Advertisement
To borrow a line from Lou Lumenick: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is this year’s Forrest Gump. This is not really arguable. In addition to sharing a screenwriter (Eric Roth), Robert Zemeckis’ 1994 Best Picture winner and David Fincher’s 2008 Best Picture front-runner (at least, as of this writing) both put groundbreaking special effects to the service of sprawling stories, spanning many decades and weaving a breadcrumb trail through modern American history, in which a man holds a torch for a woman who can’t reciprocate his love until her dreams of autonomy are spectacularly dashed. For me, the Gump comparison is a pejorative, a shorthand way to say, “This film will likely make a lot of money and win a lot of awards, and yet is so phony and cloying and gimmicky that its success will some day be seen by some as a tragedy.” But to others, the second coming of Gump would be a blessing. An Oscars-bait blockbuster? As Lumenick put it, before seeing the film, “Paramount would be thrilled, and possibly the Academy would be as well.”
Watching Benjamin Button, occasionally I actively loathed it, but mostly I just felt genuinely disappointed that it seemed so lacking in the genuine feeling that makes a bloated, over-serious, firing-on-all-cylinders Hollywood blow-out even temporarily satisfying. Ultimately, we buy into films like the film Benjamin Button wants to be because they offer our only chance at that unique catharsis: they let us cry, in public, surrounded by and united with strangers who are also crying, regardless of our individual age, class or station in life. But Benjamin Button cannot be effective as an audience-leveling tear-inducer, because it’s not a film about people. It’s a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.
This is a film in which the following things happen:
But before any of that, there’s a prologue. Shot in the palette of the Zapruder film with scratches and fuzzy grain to match, this tells us that at some point during World War I, a French-born, New Orleans-based clockmaker was commissioned to make a piece for the local train station. The whole town comes out to see the clock, at which point the clockmaker reveals that he deliberately made a clock that ticked backwards, “so that the boys we lost in the war might come home again.” An initially befuddled crowd is thus turned awestruck and appreciative, to which the clockmaker barks in a heavily-accented monotone: “I hope you enjoy my clock.”
Cut to 1918, the last day of that war, and the birth of a baby “with all the infirmities not of a newborn but of a man well into his 80s, on the way to the grave”. When the mother dies in childbirth, the freaked-out father snatches the baby out of its cradle and runs it over to the back porch of an old age home, where it’s tripped over by the proprietor, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). Because Queenie is a magical negro, she ignores her boyfriend’s non-interventionist admonitions and takes the baby in, raising it as her own kin.
“You never know what’s coming for you,” Queenie intones portentously when this opportunity arises. It’s a line that’ll be repeated throughout the film a number of times, and in the context of the film’s big fake Southern accents and big fake period detail, it plays like a whimsical, pie-eyed rewrite of the thesis statement of last year’s Best Picture winner; “You can’t stop what’s coming.”
What’s coming, of course, is that this aged baby will, thanks to the magic of a performance capture process developed for this purpose, slowly grow into a flawless specimen of man in the form of Brad Pitt. With few exceptions, the technology that puts Pitt’s head on the body of other actors for the first third of the film (to describe the process with more finesse would be to give the philosophy behind it too much credit) achieves its intended result: it fools the eye, it almost looks real enough to drown out the inner knowledge that it is not real at all. But it’s hard not to question whether or not this lavish effects process is really necessary, if it’s anything more than a show-offy gimmick. In the last section of the film, when Benjamin ages backward from drinking age to infancy, he’s played by child actors who bear a resemblance to Pitt but aren’t asked to digitally wear his face. Fincher obviously thought pure casting was sufficient for his final act, so why wasn’t it good enough for his first?
Even if one were able to completely get over the gimmickry that makes that verisimilitude possible, there’s still something that feels off about this first section of the film, in the way the characters often seem to interact with Benjamin as if playing to the back row of a theater instead of to a person, smaller than them and right there in close quarters. This sense of a disconnect dissipates as the character ages and becomes more recognizably embodied by Pitt, but Fincher never goes long without finding an excuse to let an effect fill the frame and distract from what’s going on between people. In one of the first scenes where Benjamin is actually connecting to someone on an intimate level, he does so amidst a fog of almost comically painterly CGI snow. A few scenes later, a hummingbird (which, it’s implied, carries the spirit of Button’s counterpart to Forrest Gump’s Lt. Dan) buzzes over a scene of World War II carnage, swooping across the screen like Tinkerbell. When this hummingbird popped up again, very near the end of the film, I half expected it to be wearing a tiny little Brad Pitt visage.
Though the use of certain of these effects may be unprecedented, there is precedent to the genre of the romantic effects epic, and while I’m not the biggest fan of Titanic, or of Peter Jackson’s King Kong, those films succeed on a level where Button fails: their spectacular effects serve to support the romance at the core of the story, while Button’s effects only get in the way. The inner evolution of the characters seems incidental to Fincher. Increasingly as the film wears on, it seems as though the crux of each scene is not an emotional conflict, but the juxtaposition of a slightly younger Brad Pitt with a slightly older Cate Blanchett, and Fincher seems to move from one juxtaposition to next as quickly as possible as if he’s convinced that if he just hits every point on his predetermined timeline, the relationship itself will happen organically. It doesn’t.
And this isn’t fully the fault of the effects. There’s no doubt that Fincher is in love with his imagery (this is the only explanation I can come up with for that chaos theory sequence, which plays as nothing but a flaunting of Fincher’s contractual right to final cut), but he doesn’t seem to trust it. Eric Roth’s script tells us over and over again, in very literal language and often via narration, that this is a film about loneliness and difference. Every feeling and every story detail is telegraphed in advance, underlined throughout and commented on after the fact.
Button is the opposite of Pitt’s last Oscar hopeful in that respect: The Assassination of Jesse James was a film in which every frame seemed to invite contemplation. Benjamin Button is a film in which every cut seems designed to block thought. Maybe the earlier film’s failure says it all about the philosophy behind Button’s construction: for audiences and Oscar voters, thinking is bad. Spoon-fed artifice is good.
This review was published in slightly different form here.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Just saw the film earlier today and it is as bad or worse than this review makes it out to be. I wonder if this film was purely a career move for Fincher as his last film, “Zodiac”, was not a financial success. It looks as if it is going to do good business over the holiday weekend and should put Fincher in good standing with the studios. The film is out of step thematically when compared to the other films he has made and was a big let down following “Zodiac”, which in my opinion was one of the best films of 2007. I would be interested to read or listen to an interview with him regarding this film to find out if he was enthusiastic about making it. There was probably no way to make the heavy-handed script into a great film but as you say it didn’t seem as if he put any effort into it, instead using the film as a testing ground for special effects. In retrospect, some of the responses you got to the original posting of this review are hilarious.
WOW…After reading this review, I have realized how cynical people are. You must know how you sound…. insecure…”trying way to hard” wanna be writer thinking… “if I use ‘BIG” words I will gain the respect of my fellow peers.” The job of actor and film makers is to move people, take them on a journey. I believe this film accomplished just that. It’s so easy to judge another man’s work, but appreciation for the craft of artistry is dormant. Have you ever written anything?…(I’m sorry but I do not consider this actually writing.) Do you know what the process entails? I need to say that you lack genuine hope and belief in anything that represents this. The only thought that was blocked in this film was your overwhelming arrogance to be able to see the “beauty” in this film. “The inner state of an arrogant person is constantly agitated waiting for any opportunity to assert a sense of superiority”. And yes, in case you’re wondering…I am an actor.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I was disappointed to see so many people rave about this, but seeing such a well thought out and well written critique was refreshing. Thank you for approaching this critically and intellectually.
Yet another jaded reviewer who wants to be cool by writing a harsh review. I knew when I saw this movie that most of the “prominent serious film watchers” would just not get it. And that is a shame…
This movie is racist , sexist and is gonna get a lot of attention from the naacp when the president steps in . You whiteys just like it because you like seeing black people especially black women demeaned as mammy’s and whores.
There are several african american groups looking into law suites for this movie. It’s depcition of blacks are outrageous racist and unacceptable. It could have only been made under a bush presidency. The reviewer was being kind. and i am a white person. I am appaled by what i saw on the screen. A total waste of money and a slap in the face to black women everwhere. Women’s groups will go after this one as soon as Barack gets in.
As a jewish lawyer for several black groups in NYC I was shocked to hear my email and phone light up with people wanting to protest and call attention to the negative way in which blacks are portrayed in this movie. I will be happy to help. I was shocked with the sick degrading way in which women and black women in particular are portrayed in this movie.
All women are portrayed badly in this film.
I cant believe what I’m reading!! To say that there was ‘”racism” is just so disappointing…. (not to mention absurd!) There is a saying “Everybody wants to be a director”….The mother was my favorite character. She moved me to tears with her open and pure heart I was rooting for her throughout the entire film. (She actually upstaged Brad Pitt in every scene). People are always looking for a scapegoat. To bring up Obama is almost humorous to me…What does that have to do with anything??(And I did vote for him). People, lets remember that this was a period piece. That’s why we call it acting. The mother played by Taraji Henson do you think see feels the film was racist?? I think not!! Why would she have played her?? It was a amazing opportunity for her. Forgive me but, ignorance can be dangerous to our growth and compassion as human beings.
YES.
and
this film would have been great if it were a proper hoax. They forgot the part where they pull the curtain back and all say “JK we shall now subvert every cliche we hath presented!”
waste of my life.
All of you have forgotten why movies are fun and important…including the reviewer. Do the world a favor and never watch or talk about one again.
Racism? This movie takes place from 1918 to like 75 years later… the only lawsuit black people could bring to court is the fact that they didn’t portray the hatred towards them as strongly as it truly was during those times. If this movie was meant to be racist, it would have been about Benjamin Button sitting at a coffee shop slapping black people that tried to drink from the whites water fountain and pissing on Rosa Parks. Shut the fuck up with that.
This movie is about life, love, death, and memories. It’s a beautiful story and it’s beautifully portrayed through film. Sure, it’s a bit long and a bit boring to some, but if anybody came out of that theater thinking of racism instead of valuing the short time they are given on this earth to spend with their loved ones, I suppose they’re also stupid enough to file a lawsuit about it. This review sucks, and anybody who thinks this movie is racist or sexist is a fucking dumb jackoff.
I pity you, Karina. I hope you do, but I doubt you will never feel love on this earth if you are as shallow and jaded as this reviews lets on. Please never be afraid of feeling anything other than scorn, especially towards those who show they don’t have a heart of stone.
Now of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and of course every point you make is valid in the light in which you place this film. However, it is very obvious to that you went into this movie with preconceived notions that you were not going to change, and that is unfortunate for the many people who will stumble upon this review and will decide not to see the film.
Have a nice day, and happy new year!
I’m surprised by the kind of vitriol this film (and it’s review) are dredging up. Perhaps I’m not deep enough or not dissecting the film critically enough, but my wife and I saw “Button” tonight and I was truly touched by it. I enjoyed Brad’s restrained performance and found myself thinking more about the ephemeral nature of life than being distracted by the special effects. I appreciate the reviewers strong feelings about her perception of the film’s disingenuousness. But personally, I appreciate what the creators were trying to accomplish and was moved by it. As for the potential for lawsuits based on racism, after Jan. 20, I’m guessing our new president will have more important matters to attend to than punishing the makers of this film.
I’ve always liked David Fincher’s work (including Seven, Fight Club, Zodiac, Panic Room — and even his earlier work in music videos and commercials), and Benjamin Button is no different, I’d have been disappointed if it didn’t contain his trademark way of blending special effects with storytelling — even in scenes where it’s not always immediately apparent why it might be necessary (like the one in Zodiac where the camera pulls miles above a taxicab to watch it make its way through the streets of San Francisco, or in Panic Room, where it silently travels through a coffee pot handle to cross a room). With that in mind, the special effects in Benjamin Button didn’t bother me one bit, if anything, I enjoyed watching them. Personally, I thought the aging process seen throughout the film (including the work done on Cate Blanchet) was amazing and much better than what I’d seen in other films (usually it looks like actors are wearing stiff, bulbous masks).
In regards to the character in the story (and contrary to some of the absurd views I just read), I found his adoptive mother to be loving, nurturing, and warm — I also thought his Pigmy friend interesting and engaging, a person who could transcend negative experiences in life to find much more than just the immediate consequential or banal.. Same goes for the tugboat captain. In the end, and to quote the thoughts of the English Channel swimmer, life is what you do with it. The movie constantly visits that theme — missed opportunities, taking chances, starting over..
Ignoring that premise for the sake of racism (let’s face it, every black woman should be able to be an individual person with different views on what it means to love and care for someone instead of being lumped into a stereotypical category that fits NAACP standards — and I’d assume a woman working in a small nursing home to take care of elderly people would probably develop loving maternal traits not necessarily in line with being a sell-out or worse, a whore as one writer compared her to..) would be missing the entire point of the story.
Honestly, if I was to base everything I think simply on appearances, I’d have dismissed the above review just because the person who wrote it has a strange looking face. Sure they picked Brad Pitt, but would it have worked better had it been Danny De Vito? The idea behind the story still remains and has nothing to do with special effects or supposed racism — it’s a fairy tale where things can be magical. As to the Forrest Gump comparisons, the same writer who wrote Button’s screenplay. That being said and even if it weren’t enough, most stories tend to borrow from each other — there are fundamental rules to storytelling, especially when it comes to fairy tales. It’d be like arguing that a talking piggy bank ruined Toy Story because it’s just not realistic, or worse, borrowed from another story with a talking mouse..
I hope others watch and enjoy it as much as I did, especially for its tonal qualities and beautiful sets — the ocean scenes are nicely textured. I assume many won’t be able to see past the obvious (as it appears given the feedback here), but I’m guessing most of those people are like that in life as well and I can’t imagine a movie changing the way they see things. For the rest of us however, it’s a small, beautiful piece of creative work.
Benjamin Button was very Fincher-esque… almost as good as his other stuff if not for some nagging plot holes
I just read this review and comments and got really steamed about the cries of “rascism” and that it once Barrack is president, he will end rascism. First of all, Barrack would not have been elected president were it not for white people voting for him.
Second. Why are blacks so up in arms about this movie when mainstream black hip hop performers refer to black women as bitches and hoes? If the black community wants to stop perpetuating stereotypes, they should start with themselves and stop promoting rap, gangsta, and hip hop “culture” and all the nonsense surrounding it. They make themselves look like morons.
Thirdly, one of the other comments said that this movie could only be made becaus Bush was presdient. Bush named Condoleeza Rica and Colin Powell to his cabinet. How many blacks were appointed by Clinton and now Barrack? None.
Lastly, now that we’ve elected a black man to the presidency, will black people stop crying rascism? Every minority that ever came to this country was subjected to rascism. Irish, Jews, Chinese, Hispanics, Arabs, etc….. What eventually happens is they overcome the rascism by proving their accusers wrong. But the blacks have been here the longest and still can’t get their shit together.
70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Black unemployment is twice the national average. Inner city and black schools perform at the lowest levels in the country despite billions of dollars in Federal Aid.
It’s time for the blacks to start proving the rascists wrong.
You tell “em josh! i totally agree that this movie was too long, but racist…PAHLEEZ. This movie was about life and the fact that we ALL Die…doesn’t matter if we are young or old. We all have an experience in this world and have an afterlife to go to. I did not overly connect emotionally to these characters…which was the main flaw of this movie, yet i did gain a lot of introspect afterward. I took my 9 and 12 yr old kids to this movie, they had many questions for me on the drive home. It all came to me like an epiphany: Time really is going backwards for us all because we are going back to where we all came from, to meet our maker. A baby’s first breath is really it’s last….deep, really deep when you think about it.
I’m truly ashamed and irritated at having read such a review. In my honest opinion a good reviewer/critic indeed has to know how to pick up and never overlook the bad qualities that are shown in a movie. After all a movie is never perfect and it tends to have major bad qualities, but people usually over look such things because they are more interested in watching and enjoying the movie to the fullest. You are not a good reviewer, that being an understatement. What you lack is the ability to see the good things a movie has, apart from always being obssesed with picking its bad traits. Indeed you must know and see the badness in it, but it is a shame that you don’t happen to see the good parts it carries.
Bringing racism into the picture proves the fact that you don’t know what you’re doing ( I’m not saying that I do) but I know enough to say that this movie does not have racism in it. Do you really believe an actress will play the part of the mother believing that the story will be racist to her and other woman? Of course, have more common sense than that!
I agree with the previous comments that said that Barack will have more important things to do than then focus on something as childish as this. Even he might enjoy this movie. A movie is not made for the purpose of critics picking the worse qualities it carries. It is made for the purpose of entertaining the audience and giving them an enjoyable experience in life through the eyes of another.
I admit that it may seem like it, but I am not saying that your review was completely bad. But at the same time, you have to admit that it was exaggerating, all you seemed to be detailing was every bad part the story contained. Try and focus on the good parts a movie has, maybe then you’ll understand what it is to be a reviewer. You’ll be a good one because you will be able to tell apart the good qualities and bad ones, instead of probably ruining the excitement people had at wanting to watch this movie after reading such a review.
Chao! Wish You Luck
Horribly inaccurate review. Benjamin Button is a brilliant piece of cinema and a landmark for the industry. As someone who works in the film industry, I swear no one should be allowed to be a film critic unless they’ve actually MADE a film. Ever directed anything Karina or do you just like shooting down others that create art?
CRAP
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.
Agree wholeheartedly with review.
PURE CRAP
Everyone who is criticizing the critic: CALM THAT DOWN. Stop. You are NOT making your point. The Critic is criticizing the film, is supposed to, yeah, it is not pretty, it is not supposed to be pretty and polite. It is supposed to be blunt and to the point. Don’t take it personally. if you want to counter argue, if you disagree, then counter argue PROPERLY. Point out the scenes or themes or moments you feel the critic missed out on. Use the FILM to make your point, rather then using personal attacks. This is the ABCs of debating or voicing your opinion. Stop knowingly being immature, you are just wasting everyone’s time.
“Ever directed anything Karina or do you just like shooting down others that create art?” — Niles, find something in the Curious Case of Benjamin Button that backs up your admiration of it, rather than attacking the critic. You said: “Benjamin Button is a brilliant piece of cinema and a landmark for the industry” — landmark for the industry; are you talking about the special effects? I agree actually, the special effects are unbelievable. However, i think it stopped halfway. For example, the emotional punch may have been better if Brad pitt’s face was digitally added to the baby’s, toddler’s, teenager’s (piano’s scene). or maybe not. perhaps it was just too expensive. perhaps it would have been silly.
SPOILER ALERT:
There was a scene, right after benjamin and daisy, as 7 year olds, were sharing their secrets under the table/tent, and benjamin was crying after being scolded (unfairly due to his problem). we weren’t allowed to see an close up of him, because it probably would have ruined that scene (digital tears..i don’t know. a face crying would probably a lot more complicated and would have “showed” the special effects, thereby ruining the moment). instead, he buried his face in Queenie.
Brilliant film; no. no. no. I was bored to tears, up until the end. in fact, the ending was really the only notable thing about the whole film. It was the only time i actually FELT something for benjamin. The only time his loneliness and peculiar predicament hit home. The only time i empathized with dementia victims and old age in general. why couldn’t the rest of the film have been just as moving. i almost fell asleep, it was unbelievable mediocre. with such a large budget, topnotch cast and crew, i expected something more and was tremendously disappointed. With such an interesting point of view: growing younger while growing wise, there isn’t a single person in the world who doesn’t wish they knew then what they know now…this is the film that should have showed what happens when you DO know then (in youth) what you know now. Life and Death and everything in between should not put me to sleep. Even the basics of storytelling was screwed up. The scene were she gets hit by a car…WHY WAS SHE DANCING IN THE STREET? It would have made more sense if she and her friend were giggling and kidding around or practicing or SOMETHING. They showed her tying her shoelace, and then randomly starting to dance across a street. why would any grown up do this? it is common sense to look both ways. They went for this dancing bit, because it LOOKED really pretty, and to hit the whole “she is a dancer and is now injured, thereby she can no longer follow her dream” part of Daisy’s character development. But come on now, the film should ebb and flow better than this. it should not be so obviously lacking in basic plot development. I can smell the desperation for that oscar, and it is just vulgar. I don’t want to feel used when i am watching a film.
Also, was extremely annoyed that Queenie and her husband (were they married?) were not well developed. They came across as one note. So when they died, you did not miss them. Their death just comes and goes. This is NOT how it happens in real life. In real life, the death of a loved one, especially your mother, DESTROYS YOU. You eventually learn to live with the despair, but it should hit you like a ton of bricks. This films sucks serious ass. Serious strechmarked, hemmoroid riddled, nasy old pasty ass. even benjamin was bleh. Unlike Forest Gump, were you actually cared about his feelings, and his reactions to what was happening around him (even when it was comically ridiculous, it didn’t even matter, because you just liked him so much, and was so proud of him).
These are only some of the things i didn’t like about the film. If you disagree with Karina’s assessment, then point out WHY, WITHOUT lowering yourself to personal attacks, this only takes away your own dignity.Explain yourself, pick a theme or a scene that moved you. Try to make Karina see the film from your point of view.
[...] http://blog.spout.com/2008/12/22/the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button-review/ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Ice Cube’s “Good in the Hood”Documentary on Blacks on Wall St.Review: Curious Case of Benjamin Button’The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button’ Film Review [...]
Why is it necessary to condemn the methods in which a film accomplishes its purpose? Do we really care exactly how the special effects were done? If you’re sitting in the theater thinking about how certain effects were achieved, you obviously aren’t there to see a movie. This reviewer has checked out from film appreciation. At least she makes no attempt to deny the fact that she hated the idea of this movie long before she ever saw it. To judge a Fincher movie simply because it is a Fincher movie… I suppose you hated Peter Jackson for his “whizbang” in the Lord of the Rings trilogy as well? Oh, no… that was Peter Jackson, so it’s okay. I mean, I could judge you just by looking at your picture. I could say you’re a freakish little EMO kid who hates everything that isn’t dressed in black. But I choose to refrain from such presumptive remarks. I will tell you this, Karina: You should never be allowed in a movie theater again for the remainder of your miserable, emotionless life.
I just saw this film last night and was mesmorized (?). I did not want the story to end and am amazed that 3 hours actually had passed when it ended.
Karina, you have absolutely no romance in your heart. This is not a true story, it is fantasy and anyone who criticizes this is a dead head… no sense, no feeling.
The story, visual affects and make up are absolutely amazing and I absolutely loved this film!!!!!
Hi Karina - I heard you on film couch talking about the personal insults that come your way just because you have an opinion about a movie. Well kudos to you for doing what you are doing. Ignore those idiots and keep up the good good work.
Karina, yeah I thought film was a load of “gump” too - it was consoling to see my gut feeling about a film manifested into your thoughful and articulate arguments. Criticism serves various purposes, one of them, I think, therapeutic. When I see such a turkey of a film, I seek comfort in the dislike of others to help me recover from the time wasted I spent watching the film.
Hey Karina,
I think the majority of people who post comments should have to look up Ad hominem attacks and how to avoid them. In other words, if you have something to say about the movie, say it about the movie and not about the reviewer. Like this:
I disagreed with your review. The reasons were pretty simple. I thought it was beautiful where you thought it was manufactured. I thought the sentimentality was realistic and moving where you thought it was forced. And I was not in the least distracted by the CGI. The comparisons to Forest Gump were funny, but only nominal at best. Yes, some of the characters shared similarities, but after reading this review and listening to you on FilmCouch, I thought they were overblown in their negativity.
I feel that your review was overly critical of the emotional material from beginning to end. From listening to your previous critiques on FilmCouch, it seems that you are hard on what might be considered as emotional manipulation. For instance, you did not like the prologue of the film, where the clock-maker creates the backwards timepiece. In fact, you mocked him both in your review and on the podcast. This was very hard for me to hear. That part of the film was not manipulative. I feel that there is a very big difference between presenting something that is generally considered sad and manipulation. Loss and death are powerful forces, and the emotions they conjure are powerful as well. Just because they are prevalent doesn’t mean that mentioning them automatically makes the film passe.
I feel that your adverse reaction to the prologue negatively skewed your perception of the rest of the movie.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this review.
Firstly about the coincidences, mainly because if you paid attention you would see Benjamin’s father had been watching him for years. There are a few scenes in which you can see his black car either sitting outside the house, with him inside, watching Benjamin or just driving by. They are very subtle about it, which explains why you would have missed it. I’m fairly certain they were implying that his father followed him to the whorehouse.
As for the old women who happens to be dying with Hurricane Katrina raging on outside - don’t you think that there were many, many very sick, very old people in the hospitals at the time of Katrina? Wouldn’t you think they’d tell their loved ones some very important truths? That isn’t a coincidence at all.
Maybe the NASA thing could be considered a coincidence but in my opinion, if I knew something monumental such as that was taking place I’d position myself in a great spot to see it too. Just because the directors weren’t overly obvious with the “how and why” these characters were treated to these events it doesn’t mean that they hadn’t thought about it. I think they expected their audience to be clever enough to piece things together.
Never mind the fact that it is supposed to be a story of love, it is one even more so of ageism. The point I took away from this movie was that no matter your age on the outside, you can still do whatever you aspire to do. Whether it be working on a boat at 14 years old or traveling Thailand at 80. The love story was almost secondary to that message, in my opinion.
You let yourself be too distracted by the “CGI” to see the true beauty of the film itself.
Pure shite. I just watched this and thought my clock was running backwards; it just seemed like it was never going to end. One of the worst films I have seen.
hmmm as a black woman i didnt find the film offensive in the slightest. Only bland. yes perhaps the women were all stereptypical two dimensional characters but this hollywood folks. not worth a lawsuit there are worse films to tackle first.
i was so excited about the film but was bored throughout. the old lady telling the story from her death bed is the easiest way to annoy any film viewer. it is so overdone. the story unfolded in the same style as forrest gump (unsuprisingly) but each new area of teh stroy was undeveloped and so i lost interest. a series of individual stories very badly sewn together.
honestly i was devastated. great cast, great short story, great costume, make up - rubbish film
Why can’t Brad Pitt just buy his Oscar and spare us this excruciatingly dull performance. Kudos to special effects and the ability for short sightedness in the spin of american cinema to elevate sub par performances to celebratory status. There is nothing new here, a revisit of Titanic/Forest Gump with sickeningly sweet and overacted stiff play-acting by the latex covered american sweetheart Brad Pitt. Terrible, just terrible, and I’m watching it again as I type this with even more of a feeling of “hollywood stole hours of my life” syndrome. Where is the originality, with so many excellent story tellers outside of america’s decadent, desolate boundaries. I’d rather watch Happy Days or some such drivel. Dull, Dull, Dull….. pretty boy makes another movie in nice clothes and little personal yachts and pretty well done hair….ohhh jesus you’re boring pitt and hollywood, pretty is over!. This ain’t no Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald folks.
Cheers to you Mickey Rourke!
Just watched it a second time to see if I was being too harsh. Terrible, just plain terrible.
You don’t need to be a well known or wannabe movie critic to be sickened by this cheap storytelling. I dare you to listen to the introspective narration by the protagonist just at the end after the baby so symbolically closes it’s eyes after another sickening bout of mindful rhetoric from the female lead… ewwww. And on and on it goes.
I love that the credits are finally rolling and I can slingshot this back to the oblivion of the web.
You can’t buy accolades pretty boy, but I hear you do try to earn them honestly, so keep at it.
Cheers to you Jeff Spicoli
Curious LENGTH of Benjamin Button.
I am at least one month behind the crowd…
The reason why I wasn’t rushing to the theatres to watch this one when it came out (on Christmas day we watched “Marley and Me”) was because I am not a fan of Pitt. Nope. I am not. Shoot me.
The reason why I finally watched it today was because “Taken” was sold out and we had 40 minutes before the start of this one. So, we figured since we decided to spend a night at the movies, may as well stick to the decision.
Anyhow… I am no critic, I am just a movie lover.
Here are my 2 late cents:
Too long. I wanted to walk away about 3 times.
It was funny as my date left for the washroom right before the marine battle scene and came back when it was over and the brave tugboat ran over the submarine.
On the way home I told him that he missed the most action-packed scene and he wouldn’t believe me! That was funny… 5 minutes of staying awake…
Nice fairy tale for adults. I like the movies (even not so great movies) that make you realize you are really in a fairy land.
About the racism… Actually I was very surprised, that in portraying the vivid racist times this movie was so gentle to the skin difference. In fact, it showed Queenie more as a woman in charge, than a black servant.
Overall… wait till it comes to DVD… Because this way you can really spend 2.5 hours watching it, being able to go to the washroom at any time, grab some munchies, or unashamedly fall asleep on the couch.
2 little stars for letting me see the “tugboat” war.
Your review is spot on. I was really disappointed with this movie. It was boring and dragged on way too long, I couldn’t wait for it to finish. The chaos theory sequence was extremely frustrating and nauseating, I couldn’t believe they included such a scene.
I have no comment about your ridiculous comments on this movie, except the you should never be allowed to write comments again. Well, maybe comments on yourself. They will be as off base as these were.
your ugly