Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006)

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

A bit of a disappointment after 'Secretary', but still certainly more than doable. This time it all felt more 'arty', leaving the drama in the shadows a little; at some point we get the idea that Diane is trapped between to worlds, but this dilemma carries on for way too long. Carter Burwell's soundtrack, the beautiful camera-work and sets and dresses, they all did add to a fulfilling experience, as did the cast. But I did see a photo of the real Diane Arbus though, and Kidman's (heavily face-lifted) appearance does not correspond. Samantha Morton was originally cast for this role, I don't know why that didn't work out, but she would have seemed much more appropriate. Other roles were mostly just fine (daughters) to very good (Ty Burrell), with Robert Downey Jr. excelling.But as said before, 'Fur:...' drags on too long without there being anything poignant put forth to the viewer. I mean, why shave the hero Lionel? I'm thinking that must have been some sort of demand by 'someone' to have Downey Jr. out in the flesh (and pretty much naked) to get a bigger audience, because dramatically, it felt truly unnecessary. And, as said before as well, Kidman just didn't really belong in this, even if I do think she did a fine job considering. And the true intimacy of it all díd come across more than once, so it's not hard for me to be lenient - but not too lenient:A big 6 out of 10 for another film by the exceptional Steven Shainberg. I'm looking forward to his debut ('Hit Me') and new work ('The Big Shoe' is in pre-prod.).

A biography told from the inside out. Instead of a fact-based story told through specific events, this movie attempts to put you inside the artist's mind. It is plain weird, but it works beautifully. It's a film of a curious woman who struggles to fit into society's expectations of ignorance and conformity. She is drawn to oddities and embraces the "freaks" of society. What's not to admire about someone who shows unbiased acceptance of others? It is a theme that is still very relevant today as society continues to shun members based on race, social class, sexual orientation, etc. If you are a typical automaton, this film might be too strange for you. On the other hand, if you've ever wondered what it would be like to lead an atypical life, if you ever found yourself curious about something different then here it is.

As a photographer who knows something of the work of Diane Arbus I decided to watch this. I waited and waited and waited for there to be anything in it about Diane Arbus and her work as a photographer. It never happened.Instead we are treated to an imaginary story that is extremely unlikely even metaphorically.This is one of those situations where you find yourself just pleading for it all to end.It is called an "imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus" and I suppose that kind of excuses it. But really...

I've seen some dumb movies over the last 20 years (Saw Splice this month) but this is really something. This movie's big idea is that the answer to the open ended question about why Diane Arbus transformed from housewife to "photographer of the uncanny," is a Harelquin romantic fiction about an inspiring freak who secretly lives upstairs, who used to be the Dog boy. See, isn't that simple? It's why she shoots freaks? Gee, connecting the dots has never been easier. Gosh, that was a satisfying answer. You need to be developmentally less than 15 years old to be pleased with that airhead concept.They managed to get the usual two-dimensional artist biopic (they've been making for about six decades now) Kilmt, Goya's Ghosts, Lust for Life, down to just one dimension. I could not believe the insipid, shallow places this movie went, and the shallow answers it provided for the Arbus enigma. Absurd crap. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Who greenlit this? And why do they have control over that much money?