|
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421715/ I went into this film with fairly high expectations because I was really impressed by the trailers. I was unfortunately disappointed. Imagine a beautiful, mysteriously quiet woman who you can't help but be drawn to because you want to know more. Then when you get to know her, you find out she's not mysteriously quiet at all - she's just boring and doesn't have a personality. The woman is this movie. Benjamin Button is a man who was born old and grows younger as he ages. The film is a story of his life in its entirety. Cinematography is as beautiful as they made it seem in the trailers, but there isn't much of a story. If they had left out the entire main plot point of his backwards aging, the movie would have been mostly the same. The story of his life is only a little different from everyone else; it's just what you could expect from a man who grows younger. Age processing is done impressively, but there is little character depth so instead of being amazed at Benjamin growing younger or Daisy's beauty, you think "hey, the CGI's pretty cool" or "hey, isn't Cate Blanchett actually like 40?" Cate's performance was the only thing that stood out at all in this movie. Her character was vibrant from age 20 till elderly, and was the closest thing to character development the movie has. Brad, well... if you've seen Meet Joe Black, he's exactly like that. Bland. Flat. Deadpan. If you plan to see this movie, see it for the peaceful lifelong journey of an unremarkable man who just happens to age younger. Don't expect a heart wrenching romance or a psychological battle with his condition or.... well, anything but a quiet, pleasant movie with no personality. Pros: Cinematography, Cate Blanchett Cons: Snoozer of a story 3/5, just because I like pretty things.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2009 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Really the only reason I watched this movie was because the whole "reverse aging" premise sounded cool but in the end it was wholly unnecessary and it only served to add a little corniness to the beginning of the film. The movie as a whole was rather trite and predictable and it felt like a lesser version of Big Fish for most of its length. Overall it was boring and it felt like the writer couldn't decide if he really wanted to include fantasy elements in his somewhat serious drama. The biggest problem, however, is that the movie is far too long. I felt like I would've enjoyed it more if it had gotten to the point about 45 minutes faster. Not an awful film but not all that great either, I probably won't watch it again. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
Saw this yesterday. Fantastic movie. David Fincher does it again. Story - The story is Forest-Gump-esque. The story of a man who is born old and grows younger, instead of older. Saying much more would be giving too much away. Safe to say, the story is not action-packed. In fact, there is really only 1 action scene n the entire movie. Despite this, I was totally sucked in the entire time. I never had the urge to check my watch (despite the fact I saw this at 11:00pm)  . This is a fantastic date movie, for sure. The movie is more about how two people hold on to each other (emotionally) despite being so far apart from each other so much. Again, like Forest Gump.Acting - The acting is fantastic. This is a good thing, because the entire movie relies on this fact, since there is no action scene to take your mind or your attention off the actors. Good - Well directed, great acting, touching, great date movie (great movie in general) Bad - Dont expect endless action scenes - or even two of them Overall - 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2009 18:46
|
|
|
It's pretty easy to talk about most of this movie as there's nothing really to give away. Everyone know the story. He is born old and grows younger. That's pretty much the movie. At almost 3 hours it was WAY too long. Very boring and only a couple of very small jokes here and there to lighten the mood. As was mentioned earlier this is nothing more than the life of a man who happens to be growing younger. The entire backdrop of the hospital and hurricane was completely pointless. I haven't read the book so maybe these things are explained but the backwards clock in the station seemed to have no point as well. Just a coincidence for no apparent reason. Also it was odd but he really started as a baby and ended as a baby. When I heard about the movie I was very curious as to how he would be born and die. I guess the way they did it was the only way. It was really sad at the end where she is walking him as a baby. It was interesting, but it ended up just being a gimmick to see a boring three hour long love story movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2009 08:07
|
|
|
It was OK. There were a few parts I liked, and a few parts I disliked. I like these kinds of "view snapshots of an entire life" movies, like Forrest Gump, Big Fish, or Slumdog Millionaire. I don't know why, but I find them really really interesting. Brad Pitt does a good job; nothing fantastic, but pretty good. I think the aging concept is somewhat novel, but they could have done a lot more about it. Benjamin notices that he's growing younger, but he seems pretty cool with it. I guess I just expected people to give more of a poo poo. This movie had a lot of unnecessary bits. I thought it was completely unnecessary to use CGI for the first half of the movie. I've said it once and I'll say it again; CGI on organic objects just doesn't work. I think they should have used makeup and used perspective tricks for height (like in Lord of the Rings). I know people are going to argue with me, but I thought Tilda Swinton and the hotel subplot was completely unnecessary. It added virtually nothing to the plot, and it took up like 25 minutes. I, too, was wondering how he was going to die. I guess they did it the only way they could. It wouldn't really be feasible to have Brad Pitt put on baby makeup. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2009 07:41
|
|
|
This movie was very slow. It primarily consisted of Brad Pitts character staring blankly at things with his CGI face. Kate Blanchet was good at being Kate Blanchet. Predictable, the parallels with Gump where a distraction. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 18:29
|
|
|
Complete waste of time to be honest. For a 3 hour movie it has a quite astonishing lack of depth. The characters are incredibly superficial and there simply is no plot. All you see is some guy at some places meeting some people, but never do you know why he is doing what he does. None of it is used for any kind of character building, in fact there simply is no character. It’s just some guy that ages backwards, that is all there is to him. Never do you even get a glimpse of how this emotionally affects him. The movie really is only about the gimmick and the special effects. Thing is, you can see all of that in just the trailer, no need to spend 3 hours stretching the exact same content out. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2009 21:54
|
|
|
This movie was, in a word, incredible. I loved everything about it: the casting, the originality, the acting, the special effects... In an era where slop like Meet the Spartans can dominate box office sales for weeks, it's nice to see gems such as this movie still capable of being churned out. It certainly had it's moments of sadness, however you can't help but have a warm, melancholy feel due to the optimism and overall different outlook on everyday aspects of life that all humans endure. Highest rating possible and highest recommendations. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2009 10:08
|
|
|
Finally got around to this flick and I have to agree with the OP. It's way too drat long and just doesn't have that much to show for it. There were too many threads that just seemed to go nowhere, like his romance with that english woman. Still pretty heartbreaking by the end, but there certainly wasn't enough emotional investment for me to stop checking the clock every ten minutes. The other posters who compared it to Forest Gump are right, too. This movie is similar in both form and details, so if you liked that movie...go hog wild. Early 20th century N'awlins was pretty cool, and the accents seemed authentic enough, as did (most) of Benjamin's reverse aging. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2009 08:05
|
|
|
You can take any one scene of the film outside of the Katrina/hospital fluff and have something awesome. Every scene on its own works terrifically. The acting is flawless, the dialogue is well written, gorgeous cinematography, and perfect effects. Yet it never comes together as a whole. It ends up being too reliant on the novelty of Benjamin's condition to solidify. But it's not a bad movie. Just something that lacks a point other than the shallow theme of time going by. Oddly enough, I'm more compelled to see the making-of documentary since it's probably more interesting how it was made rather than the film itself. 2/5 (5 for style, 0 for substance)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2009 05:13
|
|
|
The Curious Case of Falling the gently caress Asleep I imagine this one started out as Forest Gump + Brad Pitt + fancy special effects = dollars and statues. I'm usually pretty judicious about movies I watch so I tend to avoid bad ones. The allure of David Fincher, coming off the fantastic and underrated Zodiac, proved to be too much. Brad Pitt is not a good actor. He just Meet Joe Black'ed all the way through Forest Gump. The main appeal of the movie lies in the gimmick of Button aging backwards. Which might have been cool in the hands of a capable actor and more importantly not done as the centerpiece of the movie. Brad Pitt is just a blank, hollow slate. He one-ups Keanu Reeves only because of his blinding charisma. Bury him under special effects and a droll plot line, and you've got the movie equivalent of sitting on the front porch watching grass grow. Cate Blanchett is effectively this film's Jenny, and is fleshed out about just as well. You never really get why the two long for each other over so many years. Since Pitt looks like James Dean and has access to a smorgasbord of tail, and Blanchett seems to like men who are thrilling socialites, whereas Button seems borderline retarded. After what seemed like a few days of watching the movie, we finally just shut it off and returned it back to Redbox. Brad Pitt is very watchable when he plays quirky, offbeat characters (12 Monkeys, Burn After Reading, etc.) but he can't play very internalized characters well at all (Meet Joe Black, Troy, etc.). That's not to even speak of the special effects. Which were just jarring, awkward, and creepy. Good intentions, bad flick. Take that movie! 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2009 16:03
|
|
|
If you've seen Forest Gump then you've seen this movie before. It's hard to dislike any of Fincher's movies but this one is highly derivative of just about every period piece/love story movie ever made. Similar to Gump the protagonist is afflicted with a tear jerking disability and has to find his way through life being abnormal and meeting various eccentric characters and living life to the fullest etc.. The reverse aging "disability" of Benjamin Button is a bit much when it comes to a plot gimmick and really borders on being completely absurd halfway through the movie. With that being said the movie is still beautifully shot and has great location pieces. Even if it's terribly mediocre it's still well worth watching for this alone. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2009 18:10
|
|
|
I had to watch this movie in 2 sittings because its 3 hours long and feels like 5. I enjoyed the cast and the special effects but beyond that it was a pretty boring and pointless movie. All of the parts set in modern times were bordering on painful. I guess its worth watching once but the movie is basically just a second rate Forest Gump. I am a bit disappointed in Fincher because I usually really enjoy his films. 3/5 Edit: Also, after the movie was over I found myself wanting to watch the making of feature because I am sure its more interesting than the movie. Unfortunately it is not on disc 1 so you are pretty much going to have to buy it if you want to see the special features. Renters beware. veni veni veni fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2009 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
I love David Fincher. But I dont like David Fincher trying to be Tim Burton. 2/5
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2009 16:04
|
|
