Rubia

Ana de armas gave an inspiring performance and she really acted her heart out. The story and it's execution was a masterpiece at places and the cinematography and aesthetics were on a new level. As I don't know that much about marlyn I don't actually care how they portrayed her. The main accomplishment of the film is that it shows the horrors of Hollywood masterfully and how sometimes famous people or actors lose themselves as a person underneath the limelight and become somewhat of a lost soul. In some respects they failed to make it feel impactful and it seemed disjointed sometimes. But to see ana de armas act her heart out and netflix do something new is truly refreshing. And it's such a long film but surprisingly didn't seem dragged.

So first off, the movie made the news when it was said to have a NC-17 rating. We were never really told why. It seems like it was given that rating just to drawn attention to the movie because the movie was had about much language, nudity...etc as a R rated movie.

As for the movie itself.... overhyped trash. This is based on a fictional book and not her true story. It's sad that she can't even get a legit story but instead gets a fake version. All that aside the movie is almost 3 hours long. And its very slow moving. There are some disturbing scenes of course, but nothing really shocking compared to other movies.

You still get the feeling she was abused by everyone of course. But that's about it. Again, since its not her actual story, it feels like your watching some tabloid version of her life. What a waste of time and such overblown hype. But I know it will win Oscars because "critics" will probably love it for some reason.

Only reason I even gave it a three was the actress nailed her voice and how she acted.

What a truly disappointing film this is. It offers us a really slow, sterile and disjointed - almost episodic - depiction of just how Marilyn Monroe's life might have panned out. For a start, I couldn't decide whether Ana de Armas was really Lady Gaga or Scarlett Johansson (both of whom would have acquitted themselves better, I'd say) as she offers an admittedly intense, but remarkably uninvolved performance. We move along from chapter to chapter in her life hindered by some fairly weak and uninspiring dialogue and seriously intrusive scoring in what becomes an increasingly shallow and lacklustre fashion. The photography does try hard - it does offer us a sense of intimacy, but the whole thing is presented in such a stylised and un-natural manner that it is frequently difficult to tell whether she is/was a "real" woman. Her marriages are treated in an almost scant manner - and her relationship with JFK is reduced to something rather implausibly one-sided and sordid showing nothing of how their relationship might have come to be. It has no soul, this film. Aside from her glamour - which was, even then, hardly unique we are not really introduced to any of the nuances of her character, we are left guessing a lot of the time as to just how she did become such a superstar, and how she spiralled so inevitably into a maelstrom of booze and pills. It relies to a considerable extent on the viewer's existing knowledge of, and affection for, this flawed lady. Adrien Brody and Bobby Cannavale don't really have much chance to add anything as her husbands and the highly speculative relationship between her and Charlie Chaplin Jnr (Xavier Samuel) and his sexually ambiguous partner-in-crime Edward G Robinson Jr (Scoot McNairy) does suggest something of the rather profligate and debauched existence that some lived in Hollywood, but again their characters are also largely undercooked and again, we are largely left to use our own imagination. It is far, far too long and in a packed cinema, I could see people looking at the ceiling just once too often. Watchable, certainly, but a real missed opportunity to offer us something scintillating and tantalising about this most of iconic of women.

Okay there are movies that are bad because they are poorly made or low budget or can't afford good talent. This is a movie that should have known better, with the big studio, budget, and access to talent it's truly shocking how dehumanizing and awful this movie is. I can't tell if its supposed to be a parody or if it's trying to be serious. Most of the characters are poorly cast. I don't know how this is getting awards buzz. Yea! Ana De Armas can hit emotional peaks in her acting, but does it fit the character in reality? She knows what she shouldn't know. There's no real journey beyond fantasy, the character and the actress already know what's going to happen from the beginning of the film. She plays Marilyn like a naïve passive doll, with zero self-awareness. Was this actually who Marilyn was? Also she clearly has a Cuban accent. Which contributes to me wondering if this is supposed to be some kind of meta voyeuristic film that's combining two worlds: that of Marilyn, and the reality of the "film" in itself in the actress "playing" her. I don't know what this movie is trying to be. Is it a dream? Why is there so much exploitation? Where is the humanity? Its like a broken purgatory of one woman's hell. Hollywood has a bad history of exploiting people but this movie really is another level of awful in patting itself on the back. It's like the movie is having a beer with Hollywood's exploitive casting couch past.

She is a prop in this movie, her body is at the hands of all these men. Marilyn is being assaulted from the grave and robbed of her true voice. Music and cinematography are only positive things in my opinion. I really wonder if any of these actors ever stopped and asked themselves why am I doing this? What am I really contributing to humanity in this film? What is the purpose? My guess is... vanity and a paycheck. Also the model looking guys she enters the three way with in the film are not that attractive in real life! Not only did they embellish and fictionalize an affair but they made the men look like well groomed models. Films like this put fissures in the reality of the real world. We can't escape darkness when films like this cover it with a mask.

In the 18th century Bedlam changed from a hospital and became a sideshow. People came to London and paid to watch the mentally ill.

In the 21st century Hollywood has reinvented this kind of horror show.

The makers of Blonde have made a vile, disgusting, unbalanced fiction about a real person who had a tragic childhood and dressed it up as a feminist lecture. It is amazing that anyone who suffered such an abusive early life could have reinvented herself and become a world wide star and icon. When she was "not well" instead of getting the medical help she needed Blonde was physically and mentally abused and fed alcohol and drugs so that she could continue to make money for the studios. Credit to star actors who turned down the role of Blonde having read the script.

BREAKING NEWS: Jan 2023 Blonde, has received the most nominations for this year's Razzies with eight nominations. It is up for worst picture and worst screenplay, while Andrew Dominik is up for worst director, and is named in the worst screen couple category. Blonde,is described by the Razzies as a film "movie-goers liked even less than critics did". Filter the reviews by 1 star ratings to see how true this is.