I think I saw that happen on TALES FROM THE CRYPT, and man, that would really bum me out.

You've made an interesting pick for your Best Film of the Year. I'm surprised that in your entire review, you say absolutely nothing about Brad Pitt's amazing performance (unless I missed it). Sure, Tilda Swinton is good as usual. But Pitt is the heart and soul of this movie and has the biggest acting challenges. He never falters for an instant.

As for BUTTON, I was not jazzed by anything I saw in the previews, and the actors are not my favorites to start. All of this fervent praise sounds like overreacting to me. It may be a very good movie, but is it so emotionally touching as to blow our collective minds? I mean a lot of people thought the same shit about TITANIC in our brief flirtation with mass-insanity in the late 1990s. Eh, I'll see it but I don't expect to be drinking any Kool-Aid.

My other gripe in general is that his de-aging condition really didn't make much of a difference in most of his relationships with people. His relationship with Daisy would have played out the same without it. Same with the British woman. But maybe that's just me bringing my own expectations into the movie. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be a part of it all the time.

What else? The heavy handedness. The hummingbird being shoved in my face as subtle as the butterfly in Patch Adams. The secret about his daughter that is so expected that it becomes unexpected because you don't think that the writers would dare do something so obvious. Didn't get the point of the whole hurricane. The whole lightning bit was funny but felt like a cheap laugh with more heavy-handed meaning.

It's not a bad movie, it's just not as poignant as it positions itself to be. Which makes it come across as arrogant.

Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay. Pitt for Best Actor (after being criminally ignored for "The Assasination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford"). Blanchett for Best Actress. Swinton for Best Supporting Actress, and fuckall who knows what else.

Remember six years ago, when Fincher decided to appease the money boys with "Panic Room", just to show he could make a "normal" movie? Then he doubled back with "Zodiac" (and if ANY director can lay claim to owning the serial killer genre, it's him). Now we get The Curious Case Of Fincher Using Benjamin To Push Academy Buttons. He wants that Oscar. He wants a bunch of Oscars. They will forever shush all those skittish money boys.

That said, I doubt F.Scott is rolling over in his grave, but he probably has a big smirk on his face (the man had a finely tuned sense of irony). What the movie does to the short story is beyond blasphemy. But hey, if it results in an armload of little gold statues... who gives a damn?

While it had some good moments (loved the scenes with Tilda Swinton and thought Taraji P. Henson was great as Queenie) and some impressive special effects, my overall feeling of it came up rather empty. Sheesh, there was even a moment in there when they were on the boat that I was expecting Benjamin and Daisy to 'pretend fly' at the prow and say "I'm the king of the world".

I am still a Fincher fan; I think he is better than this. I have not given up, but this film did not do it for me. Heck, it wasn't even bad enough for me to full-on hate it, it just felt "off" and kind of boring.

Phila. man shot because family talked during movie

By Barbara Boyer

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

A South Philadelphia man enraged because a father and son were talking during a Christmas showing of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button took care of the situation when he pulled a .380-caliber gun and shot the father, police said.

James Joseph Cialella Jr., 29, of the 1900 block of Hollywood Street is charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons violations.

"It's truly frightening when you see something like this evolve into such violence," said police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore.

Police were called to the Riverview Theatre in the 1400 block of Columbus Boulevard about 9:30 p.m. where the gunshot victim, a Philadelphia man who was not identified, told police a man sitting near him told his family to be quiet and threw popcorn at his son.

After exchanging words, Vanore said Cialella allegedly got out of his seat to confront the family when the father got up to protect them. That's when the victim was shot once in the left arm, sending others in the theatre running to safety.

Cialella then sat down to watch the movie. Police arrived a short time later and arrested Cialella and confiscated his weapon, Vanore said.

------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------

Then it would have made a lot more sense why he left: the thought of marriage and fatherhood, which had been appealing to his "older" self, is all of a sudden too boring for the "younger" version that just wants to sow his wild oats. That would have put some real tragedy and feeling into his decision to leave; as it is, it just doesn't make sense. "I have to leave because it's not fair to you if I stay." Really? You get to tool around the world exploring exotic countries while she is forced to be a single mom with a baby? How noble. But even if you buy that him leaving is somehow good and noble, when he comes back and sees her, sees her with her new, kind, stable husband, and then makes her cheat on him, it ruins that message too.

If he had actually been aging backwards mentally, all of that would have made more sense--he's a teenage dick, and acts on a whim. It also would have made this movie about something other than a person with a physical deformity. And if that's all it's about, what a message: if a handicapped father has children, he should just leave them, because he might be a burden on his family later in life. Real heartwarming message. Merry Christmas.

I personally felt that it was one of the most artful mainstream films of the last 5 years.

The central plot point--that the character ages backwards--seemed poorly thought out to me. The pacing was weird as well (why spend so much time on the details of him growing up as an old man, but dash through practically everything else as a montage), and I didn't feel like I knew either of the main characters well enough to care about what happened to them.

I thought there was a great movie there to be had among this film's parts, but the filmmakers didn't arrive at it. My overall impression is that they went into it with the goal of "let's win ourselves some Oscars" rather than "let's tell a good story."

BUT...the film is far from perfect, and here's one of my major issues with it that I haven't seen discussed.

At one point in Pitt's narration, he's recounting the day when Daisy was hit by the taxi, and, strangely, he now knows EVERY detail about what EVERYONE involved was doing or what they were going through leading to the strange coincidences that led to the accident (the worker had just broken up with her boyfriend, the guy who didn't set his alarm, etc., etc.). One minute, we're getting a diary narration of Button's life, as any diary would be, and the next he suddenly becomes the omniscient narrator who knows basically everything. That really was the beginning of the downfall of the second half for me. And then that darn ending (I'm particularly referring to Benjamin's final scenes) grabbed me extra hard and pulled me back.