Blonde

I'm curious, if you have never even seen a movie of hers, then how should any of us take your vicious, ignorant and crass remarks about an obvious cinematic icon and real-life goddess seriously? Especially when we know they are based merely on the tripe that was aired as "Blonde." If you can't see the true beauty and talent of MM, regardless of whether you've never seen one of her movies, then you must be blind. In response to your own malicious and obviously jealous/envious remarks, let me correct you.

First, Joyce Eliason and Joyce Chopra should be flayed to ribbons for their promulgation of a pack of lies--Eliason for untalented and uninspired gossip-rag writing and Chopra for bad direction. I haven't read Oates' book so I won't critique her, but needless to say if Eliason's teleplay is based on it then I've already said what I think of the writing. And, if you are basing your opinion of MM's acting talent on Poppy Montgomery's (PM) horrible portrayal of her, then you are obviously not very bright. PM who doesn't and didn't look anything like MM (blond hair does not an MM make), couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. By the way, whose misguided decision was that?

Second, there are so many falsehoods and discrepancies in that movie that it should be discounted as total lie from the onset--so many in fact that I don't even know where to begin. For example, Marilyn did not call all of her husbands Daddy, only the first one James Dougherty) because she was trapped into an arranged marriage at the age of sixteen to get rid of her. Another, no one who ever worked with her has ever alluded to her being a bitch. They in fact talk, no, gush about how talented she was and how funny she was, not to mention how naturally beautiful she was. They even say that she and working with her was like "magic". For the uninformed, see "Some Like it Hot" and then watch the extras with the cast at the end. You hear what is essentially the truth from Tony Curtis (except for his self-promoting remarks regarding his posterior in comparison to hers) and the other actors.

Third, if she was as the writer and director claim, such an awful person then why did so many men and dare I say it, so many women want her so badly? And how do you know she was good in bed? Because of the lurid lies in `Blonde'? MM was not promiscuous. She married for love (except for the first one), and I have never ever heard of her engaging in group sex, and certainly not in public. MM was an old-fashioned girl who wanted a husband and family that loved and accepted her totally, so she could have the kind of stable home life she didn't have as a child. She was almost raped as a child, and was used as a sort of sex kitten by everyone she encountered in Hollywood. Was it her fault that she was so sexy, adorable, or beautiful? No. Worse yet, she was smart.

Another point, it wasn't that DiMaggio couldn't live with her, she couldn't live with him. He expected her to give up her career and be a stay-at-home wife. As for Miller, he couldn't handle her emotional sensitivity because he was at times so closed off himself and so self-controlling (one could almost say emotionally repressed). So, who couldn't live with whom? A final note, if DiMaggio couldn't live with her then why was he the only one she could count on in the end to get her out of that mental hospital when they were attempting to hold her illegally. And why, when she was murdered by the Kennedy's, her doctor and her housekeeper, was he the one who took care of her funeral arrangements and spent all night in vigil with her weeping and sent roses to her grave for over a decade after she died? Additionally, it was known at that time, that she and Joe D. were planning on getting married again when she was murdered. That doesn't sound like someone who had fallen out of love with her.

Fourth, if she was so awful, why did people work with her over and over again (directors George Cukor and John Huston to name some). I'll tell you why, because putting up with someone else's sensitivity to others and others' malicious criticism, which resulted in a higher level of vulnerability than the average person as well as an unfortunate habit of being late which was understandable given who she was and what was expected of her (imagine for a moment if you'd been her, could you have withstood the rigors of being perfect--or rather, the expectation to be?), was worth it for the talent, beauty and magic that she brought to the screen.

Finally, it is widely recognized that none of her later films would have been hits had it not been for her presence, even if it amounted to only moments on screen and especially when she was only a part of an ensemble cast.

You know what she was guilty of? She was guilty of being an artist. It is amazing to me that Hollywood still comes down hard, as it did then, on females that are particular about their work and have standards for themselves as well as those they work with. Look at all the males that have over the years been difficult to work with and they were labeled "eccentric" or "artistic" or just a `star' (with their faults being glossed over). She was labeled crazy and difficult. And now this teleplay trash insinuates that she was a demented, demanding whore that had no scruples. She herself said, "People had a habit of looking at me as if I were some kind of mirror instead of a person. They didn't see me, they saw their own lewd thoughts, then they white-masked themselves by calling me the lewd one."

Can't you admire someone who had the courage to be herself and was her own worst critic, while trying to better herself? She was someone we all should admire. Do you know she formed her own production company in 1955? How many stars had done that at that time during the reign of studio control--male or female? Very few. She was a pioneer who never took her sexpot image seriously. Hollywood actresses owe her a debt for the paths she blazed and the inroads she made as well as the viewers for the joy she brought to the screen.

Know your facts before you open your big mouth to say something ugly about someone you don't know and don't have the grace, stamina, or courage to be. Remember, legends never die and true beauty is forever.

Watch it for Poppy Montgomery's performance. She was as spot-on as Marilyn as anyone could be. She had Marilyn's voice and giggles, her quiet contemplative stares, her fearful anxiety, and all her body and facial mannerisms down pat. Poppy was so believable there were moments I completely forgot I was watching an actress, I felt I was watching the real Marilyn. For example her face while asleep in bed with first hubby James Dougherty, or in the backseat of the limousine talking with Darryl Zanuck, or giving a reading at the Actors Studio with Lee Strasberg. I could go on and on. That's the highest praise anyone could give a performer, especially an actress hired to do the impossible -- accurately and sympathetically portray such a well-known international icon and complex woman as Marilyn Monroe. Everyone else in the cast of this made-for-TV movie is just okay at best, and look nothing like the real people they were supposed to represent.

Not a bad biopic - though, not being a fanatic, I can't vouch for the accuracy. Although long (over 3 hours) time passed quickly - borne along by the appealing performance of Poppy Montgomery as MM.

I've never see her before, but will look out for her in the future after this convincing performance. Interestingly, her portrayal of the younger Norma Jean seemed to better capture the essence of Marilyn's fragile appeal than the later scenes when she became "Marilyn".

As for the production itself, the script was effective (if a bit tame) and the inhumanity of the Hollywood Machine was well portrayed. The supporting cast gave workmanlike performances too - but with Poppy on screen in almost every scene, who's going to waste time looking at them?!!

I read Marilyn Monroe's biography when I was 20.

Her life is so dramatic and she is very humane, intelligent, artistic and sensitive,susceptible.Her pain and dream, eagerness for life, family, love,,, all of things touched my mind.

She is full of contradiction, and so many faces,,, her image betrays her inner self-like many others actually,,,but She exposed other people's eyes, always center of rumor.

This film is better than "Norma Jean& Marilyn' . That was boring. Ashley Judd, Mira Sorvino can't express effectively Marilyn's character. Poppy Montgomery reflects Maryilyn's more humane side, her loneliness and sensibility more persuasive.

This film's strong point is well describing her childhood. Her childhood formed, explained her later life. But her adult life, so many things abbreviated. And Marilyn is described as just very weak, nervous breakdown person. I'm sorry about that. I think She always struggled, made effort to overcome her obstacle. She is nervous but at the same time, very strong.

Anyhow this movie is a catalyzed of memory. I remind of her once again.

I was going to blast this movie as completely garbage when I read some of the other reviews here---one in particular that said plainly and clearly that the viewer must remember that this is a work of pure fiction. On that basis, the movie has its good points. But fiction or not, the real characters in Marilyn Monroe's life are still portrayed here and not thinly disguised either. I often think a good movie is one that makes you think about it and stays with you after the ending. This is what happened to me, so I changed my mind about how I feel about it. I have been thinking about Blonde (a dull and unimaginative title---why the writers did not come up with something less lame is foremost in my mind) and have come to the conclusion that it does have merits. The actress, Poppy Montgomery, I never heard of her, but that is beside the point, does resemble Marilyn in some shots while in others, you are looking at a bad costume job. The wigs in this movie were horrible and so stiff and completely absurd in some shots. It was pleasant to hear the real Marilyn sing Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend, but Montgomery was no dancer and the dubbing was inconsistent. Still I praise her performance. She portrays the vulnerability that Marilyn had, but she does not give off any backbone--or maybe that is the point. I do not know if that was her intention to portray Marilyn as weak. Maybe her weakness helped destroy her. I do not know. I do recommend this movie, but with the warning that it is fiction. I never read the book and have no desire to. I have read many biographies of Monroe, so if you are looking for the real life story of Marilyn, this is not the place to start.