The Curious Case of Benjamin Buton

I consider myself to be far more patient with long movies than most. It's my belief that if a movie needs three hours to tell its story, I'm happy to indulge it. Indeed, what a delight it can be to stumble across a movie you wish would never end? So involved in the world it has created, you could explore it for hours. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is three hours long, and on the face of it, it certainly sounds like it warrants that run time. This is the entire life story of a man, and no ordinary man at that. So I was more than happy to allow it the time it felt it needed to unravel its story. Perhaps the thing that struck me most upon leaving the cinema, then, was how little it did with that extended run time, and how the length seriously damaged what could have been one of the very best films of the year.

The premise is pretty straightforward, yet endlessly intriguing: what would a man's life be like if he was born old and died young? Apparently it would be almost exactly the same as any other life, save for a few minor details. Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) may look old when he is born, but he is a child at heart. And he may look like a kid when he's dying, but he's truly senile. Much of the hardships and benefits of living a life backwards are completely glossed over. Aside from a few "You sure are old to be doing X" comments, nothing is really made of his condition (disease?) by others. Perhaps the only part of his life - and the film - affected by this peculiarity is his realization that he would be dooming whoever he loves to take care of him in his final years. Which is pretty much exactly how it goes for any elderly person. Indeed, it's a premise not fully realized. It seems instead that it is merely a device used to examine one man's life. And what a dull man that is.

Button experiences no major moments in his life that warrant a cinematic telling. Much of his life is spent listening to other people tell him their stories, many of which seem far more interesting than his. Perhaps that's the point, but it sure isn't worth making a three hour movie about. The whole cast is very solid. Front and center in Button's life is Daisy (Cate Blanchett). Blanchett gives a great, understated performance. She relies on no gimmicks, no big moments of emotion. She simply inhabits a character, and it works well. Taraji P. Henson plays Button's adopted mother, and she brings warmth and humor to the role. And the fact that she is working at a retirement home allows for some amusing moments between Benjamin and the older folks. Key to the movie, however, is of course Brad Pitt. Pitt plays Button for almost all of his life. The more I reflect on it, the more I really appreciated his work as the physically older, mentally younger Button. It must be pretty hard to play both old and young at the same time, but he's very convincing at it. But again, he is given no real moments to shine, either, so it's easy to forget about him in the midst of all the technical wizardry on display.

In many ways, I would argue that David Fincher is the visual wunderkind of film making today. His films are so visually beyond anything else out there, yet they never draw attention to themselves. Watch the special features on the Zodiac DVD and you'll be blown away by how much CGI is used in a seemingly visual effects free film. Here he steps up his game in stunning ways. The creation of Benjamin Button as a character is mind boggling. I have no idea how they did it, nor are there any seams in the creation that might allow you to figure it out. That can't possibly be Brad Pitt, but yet it certainly can't be someone else, either. And the cinematography from start to finish is perhaps the most striking, enchanting, and beautiful of the year. In spite of how little money Fincher's films usually make at the box office, he keeps getting huge budgets. As a film fan, there are few things to be more thankful for, as he knows how to spend every dollar to make the best visual experience possible.

The mundane story is what drags down an otherwise enchanting film. So many great themes are brought up, a number of asides from supporting characters are delightful (especially the story of the clockmaker who made his clock run backwards), and the visuals are stunning. Yet it's that three hour run time that ultimately undermines it all. All those things matter very little if you can't get into the story. Button's life is simply not a very eventful one, but it should have been. How is he never taken to a doctor once? Even if not for his obvious problem, did he never get sick once, or break a bone? Surely then a doctor would see him and want to study him. I feel like this film didn't explore the concept nearly as well as it could, which is a shame considering how good everything else about it is.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Growing up, the other kids always seemed to hold the Star Wars trilogy up as the greatest series film had produced. For whatever reason, I never really jumped on that bandwagon - I was always more of an Indy and Back to the Future kid. And while the idea of another BttF film makes my blood run cold, the prospect of a new Indiana Jones adventure always seemed like a reasonable idea, in theory. It's a series that almost certainly should be left in the 80's, but it could probably survive in the modern climate under the correct supervision. The series had already hit a major speed bump with Temple of Doom, so it seemed unlikely that a new film could tarnish the series in the way Phantom Menace did to Star Wars. While Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a fair share of flaws, it is by no means a franchise killer, and quite often it is a lot of fun. And really, that's what you want from an Indiana Jones movie.

I think the biggest problem this film has is that it lacks that iconic feeling that the previous three had (yes, even ToD). The other films are ripe with moments, music, and characters that are all cornerstones of film history at this point. None of that exists here. The action scenes are all a little "been there, done that," the characters are a mix of familiar faces and uninspired new ones, and the music is completely forgettable. But when your biggest fault is a failure to feel iconic, you have little to worry about. Like I said, this is FUN. Perhaps it's because I was never able to see the original trilogy on the big screen, but seeing an Indy film in the theater for the first time gave me a big, giddy smile for most of the film. Even if Indy was dealing with fairly generic action set pieces, it was still exciting to see how he was going to deal with them.

Harrison Ford hasn't lost any of his old charm here, nor does he seem too afraid to be physical. Sure, he runs a little slower and he has to rely on other people to help him out occasionally, but overall this is still the same Indy we remember, just a little older and a little wiser. As you may have heard, Karen Allen returns here as Marion Ravenwood, and it is the scenes between the two of them that really rise above the rest of the film. When the two meet for the first time in years, the reaction Harrison portrays is wonderful. These two characters were made for each other, and it's nice to know that Spielberg and company agree. Allen may no longer look like a typical Hollywood beauty, but she has more feist and personality in her than someone like Jessica Alba or Megan Fox ever will. If anything, it would have been nice to see more of her here.

The new players are where the film starts to fall flat. Ray Winstone plays a dodgy partner to Indy, and if you've seen The Mummy, it becomes clear that he is a complete carbon copy of the character Beni in that film, even down to his final scene being identical. Cate Blanchett is surprisingly bland as the villainess, perhaps because she keeps disappearing for large chunks of the film. Her motives are never completely clear, nor is she ever really defined. The biggest question mark has always been Shia LaBeouf. It's been stated that George Lucas wants to hand this franchise over to Shia, but truthfully he doesn't seem like he'd be up for it. It's not that he does a bad job, just that the character isn't very interesting. The 50's teen rebel seems a little cliched and dull, and it just doesn't fit well within the Indiana Jones universe.

Spilling the story details is kind of unnecessary. Indy goes looking for some sort of artifact, with the villains in pursuit. You either know what to expect from these films, or you haven't been paying attention. The devil, however, is in the details. I liked the way they referenced the fact that Indy hasn't just been dormant for twenty years. In the 40's he went to fight in WWII (now there's an interesting - if atypical - film to imagine, Indy at War), some of his friends and family have passed away, and he's been involved in government projects from time to time. To say this is a contemplative film wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it is certainly aware that Indiana has aged and seen the world, and that his adventures over the years have affected him. It could have been just another entry in the franchise with no thought towards growth for the character, but it wasn't. The first film worked so well because it was a fresh idea. Temple of Doom fell flat because it didn't try to do much of anything beyond recapturing the spirit of the first one. Last Crusade was a high point because it added the father-son element into it, making it more than just a copy of Raiders. This one again tries to infuse something into the action: a sense of nostalgia within Indy, as well as a son figure for him in Shia's character.

While at times pretty silly (the refrigerator scene, for example), it is still well above any other adventure film out there right now. Will it be something I return to again and again over the years as I have with the others? I'm not sure, but I suspect I won't. I enjoyed it right now, and that's really all you can expect from any movie. It's a shame it feels necessary to hold it up to the three previous films, but that's just the way it goes when you follow something so iconic. However time looks back upon this fourth Indiana Jones film, it was great to have such a wonderful character back on the screens for two hours.