Avaliações do Metacritic

Much of the film is as strange and oddly beautiful as one of Arbus' own photographs, bold in its attempt to find new ways of cracking the biopic chestnut and sensitive in its portrayal of a 1950s woman who, like so many of her contemporaries, finds herself imprisoned in a "Good Housekeeping" nightmare.

This is a Beauty & the Beast romance between Nicole Kidman and Chewbacca.

Picture is impressively crafted and acted but far too narrowly and benignly conceived to satisfy even on its own terms.

Downey makes something lively, sexy and moving out of a role that's just a thin concept. But the movie feels like it's still in the darkroom.

Fur is a misfire by the talented people who four years ago gave us "Secretary," whose tongue-in-cheek approach might have served this film better, taking the edge off much of its pretensions.

The tall, cool Kidman works hard to impersonate a woman possessed, but she's not the type of actress to fill in a role that hasn't been filled in on paper.

Wilson and the director, Steven Shainberg, draw on Arbus's family and on many elements from her life and her art, only to turn the material into feeble nonsense.

A misguided tribute to the woman his (Shainberg's) film identifies among "the greatest artists of the 20th century."

The result is this metabiography that says almost nothing about the great photographer's life or art.

Shainberg reduces this most disturbing of all photographers to a portraitist of Halloween.