Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

[The following contains minor spoilers for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.]

The premise of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button holds a great deal of promise: If you were forced to live life backwards, starting with old age and ending with infancy, how would you do it differently? If you experienced the tragic death of those around you at the outset of life, how would that change the way you valued future relationships? If you could re-live your young adult days with the accumulated knowledge of 60 years of experience, how enthusiastically would you take on the world? After reading about the film and watching director David Fincher’s interview with Charlie Rose, it’s clear to me that Fincher set out primarily to make a movie that answers these questions. While I don’t think he succeeds to any meaningful degree, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is nonetheless a beautiful, moving film, and one that ultimately and profoundly confronts notions of fate and chance.

Benjamin (Brad Pitt) is born in New Orleans, Louisiana on November 11, 1918, on the day that World War I ends. His mother dies during childbirth and his father (Jason Flemyng), disgusted by Benjamin’s grotesque appearance and gutted by the tragedy of his wife’s death, leaves him on the doorstep of a nursing home. Queenie (played wonderfully by Taraji P. Henson, in what will surely be one of the most underrated performances of the year), a religious staff worker who believes herself to be barren, considers Benjamin to be a miracle and takes him as her child. As Benjamin gets older, he ages backwards, turning from a decrepit man with a sharp and curious mind into a babbling toddler. Along the way, he falls in love with Daisy (Cate Blanchett), the granddaughter of one of the nursing home’s tenants, and the two must deal with the complications of aging in reverse directions.

The screenplay for Button was written by Eric Roth and shares many similarities with that of Forrest Gump, which Roth also wrote. Both films depict the course of one person’s life through a series of vignettes, set against a backdrop of significant events in American history (while this was appropriate for Gump, it occasionally feels a little too cute for this film). Both films are bookended by a character retelling the main narrative of the film, and in both films, the significance of this retelling is initially unclear. Both films repeatedly return to a single, central love story.

But although Button also shares a keen sense of humor with Gump, it’s a much more somber affair and tries to say something much more profound about life. About a third of the way through the film, Benjamin is walking through the streets of Russia with love interest Elisabeth Abbott (Tilda Swinton) when the middle-aged Abbott gives the well-worn speech about how she wish she could start over and live her youthful days again, but carrying the knowledge that she has built up over time. This seems to be the thesis of the entire movie and throughout the film’s 2 hour and 48 minute runtime, we feel a build-up to the end of Benjamin’s life, when he will apply the lessons he’s learned through his vast array of life experiences. In this regard, the movie simply doesn’t deliver. Benjamin is just as aimless at the end of his life in his 20-year old body as he was in his 80-year old body at the beginning, and it leaves us wondering: What was the whole point of living your life backwards in the first place?

While the film fails at its explicit purpose, it succeeds in many other ways. The reverse aging plot device becomes less a way of channeling experiences, but rather a life obstacle like any other that Benjamin must deal with. How can you fall in love with someone who’s getting older as you are getting younger? What can your life be like with that person? How can you be a father when you’ll eventually look younger than your child? These are the issues that the movie becomes primarily concerned with towards its final act, and there is a deep satisfaction that comes from watching how the characters resolve these issues.

In this sense, Button is a meditation on the vagaries of life circumstances and the immutability of chance and luck. In our lives, we interact regularly with our social network of friends, while everyday we pass by countless others on the street, in our classrooms, or in our offices that we’ll never ever talk with. Under different circumstances, these random strangers could be friends, acquaintances, confidantes, even lovers, but because of the cards that life has dealt us, they are not. In Benjamin’s case, life has dealt him a reverse aging condition that takes him on a path opposite to that of everyone he loves. He’s forced to say goodbye to people when he should be joining them and commiserating with them under shared circumstances. There is a profound sadness to this fate, and for me, this is what Button ended up being: A well-told story of a life that is subject to the whims of destiny, filled with tragedy.

If nothing else, Button is astonishing in its grandeur and breathtaking in its beauty. Fincher’s trademark meticulousness is fully on display here: There is nary a shot that doesn’t feel perfectly chosen, nor a frame that doesn’t feel carefuly composed. The production and art design faithfully replicate the different decades of American history that the film takes you through. There is so much detail to drink in that the eye can scarcely handle it all. In short, the look of the film is absolutely perfect, and worth watching for that reason alone.

The special effects in this film also represent a remarkable achievement. Rarely has the detailed transformation of a single person from youth to old age been attempted in such a fashion on screen; never before has it been given life as convincingly as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Throughout the film, I marveled at how the 20-year-old Brad Pitt and 80-year-old Brad Pitt both remained indelibly Brad Pitt, despite their vastly different physiques. Credit must also, of course, be given to Blanchett and Pitt, who manage to skillfully portray their characters at multiple different stages of life. The sheer physical evolution of these characters throughout the film is nothing short of extraordinary (and that’s saying nothing about their equally significant emotional journeys).

Despite its flaws, Button is a unique journey worth taking. While the trajectory of Benjamin’s physiology is mostly a gimmick, the film uses it to bring us back to that familiar cinematic theme: the possibility of love under impossible circumstances. Perhaps, underneath all the tragedy, death, and pain, there is hope to be found in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. After all, if Benjamin Button could find love and fulfillment with all the considerable circumstances arrayed against him, maybe love is not impossible for us either.

David Chen can be reached at davechensemail(AT)gmail.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.

/Film Rating: 8.5 out of 10

About the Author

David Chen currently does research and writing for a university in the Boston area. He can be reached at davechensemail(AT)gmail(DOT)com.

  • Zinc
    So, not as good as Slumdog, eh?
  • I found slumdog to be over hyped. It's a good movie, but def. not oscar worthy. Revolutionary Road. Now that will def. with have acting nominations. THIS, I'm seeing tomorrow
  • you are crazy. Slumdog lives up to great expectations,the movie almost made me cry a few times. I just saw Benjamin Button tonight-- a very BEAUTIFUL, moving movie.
  • Cry? Why? It didn't feel dramatic to me at all.
  • "A well-told story of a life that is subject to the whims of destiny, filled with tragedy." Sounds just like my kind of film! Slumdog and Milk (tagged as 'Award films') lived up to my expectations, so I'm quite anticipating this film, however for some idiotic reason the United Kingdom isn't getting this film till at least the 1st of February. Hmm...
  • Spoiler Alert:

    Just curious: Could you further explain what you mean by using american history as a backdrop to the movie seemed a bit too cute for this film versus Forrest Gump?

    I can see how in Forrest Gump the historic backdrop is a bit more relevant and appears a little less forced; however, I don't see how things such as placing Hurricane Katrina and a confrontation during World War II in the film follow your claim.

    Also, I saw this film last night, and I'm wondering what was the relevance of the african american male who takes Benjamin Button to get a root beer. Upon further dissection, my sister claimed that this was significant because it was Benjamin's first time out of his realm of comfort; however, I just feel like that african american character turned out to be a bit irrelevant and unnecessary.

    Overall I enjoyed reading this review, and I love your work. Can't wait for the filmcast on Monday discussing this movie. Take care.

    -Omar
  • @Omar and @Angry Broomstick

    Upon further reflection, my use of the word "cute" was probably inappropriate. "Unnecessary" or "forced" would probably have been better. Whereas "Gump" used these historical elements to great effect to evoke nostalgia and humor, this movie uses them primarily to either convey the passage of time or to try to infuse some austerity into the proceedings. Like many other things in this film, I didn't feel like they used history particularly well.
  • The pygmy guy was Benjamin's first real friend, if I remember correctly. I think Benjamin even says this in narration.
  • jason B
    "Benjamin is just as aimless at the end of his life in his 20-year old body as he was in his 80-year old body at the beginning, and it leaves us wondering: What was the whole point of living your life backwards in the first place?"

    you point this out as one of the flaws, though it seems to be a majorly overlooked answer to the very question you pose: no matter what we have planned inside our heads, we are living a life without a 'how to manual'...even if someone were given this odd and beautiful oportunity, who's to say they would successfully do things differently, or avoid those mistakes? every single one of us says, 'if i only knew then, what i know now...', but i still suspect that mistakes would be made even if we did have this knowledge. what fincher is pointing out - and what you greatly missed - is that here is an example of a guy who is able to do just that, and even he "is aimless". that's one of life's beauties, and i think that's what fincher is saying - just my opinion, though.

    i've noticed lately, that it has sadly become very hip to poke holes and negativity into films that are very popular. why is that? you gave this film an 8.5, but the mood and overall theme of the review (you in fact come out and say that the film failed in its purpose!!) seemed to be that this was a flawed film with some high points, not a great film with a few flaws. can't it just be admitted that this film was good? or is that not cool anymore? or am i missing something?
  • David
    This a terrible film. We are entitled to poke holes into popular garbage.
  • halsmypal
    i thought the same thing when i read the part about him still being aimless. We always seem to view people at the end of their lives so strongly and like they have it all figured out, but while it think age does give you certain experience i dont think it will ever show you "the way". I think that is probably what the movie was going for as well.
    So we are all screwed from the beginning... so what, if we all are than that just what it is to be human.
  • I really enjoyed this film, though I thought the narration was occasionally unnecessary when the emotional moments could have been told through visuals alone. It tended to stretch out the film, he could have achieved what he was going for in maybe 2 hours 15 minutes instead of 2 hours 45. Did that make it less of an amazing film? Nah, it was just a bit slower than it had to be.
  • i agree, ther were parts of the narration that could have been cut out.
  • jason B
    how come my comment was deleted? there wasn't anything offensive in it, at all.
  • Tichaon
    I have the same feeling about Taraji P Henson role also but thats how she has been viewed for quite a while with Talk To Me and Hustle and Flow
  • welcome to Hollywood, where black actresses are under-appreciated.
  • captainunderoo
    David good sir this is an excellent review... I have tell you that I very much look forward to your reviews as they are honest, well written pieces that are easy to absorb. You should handle all the reviews from this point forward and let hunter report on just news. Dont mean to bash on him but his reviews are boggled messes that hurts ones head. Please keep up the good work
  • edc
    seconded.
    I come here for movie news and David Chen. in that order.
  • Smither
    After viewing the film last night, I did feel it was overlong, but the performances, narrative, and visuals saved it. Good gosh, Claudio Miranda was outstanding as DP! :)
  • "While the trajectory of Benjamin’s physiology is mostly a gimmick, the film uses it to bring us back to that familiar cinematic theme: the possibility of love under impossible circumstances."

    I don't see how Benjamin's physiology was a gimmick. It was PART of the story! Anyway, your review was good, but I disagree with you about the historical backdrop being too "cute" (poor choice of word) for the film. I thought if anything, it enhances the story, but maybe it's not really needed in the first place.

    the movie was great. I want to buy it on DVD.
  • See my comment above re: the use of the word "cute." As for "gimmick," I was talking with my colleague Adam Quigley about this film and he made a point that I agree with: This film does not use the reverse aging element to make a profound statement about time, life, or death. It could have done that, but instead, it ends up feeling like just a plain old movie about someone with a strange aging disorder (albeit well-made, well-acted, and beautifully shot). In other words, it's kind of a waste.
  • i can see what you mean, but I didn't see it as gimmicky at all, though.
  • Amit
    david, i think the questions you put forth are beautiful, and if the movie had answered those, it would have gone down as one of the greatest film's in history. Excellent review. Beautiful movie...
  • David,

    you said that the film doesn't answer questions about life and that Benjamin Button never really found any answers. the movie has no answers, and neither does anybody else in this world.

    maybe the whole point is that we'll NEVER know (whether onscreen or in real life). Nobody really knows what's the purpose of life, let alone aging backward.

    that's what I think anyway...
  • In any other movie I might agree with you on this but I really don't think that's what they were going for. When you listen to interviews, like the Charlie Rose hour that is linked to on Slashfilm, you'll hear Fincher convey that he wanted Benjamin to be able to amass the wisdom of life and apply it to his decisions as he gets older (and as his body gets younger). But we never see this happen.

    Even in the movie's marketing materials, you see goal expressed. "Life can only be understood backwards. It must be lived forward." That's the tagline of the film, but we never really get a sense of WHAT it is that Benjamin understands about life when he's nearing the end of his own.

    I know you love this film, and I really enjoyed it too. Just for different reasons than what Fincher intended, I think.
  • yeah, very true. what i can say is that the movie reminds me not to take my youth for granted and how lucky i am. it's a real bittersweet, touching film

    this movie is the kind of stuff that makes you appreciate life.
  • I've already responded to some of your point below, Jason, but basically, it sounds like you're saying the message of the film is "humans are screwed either way," which I think is both fatalistic and an overly charitable reading of the film.

    With regards to the rest of the review, this is David Fincher we're talking about here. If this were someone's directorial debut, it would be incredible. But "Zodiac" was a modern masterpiece and for him to follow that up with a film like this that so clearly doesn't fulfill its potential I think warranted a more critical tone. Doesn't mean I don't love the guy though :)
  • I am so very glad that I am not the only one with undying love for Zodiac.
  • Fir3Wolf
    Nice review and I hopefully can find time to check it out. Sounds like it kinda leaves you thinking about your own life in ways which not many movies now days do.
  • Boxoffice Marco
    Great review David and I dug the film for the most part. I brought this up in the Fincher/Charlie Rose thread, why is it that Rose always seems like an amateur when he's interviewing filmmakers? His notes are dated, he goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, etc. Am I alone on this? Fincher took the interview like a pro. Screw PT Anderson's hopes for Fincher getting testicular cancer. :)
  • Jack
    This was a great review. The movie is fantastic, as a movie, though I would agree with the reviewer that it's difficult to find a 'point' to the story, that is, "what was the whole point in living life backwards in the first place?" I guess the point was that it was a good story, and was beautifully done. Whether it be acting, directing, effects, or anything else, the movie is incredible. There's a particular moment, where Daisy does ballet on a veranda as fog rolls in behind her, that was simply incredible.
    A great movie, if you can handle the length.
  • It was imaginative and inventive and visionary yet I don't think I'd ever want to see it again. It was a one-time experience for me. This film is one to marvel at, yet I don't think many could "enjoy" it, as it were.
  • i disagree. I think that in years to come, the movie will be cherished and appreciated by certain kinds of people.
  • David
    This is a terrible movie. I think, in fact, it's the worst movie I've seen all year, The Happening notwithstanding. It's moronic, in fact. Cliched. Boring. Manipulative in an ham-handed way. It's like a bunch of sugar-coated tripe. Start with a main character who has not a thing memorable or redeeming about him. He isn't smart. He isn't interesting. He has not appreciable talents or skills. Add to that a central gimmick that adds nothing to the story, and produces no meaningful insights or encounters. There is simply nothing about Button's journey from wrinkled up baby to pristine baby that is used to any intelligent effect. Even towards the end of his life, when he chooses to leave behind his own child to live out what appears to be about ten years when he's in his physical and experiential prime, he appears to have brought no amount of wisdom to the table. I truly dare anyone to point out a single meaningful point generated by this reversed aging process. Ironically, a good story with the normal aging chronology would be a better vessel for the "insights" to which this film appears to have been aimed. After all, as we age we inevitably do descend into a second childhood (many of us, anyway), calling upon our loved ones to stick by us and nurture us towards oblivion.
  • looks like you really didn't pay close attention to the story, then.
  • David
    I paid very close attention to this slap-dash string of empty and cliched scenes, actually. If this is the best you can do to defend this hackneyed money grab ...
  • Come on don't over state things you may not have like it but this isn't even close to being the worst film this year........it isn't even the worst film released this weekend.
  • David
    Sorry, but I'm not overstating the case. This is an awful movie in almost every respect that counts. There are some visually interesting scenes, but that's about it. It represents the worst in cinema. Pretentious, intellectually barren -- like cotton candy, but without the taste, texture, and nostalgic associations. It's a money grab, pure and simple, for a culture that wouldn't know serious philosophy from a toothpaste commercial. The characters are completely bland -- empty shells without wit, brains, talents, or wisdom. The clipped together vignettes are thematically incoherent and pointless.

    In the end, it's like Forrest Gump, but with the idiot replaced with a pleasantly boring nobody. He is as bland as a piece of melba toast, and he drifts through life with inexplicable emotions and decisions. But, unlike Forrest Gump (which is an okay film at best), it presents no overarching, coherent point about life, e.g., it may be easier to be faithful, loyal, altruistic, and happy if you're dumb as a door nail.

    And that's what makes this movie truly repellent. It was financed by smart people who knew full well that it would make them lots of money even though it had nothing to offer. It's the emperor's new clothes yet again, and we're not smart enough or sophisticated enough as a culture to recognize it.
  • So this film is worse then The Spirit and The Happening or any of the horrid spoof movies that where released this year? I don't think so, like I said you didn't like it fine but not even close to the worst film of the year.
  • David
    I haven't seen The Spirit. I did see The Happening, and thought it was atrocious. Dumb beyond words. Inept in almost every way. It was like watching a bad film project by a bunch of high school kids who think they know way more than they do, and may well be a little off-their-rockers. And, yes, Benjamin Button, in my opinion, is worse. It doesn't even have the ingenuous badness of The Happening. It's calculatedly, shrewdly bad, in the way that so much terrible pop music is. And it's worse in that it pretends to have depth and meaning so as to dupe audiences.
  • Junsuk
    David, why are you on a film site? Sad. I'm guessing you voted for McCain. And that you watch According to Jim.
  • Because I don't like a terrible movie you now can predict my political affiliation? At least we now know that you are insane. Let me also suggest that most people who dislike idiotic movies also dislike idiotic televisions shows. As a result, the odds that you like "According to Jim" are much higher than mine.
  • Willis
    i totally agree with you David, I posted a bad review of rotten tomatoes and people were up in arms over it... it's amazing how this terrible film has duped people into thinking there is a shred of something relevant in it.
  • I agree 100%. I saw the movie a month before it opened, with little hype and fanfare -- I did know much about it beyond that it was Brad Pitt living backwards and I assumed the studio was hoping it would be an award flick. I was as bored in a movie as I have been in a long, long time and thrice asked my girlfriend if she wanted to leave. Everything in this movie is generic -- there is no real conflict and every time there is an opportunity for real moral exploration, the movie just skips along. It was FAR, FAR, too long. I love long movies, but there needs to be a point. If you removed 60-90 minutes of this movie it might be good. That last 40 minutes were decent, but the boredom to get that point ... ugh. One of the most undeserving Best Picture movies in history.
  • Why do you think that the movie was so bad? I really think that this movie was marvelous. If you don't like the movie, I don't know why, since it had a brilliant plot. The only reason I could see someone not liking the movie, is if they didn't understand how everything linked together. I personally thought it was one of the best movies I had ever seen.
  • Smither
    no you didn't at all david...fail.
  • Jason
    David,

    When you say "we never really get a sense of WHAT it is that Benjamin understands about life when he's nearing the end of his own", I feel like you overlooked a few things. As his mind grows older, it is clear that he realizes the importance of some things and what priority they should have. For example, I personally feel that all the things he is willing to give up(money, love, fatherhood) in order to provide his daughter a normal life, show his understanding and wisdom amassed. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I think that is a solid example of wisdom.
  • khoaho
    Did i ever tell you I was struck by lightning seven times? hilarious!
  • I saw this movie today and loved it.
    I saw Slumdog Millionaire last week and loved that also.
    (Australian releases are a tad slow)
    I must say I probably preferred Slumdog, however they are completely different movies.
  • I'm taking my 380 to the film and I swear if anyone starts a talkin......!!!
blog comments powered by Disqus