Skip to the bottom line, worth seeing? Yes. Is this a movie about photography that a photographer might learn from or marvel over Diane's work? Nope. Actually, none of Diane's work is even in the movie, which was kinda surprising. Although the characters she photographed are throughout the movie, just being themselves. Is this a movie Nicole Kidman did to stretch her acting skills and resume? Absolutely. And Robert Downey jr. did it, just to further enhance his odd-character wierdness. His character is the imaginary part of the portrait of Arbus. To me, it is more a glimpse into her artistic mind on the verge of mild insanity moving towards suiside and leaving the 'good life' behind. Considering the talent involved in the movie, this is a cheapie artsy film with a very short run. It only ran 5 days here. And on the 5th and last day when I saw it, only 12 people were in the theater. However, this is extremely well filmed, no surprise. Half way through the movie, I'm thinking, this would be great in B+W, but it has a nice 60's color feel. Could the movie of been done differently, to further enhance the Arbus legacy and promote (her) photography? Maybe, but 10 million people didn't show up to see it anyway, not knowing this wasn't a great photography movie, about wonderful creative photography. Obviously, people who make still pictures don't automatically swarm moving pictures about still pictures. This is a movie about character study. If you liked Kirk Douglas portraying Van Gogh, you will love this, for what it is.