Rubia

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.

Marilyn Monroe was a great artist and this movie could've been a great opportunity to teach younger audiences about who she was. But for some reason, they decide to tell a fictional story. She has the same name, plays in the same movies, and sings the same songs, but many events are made up. It's so misleading when movies do this. It's not a movie about Marilyn Monroe, it's a movie about a mentally ill actress. Monroe was more than a mentally ill sex symbol. She was intelligent and a great artist - which doesn't come across in this movie.

Ana de Armas is okay in the movie. She looks and sounds like Monroe, but she is naked for an uncomfortable amount of time in the movie. It's not just the fact that she's naked, but she's naked for no apparent reason. If her being naked adds nothing to the story you might as well let her put some clothes on.

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.

If you're going to fictionalize the life of one of the movie icons of the 20th century why go there, to the darkest dark. There are some "invented" moments that are, quite frankly, unforgivable. What kept me glued to the screen was Ana de Armas. A tremendous show of talent and fearlessness. I was wondering what the experience would have been to watch it in a theater with other people? I don't know because in the privacy of my own home I was free to stand up and walk away to pour myself a drink and shout at the screen. The awful Kennedy episode for instance. Why? That episode in particular made me question the intention of the filmmakers. So, yes, I can say now that I've seen it. Loved some it and detested some it.

"Blonde" is sadly reduced to the collective tragedies (and horrors) that the iconic actress went through in her short 36-year-old life. Don't get me wrong, Ana de Armas totally owns the role and gives it her all (God bless her cheekbones!). She also gets worthwhile support from the cinematography, production design, costume, and make-up departments. The biggest letdown is the script that heavily lacks connective tissue between what feels like various disjointed episodes in Monroe's life. Again, each of these episodes are stripped down to repetitive plot-points such as the absentee father, the abortions, the failed marriages, and most importantly, the male gaze.

Writer-director Andrew Dominik perceives Marilyn Monroe and Norma Jeane as two distinct personas, the former being a glowy, on-screen cover-up for the distressed latter. Again, because the film is only interested in showcasing the worst of her life, as viewers, we feel disconnected early on, especially given the film goes on for a butt-numbing 160 minutes. Also, I didn't particularly like the transition between black & white and color bang in the middle of certain scenes. What was the underlying point? The film basically leaves Armas to do most of the heavy lifting since the script only attempts to look at her as an object of desire.

Of course, there are more than a few controversial stretches in the film, and if that's barring a scene with a speaking foetus, then I'm probably dreaming it all up. This isn't what Norma would've wanted to be seen as her "legacy", and both entries Netflix has come up with thus far on Marilyn Monroe (yes, I'm looking at you The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe: The Unheard Tapes) are lacklustre.