"We're meant to lose the people we love," says a character in "Benjamin Button." "How else would we know how important they are to us?"

What a silly schoolgirl statement. If that really is the movie's central idea I think I'd rather watch a rerun of a silly schoolgirl movie, at least it won't be pretending to be something important.

Why? 90% of the posts here aren't from Klytus.

Wait a minute...I'm workin' on it.

...and too self-conscious an actor to play little old wall fly Benjamin Button. Casting like this is a sure sign that some greedy, un-artistic producer or studio head wanted to get their movie seen by as many people as possible even if it meant sacrificing the artistry of the story. That is a fine reason to wait for the video.

Perhaps and if so, it's due to the undue attention that we give him and all actors. As Mr. Lecter observed, monsters aren't born: they're made. And we make them.

However, I still believe that Mr. Pitt remains a character actor in a leading man's body. And his career choices support that. His range dazzles.

I have a friend who's an envied professional fisher. She's envied because she's paid to fish, much as you're paid to watch movies. However, the attention my friend has to pay to fishing in order to be paid withdraws the fun. I assume it's the same for you and I suspect that losing yourself to a film happens less and less. I am careful about my wishing and I wouldn't wish to be a film critic because I don't just like to watch like your colleague: I like to be taken.

I've seen a screener, and while everything said about the film's shortcomings may be true, it's still a not-to-be-missed effort.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with this movie, haven't seen it, didn't work on it, but Jesus, do you have NOTHING better to do?

what if he started out as a dog and turned into a squirrel later. then we would never be shure what animal would be his friend when it was over and he was dead

I saw it this morning, and it was beautifully done--ALL of the performances were excellent (though the plot weakened a bit in spots). Pitt was spot-on.

Bring kleenex.

Just saw it. Brad Pitt can't act, although that didn't make me not like last year's Jesse James. This film was pretty to look at, but left me cold. Kind of like Pitt does. Also, I was unsurprised to see the writer is the same one who wrote Forest Gump, perhaps one of the sorriest films I've seen.

Save your money and buy some wrinkle cream.

You'd be falling over yourselves gushing with erotic praise.

I was quite moved by this movie. Not "almost". I'm not sure what lose ends you're talking about either.

I have a couple of small gripes which would be spoilers so I won't mention them here. But I didn't find the movie, nor any of the performances, cold or lacking in the way this review describes.

I've never heard anyone complaining about a film because the beautiful lead is "too luminous". She supposed to look young and untouched by life; later the same makeup folks allow us to see the marks that life has left on her. She's already so beautiful that making her look untouched makes her luminous. Get over it.

Go see it, folks, and don't let this review put you off.

Scott Fitzgerald is my favorite author, next to Wallace Stegner.

I'm no Brad Pitt fan. I'm not even a Kate Blanchett fan (although I see that she is very talented). But I saw this film today, Christmas Day, in a packed theatre, and it was really lovely. Go see for yourself.

I am always appreciative of Salon's film reviews. My family and friends enjoyed the film this afternoon, but my personal two cents worth is that I found this film to be a long bore. It never pulled me in. It felt like a collage of beautiful images and over-played music. The plot and characters never clicked for me-- not past the opening hospital scene anyway. In truth, I found the whole film to be contrived; the premise is of course irrational/whimsical and thus suggestive of philosophical or spiritual themes, but I didn't feel the reflectiveness on youth and age that Zacharek picked up on (I wish I had). I just left the theater hyper aware of everyone's literal/physical ages around me. Also, I didn't have enough context for any of the characters to care about them, including Benjamin. How did he make a living? What did he do on that tug boat? Why did he fit into that community? Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are beautiful and a pleasure to view, but I picked up zero sexual chemistry between them.

About half way through this long, long, long movie, I sighed and realized there was still half a lifetime left of Benjamin's story. Would it ever end? Magical realism can be fun, but it was a little too much to accept that every one of the characters took Benjamin's remarkable age change in stride or to accept the level of coincidences that brought Benjamin and the Blanchett character together time after innumerable time. And couldn't there be stronger emotion on the part of the daughter reading the diary to her mother? By the time Benjamin de-aged back to his 20s, I almost expected him to be standing on the side of the road so that Thelma and Louise could pick him . Other than some pretty scenery, amazing make up,and a decent portrayal of a dying woman by Blanchett, I felt the movie was a waste of time

Just pick any random interminable 2 hour snippet. I'm sure they're all pretty much the same.

I undertook an experiment after seeing this movie. I read hundreds of posts here and other sites in reaction to critics' review of this movie and I have never heard people so many contrasting views.

1. Either "it's too long and a waste of time" or "it's pretty to look at, I hardly noticed the time"

2. "Brad Pitt can't act"/"Brad can really act"

The striking thing, though, is that there seems to be no middle-ground in all the comments: either one hated or loved it. Personally, I love it, because when I was younger, I wanted to be a film maker, and you see the craft at work in the movie. Each scene seems to be a miracle all its own. On a much more intimate level, though, I feel the same as Stephanie (I like her review best among others). "I was almost moved." But I think I know why: It's because an elegiac movie and one that borders on magic realism even cannot be grounded in reality, and therefore can never ever be as moving as say a documentary movie about Katrina. So in conclusion, I think the movie should only be watched by people who also like the parts of a whole when watching a movie, meaning: the direction, cinematography, the production design, the editing, the acting, the story, the screenplay, etc. One thing I can be sure of when you see this movie: It's the first movie that's not like any you have seen.