Blonde

It's the kind of film that, as someone who writes about movies for a living, I should be blown away by. And I really appreciate the formal intentions that twist the story of the shining icon of the silver screen into a non-linear, audiovisually precarious mosaic of the hardscrabble life of a woman exploited by everyone and desperately seeking male support. But Blonde didn't touch me once in its 166 minutes, and, apart from a reminder of the 1950s feel, cut with disorienting halos, its style didn't impress me at all. It's nice that it comes across as the opposite of theatrical, that Armas gives a fantastic performance and Dominik directs his dream defiance of clean and respectful iconography, but what's the point when all I get out of it is a long moment? I was expecting this film to give me a lot of ideas, especially on the formal, stylistic and narrative level, but it just doesn't interest me... 65 % (02/10/2022)

Rewriting a fictional biography is a problematic category in and of itself. I dismissed Joyce Carol Oates' book years ago considering all the fabrications therein, but the filmmakers found it interesting to take this material and base an experimental look at the life of the eternally unhappy Marilyn Monroe on it. People who don't know the era and the old movies won't appreciate anything about it. MM fans and connoisseurs continue to prefer any other biopic (including the problematic My Week with Marilyn), while others may not care about this Netflix event. Blonde is just another pointless affair. It is instead important to point out that a film about or with MM has been in the works since her untimely death and thus is nothing new under the sun. (15/10/2022)

A TV tear-jerker. Blonde is a mosaic of the “experiences” of a tormented girl searching for her own identity and place in the world. It is engaging with its atmosphere, but needlessly long given how little information it provides. The constant illogical alternation of picture formats and switching between color and black-and-white scenes correspond to the protagonist’s confused mental state. It’s a simple yet original technique that works quite well. Ana de Armas is excellent, giving a committed and heartfelt performance. It’s a shame that her efforts are wasted on a film that can’t be appreciated by a broader audience. Andrew Dominik has something going for him as an artist, but he is NOT Terrence Malick. (29/09/2022)

A dark retro downer with a bold artistic signature, a specific formal aesthetic and a riveting performance by Ana de Armas, who plays her most ambitious and challenging role to date. In terms of expressive means, Andrew Dominik sometimes wants to resemble Terrence Malick, especially with his efforts at long, heartfelt expositions and voice-overs, but he only succeeds halfway. Malick is an expert at this and chooses stories better suited to his style where he can afford to do that. It is better to watch long shots of "sounds of nature" than to watch a 3-minute shot of a crying, lost girl, however brilliantly acted. At times formal refinement, but at other times sheer suffering for the viewer. (25/10/2022)

Almost three hours of "misery porn" with a made-for-TV quality that kills with its mood and visual monotony after the first 45 minutes. Ana de Armas gives a committed and engaging performance, but I would have liked to have seen her in a differently conceived film. A couple of scenes (especially the ones with the embryo) explicitly crossed the line into emotionally extortionate kitsch. (20/12/2023)