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
CHANDNI CHOWK TO CHINA is 154 minutes long, 12 minutes shorter than BENJAMIN BUTTON, but it's got comedy, drama, action, slapstick, Bollywood songs and dances, exotic locations and lots of kung fu, all things that are apparently missing from BENJAMIN BUTTON. I was never bored, as many of you seem to have been by BUTTON. Why not see CHANDNI CHOWK instead? Best time I've had at the movies since...well, KUNG FU HUSTLE. Granted, it won't get any Oscars, but given the nonsense that's going to be up for Oscars this year, so what?
Posted by: Brian | January 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Pitt was one dimensional with too many scenes making him look like an ad for some product. Was the sail boat shot an ad for sun glasses, was the motorcycle shot an ad or just an image that was all too familiar and cliché. He WAS clearly acting and did not seem to be in the role, I bet the cutting room floor had lots of footage. My hats off to the editor oh wait; the movie was way too long for its subject. Guy struck by lighting cute... set design very well done even lighting was delightful.. Story and acting not so much.
Posted by: Andy | January 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM
I just saw this movie about 2 hours ago. It was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Beautifully flowing and intriguing, it certainly delivered all I'd expected. The acting and script must have been amazing, because I can assure you I started crying in the middle and couldn't stop crying till the end.
Truth be told, you need to be someone who understands and is touched by the message: Life is short, appreciate it... I rarely cry at movies. One of the only movies I've ever cried at was Titanic. This movie, I sobbed my eyes out. Sometimes I couldn't even restrain myself to cry silently, actually sobbing out loud (which was embarrassing). Brad Pitt gave an incredibly moving and touching performance, as did Cate Blanchett.
This movie painted a picture which described all my fears of age and loss in such an elegant way, I wouldn't be able to tell it to someone who wouldn't understand. That is why it moved me to tears.
Yes, I felt there were many points where I found myself thinking how similar to Forrest Gump it was, but who cares? They are different stories, each beautiful in their own right. I think the screenplay, acting, and flow of the movie was all outstanding.
Is Benjamin Button for everybody? No. As I said before, you need to be someone who appreciates the message. If you don't, you will most certainly not enjoy the movie. Go into a movie theater with a positive attitude; don't judge it harshly based on your own emotional standards. Know that everything is subjective. Isn't that the case with all movies?
Posted by: ilovedit123 | January 22, 2009 at 09:46 PM
I have decided to go on a rampage against this movie. What an overrated film. People defend it saying that the meaning is beneath the surface. Wrong. Theres no iceberg. Is an empty film, some good moments that doesnt justify this length. No sense of rithym at all. No new ideas. Too much "oooo, hoooow beatifuuuul (a little piano BSO to cover), cryyyy" mixed with cheap reflexions about living present and the importance of your choices. Wasted its potential value, although Fincher wasnt perhaps the most indicated to shot this film. How can anyone dare to compare this film to Slumdog Millionaire, a trully masterpiece and far more superior than Button.
Posted by: Yago | January 23, 2009 at 06:02 PM
The implausibility (?) is what makes it so endearing. Powerful messages albeit oftentimes subtle. Acting is a ++ all around. Outstanding transitioning in both special effects (viz. make up) and story line. Could use some editing, however. Bathroom breaks for audience have to be considered. All in all, 2 very enthusiastic thumbs WAY UP!!
Posted by: bobowen | January 31, 2009 at 05:54 PM
My husband and I both saw it last night.....we both agree that it was much too long. The story could have been told within 2 hrs. We liked some parts of it, but the Daisy character (as an adult) came off an unlikeable. She seemed selfish. By the way, my husband and I both lost our moms last year and we totally understand loss and treasuring life and what God gives to you (I am almost 48 and he is 52). So, to those that would imply that people who don't understand this movie don't have a heart or are emotionless, you are totally wrong wrong wrong. The F Scott Fitzgerald short story is much better (I read it weeks before we went to see this movie). If this movies does win any awards, it should probably be for special effects. One other thing.....Rod Serling came up with a similar story for "The Twilight Zone" - an old man, who was wealthy and was married to a golddigger, who had his brother inject him with a syrum that would make him young and make his wife love him. Sure, the syrum took, and the wife fell in love with her new younger husband. Problem is, it took too well and the husband ended up a small child and the wife ended up having to take care of him if she wanted to keep living the life of luxury that she was accustomed to.
Posted by: tosume | February 01, 2009 at 10:22 AM
In my opinion, time is considered as gold recently, and by watching the film you my get on a dept. trap
Posted by: What ??? | February 06, 2009 at 03:18 PM
For those saying that those who don't like the film are "shallow and emotionless" or too young to understand it, they too are shallow themselves. That has nothing to do with it. Yes, I get it. The story of loss and aging. Its called a difference of a opinion. Just because the story touches in whatever your are going thru for whatever reason doesn't mean it has to touch everyone else. The movie is boring and long. Character does not seem fully developed. And it is reminiscent of Forest Gump only done with geriatric ambience. Wait til it comes on dvd and make sure you don't have something better to do. Remember, you can't get that time back folks.
Posted by: eves4 | February 06, 2009 at 07:54 PM
I think it's hypocritical to assume people have a small attention span or a lack of emotional aptitude because they found a film boring or pretentious, seeing as we all have different tastes and interests.
I thought the film was OK, it wasn't anything special, there was little character progression, Daisy wasn't likeable, and the film was overly-long/passive. It may have been about the 'little details' of life but it never truly focuses on them, and I don't think that age has anything to do with enjoying this film.
I'm sure there are people that enjoyed it for more than its cinematography or visual depth, but for me there wasn't much else to appreciate. I would definitely suggest Slumdog Millionaire or Milk over this film.
Posted by: Sam | February 14, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Great movie! After I have watched it in th cinema, came back home, downloaded by means of http://rapid4me.com/ and am happy to have it for my home collection of the best films!
Posted by: Torance | February 25, 2009 at 01:31 AM
Of all the movies I have seen, this one is the most boring, most slow with no story line, no action at all... This movie could be used by the C.I.A to torture people to death. You will die from boredom if you watch this horrible film. All I could do while watching was to pray to god that it would be over soon. Totally the worst film ever made. Brad Pitt is a useless actor. His voice starts to hurt my brain when ever he was speaking. His expression always looks the same never changes for the entire movie.... Please Please Please... do not watch this movie unless you want to die. Totally horrible, not even worth half a star.
Posted by: Shane | February 28, 2009 at 04:12 AM
It seems like anyone who ever spent 5 minutes seeing a loved one deal with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's could really understand this movie and the life reflection. The boy growing smaller is a *metaphor* for his memory and abilities shrinking. The film was moving, and I don't even like Brad that much. . . his voice overs were incredible. Not everyone will like it, so for those who didn't, try the $1 movie rentals next time. . .
Posted by: Angela | May 11, 2009 at 06:49 PM
I just saw the movie at home on DVD....it took two evenings, but I really liked the look and flow of the film until it hit the 1960s...then it got bogged down a bit. I didn't know the Forrest Gump ties until later but recognized the style. The lightning guy was a good touch and I liked the sequence of storytelling just before the dancer's accident.
I would have left some film on the editing floor, but it was a good piece of work.
Posted by: Ken | October 27, 2009 at 08:23 AM