Very interesting indeed. As far as I'm concerned, those guys are looking too much into the aging bit. That's just a part of the uniqueness of the story, not the story itself. The people who focus on the the latter will love this fanatastic film.

I would love to ask Roger how he would react if such a case as Benjamin’s actually happened. Would he still be able to say, “Life doesn’t work this way,” or would the forced confrontation have him completely rethinking his opinion?

If it actually happened, I couldn't say “Life doesn’t work this way,” but I would love to ask Benjamin if he is heartsick to see the chasm opening between himself and his loved ones. Aging is a process we all profoundly share. Maybe what he would be undergoing would simply be a differentI know I would rather grow old and die than grow young and die.

But since it is unlikely to actually happen, we are left with the movie. How would you feel if you met a young girl when you were apparently an old man? Never mind what his mind was like. Think of yourself. When your converging ages permit lovemaking, would you be making love with a person you know, or a person different from the one you knew? Something about him then makes you want to make love to him now. Does he still possess it? Remember, then he was a baby.

The movie gives them little chance to learn to know each other now. Essentially, they are making love with absent people. You could be cynical and say anyone would want to make love with Albert Einstein at 80 if he looked like Brad Pitt at 30. But this movie isn't facile. It wants us to be seriously be moved by an emotionally impossible and disturbing scene.

@Roger Ebert: I never got the impression they fell in love as youngsters and I never got the impression that young Daisy looked at Benjamin as an old man… I felt she was able to see through Benjamin's appearance. I also don't think they came together at an age that "permit lovemaking" as much as it was a matter of right time, right place and they fell in love. This is obvious cliche movie love, but I bought into it whereas you think it is impossible and disturbing – an opinion I can certainly understand – I just didn't see it that way.

Of course, when you say "think of yourself", I certainly couldn't manage in the situation, but the film isn't about me, I can only speak for what I saw on screen and what I saw were two people in love.

blah blah blah, did Roger Ebert just seriously post on your website? While I find that rather hard to believe, if it is, how freakin cool is that.?!?!?!?
I plan on going into the movie the same way I go into science fiction or some of the more over the top action movies. While most of what you are seeing can't possibly be plausible, you have to suspend disbelief at times for the sake of an interesting story. The concept of reverse aging and how love and sex would play into that is just one part of what I hope will be an interesting and well written movie.

Im not into reading reviews for movies like this before I see them myself, but I couldnt resist, objective and informative, excellent article, Im looking forward to the film even more

Sorry Roger, I am disappointed with your review. You are focussing on the wrong things. If you hadn't, you would appreciate how fantastic this film is.

@Aly: Same.

@Roger Ebert: Critic or cynic. I'm not going to pretend to know you or what you're like but I did grow up watching your reviews and continue to read them today. It could just be me and my own changing abstracts of life but I feel like your reviews, where once positive in nature, are now negative. Again, it could just be me but, you used to celebrate quality cinema and brush off the rest. Now you only seem interested in bringing down the movies that you think 'suck'.
That said, that's for commenting the site. In no way to a speak for or represent ROS but it's nice when critics show up on the boards, helps to bridge the divide between you elitists and us regular folk :)

Greg,

I should be relieved that at least one person believes I've grown too negative. The general rap is that I'm too easy on films. I wrote a blog about that ("You give out too many stars"). What I wish is that people would read the reviews and not focus on the idiotic star ratings.

That's why I commented here. Brad engaged with my opinion in a thoughtful and reasonable way, and made objections that have some validity. That's rare on the internet, where so much "opinion" is just scorched-earth scorn, and so many comment threads degenerate into into name-calling.

I'll try this one without any typos.

@Roger Ebert: Who would read an Ebert review and look at the star grade? Pan a little to the right and look for the thumbs! As far as I'm concerned, your review sumation is one thumb down (-), not two and a half stars (+).

I have yet to see Button, going Tuesday, so I can't really add to the conversation beyond that I hope my experience is more like Brad's and adu's.

Ebert dug 'Seven Pounds' and didn't like 'Benjamin Button'. Here's a quote from his 'Seven Pounds' review:

"Some people will find (the film) emotionally manipulative. Some people like to be emotionally manipulated. I do, when it's done well."

Or, in other words, "I've left my good taste at the door, and I'm just here for the popcorn."

I don't read his rambling, talky reviews anymore. Perhaps the man should retire.

"Benjamin’s reality is our own and I think anyone focusing on the aging process beyond keeping it in the back of their mind is missing out on a much deeper story. At least, that’s how I see it.

Now, hopefully I can condense all that into my official review. Then again, I feel as if one isn’t even necessary after this."

— YES, your review IS necessary, so that you can explain what the "much deeper story" is. Coz'..well, in my opinion, it is not there. Prove your point.

"I don’t read his rambling, talky reviews anymore. Perhaps the man should retire."

– NO, it is not rambling, the Button review is a considerate and critical response, no retirement for ebert. We would lose. haven't seen seven pounds yet

An interesting critique of Roger Ebert's review, and nice to see Roger replying on the website. The argument's been excellent to read, and Brad's comments perfectly sum up my views about the relationship between Daisy and Benjamin in the film. A couple of points that I disagree with, however, and must comment on -

ROGER – "It wants us to be seriously be moved by an emotionally impossible and disturbing scene."

I, for one, fail to see how this scene is disturbing and emotionally impossible. As Brad says, Benjamin is physically aging backwards, but mentally aging forwards – emotionally, he's on exactly the same wavelength as Daisy is in the scene when they make love. It can be difficult, occasionally, to separate Benjamin's physical age and Benjamin's mental age, but one must do so in order to understand the scene, and the film, best. To everyone else in the film, Benjamin is old and simply naive, a la Forrest Gump (I should note, I dislike FG, but regardless, it's a pertinent comparison); to us, he's just like we were when we were 17 or 34 or whatever, he just happens to have a body that suggests otherwise. It may be presumptuous and slightly nasty of me to suggest, but Roger's review makes me think he's watching the film from the point of view of Captain Mike or Elizabeth Abbott – as it is, he's applying F. Scott Fitzgerald's ideas to Eric Roth's screenplay, a fallacious idea for, as Roger says in his review, the screenplay and the source material are very much separated from each other. The scene is hardly emotionally impossible, unless you apply a flawed logic to the characters.

BRAD – "I never got the impression they fell in love as youngsters and I never got the impression that young Daisy looked at Benjamin as an old man…"

I agree with the second part of the comment, Brad, but not the first, and it's probably the only thing I disagree about with you in regards to the film (laid down in this article, anyway). They didn't necessarily fall in love at first sight, true, but it's clear that some time in between the last couple of years of Benjamin's time in New Orleans before leaving for sea and the time Benjamin returned, the two developed some sort of romantic connection with each other – it becomes obvious that Daisy has when she receives that postcard from him (at this point, she's around 21, forgive me if I'm wrong) saying he's fallen in love, and I feel Benjamin's done the same shortly after Elizabeth leaves him, if not earlier. It's a little bit tenuous to mark a certain point where they both fall in love with each other, yes, but it's not Northanger Abbey, there's no one point you can put your finger on – in a way, it's a reflection of life, and how certain relationships can be cultivated over time in that manner.

I finally saw the movie and I'm happy to say there was no disconnect for me. I look forward to watching it many more times and encourage anyone to give it a shot.

I thought the movie was ok but not great. Here's where I agree with Ebert and Devin. The filmmakers used the gimmickery of aging backwards to manipulate people into watching a love story that makes no sense from the standpoint of human nature. But the biggest problem is character development. it's just not threre for most of the film's characters. You really find yourself not connecting with the main characters. What motivates Ben? Why does he love Daisy? Why didn't Daisy tell her daughter about her dancing career?

I feel that the filmmakers should have stuck to the original short story(sans the 5'8" infant). The story of a person aging backwards is too farcical to be told in a serious romantic drama. The concept is better explored through comedy or satire. It's too bad that they didn't stay closer to the short story. They could have let Tim Burton write and direct and Jim Carey star as Button…