Movie review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

posted at 1:34 pm on January 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, we decided to celebrate New Years Eve by going to a movie, since granddaughter #2 remains obstinate in her refusal to make her debut. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button seemed intriguing, as Allahpundit put it, in a Twilight Zone sense. The trailers and the synopses of the film give away the structure of the movie and of the F. Scott Fitzgerald short story on which it’s based; the protagonist is born old and gets younger throughout his life. In that sense, there are no real spoilers, and some of the curiosity over the film focuses on the technical — which would be a mistake. Benjamin Button is an affecting, philosophical, and introspective journey into love, sacrifice, and change.

The film operates on three time frames.  The story gets told by the daughter of a dying woman reading through Benjamin’s diary in a New Orleans hospital as Hurricane Katrina approaches.  Benjamin’s story gets told in flashback, bookended by a strange clock designed by a blind man whose son was lost in World War I and runs backwards.  Benjamin’s life gets played against the backdrop of 20th century American history, but unlike Forrest Gump, Benjamin doesn’t affect history, nor does it seem to affect him.

Brad Pitt delivers one of his best performances in this film.  I had some question as to whether he could give this role the kind of subtlety it would need, but Pitt succeeds in portraying Benjamin at almost all of the ages in this film.  In fact, despite his unusual progression, Benjamin remains an emotional constant in the film, with his gentle spirit sustaining him and others through many tribulations.  In contrast, Daisy (Cate Blanchett) goes through many changes in the passage of time, from a callow youth to wife and mother, and finally challenged in a unique way in love and responsibility.  While Pitt does an excellent job in the movie, it is Blanchett’s that will resonate the most.

The supporting cast does fine work as well, especially Tilda Swinton, who gives a rare sympathetic role emotional depth, and Julia Ormond, whom I did not recognize as Daisy’s daughter in the 2005 time frame.  The technical aspects are done so well that they stop being the focus of the film.  The aging effects look entirely natural, not like the prosthetic work done twenty and even ten years ago.  When Pitt becomes a teenager, it’s rather startling how effective and natural it looks. Overall, the film has an elegiac tenor to it, a wistfulness that will stay with the audience long past the end credits.

Benjamin Button doesn’t have a rapid pace, and some of the situations may be too adult for younger audiences.  I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone younger than teens, and even they may not relate well enough to the film to stay interested.  Otherwise, it’s a film that everyone can enjoy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Can’t wait to see it. Heard it was very good. There are a few kids here on the Central Coast that have that disease. Can’t remember off hand the name. They are precious children.

sheebe on January 1, 2009 at 1:45 PM

The premise sounds too depressing for my taste.

Y-not on January 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Just watching the trailers, it looks as if the movie is grand. I am no Brad Pitt fan. I thought his best movie to date is “Seven.” But since you Ed say he does a great job, I will be even more encouraged to see the film.
Also, the film has the best actress of modern times, Cate Blanchett. She can play any role and has such a great pedigree of films through her years.
This film has a whimsical and charming affect to it. I am definitely seeing it this weekend.
I hope it is as faithful to the story written by one of my favorite authors of all time. Of course there will be new elements to the movie, but the risks should balance with the story.
Can’t wait to see it. Thanks for the review Ed!

jencab on January 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM

The premise sounds too depressing for my taste.

Y-not on January 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM

+1

toliver on January 1, 2009 at 1:48 PM

PluggedInOnline is the reviewer I always turn to before I go to a movie. Here’s their take on Button:
http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0004413.cfm
I appreciate that they look at a film more for its family-friendliness as well as its entertainment value.
I don’t plan on seeing Button. I’m still annoyed at Pitt for being the poster-boy for adultery.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Ed,

Thank you for the film review(s). I find these to be a welcome addition to HotAir’s content and hope that you continue them.

aquaviva on January 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Presumably, one who aged (reliably) backwards would have a something of a clock telling them how long they have to live, one that starts getting increasingly accurate as they start loosing their adult abilities (and gain childhood ones?).

Count to 10 on January 1, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Thanks for the review, and the update. Good luck to your family.

cs89 on January 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM

I saw the film on its opening day and enjoyed it greatly. Definitely recommend it.

Jim62sch on January 1, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Does it have it’s own soundtrack? Or did they really rip of

Days of Heaven

? Since it features 3 1/2 moonbats, I doubt I will see it.

Blake on January 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Good movie, but about an hour too long. I’m not kidding.

Syd B. on January 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Ebert panned it and gave very sound premises in his review. I have no reason to see why he would be wrong from what you’ve said here, Ed. Care to rebut him?

Vatican Watcher on January 1, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Indeed. Viewers be warned: it’s a 3-hour movie. I found it interesting, but my interest would be better served in two hours.

Fine piece of work by Pitt and director David Fincher. While Benjamin ages chronologically from elderly to infant, his emotions and intelligence progress normally. As an 80-year old he befriends a 7-year old girl and experiences normal pre-adolescent wonders. As a 5-year old, he experiences dementia. A very difficult combination of existences.

ManlyDad on January 1, 2009 at 2:27 PM

I never thought I’d turn into my parents and refuse to see anything with Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, or Tom Cruise for their ridiculous off-screen behavior no matter how good the movie. But I have.

(when a couple, the former Mr and Mrs Pitt were snarky Bush-twin girls bashers in a piece I read)

Marcus on January 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM

The movie was WAY too long. I started hoping it would wind down about half way through the film. Which is actually a shame because it’s a good movie just way, way too long to be enjoyable to watch.

Kronos on January 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Wait,

Ed is expecting a new grandchild? I had no idea.

/sarc.

yomomma on January 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM

The premise sounds too depressing for my taste.

Yeppers. I can’t handle depressing right now.

mjk on January 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Wait,

Ed is expecting a new grandchild? I had no idea.

/sarc.

yomomma on January 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM

That’s mean. Funny, but mean.

mjk on January 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Wasn’t Merlin supposed to have aged backwards?

There are very few fresh narratives. But an old narrative told differently, subtly, and well, is a joy.

Scribbler on January 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Ed, keep us posted on the new swabbie soon to be on deck. Best of wishes for the New Addition and for the New Year.

hillbillyjim on January 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Just watching the trailers, it looks as if the movie is grand. I am no Brad Pitt fan. I thought his best movie to date is “Seven.”

I thought his best movie to date was “Snatch.” Loved the subtitles.

Quisp on January 1, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Again, I say, give NO money to the Hollywood machine. I, for one, will not give those people 3 pennies, much less 2 hours of my time.

They can ALL totally tank and blow, for all I care. I would rather watch paint dry. Slowly.

Don’t feed the celebrities.

NickTx on January 1, 2009 at 3:02 PM

I thought the movie dragged on and didn’t really offer any “morals” (as in moral of the story).

Ed lists love, sacrifice and change, but fails to mention how these themes surface in the film — that’s because they don’t.

I found it impossible to become attached to the characters and thought encompassing Hurricane Katrina was a waste. When a storyline requires one narrator, it’s usually because it’s not developed enough to present itself or because the narrator serves a greater purpose. In this movie, it’s the former.

Actually, let me scratch that, it’s way the former because this movie requires two narrators. Hearing the story from Daisy, her daughter and Benjamin helped to distance the audience from the characters. It created an all-seeing audience and that distracts from the emotional depth of the characters.

Personally… 2 out of 5.

mmoran0226 on January 1, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I thought it as okay film, but it didn’t really offer anything deep, or really all that special. I was hoping to like it, but I doubt I’d watch it again. Those looking for a rather idealized version of America from 1920-1960 will be satisfied.

SpencerFan on January 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Pooh. Three hours is WAY too long. My husband has gone deer hunting in Texas for a week and I figured now would be a good time to go to see movies (we have way differing tastes in motion pictures). There’s NOTHING out there that sounds good enough to spend a couple hours and $12 on!

Either they sound too depressing or I have “issues” with the leading actors, eg, Streep, Cruise, Aniston, etc.

Looks like Hot Air is going to be my source of diversion for the next several days!

tru2tx on January 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM

I quit going to Brad Pitt movies when he started fathering children without marrying their mother.

angelat0763 on January 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Mens rule.. It’s okay to like movies that have Brad Pitt in them.. (12 Monkeys, Fight Club, Se7en)

It’s NOT okay to like Brad Pitt movies..

the difference is subtle but it’s there.

DaveC on January 1, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Better than Marley and Me?

My wife wants to see it without the kids…and without me. Should I worry?

Mr. Joe on January 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM

I agree with most of you who said it was too long. I thought Cate Blanchett’s performance was better than Pitt’s. I heard someone way they didn’t like that every time the going got tough the answer was running away from the problem. Overall, it was OK.

ulyses on January 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM

the trailer just put me to sleep….wait for cable

wildweasel on January 1, 2009 at 4:23 PM

You age in the familiar way, you die of cellular senescence.

You grow younger in the Fitzgerald manner, you then vanish into an embryo, losing your mind as completely as with regular dementia.

Being born “old”, without an old mind, is as unenlightening as being born an infant.

But, if you have such an old mind, and it dissolves into the juvenile then the infantile, it is just an Alzheimer’s with a different container.

Can’t see much point in the film’s reverse gimmick unless there is some philosophically profound and extremely inventive writing at work.

But, since it’s Hollywood, that seems unlikely.

I’ll wait for the dollar bin and a rainy June Sunday.

profitsbeard on January 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM

I was waiting in the dentist office the other day and read a column by Stephen King. He wrote why he would be a bad movie critic because he pretty much enjoyed every movie he ever seen. Just something about being at the movies and eating popcorn was enough for him, I think Ed’s a little of the same way.

lowandslow on January 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM

stephen king= mega moonbat

faraway on January 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM

What’s the point of the NOLA hurricane?

The main actors chose how “old” they could look and they chose poorly. Hard to tell differences in ages from 20-50. Their vanity ruined the movie.

faraway on January 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM

My son saw it and thought it was fantastic! I haven’t been to the movies in awhile, mostly because nothing looks or sounds good and I really don’t like getting ripped off. I’d rather take out movies from the library or watch TCM, which is the best movie station, in my opinion.

But this sounds good. And Brad is a good actor.

Conservatives R Us on January 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I was waiting in the dentist office the other day and read a column by Stephen King. He wrote why he would be a bad movie critic because he pretty much enjoyed every movie he ever seen. Just something about being at the movies and eating popcorn was enough for him, I think Ed’s a little of the same way.

lowandslow on January 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Just as long as Capt. Ed and Stephen King are not like this at the movies.

Mr. Joe on January 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I don’t plan on seeing Button. I’m still annoyed at Pitt for being the poster-boy for adultery.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Congrats – you threw the first stone!

Feel better….?

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM

I was waiting in the dentist office the other day and read a column by Stephen King. He wrote why he would be a bad movie critic because he pretty much enjoyed every movie he ever seen. Just something about being at the movies and eating popcorn was enough for him, I think Ed’s a little of the same way.

lowandslow on January 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM

After learning to write screenplays, studying films to do so, I’m a bit like that. Only, I can’t say I “enjoy” every film I see, I certainly look for the good parts. And the bad parts. You can learn from both. But, if something is bad, then it’s bad, and I have no problem saying it – although I will try to explain what makes it fail.

While I have a greater respect for those that actually get a film made, I do frown at those obviously out for a buck and have no idea of how to present a theme in a film.

That being said, it is so sad to see political messages presented blatantly in a film with total disregard to the overarching theme. Just saw “Must Love Dogs” on dvd – its attempt to be pro-gay and pro-woman just made Diane Lane’s character look like a total ineffectual idiot. So much for “pro-woman”. Something like that makes you wonder, “what were they thinking?” It’s usually an indication of too many chiefs.

That being said, I’ll wait for “Curious BB” the dvd version.

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM

stephen king= mega moonbat

faraway on January 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM

You wrote the crap he did, and got ugly-rich doing so, you’d be one, too….

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Good grief, get on with it already!
That’s the thought that ran through my mind over a dozen times.
Way to long.

christene on January 1, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Egads,glad this time reversal isn’t happening to
the Liberal Party,I don’t know if anybody could
handle a young arrogant,cocky,smart-#ssed Reid,or
Pelosi!

Oh crap,wait a tick,the time reversal would of
made McCain a younger man,

and double crap,Obama probably would be an old
man!(Snark!)Haha.

canopfor on January 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Benjamin Button and the Top 8 Rules for Good Filmmaking

Another view of this movie.

I think I’ll give it a miss…

heldmyw on January 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Well, I, for one, agree with Ed’s review. “Intriguing” is the best word I could come up with to describe the film too.

Yeah, there are problems with it, but I did enjoy the film and in the end, that’s all that really matters to me.

Athena on January 1, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Congrats – you threw the first stone!

Feel better….?

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Jesus was talking about capital punishment, not criticism.
I’m not throwing stones.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Okay, the very mention of Hurricane Katrina and you lost me.
I don’t need to be reminded that I am a racist and inhumane for expecting people to take personal responsibility.
And Brad Pitt, the human jungle gym, leaves me wanting….

HornetSting on January 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM

It’s a good thing I don’t define throwing stones the way you do, because I would have asked you if throwing a stone at me made you feel better.
Don’t feel too bad–lots of people twist the Bible nowadays. Like the “judge not” meme.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Like the “judge not” meme.

http://www.obeygod.com/judgenot.html

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Its a good thing I don’t define throwing stones…

jgapinoy on Jan 1,2008 at 6:08PM.

jgapinoy: In the spirit of The Life of Brian.

Blasphemers will get stoned done good!:)

He who throw’s the first brick,oops,I mean
stone…(I’m kidding you!)Haha:):)

canopfor on January 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM

crap,that should be 2009,not 2008,dam_ time reversals!Ugh.

canopfor on January 1, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Undefeated in all its bowl games… take a seat, SEC. Pac-10 is the strongest conference!

John the Libertarian on January 1, 2009 at 7:14 PM

. . . Can’t see much point in the film’s reverse gimmick unless there is some philosophically profound and extremely inventive writing at work.

But, since it’s Hollywood, that seems unlikely.

I’ll wait for the dollar bin and a rainy June Sunday.

profitsbeard on January 1, 2009 at 4:27 PM

I agree, though the film medium can substitute for good writing to some extent with the multisenory experience. There’s one place the reverse-aging trick works well, and that’s in T. H. White’s The Sword and the Stone, where the backward-living Merlin’s observations are high comedy.

MrLynn on January 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Correction: multisensory

MrLynn on January 1, 2009 at 7:35 PM

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM

It’s a good thing I don’t define throwing stones the way you do, because I would have asked you if throwing a stone at me made you feel better.
Don’t feel too bad–lots of people twist the Bible nowadays. Like the “judge not” meme.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Your response is unintelligible.

Figures.

Get another rock, try again.

Twist the bible. Not you, of course. I’ll call the next time a proper interpretation is needed, Master (meant in the biblical sense, of course – not chains in leather).

Dunno, wonder of The Original One felt better chastising the stone-throwers. Probably not. Well, maybe. Did He, Master?

Seriously, I don’t pay for certain flicks because of some of those involved are political, American enemies – can you say Cloooooooooney rhymes with loooooooney? So I guess it’s okay for you to rule out all those apostasizers…or whatever you call them.

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 8:28 PM

I thought the first part of the movie was pretty good. Queenie was a good character, and the elderly/young Benjamin was entertaining. But after that it devolved into a pretty boring love story that was so saccharine sweet that I think I now have diabetes. The Hurricane Katrina bits were totally pointless: “Wow, what a story. I’m going to have a smoke. What? I can’t smoke in here? OK, I guess I’ll just get back to the story.” They could have cut pretty much all of that out, maybe just keeping it at the bookends of the movie.

That being said, it was better than the other movie I saw in the last week: The Spirit. Benjamin Button is a movie that at least has some redeeming qualities and I can get why some people like it, but the Spirit was one of the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen.

VanPalin on January 1, 2009 at 9:59 PM

I think Brad Pitt is over-rated as an actor.
A lady at church recommended a few shows to me that she thought I’d like because I was born Jewish
Her favorite was “The Reader” which I’m seeing tomm.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 1, 2009 at 10:05 PM

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 8:28 PM

Put down the crack pipe, man. Why are you starting this thing with jgapinoy?

I got news for you: lots of people choose to not support actors, writers, musicians, singers, artists, etc, because they find their personal lives offensive. How many libs dig Ted Nugent?

It’s a new year. Let’s fight over something sensible instead of people’s personal preferences on which actors they like.

Y-not on January 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 8:28 PM

I’m sorry that you are having a difficult time understanding what I wrote at 1:49PM.
I’ll spell it out very simply. Your accusation:

Congrats – you threw the first stone!

is inaccurate. Whether your intended to reference Jesus or not, the “throwing stones” is often a dreadful misinterpretation of:

If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

He was obviously referring to capital punishment, but folks often try to make him say that it’s always wrong for imperfect people to criticize others.
I am doing no wrong to point out that Pitt is a poster-boy for adultery. He has unfortunately done a lot to take away its shame. I would probably not be able to enjoy watching a movie of his now.
I’m not saying that I only watch movies with perfect people in them. I’m not making a rule for anyone else. I’m not throwing stones. I’m just sharing my thoughts.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM

I am doing no wrong to point out that Pitt is a poster-boy for adultery. He has unfortunately done a lot to take away its shame. I would probably not be able to enjoy watching a movie of his now. I’m not saying that I only watch movies with perfect people in them. I’m not making a rule for anyone else. I’m not throwing stones. I’m just sharing my thoughts. jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Jesus called John the Baptist the “greatest prophet.” John was hardly shy about criticizing those who warranted it.

Not to be critical or anything…

Mojave Mark on January 1, 2009 at 11:28 PM

I’m skeptical…Brad Pitt just isn’t that great of an actor. His best work was as a stoner in True Romance and he was pretty sexy as a tortured vampire in that otherwise forgettable movie.

CarolynM on January 2, 2009 at 12:08 AM

klickink.wordpress.com on January 1, 2009 at 8:28 PM

That’s quite an asinine threadjack you got going on. You must be a complete buzzkill at parties.

On Topic:
I liked Brad Pitt in the “Oceans 11″ film, mostly because of the gag of him eating CONSTANTLY. Of course the film was just good, goofy fun.
“Fight Club” was okay and Pitt was decent in “Se7en”, but otherwise, he’s fairly Meh to me.

The only movie I’m looking forward to seeing is “Defiance”. Otherwise Meh to it all.

mjk on January 2, 2009 at 12:32 AM

My friend saw the movie today. She said it wasn’t all that. Some good parts. But to long and she fell asleep. Actually, Brad Pit isn’t the best of actors. It is his looks. Which I never thought of him that good looking. He isn’t manly looking. I like a man with wisdom around his eyes, rugged with a beard and mustache Like my hubby. Pit looks like kind of a girly type dude. Any way, was hoping that Ed’s Grand Daughter is here yet? Boys are the ones that seem to take their time. Stubborn baby girl. It will be soon Ed! I get so pace crazy when anyone has a baby. I love babies. Glad those days are over though. I am enjoying my man, cats and dog. And Friends too.

sheebe on January 2, 2009 at 12:38 AM

“Fight Club” was okay..
mjk

Fight Club! Thanks, I forgot about that one – good movie.

CarolynM on January 2, 2009 at 12:38 AM

Big solid Hollywood entertainment. Forest Gump in reverse.

If you have ever thought about the concept that underlies the movie it is must see.

It will get a pile of Academy nominations.

patrick neid on January 2, 2009 at 2:49 AM

Slow starting but once it gets moving it’s a great movie. You become completely absorbed in the characters lives. It won’t do block buster dollars because it’s for adults. You have to pay attention and understand long term and very complicated adult relationships.

Worth seeing….

Bogeyfre on January 2, 2009 at 3:37 AM

Oh, if only Woody Allen had directed this… major creepy-funny points missed there.

That being said, isn’t David Fincher directing the ‘new’ Heavy Metal movie?

Reaps on January 2, 2009 at 4:05 AM

I never thought I’d turn into my parents and refuse to see anything with Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, or Tom Cruise for their ridiculous off-screen behavior no matter how good the movie. But I have.

(when a couple, the former Mr and Mrs Pitt were snarky Bush-twin girls bashers in a piece I read)

Marcus on January 1, 2009 at 2:29 PM

me too!!!

sabbott on January 2, 2009 at 5:11 AM

Jesus was talking about capital punishment, not criticism.
I’m not throwing stones.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM

jgapinoy, I very much enjoyed reading both your blogs. The article you wrote about Darwinism is superb and superbly reasoned.

S on January 2, 2009 at 7:04 AM

About Brad Pitt as actor, his skill or lack thereof depending on one’s perspective, I found his performance as Jesse James in THE ASSISINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD, ROBERT FORD to be excellent. His best work, in my view, though I’ve wondered later if it was because the material was done so well otherwise, the role created for him (it wasn’t but if you view the film, there’s a seamlessness between the actor, the role and the production that bespeaks of excellence).

Anyway, haven’t seen BENJAMIN BUTTON but will, though I’ll wait for the DVD. I share the opinions of many here as to not being able to appreciate certain actors’ works when and as their lives and statements off-screen (and choices for on-screen roles) is quite so offensive to many not among the Leftwing. I feel similarly about Pitt, same about Clooney and many more: it makes spending money “on them” to be a difficult and moral choice, what with their excesses as severe as they are (morally, spiritually, politically).

S on January 2, 2009 at 7:18 AM

About FOREST GUMP, people here seem to overlook the fact that the film you saw was from an adaptation script by Roth from an original work of fiction by another author.

So Roth didn’t “create” the STORY, and in that film, as also the book from whence the film was adapted, the STORY is the star (though Tom Hanks was superb as Gump).

I think Eric Roth merits criticism on many fronts but his adaptation for FOREST GUMP is not one of those fronts — Roth did a great job adapting a complex novel to the screen BUT the praise and criticism for any stupidness, so to speak, about the story rests with the book’s author, not with Roth.

I like FOREST GUMP, by the way; the film never ceases to get me crying at the end.

S on January 2, 2009 at 7:24 AM

Also saw “Gran Torino” (Clint Eastwood) over the holidays. Twice the movie; twice the actor. Its got Oscar all over it.

Syd B. on January 2, 2009 at 8:04 AM

S on January 2, 2009 at 7:04 AM

Thank you–you’re very kind.
Your blog is hilarious! I love the Weekly World News cover. Agreed, BHO & the big-spenders in both parties are sinking this ship.
Back on topic,

granddaughter #2 remains obstinate in her refusal to make her debut.

She’ll be worth the wait, Ed! You’ll be spoiling her in no time.

jgapinoy on January 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM

S on January 2, 2009 at 7:18 AM

BTW, my sister is also named Susan Elizabeth ______.

jgapinoy on January 2, 2009 at 8:14 AM

I was disappointed by the movie. It was presented as if it were very deep, but I don’t think there was really anything there. Benjamin never said or seemed to feel anything, and went through the entire movie with his same wistful, homey wisdom and calm. I was trying to figure out why all the other characters (especially Daisy) were so in love with him when he was really quite boring; I haven’t figured why.

ggoofer on January 2, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Great article as usual, Captain.

While I think that Brad Pitt actually has the intelligence of a Florida Grapefruit (listen to him actually trying to explain his beliefs) I do think he is a gifted actor as well. Angelina Jolie, on the other hand, seems to have surprising depth, which makes you wonder what she sees in Pitt, besides his well-defined Abs.

Keep up the good work, E

darkmetal on January 2, 2009 at 8:41 AM

Nothing “intriguing” about this movie at all. It stank. It’s a bad, almost-three-hours long, race-baiting, chick-flick that is not even up to snuff of a standard “Twilight Zone” episode. You have to wonder about anyone who says this is a film “everyone can enjoy.” Don’t waste your $10 and three hours, unless you have nothing else to do with your life.

Oh, and it’s plagiarized from a book whose author wouldn’t sell the rights, not the F. Scott Fitzgerald tale it claims to be adapted from. That’s not to mention the similarities to the far superior “Forrest Gump,” which today’s USA Today notes.

Debbie Schlussel on January 2, 2009 at 10:21 AM

It was ok. The best thing in it was the 20 second machine gun duel at sea.

Akzed on January 2, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Thank you–you’re very kind.
Your blog is hilarious! I love the Weekly World News cover.

jgapinoy on January 2, 2009 at 8:12 AM

And thankYEW! It’s nice to hear any feedback that isn’t from the Left (who hates my blog, as to be expected). I also got a reasonable amount of denigrating comments from the open-borders-McCain-camp before McCain was the nominee (at which time, I, too, lent a hand as to the latter). So I tend to hear more from the negatives among us than those who enjoy and laugh at the content (what I intend).

Thanks…

S on January 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Wow, Ed. Couldn’t disagree more.

ktrush on January 3, 2009 at 2:02 AM