Powerful

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A biography told from the inside out. Instead of a fact-based story told through specific events, this movie attempts to put you inside the artist's mind. It is plain weird, but it works beautifully. It's a film of a curious woman who struggles to fit into society's expectations of ignorance and conformity. She is drawn to oddities and embraces the "freaks" of society. What's not to admire about someone who shows unbiased acceptance of others? It is a theme that is still very relevant today as society continues to shun members based on race, social class, sexual orientation, etc. If you are a typical automaton, this film might be too strange for you. On the other hand, if you've ever wondered what it would be like to lead an atypical life, if you ever found yourself curious about something different then here it is.

I thought that this film was awful, like stunk on ice awful. Kidman can certainly carry off the doe eyed innocent, but she can't make it interesting. Even RDJr, who is generally worth sitting through almost anything, except this, could not save this or make it worth the 2 hours and change of my life that I will never get back.Ty Burrell was nice to see in a non-silly role, completely unlike his TV persona.The movie was painfully boring, pretentious and self conscious to the point of being unwatchable. I must admit, I threw in the towel about 45 minutes in and watched a documentary on PBS. Time better spent.

Who was this film made for? That is the question I am begging to have answered .Diane was an uncompromising artist who stared unrelentingly and without sentimentality at our world and its inhabitants. Not exactly the stuff popular documentaries are made of. So we get this: a series of corporate decisions that get renamed as "an imaginary portrait". There is no authentic artist re-imagining here. Diane's vision gets romanticized which is entirely against the grain of who she was.This project was just an excuse to allow Robert Downey Jr. to prance around and then allow a set of NPR listeners to conclude: Gee, I guess those people I see on Maury Povich are alright.

As an early representation of the turmoil of the 1960's that followed, Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman) can be excused as an early flower child. The film itself deserves no such latitude. The lack of character development, motivation and justification for the character's behavior makes the movie very disappointing. I sat watching and waiting for some explanation of the bizarre actions only to find that Shainberg was letting me peek into a story that must have been someones inside joke. That the few facts presented did not match Diane Arbus' life very much did not help to clarify things either.The washed out Art Direction in Diane's 'normal' life was nicely contrasted with the brilliant colors in her 'awakening' life with Lionel. And the trap door stairway was a nice demonstration of Diane's attempt to inject her new life into her existing family (However, I don't see how that trap door in the ceiling of her dining room could directly connect to Lionel's apartment which was two flights of stairs up from her's).Maybe my analysis is a little too literal in looking for some character development and relationship understanding that goes beyond one sentence or one comment. I also would have liked to see at least one of Diane's photos as well. I won't wait for the sequel.