First of all, TCCOBB is nothing like the Fitzgerald short story it claims to be adapted from. The only thing they share in kind is the title and the concept of a man aging backwards.
The screenplay was written by Eric Roth- the man that gaves us the genius screenplay, Forrest Gump. It seems to me that Roth attempted to strike gold again with TCCOBB. He tried to capture the magic that FG was. Well, he failed terribly. If anything he should be committed for "self-plagerizing" and "ripping off his own work" because BB shares WAY too many similarities to FG. But this time around, it just falls flat.
Benjamin and Forrest both have disabilities that they are forced to overcome. They both should be national sensations (Button for aging backward, Gump for his various achievments). They both experience historical events up close, in a war. They both fall in love with people in their childhood that continue to elude them in their adult years. They both grow up in the South in a boarding home. etc etc etc These similarities are virtually inarguable; so if the main characters, the romance, and the adversity both of these men have to overcome are essentially identical, what makes CCBB a unique, original, curious story?
The concept of aging backwards is one huge gimmick that adds NOTHING to the story. What a joke! I go into the movie expecting to see how a man's life is affected by this condition. Had he physically looked his age, and had no strange condition, there is no reason to believe the plotlines would progress any differently. This isn't helped by the fact that Brad Pitt stayed the same the whole movie. His character at the age of 10 acted the same way as when he is 40- the same mature, emotionless detachment pervades through the whole film.
The main flaw of this movie is its characterization. Forrest Gump worked because we care about Forrest, his mother, Bubba, Lt. Dan, and Jenny. I cannot possibly see how someone could genuinely care about Button. The only manner in which I could see such a thing happening is as a result of the fact that the film focuses entirely on him for almost 3 hours, a flaw that would almost be passable if Benjamin was a fleshed out character. However, he wasn't. I did not sympathize with Benjamin in the slightest. What is his personality? What are his goals and intentions throughout the movie? Where in the movie does he show any emotion whatsoever outside of calm - mildly distraught? I cannot answer any of these three questions. Benjamin Button is an emotionless, dull character and this is almost enough to make the movie horrible on it's own and it is here that Brad Pitt fails once again as a convincing actor. oh Brad Pitt... Was he even acting in this performance, because to me, he just seemed to be there floating around, emoting no emotion, depth, or LIFE into BB. This character had potential to be memorable, but all me got was a blank expressionless face for 3 hrs. Pitt did not show how BB changed/progressed with age and life experiences. Heck, Lindsay Lohan did a better job in Freaky Friday. He failed to show any character development. What he delivered was an emotional/mentally stagnant character that obviously didn't learn anything or feel anything throughout his whole life.
Where a main character fails a supporting cast can usually make up for it, but this movie failed in that regard as well. I did not buy the love story between Daisy and BB. Their love was not developed enough. Why would young Daisy love an old man that hardly talked or whom she shared nothing in common with. They had no reason to connect in the first place. It was just forced on us and we were expected to believe it. I mean, they were apart 90% of their lives before finally "getting together"!
Also, BB's mom played by Taraji Henson was just a bit of a charicature of Mamie and Daisy's daughter was extremely two-dimensional and borderline unnecessary.
Lastly, the narrative frame was terrible and hurt the already dragging pace of the movie. Every time it flashed back to the present with the dying Daisy the movie reached a standstill, and whatever storytelling momentum that was generated earlier came to a halt.
There are a lot of other things that don't make sense, but it won't mean much if you haven't seen the movie.
Basically in 4 words this movie is: ALL STYLE, NO SUBSTANCE
BC of this, it is very easy to fall into the trap of enjoying this film and thinking it is good. The film is visually beautiful, "epic," and attempts to capture universal themes of mortality, love, life, etc etc etc. But pretty pictures does NOT equate a good movie and this better not win any non-technical awards at the Oscars.
