At The Movies
Allow me to come out of hibernation for just a moment to quickly offer some judgment on two new theatrical releases: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Valkyrie. First of all, let me extend a salute to studios and filmmakers for keeping the number of two-and-a-half-hour (or longer) epics to a bare minimum this year...bravo on your restraint. I can't remember if there was a specific year where it got out of control, but this is generally the time of year for butt-numbing epic dramas: the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Good Shepherd, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, several Harry Potter films, There Will Be Blood, The Green Mile...etc. Of course, as you can tell from that very partial list, some lengthy epics are good and some are bad, so it's not about quality...it's about the disproportionate number of long movies that hit theaters in November and December. Lately, though, long films seem to be migrating to the summer (Dark Knight, Prince Caspian, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End), and this holiday season, there are but two monster-sized epics that are of interest. One of those was the wretched Australia, which thankfully bombed.
The other clock-buster (in more ways than one) this holiday season is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which I saw yesterday in a surprisingly packed theater. Having worked in movie theaters before, I shouldn't be surprised that a national holiday brings large audiences to the movies, but I guess I figured that most people would still be opening presents and whatnot (or whatever it is you people do). Apparently, I was wrong, and presents were rushed through to get to the latest David Fincher film.
But enough prelude...how was the movie? Oh wait, some more prelude: I had actually been looking forward to this movie for some time now, and yet when I would think of the must-see films of the holiday season, I would always forget this one. And in all fairness, I don't think I ever saw the trailer for this movie in theatres (every theater was too busy playing that motherfucking Gran Torino trailer...seriously, if I see that trailer one more time, I'm going to demand a damn refund...didn't the movie already open?!?). But nonetheless, I'm a general Fincher fan (sort of like Alien 3, love Seven, used to like but now dislike The Game, have complicated feelings about Fight Club [but basically like it], kinda like Panic Room in a way, and wholly embrace Zodiac) and the story did sound sort of interesting enough to overcome the "oh God, it's two hours and forty five minutes long?" feelings. So I went.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is clearly going to be one of those movies that people either love with their whole hearts or dislike, possibly with venom. And it's going to be one of those movies wherein the detractors scorn those who embrace it. I say that because I fall squarely in the latter camp and I can't possibly understand how moviegoers and critics (especially critics) can like this movie. That's not to say it's awful or unwatchable or "bad"...it's just wholly pointless, misguided and is simply an all-around poorly told story.
First of all, it's from the screenwriter of Forrest Gump, and I say this to head off the inevitable "it was just like Forrest Gump!" comments. Yes, it is a hell of a lot like Forrest Gump, and while society has seen fit to turn its back on Forrest Gump (the movie) in the last decade and a half, I still have a big soft spot for it. Yes, I understand how it's actually a condemnation of the sixties and seventies instead of a celebration of them (probably unintentionally), but it's a fine, moving film nonetheless. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is basically Forrest Gump as seen through the eyes of David Fincher. But unlike Gump, Button (forgive the abbreviations, but I'm not typing the full title every time) has no real soul...Gump is the story of a real character being blown through history like a feather in the wind, while Button is about some guy who ages weird sort of going along and doing stuff while not really ever being interesting.
I think that's my main problem with the movie: Benjamin Button is a wholly passive character. He sits there and reacts to everyone else around him, and we never know much of anything about him. In fact, the whole premise of the movie is stupid, in a way, as it's never used as more than an effects hook...the fact that he ages backwards never seems to fully affect him as a character. He's shown as looking like he's 70 when he's 17 (or whatever, it's rarely clear as to the exact ages), but he might as well look 17 because his 70-year-old qualities are non-existent beyond his physical form. If you take away the backwards-aging, he's just some guy who does some stuff and falls in love and goes to war and just lives his life. The end. It's not that interesting, really. And given that the characters are paper-thin, the whole movie is like one big effects reel...for two hours and forty five minutes.
It's just plain pointless. And when "drama" happens, Button is so vastly unexpressive (specifically "Button," not Brad Pitt...I know Pitt is a good actor [see Twelve Monkeys], but he has nothing to do in this movie, really) and closed-off that it renders him boring. There's only one time in the whole movie--one time!--that anyone even asks Button what it's like to age backwards. His answer? Something like "I don't know." I get that the whole thing is supposed to be some big meditation on life and how nothing is forever and all of that, but the fact that Button ages backwards provides absolutely no insight into the human condition. He might as well have been aging normally, given all of the depth we receive. So there is literally no point to the movie and it's vastly frustrating and manipulative.
As for the "great love story," it's basically pointless, as well. It also ebbs and flows depending on what the filmmakers need from the story at any given point. For instance: after loving her (I guess) since they were "kids," Button finally meets up with Cate Blanchett's character Daisy when he looks 60/is maybe 26 and she's, like, 23. They go out on a date, and at the end of it, she literally throws herself at him. And he rejects her. Why? He doesn't really say. There are no contextual clues, either. The only answer is that the filmmakers needed to have yet another obstacle between them for a while. Could it have been because he felt weird about looking the way he did? Maybe...he never really talks about how he feels about his condition. It's all a massive waste of time.
Ironically, the best part of the movie is the very beginning. Cate Blanchett's dying character tells a story about a clockmaker whose son died in World War I and how he made a clock for the local train station that ran backwards, so that perhaps lost relatives and loves can come back to life. It's actually really moving and emotional...and it's over in the first ten minutes. Nothing else in the movie lives up to that story. You might as well walk out after that part is over. The bottom line is that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has some amazing effects, some nice moments, and it appears to have all of the pieces for a big, weepy epic...and yet, it's painfully hollow. What a shame.
Today's movie was Valkyrie...interestingly enough, a friend of mine actually has a vested interest in the performance of this film. So for his sake, go see it and take some friends. But don't go expecting a great, tense "men on a mission" World War II movie. Valkyrie is decidedly average in every respect. The sets are handsome enough, the cinematography is fine (Bryan Singer's first 1.85:1 film, I believe), the acting is professional, the direction is workmanlike...it's all fine. Nice. Cute. Other words that have a neutral, average connotation.
Basically, the film isn't that gripping or tense. There are some suspenseful moments, but you'd think that a film about the attempted assassination of Hitler would have some fucking tension to it (yes, we know that they didn't succeed, but there's still tension in how things went wrong). The film is very matter-of-fact about its story...it doesn't get terribly emotional (except when it sort of tries to, but fails), it just shows what happened and that's it. It's yet another weird case wherein the movie feels like it should have been longer and more in-depth...it all sort of blows by pretty quickly (it's two hours long) and then it's done. Plus, the last twenty or thirty minutes are interesting, but the movie assumes that we want to see more of this part, when we really wanted more of the planning. The last part details what happened during the attempted coup of Berlin by the conspirators as they pushed Operation Valkyrie into effect...the problem is, we know that they ultimately fail, so it just becomes a waiting game of people on the phone, people giving orders, people running around.... Yes, we knew they would fail when they were planning, but at least there's the aforementioned tension in the actual actions rather than in the aftermath as we wait for the inevitable.
Maybe that didn't make much sense, but the point is that the movie is just average in every possible way. There's no flair to it, no standout moments, no emotional truths, nothing really worth remembering after it's over. It's not even fun. It just...is.
It's also somewhat insulting that the studio felt the need to slap on some "action" at the beginning (you know, the shots they show in the trailer, where it looks like they're in the middle of a battle). This action was the result of a poor test screening wherein I believe the audience claimed that they expected action, or something. Thus, this vaguely pointless scene was shot. I didn't care where Tom Cruise's character got his eyepatch and I resent the idea that, instead of finessing the slack and uninteresting "plotting" or "assassination attempt" scenes that are the heart of this movie, they took this opportunity to put in some bullets and planes to satisfy action junkies. If they had done a better job with the story itself, they wouldn't have needed to add pointless action. If you had shown a test audience a taut, gripping, nuanced story about these "good Germans" and the lengths they went to to protect their country's name, it would have gotten great scores.
But don't get me wrong: the movie isn't bad...it's just average. If you want a history lesson on the final plot to assassinate Hitler, go see Valkyrie. If you like Tom Cruise, support his floundering United Artists and see Valkyrie. If you want to see a bunch of awesome actors chewing on hard-boiled lines and tense scenes that practically make you want to scream at the screen...don't see Valkyrie. If you want to see a bunch of awesome actors who are vastly under-used (Kenneth Branagh, why did you leave the film for most of its running time? I missed you), go see Valkyrie.
Anyway...tomorrow I think I'll finally see Milk. Other than that, I've watched a few movies at home, too: Planet Terror (not as bad as I thought it would be, particularly since I dislike Robert Rodriguez most of the time), Death Proof (speaking of bad movies...wow, this movie was painful. I had actually made a degree of peace with Quentin Tarantino after the Kill Bill movies, but holy shit, Death Proof is one of the worst movies ever), and Dumb & Dumber (I had never seen it and now I have...my life is unchanged).
All right, back to my hidey-hole for a bit. I hope everyone had a good Christmas and is gearing up for New Year's Eve. I'll probably post again after a few more movies...or if I have something else to say. But for now, I'm going to get my laundry.
