I watched this tonight. David Fincher is quite good at telling long tales. First with Zodiac, now with this movie, he’s good at showing the passage of time, and telling a long, nicely paced tale.
Funkman sums up the movie itself very nicely above. It doesn’t wow you, but it’s a nice yarn with some nice moments.
I could not agree more.
Thumbs marginally down from me. Without spoilers, here’s what’s good about it: the special effects are really pretty amazing. This is another one of those movies that is a showcase for the fact that CGI can do a lot more than, as Tom likes to put it, aliens and dinosaurs. Cate Blanchett is very good throughout. The production values are very high. Pitt does a good job at conveying his character’s mental age despite his incongruous physical age (for those who don’t know, the gimmick is that his body ages backwards but his mind ages forwards, so he starts out with an old man’s body with a child’s mind, and progresses through having a teenager’s body with a sixty-year-old’s mind, and beyond).
But the movie has a lot of problems. First off, it’s so ridiculously similar to Roth’s “Forrest Gump,” but with less whimsy, that I found myself continually distracted. This is exactly the same structure and pretty much exactly the same story. Pitt plays the character very flat, which makes it difficult to connect or empathize with him (a task already made difficult because his character is so unique). Again going back to Forrest Gump, it’s interesting because Hanks was in the same boat, playing a character who’s written with almost zero emotion and who is difficult to relate to because of his disability. But Hanks at least has a couple scenes towards the end where he makes the character very vulnerable and human, but Pitt doesn’t really pull that off, IMO. It’s too bad, because I agree with the poster above that Pitt is generally a very good actor, and I had high hopes for him in this.
The movie also never quite overcame its premise for me. I’m willing to give them a lot of slack, but the way everyone just reacted to Pitt with a sort of “Oh, you age backwards? Well, how interesting. What’s for lunch?” was a problem for me. Pitt and Blanchett didn’t have a lot of chemistry on screen and I never understood how they were supposed to be fated for each other or even frankly why they kept throwing themselves at one another. Finally, the movie is pretty long, and although I was never bored while watching it, it definitely takes a lot of side-quests and weird cul-de-sacs that don’t amount to much.
Back on the up-side, though, it does have a couple of messages that I really liked. And there are a couple of pretty cool sequences, although I won’t spoil anything at this point in the thread.
Anyway, overall I would say I’m not sorry I watched it, but given the number of movies out right now that I want to see, I probably could have made better use of my time.
Holy cats, Eric Roth wrote Forrest Gump? <checks IMDB> Man, that explains a lot, Rywill.
Good comments, and I think I’m with you most of the way. I didn’t mind that no one reacted to the scientific anomaly of the gimmick, because it would have taken the movie in a completely different direction. The little intro with Elias Koteas pretty much took care of that: “Hey, audience, here’s a little magical realism, so don’t ask too many questions, okay?”. (BTW, that intro, and the little “I was struck by lightning 7 times” asides, felt like a stab at a Magnolia-style PT Anderson whimsy.)
I fully agree about the Pitt/Blanchett chemistry, which is odd, because they were really tremendous together in Babel as a couple on the rocks. I guess I have to blame the material. And Pitt’s character’s decision at the end of the movie felt totally unnecessary. It was as if the movie needed something marginally dark or sad or tragic, so, um, let’s have the main character make a decision even if it turns out to be totally unnecessary. “Remember that stuff about not asking questions, audience? Can you keep that in mind while we play you into the denouement? kthx, credits, bye.”
And there was pretty much nothing here that felt like a David Fincher movie. My theory, now that I see Eric Roth is the Forrest Gump guy, is that Fincher stayed home and had Roth play director.
Also, I’m definitely not down with the movie’s framing device. I do have to say that Julia Ormand was utterly frickin’ gorgeous in a Real World way (seriously, it was almost distracting in a movie full of CG beautification and aging and glamor shots of Brad Pitt in nice clothes puttering around on sailboats and motorcycles during sunsets to see Julia Ormand in hospital lighting with what seemed like minimal make-up and clothes she presumably threw on to attend to a sick parent). But the story didn’t need an English Patient reminiscence or a paternity mystery that should be mysterious to exactly no one. It was long enough as it was. Also, uh, Hurricane Katrina*? What was the point of that?
Anyway, I enjoyed the movie well enough as I watched it, but it pretty much went in one ear and out the other. For far better treatments of what should be haunting subject matter (love, timelessness, aging), I’d recommend Let the Right One In and Birth.
-Tom
- BTW, can anyone think of a good movie that manages to incorporate Hurricane Katrina as anything other than a “Oh, we’re shooting in New Orleans, so we better do something Katrina-related” way? Benjamin Button, that blah Denzel Washingon time travel movie, and the wretched Tommy Lee Jones adaptation of James Lee Burke’s Electric Mist novel all come to mind. Has any movie done anything interesting with Katrina?
Spike Lee’s When The Levees Broke… does that count?
Dude, that’s a documentary. We’re talking about movies!
(Just to further the thread derail, I wondered because some movies have done a great job using 9/11 as something other than a nod to the filming location: 25th Hour, The Savages, and Reign Over Me all used 9/11 as a part of the storyline, even though none of those movies is specifically about 9/11. I can’t think of anything that does this with Hurricane Katrina.)
-TomYeah, I totally agree. They were one of the best things about that movie, and here: pretty much nothing. Interestingly, I thought they both looked awesome in Babel the same way Ormand looks awesome in Benjamin Button – the non-glamorous, Real World way. It was the first (and still only, I think) movie where I saw Pitt looking like a natural person over 40. And he pulled it off well.
SPOILERS
And Pitt’s character’s decision at the end of the movie felt totally unnecessary.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure what they were trying to do here. Pitt’s the one who is all “Nothing is forever,” but Blanchett is the one who tells him “Some things never change.” And up through the time he leaves, both characters are holding to that view. But then in her 50’s, Blanchett is just like “Oh, yeah, you’re totally right, this would never have worked,” but then at the end she completely reverses herself again. I couldn’t tell if the stuff with her and the new husband and teenage Pitt was supposed to be her defensively blowing him off like she did in the hospital, or if she genuinely believed that Pitt was right to leave, or what.
I could see Pitt’s motivation, though. But it’s a bit weird, because the whole movie they mostly avoid dealing with “realistic” takes on how his backwardness would affect his life, and then all of the sudden he makes this huge life decision based on it. The movie definitely pulls a big gear-switch at that point, so if that’s what you mean, I couldn’t agree with you more.
My theory, now that I see Eric Roth is the Forrest Gump guy, is that Fincher stayed home and had Roth play director.
It’s really annoying to me how similar the two movies are. Especially because I really didn’t like Forrest Gump.
Also, I’m definitely not down with the movie’s framing device.
Me either. It added nothing to the movie at all, other than frickin’ gorgeous Julia Ormand. When they get to the part about young Ormand meeting teenage Pitt at the dance studio, I was really hoping present-day Ormand was going to say “I don’t remember that at all,” which would have been emotionally a lot more effective (and more realistic, to boot). And nitpick: in the midlife part of the movie, Ormand is all amazed that her mom used to be this famous ballerina (“You never mentioned anything about your dancing!”), but then at the end of the movie it’s apparent that her mom has been a ballet teacher all of Ormand’s life. Huh? Has Roth or Fincher never been to an actual ballet studio? The teacher/owners make their LIVING based on their reputation as dancers-back-in-the-day.
Also, uh, Hurricane Katrina*? What was the point of that?
Seriously. Afterwards I was like, “Maybe it was a sort of metaphor for Ormand’s impending discovery of her heritage,” but I think it was just there to be there.
PS: Other good thing about the movie: Tilda Swinton. Have my babies, Tilda.
Actually, I believe Ormand said, “You never talked about your dancing.” Which is subtly different. It may have been common knowledge that she had been a very successful professional dancer, but it is something that the never talked about, it being a very painful reminder of what she had lost.
What I didn’t understand [SPOILERS COMING]
… is why Benjamin changed his mind. He’d committed himself to not being an imposition on Daisy, yet even as a teen, well before he started to lose it, he came back.
Technically, I also don’t like the dementia angle. The common understanding of Alzheimer’s Disease is that the dementia is caused by the buildup of plaques and tangles of protein in the brain. It is a physical ailment, and if Benjamin’s body was getting younger, there is no reason why he would get dementia as a boy. Just the opposite. He should have started with it, and then lost it over time. It feels as if they needed a reason why he would once again become childlike, and not a precocious infant, and they fixed on that. It’s not a reasonable explanation. I know this is all “magical realism” but… well, I didn’t like this at all.
Overall, I did enjoy the film, I did not regret the time spent watching it; I found myself extremely moved at many points. Moved, without feeling manipulated. Everytime they watched a sunrise over the Gulf, I felt an appreciation for the beauty of the world we live in.
I thought the movie was okay, it had the potential for greatness but was flawed.
*** SPOILER ***
For me the movie should have been more directly about Blanchet and Pitt’s characters who, like pendulum’s swinging in opposite directions, come together during the zenith of their arc’s for a perfect moment. From there out their stories should be symbolic reflections of each other. What the characters need should be in the other and each could become the other as they arc away.
Something to show us that we become many people throughout our lives, maybe even that we become every person at sometime in our lives. We are all the ass, the slut, the giver, the taker, the prude, etc.
I like the point about the impact of chance in our lives (the butterfly effect). But rather than work that into a theme in the movie they just spent what felt like 10 minutes on it in one burst and never referenced it again.
The pull outs to the daughters story was unnessesary and hurt the continuity of the movie for me. Of course once you include the daughters story you need the revelation that she’s his daughter, which isn’t much of a revelation since thats what most of the audience assumes from the beginning anyway.
Likewise the subplot with Pitt’s father either needed to be cut or made more significant. Here I think they could have done more with it. Maybe as a mirror with Blanchet’s character who would lose one of her parents early in life as Pitt gains one late in life. I know changes at that level are a lot more than simple tweaks and would require the entire move to be written around it. But that was the sort of movie I was hoping for.
Saw it couple hours ago. At times it was slow, silly, pointless, but…
I enjoyed it thoroughly. Definitely played on the heartstrings well in a few moments, and piano soundtrack in parts was fantastic.
I did think the movie needed some editing, but it’s definitely a thumbs up.
Whoever did the makeup work (digital or real) deserves an Oscar, if they give out Oscars for makeup. Was anyone else creeped out by teenage Brad Pitt?
Just saw the movie and loved it. I thought it was a wonderfully moving story and reminded me again that despite his pretty boy image and tabloid status that Pitt actually has some acting chops.
Holy shit, this movie was so much better than Forrest Gump. Yes they are similar, but most of the similarities (and almost all the ones in the above linked video) are pretty standard for any biographical fiction.
Wasn’t MOTY for me, definitely too meandering, but I thought it was good. Brad Pitt was the strong point for me. I’m not a huge fan of bookends, but the ones in Button were better than most, and as Tom says they had a hot lady in them.
Did you watch the video Devil M. Flanks linked? It did a great job of pointing out how the similarities aren’t just the trappings of standard biographical fiction. I can’t imagine much of that stuff comes from the F. Scott Fitzgerald story. So much of it felt like the screenwriter just falling back to his Forrest Gump schtick.
-Tom
Yeah I did, shall we go through them?
Legit connections:
“Raised in Louisiana by a single mother…”
“Spends time on a boat in the Gulf,”
“And he always remembers the cryptic advice from his mamma.”
“The touching story of a man-child, told through flashbacks.” - Not that Button is a ‘man-child’, but they’re both weird people and both movies are definitely told through flashbacks.
“Told through thick Louisiana accents” - Fair enough.
Bullshit ones:
‘Handicapped at birth, he eventually learns to walk.’ Uh… Fitzgerald’s ‘handicap’ is the premise of the movie. And Button, just like all of us, can’t walk for a couple years after he’s born.
“As a child he meets the true love of his life. They grow up and part ways, she moves to the big city, he travels the world, enters a war, becomes a hero, finds his girl… but she is not ready.” - This is the part I really took issue with. Never mind that Button never becomes a war hero. The two relationships are not too similar. Jenny isn’t attracted to Forrest at first because he’s a retard, which she eventually gets over. Cate Blanchett, as a young girl, cannot get close to old-man Button - they can’t be happy together until they are of similar physical and mental ages. There’s also the whole thing where Forrest Gump abjectly worships Jenny, while Button actually rejects her once. I mean yeah they both have a part where the guy wants the girl but can’t get her just yet, but so does every movie ever made. Actually as I type it out like this, you could say that Robertson Davies’ Fifth Business ripped off Forrest Gump too. :)
“He befriends a weird black dude.” - Stupid.
Now, as far as the tone of each movie goes, I am totally with you. The video pointed out the “My name’s Forrest/Benjamin” part, and the movies share that whole “okay now it’s time to cry” style of writing that’s so popular with Oscarbait movies. But to compare the two movies plot point by plot point and say that they’re almost the same is IMO silly.
Wow, that was a lot of text for a movie I didn’t especially like, heh.
Wait, wait, you do know they’re written by the same person, don’t you?
Anyone, no one’s saying they’re the same. Well, okay, that video was saying it for comic effect. But I take issue with the similarities being dismissed as “pretty standard for any biographical fiction”. I’m going to need at least three more examples before I can accept that one. :)
-TomI agree wtih Malcolm. If Benjamin Button is Gump’s sibling it’s the older film’s dark brother. Thematically Gump was about life while Button is about death. And Button isn’t going through life meeting famous people or quipping rote lines from his mother. The comparison really is pretty shallow and falls flat beyond any cursory examination.
No, the comparison is right on. Structurally, the two movies are extremely similar: they’re both told from an older/semi-omnipotent perspective of the main character, in flashback, taking key scenes from a long life and showing them to us, then skipping ahead to the next key scene, etc. They even use the same silly visual motifs to make points, like the feather in Forrest Gump and the hummingbird in Benjamin Button.
Story-wise, they’re also extremely similar. I don’t know what bullshit Malcom is spewing about how this story is “standard for any biographical fiction.” What the fuck? Both stories are about a man with some profound mental difference that separates him from the world around him. He’s born early in the 20th century in the southeastern United States. In each case, he has no strong father figure but a very strong, loving, and protective mother figure, whose sage advice – amounting, essentially, to “go with the flow” – he follows throughout his life. In each story he meets the love of his life while they are both children, but in each story they cannot be together at first (or for many years thereafter) because of his handicap, and because the girl is unsettled in herself. In each story the girl goes off to find herself, and so the boy goes off traveling the world having a series of adventures, including such growing-to-a-man pursuits as going to war and learning the sea. During this time, the boy finds a sort of surrogate father-figure, a man who is abrasive and often emotionally closed, but in the end loves our protagonist and helps him grow. In each story, the girl and the boy each pursue their own interests, including romantic interests, but cannot settle on anyone else because we know they’ve been destined for each other since childhood. The boy eventually lucks into substantial wealth. Eventually, in both stories, the boy and the girl burn out their desire to find themselves and realize that what they really have wanted all along is to be together, and so they get together, finally, as adults. In both stories they conceive a single child, but in both stories that child’s paternity is kept secret or in doubt from at least one of the key players, and in both stories the boy and girl can’t live happily ever after, instead becoming separated by fate just after they found a short time of true happiness. But all is not sadness, because in both cases we know that their child, the culmination, end, and beginning of the meaning of their relationship, lives on as a strong and healthy addition to the world.
That paragraph sums up both movies in great detail and leaves out almost nothing of importance. There is not one single sentence in that paragraph that is “standard to all biographical fiction.” Maybe you only watch Eric Roth movies, but there are a bazillion biographical fictional stories that can be and have been told that don’t involve any of those plot points.
Edit: Oh, and the main characters are extremely similar as well. They’re both emotionally flat, almost Zenlike, guys who approach life with a childlike sense of wonder and take the curveballs life throws at them with aplomb. They’re both noble men with essentially no vices at all, who view the benign vices of the men around them with some amusement, but never getting stained by them. They are both fundamentally different from everyone else, but in each case they simply accept that and move on, rather than being bitter or enraged about it. Both go through life with a sense of vague longing and un-fulfilledness, until they hook up with the girl, and then both carry with them a sort of profound shadow of sadness after the breakup.