No heart, way too long, and mawkishly sentimental to insulting levels.

I do agree with other comments that it made no sense for Ben to be born an infant and also die as one. I was so looking forward to seeing a six-foot baby on screen. Not for comedic value but for the same reason it was interesting to see a two-foot old man.

I don’t really understand why so many of this blog’s comments are angry at Katrina for not liking the film. If she had merely said “it sucks because there wasn’t enough nudity or violence,” I could understand someone’s contempt. However, Katrina articulately stated why she didn’t enjoy it and gave legitimate examples from the film to support her notion. What more can you ask of her?

This film would have been better as a comedy.

a lot of what you wrote made sense, but not this. this is a beautifully designed production. i don’t know where you get the “fake”ness.

i also don’t see much support for this:
“a film in which every cut seems designed to block thought”

Really bad. Boring. slow. pointless. after it is done being boring slow and pointless - it becomes more boring, slower, and adds a pointless b-plot.

And i really wanted this film to be good. But it is just bad, Bad, Bad.

Both Hummingbird (a.k.a. Forest Gump feather) and snow are ridiculous. The sequences toward the end between the leads wherein their ages are close and there is less makeup/CGI and more acting are the best and do manage to coax out some catharsis, but a few scenes does not a film make. I had a difficult time with the way the opening is shot/treated in general. Even some of the vocal mixing drove me crazy. I was tired of all the montages and voice over. And I happened to like ‘Forrest Gump’ and ‘Titanic’ just fine for studio films. ‘Button’ simply isn’t as good as either in terms of similar tactics.

The budget on this is way off scale. I don’t see this as a smart risk to be supported, as some “reviewers” have suggested. Movies like ‘The Fountain’ deserve the support-this-because-studios-should-take-more-risks-like-this title, not ‘Button.’ This project has been through numerous writers and directors over the last decade and, finance-wise, seems to run amuck.

Anyway, nearly all wide-release studio movies with marketing budgets are poor in quality. The Oscars are just another part of that system: Of course stuff like this will do well when the studio is already in enough to anti-up on prestige marketing campaigns and the bar is so low. It’s a shame; the literary idea behind the film’s theme is interesting and universal, the execution just isn’t high-minded enough to do the worthwhile ideas justice. And yes, that makes it (to agree again) gimmicky.

I assume Derek works for the production or maybe one of the principal’s agents because otherwise Derek wouldn’t be such a pit bull.It has all the earmarks of a street teamer complete with the “go watch you pretentious art films” remark at the end. Its the kind of Internet bullying that was originally developed at Miramax and now seems to be de riguer for all Oscar bait films these days.

I will probably never view another Fincher film because of obvious bullying he and Paramount have done in order to promote this film. Seriously, if he spent as much time on storytelling craft as he did on telling everyone how brilliant he is he might make a decent film some day instead of the mindless thrillers he dresses up as art with his endless supply of student film tricks.

It seems like you can’t say “this isn’t my thing” and move on, because the reasons you give for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button being a bad example of filmmaking are flimsy and vague at best, and, in my opinion, just you talking out of your ass in order to look like film critic.

I know you consider yourself much, much better than “the masses” you refer to, but, even if that WERE true, is that really a valid reason to hate a film? Just because people who “don’t understand movies” like a given movie does not automatically make it “lacking in genuine feeling” or “spoon-fed artifice.” And to accuse Oscar voters (and audiences in general) of hating movies that provoke thought on a deeper level is, well, absolutely absurd, and is a demonstration of YOUR lack of thinking skills, and your over-abundance of narcissism and snobbery.

Almost all of the best picture noms for last year were tremendous films, and SEVERAL of them definitely made me think. NONE of them were what people like you would call “mindless entertainment.” This said, I don’t think that the Academy Awards are always 100% fair, or even always “right” or the best choice, (how could they be?) But I will say that it really infuriates me to read people like you talking about Oscar voters being inane and having tunnel vision when it comes to voting for films they feel deserve recognition. It’s not like you have better taste in movies than them. And from the majority of their past choices, they certainly appear to be alot more logical and holistic than you.

Another thing: Is there something wrong with setting your film in the south? Or with actors using southern accents while speaking in a film? Because it’s one thing to judge the execution of something, and something else entirely to simply dislike a piece of art because of the style, setting, tone, themes, or content that the artist chose. In and of themselves, these things cannot be good or bad. Again, if you are just tired of something, or personally don’t like something, (apparently movies set in the South? Did you have a bad experience there?) then you can just SAY that like an honest critic, instead of making Eric Roth sound like a moron because he chose to set this story in the same place that F. Scott Fitzgerald originally set HIS short story in. Are you going to whine about HIM too? Because that would actually make a lot more sense.

Also, and you may not be aware of this fact, but finding a baby who looks like an old man and who talks could be a little problem for the people who cast this movie. Are you really completely clueless? I mean, you ask why David Fincher used real kids at the end of the movie to portray the reverse aging Benjamin Button, and why wasn’t “it good enough” to simply do this for the beginning of the film? Are you serious? How else could this character have been shown? Because if you have the answer to that, maybe you should switch from writing bullshit movie reviews and start making a living off being some sort of special effects advisor. Oh, I know you love bashing the special effects in this movie, (in this case, because they supposedly get in the way of the “romance” of the movie, whatever the heck that is supposed to mean, I think even you don’t know what you are talking about,) but I’m sorry, your comment, (”Fincher obviously thought pure casting was sufficient for his final act, so why wasn’t it good enough for his first?”) actually made me laugh at loud and cringe at the same time.

This review demonstrates not only your sad lack of intelligence or knowledge, (forget film, you obviously don’t even understand ART in general,) but also a strange bitterness and an apparent desire to bash, criticize, and denounce any film that could even come close to being called “mainstream.”

I suggest that tonight, as you sit alone, watching pretentious, art-house films that you yourself don’t even like, that you think about what your goals are as a movie reviewer, because they seem to completely lack artistic integrity in any way, shape, or form. And someone who doesn’t understand the huge responsibility of being a critic doesn’t deserve to be one.

again you comment on the VFX of this film without any apparent understanding of it’s origins or technique at all…
the technology was NOT developed for this film - there have been plenty of articles on the VFX for BB, try Google…

if you found the VFX in the film distracting or unconvincing - that’s fine, based on your perceptions…but just stick to saying that…but please, saying “to describe the process with more finesse would be to give the philosophy behind it too much credit” is a huge cop out…and actually doesn’t mean what you think it means…if anything at all…

I’m likely not the only one who hopes that either “Slumdog Millionaire” or “Revolutionary Road” topples “Button,” the way i assume fans of “Quiz Show,” “Shawshank Redemption” or “Pulp Fiction” were gunning to take down “Gump.”

In the end, you make the oldies cry or retink their comfy, bubbled, blessed lives, you got your award. And that seems to be what Roth (assisted by the nearly for-hire Fincher) has achieved here.