As luck or fate would have it, I came across the short story of this in the charity shop just before Christmas, which was part of a small group of short stories by Fitzgerald...
...And indeed, it's a relative tiddler of a story (quite good though).
It reads more like a short fable, in the classical style, where the fantastical happens, but nobody bats an eyelid... so it's more like an amusing thought experiment: "what if someone aged in reverse?" the kind of idea that you may wonder about after closing time and couple of beers with friends, and just for laughs, you just write a little story about it.
It has a kind of dry wit, and wry humour about it, where all that would be implied by the situation remains implied - well, for the read to guess the implications of.
It's nowhere near the vast, baggy "tragic", and humourless story this movie makes it to be, and heaps of the story threads here in the movie are of course, not to be found in the story, so don't go expecting anything like this movie if you find the book.
The story is more: Gullivers' Travels in terms of satire than funeral dirge in terms of this movie.
Finally plucked up the courage to watch this, thinking, since time of release, that it was absurd and hokey in concept... a bit of mock-worthy fluff.
I never imagined that what I was actually in for was a positively Tolkienian 2hrs, 45 mins of funerial, languid, bordering on the morbid, depression, and all n David Fincher's signature murky tones, minimalist direction and glacial pacing.
...I mean, it's actually a better story than I had expected, and better handled than the cringe fest I thought awaited me, but with all those previously mentioned factors at play, it just exhausts the viewer, so that by the end, I found myself drooping, and thinking: "Dude, I don't really care how this ends now, so long as it does end... at some point... soon!"
Subsequent research reveals something I didn't know about the story: That it was based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald... I repeat: short story, of some only 45 pages long.
How on earth do you spin out a 45 page short story to heading toward three hours of movie?
And this tale of a man who ages in reverse, set against the fable like device of a clock that was built to run backwards by a man in grief at the loss of his son to war certainly does have an appealing notion at it's heart, and which should have made for a more engaging, and crucially, compelling tale. It actually feels like one of those short stories great novelists write from time to time, where they get a cute notion in their heads, and so jot it down... for fun.
I think what's happened here then, is whoever made this happen had too long to think about that notion, and all it's extensive implications, and spun the yarn out way too long.
Another odd thing, is when a particular director makes a movie not in his accustomed style, or of a different kind of genre, it often begins to look like another director's work slightly. Here: it has a faint whiff of Wes Anderson or the kind of magical fable telling of Guillermo del Toro, but alas, these allusions wilt under the weight of it's Finchery.
(Also, in this sense, Martin Scorcese's: Hugo, sprang to mind, except that is quite enjoyable)
So if you fillet this movie, and look at the bones of it, it's like Forest Gump minus the joy, emotional impact, fun, engaging quality, or entertainment value... and it should have been handed to a Zemeckis or a del Toro to make a better movie.
Drab, soul crushing, depressing... and ultimately disappointing, in that it could have been such a magical movie if someone else had done it... with a shorter runtime!