Alicia I love this movie so much

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

ramsri007 This movie, by no means is an easy popcorn watch. Downey has given the most restrained yet powerful performance in this movie. There is hardly any dialog. Downey has given his usual trademarks a miss. The eyes behind the fur reach out to you searching your soul trying to make a connection. The chemistry between Downey & Nicole is electrifying. Every scene they are together, they bring out the quiet despair and love that speaks volumes about their internal desires and strong feelings for one another. There is ample use of symbolism and metaphors. The music & the set add to the experience. I feel 'Fur' is sort of reminiscent of 'The Beauty & The Beast' story. It is sure to leave a lump in your throat and manages to make the sensitive connect.

punishmentpark A bit of a disappointment after 'Secretary', but still certainly more than doable. This time it all felt more 'arty', leaving the drama in the shadows a little; at some point we get the idea that Diane is trapped between to worlds, but this dilemma carries on for way too long. Carter Burwell's soundtrack, the beautiful camera-work and sets and dresses, they all did add to a fulfilling experience, as did the cast. But I did see a photo of the real Diane Arbus though, and Kidman's (heavily face-lifted) appearance does not correspond. Samantha Morton was originally cast for this role, I don't know why that didn't work out, but she would have seemed much more appropriate. Other roles were mostly just fine (daughters) to very good (Ty Burrell), with Robert Downey Jr. excelling.But as said before, 'Fur:...' drags on too long without there being anything poignant put forth to the viewer. I mean, why shave the hero Lionel? I'm thinking that must have been some sort of demand by 'someone' to have Downey Jr. out in the flesh (and pretty much naked) to get a bigger audience, because dramatically, it felt truly unnecessary. And, as said before as well, Kidman just didn't really belong in this, even if I do think she did a fine job considering. And the true intimacy of it all díd come across more than once, so it's not hard for me to be lenient - but not too lenient:A big 6 out of 10 for another film by the exceptional Steven Shainberg. I'm looking forward to his debut ('Hit Me') and new work ('The Big Shoe' is in pre-prod.).

st-shot Following in the footsteps of revolutionary photographer Robert Frank, Diane Arbus was one of the three (Gary Winogrand, Lee Friedlander) photographers displayed in a groundbreaking photo exhibit entitled New Documents at MOMA in 1967. Less than five years later she would commit suicide her place in photographic history assured. In Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus director Steven Shainberg moves her subconscious into an apartment upstairs from her in a novel way to get inside the head of the troubled artist who had an irresistible desire for nostalgie de la boule.With the support of her parents Allan and Diane Arbus (Nichol Kidman) are in he the midst of realizing the American dream with a burgeoning photography business. Allan the photographer and Diane the assistant along with her parents money and connections seem focused on a successful future. But something is gnawing at Diane in the repressive Fifties where a woman's role in the family is to support the husband and raise the kids. Whether it's manic depression or artistic drive is hard to tell but when her furry muse (Robert Downey Jr.) moves in upstairs she's ready for a walk on the wild side. This insipid approach is ridiculous from the outset. It is more fairy tale than imaginary with it's Beauty and the Beast veneer and Kidman's wallflower Arbus whispering her performance as if she were in a confessional. Parents and husband are perfunctory distant and mystified while Downey's Sasquatch is the same self assured perceptive Downey you get in Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes except here he's Cousin It.The morose topic is poorly paced, the compositions and camera movement pretentious and self indulgent. Near the end director Shainberg attempts an 81/2 montage of many of the subjects Arbus would photograph in her prime by parading them through a scene but even this rings hollow in its presentation by sanitizing the moment, especially with her models drained of their monochromatic identity.This over two hour film on the life of Arbus imaginary or otherwise does itself no favor by concentrating almost totally on the disintegration of her marriage and finding of her voice while ignoring her most important period as an artist when the voice projected with some disturbing imagery that went beyond the contrived and manufactured. It would have allowed Kidman to stretch and avoided what Arbus rejected.

rdolan9007 This film works better than I expected. I was a little nervous of what an imagined film actually meant (ie nonsense, or total nonsense) and whether it was going to be worth watching because of that. When a movie deals with a real person, I think it is reasonable to see where the lines between truth and fiction are going to be drawn. Obviously any film will take some liberties for the sake of a smooth plot narrative. This film is smooth and pretty well polished, and I was less distracted by what was truth and fiction than I expected. The film appears quite conventional in some aspects, ie 'freaks' are real people too, they are nice and kind, and we shouldn't prejudge them. The love affair between Arbus and Lionel I wasn't entirely convinced by . To me it was reminiscent of that horrible beauty and the beast TV series in the 80's or 90's. Again I would like to have known more of what was truth and what was fiction. You will not learn anything about Arbus's work here, which is a severe disappointment. The cinematography is excellent though, reminiscent of Hitchcock, Barton Fink, especially in the corridor shooting. The colours are rather like Mad men; the TV series set in the 50's/ 60's in an ad agency. Nicole Kidman is reasonable in the role, there are moments, especially acting besides her husband in the film, which ring true in there awkwardness. Downey is mostly hidden behind the hair caused by his illness, so its hard to judge how good his role is. I found the film watchable enough, but those awkward questions of what is real and what is fiction are not answered. It matters less to me having watched the film, but means that my praise for the film is more lukewarm than maybe it should be.