Okay, I saw "Curious Case of Benjamin Button" this weekend. Although I thought there was a lot to like about the movie, I have to say I was distracted by the overwhelming number of similarities to "Forrest Gump." Not just mood, tone or theme -- I mean the films have the exact same story beats. Normally, I wouldn't care because it's been long enough to pay homage to that film, or be inspired by it enough to copy it -- but as they share the exact same writer, It's a bit much.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
"Benjamin Button" was too long and needed some serious trimming. At almost three hours you really started questioning the need to carry on sequences as long as Fincher did. At first, I was glad that he took the time to introduce his characters. You don't get that a lot these days. But by the end of the second hour, most of the sequences had made their point and then continued on past that, almost as if Fincher was so in love with the performances he forgot to tell his story efficiently.
There was greatness in it. The performances were wonderful, the effects were amazing, and I loved the sequence where he recounts the little events that led up to a terrible event, that if one thing had changed it would not have happened (although, again, it was too long and we got the point long before it concluded).
But in the end, the similarities to Gump were far too glaring. This film also just didn't have the earlier film's magic. It's almost as if Fincher read the script which was achingly sentimental and decided he was going to shy away from that to make it more "real and honest". The problem is, sentimentality is a real emotion that most people experience. So, since he shied away from that feeling, he robbed his own film of its heart.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The point where it finally just crossed the line for me was when Cate Blanchett's character finally decided it was time to be with him. And then, in the narration, Benjamin says "And then, in the spring of 1967, she came back." Which even in the delivery was just far too similar to pretty much the exact same point in Gump, when Robin Wright decided it was time to be with Forrest, his narration said, "And then, she was there." Or more egregious was the point where Benjamin introduced his shipmates with their name, and the city they hailed from. A device straight out of Gump, although in gump it was funny because of the irony that the character's names were city names different than their origins. In this film, it just played as a retread. And the similarities don't stop there.
I mean, there was the fact that both stories are about a disabled person, who can't walk as children, who have a miraculous scene where they "walk" for the first time, who live with unwed mothers in a house with lots of different people who "come and go," who eventually work on a boat, who have a difficult romance with a woman they meet as children where the timing is only right once in their lives, who have children they both worry will inherit their condition, who live extraordinary lives despite their condition.
Both films are chock full of "wisdom" in about every scene (except Button over does it far too much) and instead of a feather you get a humming bird. Oh yeah, there's also a scene in both where the film is artificially deteriorated to introduce the "history" of the character. It just got to be too much.
I mean, there was the fact that both stories are about a disabled person, who can't walk as children, who have a miraculous scene where they "walk" for the first time, who live with unwed mothers in a house with lots of different people who "come and go," who eventually work on a boat, who have a difficult romance with a woman they meet as children where the timing is only right once in their lives, who have children they both worry will inherit their condition, who live extraordinary lives despite their condition.
Both films are chock full of "wisdom" in about every scene (except Button over does it far too much) and instead of a feather you get a humming bird. Oh yeah, there's also a scene in both where the film is artificially deteriorated to introduce the "history" of the character. It just got to be too much.
"Benjamin Button" was too long and needed some serious trimming. At almost three hours you really started questioning the need to carry on sequences as long as Fincher did. At first, I was glad that he took the time to introduce his characters. You don't get that a lot these days. But by the end of the second hour, most of the sequences had made their point and then continued on past that, almost as if Fincher was so in love with the performances he forgot to tell his story efficiently.
There was greatness in it. The performances were wonderful, the effects were amazing, and I loved the sequence where he recounts the little events that led up to a terrible event, that if one thing had changed it would not have happened (although, again, it was too long and we got the point long before it concluded).
But in the end, the similarities to Gump were far too glaring. This film also just didn't have the earlier film's magic. It's almost as if Fincher read the script which was achingly sentimental and decided he was going to shy away from that to make it more "real and honest". The problem is, sentimentality is a real emotion that most people experience. So, since he shied away from that feeling, he robbed his own film of its heart.
