-n-g. I mean, I did not need a full hour of seeing how weird it is to be a kid in an old man's body. And I also agree with those who note that Benjamin just doesn't grow very much -- not in his heart, anyway. Benjamin's body goes through every kind of change possible, but his character stays curiously the same, and I just don't see how that could be.
So while I'd recommend it, my recommendation definitely comes with some reservations. But it was interesting, and I can think of more boring ways to spend 2 hours and 45 minutes.
Posted by: Kathleen | December 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I did not understand why the space shuttle seemed so out of sequence with the timeline. Can anyone explain? The Beatles were on AFTER the space shuttle went up. I thought the backwards time line only applied to BB???
Posted by: BitsyBoo | December 31, 2008 at 06:42 AM
You people are all crazy. I saw this movie an hour ago. I am 32 and i thought it had zero drama. My girlfriend, 27, agreed it was boring as hell. My 24 year old brother and my 78 year old grandmother also agreed that it was very slow and boring. Age does not matter. I am a cinema hound, I even loved forest gump which i saw in theaters, but this movie sucked. Someone could even be heard snoring in the theater where i watched the movie, so we weren't the only ones who felt unentertained. If you are one of the people who said this was "the best movie this year",or anything half that positive about this movie, then you need to get out and see a few more films.
Posted by: boobiebunny | December 31, 2008 at 07:42 PM
The first space flights began in '61, the Beatles Ed Sullivan performances in '63....so you assumed it was the "famous" Armstrong flight when it could have been one of the earlier launches.
Good movie for those of us over 40 who can identify with how quickly time passes and how fragile life is.
Posted by: BetsyR | December 31, 2008 at 09:07 PM
You people are all crazy. I saw this movie an hour ago. I am 32 and i thought it had zero drama. My girlfriend, 27, agreed it was boring as hell. My 24 year old brother and my 78 year old grandmother also agreed that it was very slow and boring. Age does not matter. I am a cinema hound, I even loved forest gump which i saw in theaters, but this movie sucked. Someone could even be heard snoring in the theater where i watched the movie, so we weren't the only ones who felt unentertained. If you are one of the people who said this was "the best movie this year",or anything half that positive about this movie, then you need to get out and see a few more films.
Posted by: boobiebunny | January 01, 2009 at 06:05 AM
I just saw this movie and feel it is the best picture to come out in a long time! Very moving!
If you are between the ages of 30 to 40 you may not enjoy it.
Posted by: Terrie | January 01, 2009 at 05:36 PM
That was not the space shuttle. I took it to be the appollo mission in 1961. I was affraid I would get bored with a movie that was 2 2/4 hours long. But I wasn't, and i have adult ADD.
The most fascinating thing I noticed was the audience in our theater. We went to a 7:00 PM showing. About 200+ people in the theater. We were sitting right by the exit and no one went out of the movie for anything. The audience was intently following this movie, no noise, no restlessness at all. The last movie I saw that was this entertaining was Titanic.
I also was concerned how they would pull off the reverse aging, but it was done to perfection. You have to take this movie for what it is and not what you may feel it should be. This movie will stand out as one of the best movies I have ever seen. Even after 2 3/4 hours, when the movie screen went black, people did not jump up, they thought there was more to come. Don't be afraid of the movie length. The movie flows nicely and you will not notice it is three hours aftewr you sat down when it is over.
Posted by: Lonny Langione | January 02, 2009 at 06:21 AM
Because someone thinks this movie is boring they are "shallow and emotionless" and "incapable of peering beyond the surface". Being judgemental about who someone is based on how they liked a movie is nothing short of pretentious horsecrap.
The movie was plodding, boring and had a weak script.
What does that make me?
Posted by: Tom | January 02, 2009 at 07:32 AM
Space Shuttle? Don't you know that we had entire Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space programs with launches at Cape Canaveral all the time in the 1960s? The Space Shuttle didn't come around until the 1980s.
Posted by: Bob Beecher | January 02, 2009 at 08:24 PM
the subtext of this very well done movie is the story of new orleans.
Posted by: walter | January 02, 2009 at 08:56 PM
I don't see why the length is such an issue. By the end I wish there was more, but then again if there was anymore I'd be in a puddle of tears. This movie moved me all the way through, and had me wrapped up in it all the way home.
It seems people aren't getting the true message of the story: to appreciate life. Sure, the movie isn't perfect and there are plenty of things that could have been covered, but those things aren't what this movie is about.
Posted by: SaintZEFI | January 02, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Plain and simple....boring, boring, boring.
Posted by: sanjos | January 03, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The only thing curious about "Benjamin Button" is how anyone can swallow this overproduced empty movie. Everyone speaks in hushed tones, the cinematography is much too dark, it's way too long. Well, at least Brad got to pump some money into his adopted city. New Orleans deserves better.
Posted by: Joe Coencas | January 03, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Sorry, this movie was disappointing and boring and waaay too sad. I will never recommend it to anyone. Brad seemed like he was afraid Angela would be mad if he was too passionate with Daisy. Afterall, thats how they got together.
The story was dull. The cinematography was wonderful, but that was it. I want my money back,and if my sis in law had not wanted to see it so badly I would have not stayed. She didn't like it either, but told me on the way out.
Posted by: Karen F | January 04, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Yes, this movie is very long but I loved it, loved it, loved it.
Posted by: MB | January 04, 2009 at 06:58 PM
@ BitsyBoo
It's a Rocket launch, not a Shuttle launch. Probably Apollo 11 or something.
Posted by: Camperton | January 05, 2009 at 06:49 AM
Maybe its the mood you're in when you see the movie. I was melancholy with the start of a new year. I saw it alone on a whim after running errands while my husband was home with our kids. So I missed them and felt a little guilty about the trip. But man, this film hit me hard - it was very haunting. I agree that Daisy was not my favorite person, while Benjamin was way more likeable. I have been recommending it highly, but as I do so, I in the back of my mind know that some people will not "get" it, and will not enjoy it nearly as much as I did.
Posted by: Julia | January 05, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Considering the manufatured "Oscar" buzz and the obligatory Oprah kiss Brads' ass schmoozefest this movie was a complete letdown and a waste of some very nice cinematography along with some very expensive CGI.
I don't know what was more annoying, the endless parade of random characters-which unlike the far superior Gump you just couldn't give two shits about-or the GQ photo montages- see Brad coming up out of the water,see Brad riding a vintage motorcycle,see Brad modeling classic suits etc. ad nauseating.
Posted by: chuck | January 05, 2009 at 05:37 PM
I was very intrigued going in. I was very disappointed. The film was pretentious and boring.
Posted by: SAS | January 05, 2009 at 07:48 PM
Honest to God, one of the most fantastic films that I have ever seen. It's a shame that most younger audiences can't relate to it or entirely understand it, but for those of you who did, I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I did. A very touching and beautiful film
Posted by: Shrubbs | January 07, 2009 at 02:24 PM
I disagree with the people saying this moving was boring, you must have not gotten the story... or just didn' come in with an open mind.. Everyone saw the preview of the movie and knew what it was about so if you didn't wanna have an open mind and listen to what the story was about, you shouldn't have went to see it. It was amazing and one of the best movies with the best story line i've seen in awhile. Im happy I went to the movie, and yes it was a little long but very much worth the time and money. And comparing the movie to Forrest Gump is ridiculous. Alot of movies are similar but it doesn't mean just becuase the movies have similarites, that they are the same. And plus, Gump was made a million years ago. I am 24 yrs old and still could appreciate the movie and the story line. Blows Forrest Gump outta the water.
Posted by: Stephanie | January 10, 2009 at 01:04 PM
this movie hit me hard in the heart. it is a sweet nonoffensive take on life and death. It is moving without being cloying. the relationships are compassonate..mother to son..son to father..lovers to lovers. for me, it was not just a movie it was a moving experience.
Posted by: patty | January 10, 2009 at 06:12 PM
That wasn't the space shuttle, I guess it was one of the early 60s rockets.
I was very touched by this movie. The scenes at the end as he became a toddler and a baby were very affecting and beautifully filmed.
Posted by: Brian | January 11, 2009 at 02:38 PM
Simply amazing.
It was a movie I wanted to go on forever.
Posted by: dclar | January 11, 2009 at 06:21 PM
WAAAAY too long, dull, and pointless. Get jacked up on caffeine if you want to get through this movie.
Posted by: Scott | January 12, 2009 at 08:27 AM
I thought it was a great film...definately one of the best iv'e seen in years...the story is gripping...its long but i was with it the whole way...it will sweep the awards...the guy that gets struck by lightening is hilarious
Posted by: Yupper | January 15, 2009 at 05:29 PM
I feel bad for the people who didn't get this movie. Saying it was too long, too boring or pretentious. It's a about the reflections of ones life and all it's aspects. It's the little things as well as the big one that create who we are and how we see the world. Really... you should of watched Saw 17 or some other god awful movie with Mtv edits. Whay Benjamin Button? Do you think you have the attention span or the emotional apptittude? I loved the pacing of the movie. Visually I thought it was stunning as well as capitivating. The acting I thought was done well. Not as stiff as some people had felt. Button was a regular man with an extrodinary condition. Not a super hero with powers and I felt Pitt did a great job. In conlusion this is the best movie I have seen in the last couple of years.
Posted by: Dustin | January 19, 2009 at 10:08 PM