Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

gavin6942 Based on the true story of Valerie Solanas who was a 60s radical preaching hatred toward men in her "Scum" manifesto. She wrote a screenplay for a film that she wanted Andy Warhol to produce, but he continued to ignore her. So she shot him. This is Valerie's story.Dr. Dana Heller, professor of English at the Old Dominion University, argues that the film stages the conflict between Solanas and Warhol as less the result of gender politics – particularly because Solanas intended no connection between her writing and the shooting – than of the decline of print culture as represented by Solanas and the rise of new non-writing media as embodied by Warhol and the Pop art movement. In the screenplay, Harron and Minahan describe Solanas as "banging at an ancient typewriter" and the film frequently shows her typing, for which she is mocked by Warhol and other Factory regulars. Solanas' writing is set against the new technologies of reproduction championed by Warhol.The Andy Warhol in this film is nothing compared to the one played by David Bowie in "Basquiat". The voice and mannerisms are good, but Bowie just nails it. The film in general is excellent, though, and Lili Taylor was the perfect person for the role. What is she up to these days? It seems like she had a good run in the 1990s, playing off of John Cusack, and then disappeared.

CountZero313 Lili Taylor gives a savagely kinetic performance in this representation of a disturbed individual who may just also have been a genius despite, or because of, her treatment at the hands of various men throughout her life.Judging biopics in terms of historical accuracy is for the most part a futile exercise. There is no 'truth', only interpretation, but if you want to get closer to the facts you really should be in the library, not the movie theatre. The story of Valerie Solanas is especially vexing in this case, because were this a work of complete fiction, the script would never have been made. The 'so what?' factor is superseded by the fact that this actually happened, and the legacy of Solanas still divides contemporary feminists.As cinema, the film succeeds through the charisma exuded in Taylor's performance. Her descent into madness is sudden, vicious and uncompromising. The depiction of the shooting, the moment the film has been leading up to, shows a human being divorced absolutely from her conscience. The groovy scene around Warhol's the Factory is both decadent and, viewed from the 21st century, slightly twee. The pastiche of Sixties nostalgia is less foregrounded than Solanas's brutal victimhood. The film begins with a reading of her psychiatric evaluation, where a litany of unpunished crimes inflicted upon this woman by various men is laid out. The female director sets her stall out straight away - what you are hearing now leads through a direct line of cause and effect to the monstrous act you will see committed by Solanas later.If the film has a major flaw, it is the title. Audiences could be mistaken for thinking it is about a documentarian of Warhol's life and work. Solanas and her SCUM manifesto, for better or worse, have made their mark, and perhaps 'Solanas' would have been a more fitting (if less marketable) title. Did it take the shooting for that to be the case? A polemical moment in recent history relayed straightforwardly, this is competent, entertaining, edifying cinema.

Lee Eisenberg I had never heard of Valerie Solanas before seeing "I Shot Andy Warhol", but the movie does a very good job telling the story. We see Valerie as a misunderstood - but strong-willed - person disenchanted with the world around her. Lili Taylor does a really good job showing what sort of person Solanas was. The movie doesn't try to deify Solanas in any way, it shows what kind of world she came from, and that she tried to make a new life for herself. Above all, one gets a sense of how weird (and mildly depraved) it must have been in Andy Warhol's world. I recommend the film.Also starring Jared Harris. Director Mary Harron later directed "American Psycho".

vmbicu The movie without doubt was great, but why do they call Andy Warhol a genius, did he invent something or discover something outstanding? I ask this because in our society or the Art world, someone will take simple dog feces from the street, freshly 'produced' and create a design on canvas with it and this person will be labeled for life, a genius! This kind of thing makes me wonder, for I can see people use regular paint that is used on canvas paintings and paint their faces and body with it. How many will also take freshly produced dog feces and paint their faces and body with it?!As for the movie, I only have one question, how is it that this girl walks over to Andy Warhol, fires one shot misses or just wounds Andy, and the other two that were there just do nothing! I mean this is a girl they know, petite and according to the movie, she just stood rigid with the gun pointed to Andy. Then when she fires a shot closer to Andy and he falls, she slowly walks to him, points the gun to his chest and shoots. You think there was no time for two guys to rush her and pin her petite body down and wrestle the gun away? After all, Andy was revered as a genius? What other opinions are there on this? Or did the director of the movie take some liberties to show the frame of her mind when she shot Andy Warhol?