Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus Reviews

  • Jul 06, 2018

    Biopics are not my favorite genre. For me to be interested the person that is the focus of the story needs to be unique, perhaps someone I’m already familiar with, and ideally they’ve done some fascinating things in their life. Strike one against Fur is that it focuses on Diane Arbus a photographer whose name I’ve never heard in my entire life. Strike two is the fact that it’s “An Imaginary Portrait” which means her life was so boring that they had to invent a false history for her in order to make it into a movie. Strike three came when I realized that the made up history was still mind-numbingly boring. I could not have cared less about this movie. I was distracted, doing other things, and still felt like I didn’t miss anything in the story. It is a typical bored housewife movie, where she finds a new and interesting man who she develops feelings for because her husband is too nice and normal. I found Diane Arbus unpleasant and frustrating throughout most of the film. The connection she forms with Lionel Sweeney comes out of nowhere and is treated like some twisted fairy tale. His behavior makes no sense unless he is somehow psychic, and his insane level of confidence doesn’t seem to fit someone who has lived life in that way. The acting was melodramatic to the point that it kept making me laugh when they were trying to be serious. There is nothing I liked in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus. If I were to search for a positive it would be that I won a few levels of Candy Crush while I waited for it to end, and it was boring enough that it didn’t distract me from my game. I also got a good laugh out of the idea of what it would really look like if you shaved someone’s entire body for the first time in their life (all the nicks, cuts, and razor burn would be a site.) I wish I could have watched this movie at double speed so it would have ended an hour sooner, because it was a waste of my time.

    Biopics are not my favorite genre. For me to be interested the person that is the focus of the story needs to be unique, perhaps someone I’m already familiar with, and ideally they’ve done some fascinating things in their life. Strike one against Fur is that it focuses on Diane Arbus a photographer whose name I’ve never heard in my entire life. Strike two is the fact that it’s “An Imaginary Portrait” which means her life was so boring that they had to invent a false history for her in order to make it into a movie. Strike three came when I realized that the made up history was still mind-numbingly boring. I could not have cared less about this movie. I was distracted, doing other things, and still felt like I didn’t miss anything in the story. It is a typical bored housewife movie, where she finds a new and interesting man who she develops feelings for because her husband is too nice and normal. I found Diane Arbus unpleasant and frustrating throughout most of the film. The connection she forms with Lionel Sweeney comes out of nowhere and is treated like some twisted fairy tale. His behavior makes no sense unless he is somehow psychic, and his insane level of confidence doesn’t seem to fit someone who has lived life in that way. The acting was melodramatic to the point that it kept making me laugh when they were trying to be serious. There is nothing I liked in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus. If I were to search for a positive it would be that I won a few levels of Candy Crush while I waited for it to end, and it was boring enough that it didn’t distract me from my game. I also got a good laugh out of the idea of what it would really look like if you shaved someone’s entire body for the first time in their life (all the nicks, cuts, and razor burn would be a site.) I wish I could have watched this movie at double speed so it would have ended an hour sooner, because it was a waste of my time.

  • Oct 18, 2016

    Two stellar leads and some terrifically ambiant direction are undercut by a thematically indecisive screenplay that juggles marital life, perception, awakenings and prejudice without settling.

    Two stellar leads and some terrifically ambiant direction are undercut by a thematically indecisive screenplay that juggles marital life, perception, awakenings and prejudice without settling.

  • Jul 08, 2016

    Very strange film, but somehow I couldn't look away.

    Very strange film, but somehow I couldn't look away.

  • Nov 28, 2015

    An interesting premise with a not so interesting execution.

    An interesting premise with a not so interesting execution.

  • Jun 09, 2015

    Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is a prime example of when a movie trying to be "unique" ends up pretentious. VERY VERY pretentiously made. What starts off promising in Steven Shainberg's tale of the famed photographer turns into two hours of utter, unapproachable boredom. It thinks it's getting weirder and weirder, but in reality it's getting dumber and dumber. Let me just say this: in the movie Robert Downey Jr. has hypertrichosis..... (you don't know what that disease is? Google it. I dare you.)

    Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is a prime example of when a movie trying to be "unique" ends up pretentious. VERY VERY pretentiously made. What starts off promising in Steven Shainberg's tale of the famed photographer turns into two hours of utter, unapproachable boredom. It thinks it's getting weirder and weirder, but in reality it's getting dumber and dumber. Let me just say this: in the movie Robert Downey Jr. has hypertrichosis..... (you don't know what that disease is? Google it. I dare you.)

  • Feb 06, 2015

    Directed by Steven Shainberg (Secretary (2002)), this is a biopic with a difference. It isn't. Shainberg used Patricia Bosworth's biography Diane Arbus: A Biography as a template for this film. But they made a fictional story up which focused on how Arbus became renowned for her photography. It's a very peculiar film, but it's one which has to be seen to believed in places. In 1958, Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) works as an assistant to her photographer husband Al (Ty Burrell), whose work was funded by David and Gertrude Nemerov (Harris Yulin and Jane Alexander), Diane's parents. Diane wants to do photography of her own, but is struggling to find inspiration. That is until she meets the mysterious neighbour who has recently moved in upstairs. Lionel Sweeney (Robert Downey Jr.), who has a bit of a secret. However, when Diane see's Lionel for what he is, Diane falls in love with him, and his band of misfit friends, and even moves in with in, much to the horror of Al, who wants Diane to be normal. It's a very unusual film, but it has some brilliant performances in it, and you'll see why the film is called Fur, but it lives up to it's subtitle as being an imaginary portrait. What Diane Arbus would have made of it, we'll never know, but there is a tender romance at the heart of this film, and it's well made as well.

    Directed by Steven Shainberg (Secretary (2002)), this is a biopic with a difference. It isn't. Shainberg used Patricia Bosworth's biography Diane Arbus: A Biography as a template for this film. But they made a fictional story up which focused on how Arbus became renowned for her photography. It's a very peculiar film, but it's one which has to be seen to believed in places. In 1958, Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) works as an assistant to her photographer husband Al (Ty Burrell), whose work was funded by David and Gertrude Nemerov (Harris Yulin and Jane Alexander), Diane's parents. Diane wants to do photography of her own, but is struggling to find inspiration. That is until she meets the mysterious neighbour who has recently moved in upstairs. Lionel Sweeney (Robert Downey Jr.), who has a bit of a secret. However, when Diane see's Lionel for what he is, Diane falls in love with him, and his band of misfit friends, and even moves in with in, much to the horror of Al, who wants Diane to be normal. It's a very unusual film, but it has some brilliant performances in it, and you'll see why the film is called Fur, but it lives up to it's subtitle as being an imaginary portrait. What Diane Arbus would have made of it, we'll never know, but there is a tender romance at the heart of this film, and it's well made as well.

  • Jan 17, 2015

    Buena actuación de Kidman, buena producción, fotografía, una historia fuera de lo común.

    Buena actuación de Kidman, buena producción, fotografía, una historia fuera de lo común.

  • Dec 02, 2014

    So the ugly man got a stunningly beautiful woman because of his virtues but the ugly woman had no soul by default. She was moving around like a ghost.

    So the ugly man got a stunningly beautiful woman because of his virtues but the ugly woman had no soul by default. She was moving around like a ghost.

  • Oct 31, 2014

    If you have have a low iq you will not enjoy this movie.

    If you have have a low iq you will not enjoy this movie.

  • Jul 29, 2014

    Anything featuring a leading performance from Robert Downey Jr. is worth a viewing in my books. I have no idea who Diane Arbus was, but it is clear from Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus that neither does Steven Shainberg because although I was unfamiliar with her before the film, Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus had me walk away from the film less interested in her and asking more questions than he did when he made the film. The issue is that it has no heart to it and is therefore unable to illuminate the titular woman who is considered a groundbreaking photographer. As the title reveals, it is all imaginary and so it really tells you nothing about her life, what inspired her or how she came to be so recognised. What Steven Shainberg was going for really confuses me because it is all a fictional tale without being an entertaining one. In terms of entertainment value, Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus really has none. It has some positive elements thanks to the fact that the visual style is very nice, but that is about it. Though the costumes that the characters are presented in have an artistic colour to them which match the production design in creating an artistic atmosphere and is then further enhanced by some mood setting cinematography, below the style of the film is nothing but a slow moving story which is boring standalone and worse as a depiction of Diane Arbus. For a film to be artistic and yet have a fictional portrayal of its real life figure, it has to have a story which is engaging and has some relevance to the real world. There is nothing that I saw in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus which I actually believed whatsoever, and so I struggled to identify precisely what did make Diane Arbus such a notable figure in the arstistic community. While Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus serves as a front for Steven Shainberg's eye for nice imagery, it is weighed down by a terribly boring story, an excess of subtlety and the simple fact that it has nowhere to go and nothing to do. Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus does not tell a story, it simply repeats a lot of imagery at a slow pace from start to finish over extensively long running time without even a single moment where it attempts to take an insightful look into the mind of Diane Arbus. Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus does nothing for its titular figure, and it pays no credit to Steven Shainberg as a filmmaker. Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is a film I would recommend to nobody, and I look back at it simply as two hours of my life I will never get back. What I really dislike about Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is that it is way too subtle. It barely even attempts to get into the mind of Diane Arbus at all, and what it presents of her is a very shallow depiction of her without explaining her motivations or precisely who she was as a person. It really did not look into what constituted her artistic integrity in any way, and so it completely ignores why Diane Arbus is important. What it does present is excessively subtle drama which cannot tell its story at all, and it pretty much has none anyway. There is nothing to take from Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus except for a lot of boredom and a few nice images, so it is not a film that I would suggest anyone watch even if they were the most dedicated fans of the cast members because it is purely solid crap. Even the cast are unable to salvage the wreckage of the film. Nicole Kidman barely even looks the part of Diane Arbus which means that it takes little time before audiences question her casting. But how she looks is not the central issue in her performance, because Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus demands nothing of her. It is clear that she is a talented actress and you can see through her physical acting that she is attempting to channel herself into the atmosphere. The main issue is that she does nothing for the character. She expresses no emotions or depth in the part whatsoever and delivers her lines with nothing but an excess of emotional subtlety. Nicole Kidman does not have a good role set up for her and so she has nothing to work with which results in a clearly unimpressive performance. Nicole Kidman is never given a chance to put life into the role of Diane Arbus because she is miscast in the part, but the problem rests more on the way that the film attempts to characterise her than it does on her own efforts to do the same. Nicole Kidman does not do anything to justify her casting as the lead in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, and although it really is not her fault, there is not a moment of true charisma in her. Robert Downey Jr. has his moments because of the way he brings his natural charm to the film and uses some good physical acting to project a sense of stoicism which matches the atmosphere. He doesn't get as much screen time as I had hoped, but his general presence was pretty genial and it was interesting to see him in the part. Ty Burrell also turns in a decent supporting performance predominantly because of the kind of chemistry he establishes with Nicole Kidman. So Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is a terribly slow, thoughtless and mind numbing film which is set up with a dumb concept and gradually deteriorates more and more as the pace slows down, the running time becomes extensive and the actors fail to illuminate the film at all.

    Anything featuring a leading performance from Robert Downey Jr. is worth a viewing in my books. I have no idea who Diane Arbus was, but it is clear from Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus that neither does Steven Shainberg because although I was unfamiliar with her before the film, Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus had me walk away from the film less interested in her and asking more questions than he did when he made the film. The issue is that it has no heart to it and is therefore unable to illuminate the titular woman who is considered a groundbreaking photographer. As the title reveals, it is all imaginary and so it really tells you nothing about her life, what inspired her or how she came to be so recognised. What Steven Shainberg was going for really confuses me because it is all a fictional tale without being an entertaining one. In terms of entertainment value, Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus really has none. It has some positive elements thanks to the fact that the visual style is very nice, but that is about it. Though the costumes that the characters are presented in have an artistic colour to them which match the production design in creating an artistic atmosphere and is then further enhanced by some mood setting cinematography, below the style of the film is nothing but a slow moving story which is boring standalone and worse as a depiction of Diane Arbus. For a film to be artistic and yet have a fictional portrayal of its real life figure, it has to have a story which is engaging and has some relevance to the real world. There is nothing that I saw in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus which I actually believed whatsoever, and so I struggled to identify precisely what did make Diane Arbus such a notable figure in the arstistic community. While Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus serves as a front for Steven Shainberg's eye for nice imagery, it is weighed down by a terribly boring story, an excess of subtlety and the simple fact that it has nowhere to go and nothing to do. Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus does not tell a story, it simply repeats a lot of imagery at a slow pace from start to finish over extensively long running time without even a single moment where it attempts to take an insightful look into the mind of Diane Arbus. Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus does nothing for its titular figure, and it pays no credit to Steven Shainberg as a filmmaker. Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is a film I would recommend to nobody, and I look back at it simply as two hours of my life I will never get back. What I really dislike about Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is that it is way too subtle. It barely even attempts to get into the mind of Diane Arbus at all, and what it presents of her is a very shallow depiction of her without explaining her motivations or precisely who she was as a person. It really did not look into what constituted her artistic integrity in any way, and so it completely ignores why Diane Arbus is important. What it does present is excessively subtle drama which cannot tell its story at all, and it pretty much has none anyway. There is nothing to take from Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus except for a lot of boredom and a few nice images, so it is not a film that I would suggest anyone watch even if they were the most dedicated fans of the cast members because it is purely solid crap. Even the cast are unable to salvage the wreckage of the film. Nicole Kidman barely even looks the part of Diane Arbus which means that it takes little time before audiences question her casting. But how she looks is not the central issue in her performance, because Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus demands nothing of her. It is clear that she is a talented actress and you can see through her physical acting that she is attempting to channel herself into the atmosphere. The main issue is that she does nothing for the character. She expresses no emotions or depth in the part whatsoever and delivers her lines with nothing but an excess of emotional subtlety. Nicole Kidman does not have a good role set up for her and so she has nothing to work with which results in a clearly unimpressive performance. Nicole Kidman is never given a chance to put life into the role of Diane Arbus because she is miscast in the part, but the problem rests more on the way that the film attempts to characterise her than it does on her own efforts to do the same. Nicole Kidman does not do anything to justify her casting as the lead in Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus, and although it really is not her fault, there is not a moment of true charisma in her. Robert Downey Jr. has his moments because of the way he brings his natural charm to the film and uses some good physical acting to project a sense of stoicism which matches the atmosphere. He doesn't get as much screen time as I had hoped, but his general presence was pretty genial and it was interesting to see him in the part. Ty Burrell also turns in a decent supporting performance predominantly because of the kind of chemistry he establishes with Nicole Kidman. So Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus is a terribly slow, thoughtless and mind numbing film which is set up with a dumb concept and gradually deteriorates more and more as the pace slows down, the running time becomes extensive and the actors fail to illuminate the film at all.