Annoying, imperfect film that desperately needs some trim to tighten pacing...

Rating: 6/10 (25 December 2008)

The film starts right off the bat and never let go. Adaptation scripter Eric Roth's story is well-told and the productions values top-notch.
But then the logic began to fall apart midway as the pacing become leaden. And it becomes fairly predictable. At one point, as the cross-cutted sequence overlap each scene, I thought the tragedy is about to unfold. Boom, revelation. I deserve a medal for being an armchair psychic.
I had to close and grit my teeth as I tried to suspend my disbelief at the ridiculous logic promulgated by the film towards the ending. I know, it's a fantasy -- a literacy fairy tale. I can believe the age reverse - that's already established in the moving beginning.
But I cannot get over the fact that the film producers chose to idealize love, romance and sexual relations which is unintentionally funny in terms of farce. The film even glamorizes adultery by rationalizing it, which is a little disturbing to me as a fairly irreligious, apolitical and amoral moviegoer.
It's also embarrassing in pretentious attitude. What's with the film scratches and black & white one-take scenes in flashbacks? I know, I know - it conveys silly humor and nostalgia. But we don't need visual splendor to sledgehammer the purpose. There's the awful romantic montage between the two lovers that borders on self-parody reminiscent of Abercrombie & Fitch advertisements. That was ridiculous because we are subject to worshipful images of Brad Pitt mugging in front of the camera to bask in self-adulation of narcissism. While sitting in the darkened screening feeling embarrassed by the string of treacly romantic scenes, I imagine the young female audience patrons sigh erotically with the whispers of "Brad is gorgeous like James Dean!" Even James Dean would roll his eyes in disbelief as he was being given a comeuppance by Brad who sneers condescendingly to the audience "I'm richer and better looking than you" and other patronizing insults with David Fincher's self-satisfied, almost cynical direction. Hollywood has contempt for the audience patrons who made the studios, producers and actors rich in the first place. Why be patronized with self-consciously snooty, glitzy model photo shoot for GQ? Stick to the story, not pretty pictures. I'm sure Terrence Malick smirks in self-depreciation.
I thought David's career in directing music and commercial videos is behind him as he establishes his talent in feature film. Yet he slips in the half-assed Calvin Klein homage to the idealized vision of impossibly handsome male masculinity. Artistic self-indulgence is getting darned old because Fight Club's closed since 2000.
Also questionable is the character Benjamin's lack of discernible income/employment while being in love with an apparently self-employed woman as a "young James Dean-lite man" who somehow afford to own stylish clothes and ride motorcycles. Maybe he exploited Social Security loophole in the 50's to live high and in style, which amounts to fraud. Chose not to go to "college" or try modeling while working a bunch of crummy minimum wage jobs as shown later in the film, which is ridiculously pitiful.
Complaints aside, the cinematography is spectacular that compliments the dark, depressing themes and atmospheric mood, which are of course Dave's trademark styles. The film is well-direct but in some scenes noticeably overdirected. And a few scenes do need trim here and there without losing the meat of the story, because leaner meat in tight pacing to keep the audience's attention steady is the best appetite as food for thought. The final theatrical edits of Titanic and Lawrence of Arabia are impeccable. Even James Cameron had to force himself to cut extraneous scenes that cost millions of dollars to film. David needs to refine his editing sense by knowing the aesthetics of "what is necessary and what is not" without coming off as self-indulgent as Martin Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson. I loved Zodiac because it's reasonably paced with suspenseful tension, but the opposite is true for a mega-budget dramatic work that feels overlong like the last half hour of The Dark Knight for the sake of padding the length to give the impression this is an important work of art without regard for the audience's ability to be attentive as long as the story and pacing are woven perfectly without prompting some to walk out for quick bathroom and refreshment breaks when the film gets "slow". (Run-on sentence intended.)
Sorry, but that's the truth. Heed my advice and quit catering to specious indulgence. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has its strength in the first hour, then falls apart as the film reaches the exhausting climax with the touching conclusion of a life. A weak, lamely manipulative ending left me cold after feeling emotions in spite of laughably absurd logic.
This film is akin to a self-serious second cousin to Forrest Gump, a well-made but emotionally manipulative and dishonest film. It's undoubtedly fascinating how long it took for the film to come to fruition, but the ultimate outcome is tepid. David is better off making traumatizing, gritty and stylishly adult films because that's where his interest lie instead of a PG-13 Oscar bait film along the line of overlong films that successfully bait sentimental Oscar voting idiots hook, line and sinker. They reject dramatic epics like Zodiac for this kind of "tastes like maple syrup on buttermilk pancakes at Denny's" tripe because they love being manipulated to well up their eyes.
** 1/2 out of 4