Director David Fincher’s (Fight Club, Se7en) latest offering, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, curiously reminds me of Kevin Costner’s monumentally mediocre Waterworld (1995).

Let me first make the point that Benjamin Button has almost nothing in common with, and is far superior to Costner’s bloated tale of self-aggrandizement; however, these two films do share one glaringly disappointing characteristic–Missed opportunity.

The concept of Waterwold is good.  Sadly though, a good concept can’t make up for a disheveled script and shoddy execution.  It’s a shame to see a good concept mishandled by the the wrong filmmaker, tainted by a poor performance, or fettered by thoughtless pacing or art-direction.

Benjamin Button, on the other hand, has all the ingredients of a would-be masterpiece:  A great concept (from a short musing by F. Scott Fitzgerald), a skilled and visionary director, Oscar-caliber screen talent, and Claudio Miranda’s breathtaking cinematography.  This boon of favorable components results in a beautiful film that’s technically as sound as they come.  So why does it only earn three out of five stars?  Because it could have earned five.

Relative criticism is, I think, the most ethical way to evaluate a work of art.  This means that I critique a film based on whether it accomplishes its goals–not on how it compares directly to another film of a completely disparate genre.  Of course I take in to consideration the so-called cinematic worth of those goals and evaluate accordingly.  This is all ridiculously subjective, but if you want to get philosophical, most things in life fall into that category.  All axiology and credo aside, what I’m trying to say is that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, as beautiful and well crafted as it is, failed to achieve the too-lofty goals it set for itself.

Fincher skillfully illustrates a story that is sweeping, epic, beautiful, and tragic, but fails to give us a reason to care about its central figure.  Brad Pitt (Burn After Reading, Fight Club) is undoubtedly a talented actor but seems disinterested.  Any emotion we might feel is virtually negated by Pitt’s pseudo-understated performance.  Eric Roth’s Forrest Gump-like script isn’t bad, but feels forced and disjointed.  Cate Blanchett (Babel, The Aviator), on the other hand, shines throughout the film.  Unfortunately, dazzling visuals and some great acting aren’t enough to overcome the outstanding dilemmas of incongruous storytelling and the complete absence of a resolution.

This is not to say that a film, in order to be considered a good picture, requires a neatly packaged conclusion that ties up every loose end and makes you feel better walking out of the cinema.  Some of the greatest films deliberately do just the opposite, but they all have a focused purpose.

Why was this film made other than to show the world how far CGI has come?  Is it a call to live this fleeting thing we call life to the fullest?  Is it a commentary on the futility of love or the manipulation of one’s own destiny?  Ultimately it doesn’t matter because whatever the underlying themes and message were–the very reasons for telling this story at all–were a mere afterthought.

Though Benjamin Button is a mild disappointment it’s still worth seeing.  If for nothing else, see it for the flawless CGI transformation, Miranda’s spectacular cinematography, and Blanchett’s inspired performance.  Plus, it’s better than Waterworld.