The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

In 1922 F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote an unusual short story about Benjamin Button, who was born and old man and grew backwards, becoming younger every year. This unusual foray into science fantasy is whimsical and often humorous, but it has a melancholy aspect to it because Benjamen feels out of sync with the rest of the world. In this adaptation to the silver screen, the filmakers seized on that melancholy, and emphasized a line of romance that was almost nonexistent in the story.

Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) is born a full-grown man in the original story, which Fitzgerald never bothered to explain, but he is a miniature old man in the movie. His mother dies shortly after childbirth and his father abandons him outside an old folks home, leaving him to be raised by a young black woman who could not have children herself. The choice to set Benjamin's growing-up years in an old folks home works well for the movie, and we get to watch Benjamin learn about life from people about to depart it. While at the home he meets a little girl who will become the love of his life (Cate Blanchett). Their friendship and later romance are touching at times, but also turbulent as they struggle with the fact that he grows younger as she grows older.

The filmakers essentially gave the short story the Forrest Gump treatment, following Benjamin's life through two World Wars, multiple continents, and changing eras of American history. None of this is in the short story, of course, but it works well in the film. The make-up used on Brad Pit as an old man is quite good, and there are some very fine performances by Pitt, Blanchett, and Tilda Swinton.

My biggest complaint about the movie is that the story is largely told through the memories of his aged sweetheart as she dies of cancer in a New Orleans hospital during Hurricane Katrina. This attempt at connecting the story to a recent and sensational event is unnecessary and distracting.There is also an attempt to explain why Benjamin grows backwards (something about a magic clock) but that's distracting too. F. Scott Fitzgerald never bothered to try to explain why Benjamin Button was the way he was; Fitzgerald was satisfied with taking his audience along with Benjamin's backward life.

The film's best moments are ones that capture that fantastical melancholy of the story. The most bittersweet of these is when Benjamin dies as an infant in the arms of the old woman who once was his lover. I sat thinking about the movie for a long time after the credits started to roll.

∗∗∗

Wives and Daughters

The BBC works its magic again with another excellent miniseries, this time brining Elizabeth Gaskell's novel Wives and Daughters to the screen. I admit I had never read any of Gaskell's work before seeing the movie, and her only books I knew of were Cranford and North and South. Having happily corrected my ignorance, I will soon be adding some Gaskell novels to my summer reading list.

The main character, Molly Gibson, lives with her widowed father. He remarries a woman with a daughter close to Molly's age, introducing a new mother and a new daughter to the family. It's interesting to see a film explore how two families settle together as one family, with plenty of conflicts and struggles along the way. Mrs. Gibson is at once sly and naive, but always in pursuit of her own selfish interests. Her daughter from her first marriage, Cynthia, has some of the same selfishness, but Molly becomes a good influence on her and she often works against her mother's will. Along the way the Gibsons become involved in the drama of their wealthy neighbors, the Hamleys, who have two handsome sons. It is inevitable in such a story that romance would blossom, but it doesn't happen quite like you would expect it, and that's what makes it so much fun.

If you like period pieces or human-driven stories, I highly recommend Wives and Daughters. It has some very funny dialogue, quite a few excellent performances, and very well-developed characters. Even if you can't stand the better-known Jane Austen film adaptations, Wives and Daughters is worth a try because it doesn't delve into the sappy as much, and it has some great mysteries and plot twists.
∗∗∗1/2

Prince Caspian

Never let it be said that Disney didn't know how to capitalize ona trend. In the wake of highly successful fantasy films such as The Lord of the Rings, Disney weighed in with another classic fantasy series, The Chornicles of Narnia. The second installment of this series, Prince Caspian, is probably one of the best-suited books of the series for movie adaptation. Which is why I was puzzled when the screenwriters took some fairly significant liberties with the plot, mostly in order to include more epic battle sequences and special effects. The Narnia books have their share of fighting, but here it somewhat subordinates the plot. The first Narnia movie, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, was pretty decent. Prince Caspian is a weaker movie in general, but it is still okay. The title character is certainly good-looking enough to have plenty of young fans anxiously wait for his appearance in the next movie in the series.

∗∗1/2

Iron Man

I missed this one in the theater, so we put it in our Blockbuster-by-Mail queue. Perhaps waiting to see it was a mistake, however, because I was a little disappointed. It was a fun summer movie, but it wasn't amazing. The special effects were fine, but those things just don't impress me like they used to. And I saw all the good parts on the commercials anyway. In fact, all but two or three of the good lines of dialogue were in the trailers. I will gladly admit one thing, however -- casting Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark was the best casting decision since Johnny Depp was picked for Pirates of the Caribbean. He was absolutely perfect for the part. I thought Gwenyth Paltrow was an odd choice for Pepper Potts, but not too bad. Jeff Bridges was a fine villain, although I scarcely recognized him with the beard and the shaved head. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the movie a little more if I could have ignored Newton's Three Laws and the basic principles of thermodynamics, but I thought a lot of the action was fairly unbelievable. Still, it was a fun flick, and I would gladly see the inevitable sequel.
∗∗1/2

The Prestige

The Prestige boasts an impressive cast with an ambitious story of magicians, magic, and mystery. Like a real magic act, you can see how they do a few of the tricks before hand, but the overall performance is still very good.

The Prestige follows the careers of two rival magicians. When one of them (Christian Bale) develops the impossible magic trick, the other (Hugh Jackman) becomes obsessed with discovering the feat. Eventually, with the aid of science, he develops an even greater trick, but ultimately at great cost. Bale and Jackman are quite good, but the rest of the cast is also impressive. Scarlett Johansen is the lovely but conflicted assistant working for both men; Michael Caine plays the stage manager and trick engineer; David Bowie plays the true magician of them all, the famous inventor Nicola Tesla. The film has something of a surprise ending, although many viewers will have already figured it out. But that doesn't diminish the thrill or enjoyment. As the movie immediately explains, the title refers to the third part of all magic tricks, in which the illusion is presented. Indeed, The Prestige creates an intense, fascinating illusion.
∗∗∗1/2

Spider-Man 3

I knew that the third installment of this big-budget comic adaptation was weaker than the first two movies. I intentionally didn't see it in the theater, and I only now got around to seeing the DVD. My problem with the Spider-Man movies is that I'm actually a Spider-Man fan. I had a subscription to the comic for several years when I was young, and I read the comics in the local public library for years before that. So my reluctance to watch the movie wasn't because I didn't like Spider-Man; it was because I was afraid of what the movie makers were going to do with the franchise.

Spider-Man 3 was exactly what I expected it to be. It isn't terrible, but there's a lot that I didn't like about the movie. The major problem with this movie is what I might call the Batman-ization of the Spider-Man franchise. This movie is goofier than the previous two, with more soap-opera like plot elements. It also suffers from villain fatigue -- with Spider-Man fighting an alien symbiote, Venom, the Sandman, and the New Goblin. Frankly, there is just too much going on in this movie for there to be sufficient development of any single plot.

The storyline with the alien symbiote is the most compelling part of the movie. Eddie Brock, Peter Parker's competitor at The Daily Bugle, comes into contact with the symbiote after Spider-Man rejects it. Brock becomes Venom, a bigger and nastier version of Spider-Man who is always more dangerous than Spider-Man's other enemies because he knows his true identity. The Venom character was animated quite well in the movie, but it suffered from poor casting. Topher Grace wasn't physically threatening, and he seemed more goofy than angry or vindictive. The casting of the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), on the other hand, was quite good, and he had a few good scenes, but not enough to make the movie.

If Spider-Man 3 had just had two villains, it might have had time to develop the characters a little more. Instead, Sam and Ivan Raimi decided to also include the story of Harry Osborn becoming the New Goblin. Combine this with the soap-opera drama of Mary Jane Watson and the newly-introduced Gwen Stacy, there was just too much going on in this movie to do any one storyline justice. The movie makers may have wanted to squeeze as much into the movie as possible, in case they didn't get to make another one. But in doing so, they may have guaranteed that the franchise stays at only three movies.

Stardust

Stardust is a novel by noted fantasy writer Neil Gaiman, whose witty and off-beat books and stories have developed quite a following. Although many of Gaiman's works have been picked up as options for movies, Stardust is the first movie to actually attempt to translate Gaiman's tales to the silver screen. It tells the tale of a young man named Tristan who ventures into a magical kingdom in order to bring back a fallen star to the girl he thinks he loves. Of course, it's not as simple as it seems -- the fallen star isn't just a lump of rock, it's a girl (Claire Daines) who is being hunted by several malevolent princes and an evil witch (Michelle Pfeiffer). There are plenty of adventures that would normally be tired clichés, were it not for Gaiman's habit of fracturing fairytales and doing the unexpected. I don't mean to say that there isn't a happy ending (there is), but how they get there is often unexpected and convoluted. Stardust isn't a perfect film; sometimes it is a little too weird or moves too slowly. But it definitely has its moments, including a hilarious performance by Robert DeNiro as the cross-dressing captain of a flying ship. Fans of Gaiman's work and the fantasy genre will enjoy Stardust, but it has plenty of appeal for people who thought they would never like a fantasy movie.
∗∗1/2

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

The fifth installment of the Harry Potter movie series is the best one yet in many respects. The screenwriting for Order of the Phoenix is very good, carrying over all the important elements from 870-page book while leaving out all the excess. As a consequence, this film deviates from the storyline more than previous films by combining scenes and expediting the story, but it maintains the important dialogue. The result is a film that doesn't feel rushed but still manages to cover a whirlwind of events and character development. My major complaints about Order of the Phoenix are stylistic (I thought the art direction, especially for the Department of Mysteries, left much to be desired.) This movie has perhaps the best climax of the entire series, with an actual confrontation of good and evil and a duel between the wizards Dumbledore and Voldemort. Frankly, I wanted to be wowed by this scene, but it was pretty mediocre. Still, the movie in general is quite good, continuing in the tradition set by the previous two Harry Potter films.
∗∗∗

The Golden Compass

Ever since Hollywood started to make money on fantasy films like The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, there has been a glut of such films based on young adult fantasy series. The Golden Compass is the most recent offering, with some big-name stars (Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, and Sir Ian McKellan) bolster its appeal. The movie got a lot of last year for supposedly being anti-religious. Indeed, the author of the trilogy is fairly hostile to religion, and the books (especially the third) reflect that sentiment. However, it mostly comes off as anti-establishment in the movie. The Golden Compass paints a picture of a world in which all people have animal companions (quixotically named "demons") and where animals talk and magic is commonplace. Like most movies of its genre, there are plenty of adventures, perils, and quests. There are also, however, some mild themes of corruption, pain, and masochism. The ending of the movie is particularly weak because the book ended with the sacrifice of a child, so the movie just ends before that happens. If the film series is successful, the movie makers will face increasingly challenging themes to portray in a children's movie. I doubt that it will make it to a full trilogy, but The Golden Compass is fairly decent by itself.
∗∗

The Bourne Ultimatim

The third and probably final installment of the Bourne Trilogy was actually better than I expected. I've been a big fan of the series ever since I saw the first one in the theater, but I had heard that the third one wasn't as strong as the first two. I think this is probably true, but The Bourne Ultimatum is still pretty good. It ties off the storyline nicely, although there is still room for more in the Bourne storyline. But I hear that Matt Damon refuses to do another movie, which is probably wise, and without Matt Damon the movies wouldn't be half as cool. In addition to Damon, I loved the greater role given to Julia Styles. The film picks up right where the second one left off, and it does a good job of reminding forgetful viewers what happened in the first two films before it takes off on another adventure across three continents. A couple scenes, one in London's Waterloo Station and the other on the rooftops of Tangier, are absolutely thrilling. Joan Allen and David Strathairn play competing CIA officials trying to track Bourne down. Both are fine actors, although their conflicts give rise to some of the worst lines in the movie. (The screenwriters clearly have a very low opinion of the intelligence community.) All in all, this is an exciting, fun movie to watch. And if you're like me, your pulse will race a little bit as soon as the theme music starts.
∗∗∗

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy now occupies a classic and cult status among science fiction novels. I suppose it was only a matter of time before such a popular series was made into a movie. I read the book years ago, and I liked the whimsical and irreverent humor. It wasn't the sort of thing that translated easily to the silver screen, however. One attempt at bringing the series to life on the BBC during the 1980's is now legendary for its spectacularly bad special effects and acting. This second attempt did a better job, but it still couldn't quite capture the magic of the books. At least the special effects were better, and there were some okay scenes, but for the most part it was fairly ho-hum. I've seen a few bits of the old BBC series, and I was amused to see that several scenes in the movie paid homage to that version. I was also fairly impressed with Mos Def as Ford Prefect; I didn't think he would work in the part, but he was okay. I didn't particularly like the portrayal of Zaphod Beeblebrox, however, They sort of made him a cross between a vapid celebrity and George W. Bush, which ruined the vibe of the original character. I hate it when movie makers sacrifice character and plot for cheap political jabs.

Fans of the books probably won't like this movie a ton because of its departures and differences from the novels. Newcomers to the series might like it, but they also might be confused because a lot of it doesn't make much sense. Maybe that works better in a book than a movie. It wasn't too bad, though, which is more than I can say about most sci-fi book adaptations. Put this one in the Glad-I-Didn't-Pay-To-See-It-In-The-Theater category.
∗∗

Howl's Moving Castle

Unlike most films by legendary Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki, Howl's Moving Castle is based on a previous work, a book of the same title by Diana Wynne Jones. The story follows Sophie, a meek young woman who falls under a curse that makes her old and wrinkled. She flees to the wilderness, where she encounters the giant walking castle of the mysterious wizard Howl. Sophie takes up residence in the castle as a cleaning woman, and becomes entangled in the affairs of witches, wizards, intrigue, magic, and nations at war. The animation is some of Miyazaki's best, and I enjoyed the interplay between magic and technology. I thought the story was well done, although there were parts of the plot that weren't quite as clear as they could have been. Still, they don't get in the way of an excellent movie. The English dubbing is very well done, and features such impressive voice talent as Lauren Bacall, Christian Bale, and Billy Crystal. Howl's Moving Castle is some of Miyazaki's finest work.
∗∗∗1/2