There’s something inherently wrong about turning a short story into a nearly 3-hour feature length film. Such an adaptation, if faithful to its limited source material, is bound to struggle against tedium, and this is where ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button‘ fails.

This type of story – sharing the basic premise of recounting one’s life with films such as ‘Big Fish‘ and ‘Forrest Gump‘ – needs to survive on its characters and their charm. The story in this case is quite linear, and so simply shuffles off to another adventure as soon as we feel we are getting to know any of those appearing on screen. If these are individuals that are to have made an impact on the story’s protagonist, they should equally make an impact on those of us watching the story unfold.

Yes, the film has its charming moments, it has scenes that might draw a few tears, but ultimately it feels slow and uneventful – a symptom of trying to do too much with story arcs.

A film like this might be saved by the acting, but even here things disappoint. While Tilda Swinton is fabulous, Cate Blanchett still seems to be channeling her over-the-top role from ‘The Aviator‘ and Brad Pitt doesn’t seem to know what to do with the role once he grows out of old age.

Watchable? Yes. What the film does with special effects to make Pitt appear seamlessly older than his years in the early stages is incredible. Deserving of 13 Academy Award nominations? Only in a lackluster year for film.

C

What is it about dying in the pursuit of freedom that is so poetic? ‘Easy Rider’ (which I finally got around to watching tonight), ‘Vanishing Point,’ ‘Into the Wild.’ I’m not sure it’s a rhetorical question.

‘Into the Wild’ seemed to hint at personal failure to rewrite the world, and as such was a compelling look at the frailty of the individual, a reassurance that those of us watching can be comfortable, that we don’t need to search for something more. …but that seems too easy, too neatly packaged, and it doesn’t explain how the characters in these films, as ultimately (the term used here in its strictest definition) flawed as they may be, so effortlessly inspire.

There seems to be a new genre of film these days that tries to tiptoe the fine line between comedy and drama, but instead ends up being nothing remotely similar to either category. ‘Everything’s Gone Green‘ falls into this new genre, as does ‘King of California.’ Both are slightly interesting stories, with some pretty decent performances (especially Michael Douglas as a delusional dreamer in the latter title), but ultimately leave the viewer wanting something more. There are no jokes and any sense of heart-wrenching tension is completely absent. So why watch? They’re just 2 hours of (and to a certain degree, I hate to say this) boredom. I’d rather have spent my time organizing a bookcase.

D

I’ve certainly got no real vested interest in tonight’s Academy Awards, but as my film watching habits have returned to normal after a few “drought” years, I do have some opinions on certain matters.

Firstly, “Best Picture” has one too many unfunny smarmy hipster comedies. ‘Juno’ had one of the more execrable scripts in recent years I’ve ever had to endure. I know that it won fans for its creativity, but I’m not buying into it. If there were awards for “trying too hard” to be be unique, then the film should certainly be considered. The best picture of the year it is not.

Nothing against Ellen Page’s nomination, though. She did what she could. She hasn’t really had a decent script yet (‘Hard Candy’ was also somewhat tortuous), so I’m looking forward to seeing what she does with ‘Smart People’ later this year.

Secondly, that Josh Brolin was overlooked for his performance in ‘No Country for Old Men’ (which deserves the “Best Picture” award, and might just be the best I’ve ever seen) is pathetic. Brolin’s performance was just as deserving as Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh, if not more deserving; it was pitch-perfect throughout.

That’s all.