Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

sunsetsymphony I can't understand why they would choose to have Nicole Kidman play Diane Arbus. She plays a flimsy, seductive, wishy-washy, air-headed and frankly adulterous female figure, making the role of a female photographer into one that is unfortunately completely superficial. As a female photographer myself, I felt some anticipation in the beginning seeing her pick up a camera and potentially use it in a way that would highlight the strength in her artistry and passion for the art. Turns out it was all a façade. The camera literally only comes into play once Robert Downey Jr. is shaved down to look like a normal person. What's the point? What's the message? You're only worth being recorded once you look normal? I don't see the pride in it. Additionally, it barely even seems like she knows how to use that camera. There's not really much connection between herself and the camera whatsoever in this film. Additionally, the random insertion of a Siamese twin at one of the very last scenes is just a reinforcement of the fact that these non-traditional figures are used as props at best. I also don't really get how the storywriters thought it would make sense for her to blatantly carry out an affair right under her husband's nose (if not physical at first, at least emotional) for such a long period of time, and to have no retaliation from him... the whole family relationship is not really a believable one. 6/10 for the cinematography alone but very disappointed by the deeply flawed plot and misogynistic, morally depraved and empty portrayals of a woman who was supposed to be a strong female photographer.

Christine Carl Initially disappointed that this wasn't a film about a French lady who had a passionate and full sexual relationship with a chimpanzee. (You can't blame me and it does have Nicole Kidman in the starring role). I found I hadn't wasted me pocket money on a bottle of Cava and a packet of cheesy puffs for nothing. This film, for me, explored a facet of Diane's personality. I mean, how a 'normal' American wife with a family chose to photograph those who would have been regarded at the time as freaks. The woman's photos are beautiful and naked. And so is this film. I feel the film is not about her photos in themselves but about an aspect of her personality that found the 'freakish' to be beautiful and sexual. For me the film was honest. Real sexuality has little to do with how the media define it as being something that belongs to he world of silicone and air brushing. You don't have good sex that unites you to the eternal spirit with someone who is more worried about how their butt looks than 'la la la ing' you to ecstasy. The story deconstructs sexuality, it explores it from different angles. But hey, it isn't a sex movie, it is subtle. It is more about nudity and release. It's well worth watching. It's a beautiful movie. If you want to get to know Diane Arbus though, go to a library - if you still have one - and borrow a book of her photos. This film won't inform you of her life but I feel it will motivate you to find out about it. It's a shame though,I so wanted to say that the Chimp who played Robert Downey Jr was really good....

moonspinner55 Director Steven Shainberg's "tribute" to eclectic photographer Diane Arbus, here seen as an unfulfilled 1958 housewife in Manhattan, an assistant to her commercial photographer husband desperate to carve out an identity for herself. Drawn to the grotesqueness of elements in daily life--the abnormal in the normal--Diane (pronounced Dee-Ann) becomes obsessed with a former carnival freak who has moved in upstairs. He's covered head-to-toe with hair, but Diane sees his soul and soon finds herself happily mingling with his circus friends, relationships which drive a wedge between Diane and her husband. Shainberg and screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson have decided not to go the biography route, instead delving into the mindset of this stifled woman with a unique eye. Though visually sumptuous, stylish, and fascinating, the problem with the filmmakers' approach is that we never see Diane at work (her camera always seems to be resting some place). Diane the Beauty predictably falls in love with the Beast, and he asks her to shave him so they can make love. This portion of the movie (pure fantasy, of course) is quite touching, but overly familiar. Shainberg goes from aping David Lynch to aping Jean Cocteau! Meanwhile, Allan Arbus is busy developing Diane's photographs, the ones we never see her taking. It's a jumble, yet an intriguing one, beginning and ending with Diane's first visit to a nudist colony. Nicole Kidman and Robert Downey Jr. give assured, courageous performances, and Ty Burrell as Mr. Arbus is outstanding (at one point growing a thick beard, possibly in envy). Not a success from a storytelling standpoint; belief must be suspended for the film to work at all--and it does work a little warped magic. **1/2 from ****

Framescourer I was entranced by the first twenty minutes or so. I really was. The camera hops about but, every time, seems to alight on wonderfully composed, inventive framings. The lighting is impeccable. The production design is at once period-exact and yet suspiciously abstract. Nicole Kidman seemed at home. I thought I was about to see that most elusive of all genre films - a good artist biopic.Then, with a startlingly violent twist in quality, ingenuity and effort it simply stops. In the story of Diane Arbus (fictionalised here), a seminal meeting with an artistic freak sets her muse free. Exactly the opposite happens on screen in Fur: Diane walks into Lionel's apartment and immediately the film halves it pace, gums its script with cliché and zaps the actors with performance-botox. It was as if I'd just been kicked out of a Christmas party at the Colony Club onto the empty, frozen streets of midnight Soho. 3/10 (for the opening)