Rubia

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.

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.

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.

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.

As someone that knows nothing about Marilyn Monroe, I was excited to watch.

I ended up turning it off about 40 mins in. I knew this couldn't be real bc it was so trashy and dark.

I see now this is a fictional awfully made up story. They made Marilyn seem like trash. I can't imagine anything I watched being true.

I couldn't stomach watching another minute so I turned it off. 40 mins of my life I will never get back! I don't know if this was ever in the theater, but I'm happy I didn't pay money to see this.

Blonde could have been a really good movie if they didn't try and make it into a 2022 Hollywood flop.