But biopics are not documentaries or parodies. One of Nicole's most criticized films before was "Fur". Personally like it very much. Most people hate it because that's not what they see as Diane Abbas, Nicole is a glamorous housewife, and photo artist Diane Abbas is not like that. But that movie isn't a complete biopic, at least I'd rather see it as a one-step drama than a biopic. It just borrowed Diane Abbas' name and background identity to tell a middle-aged woman's version of Alice in Wonderland. The purpose of this film was not to fully recreate the life of Diane Abbas, but more importantly to show you an 18th-century housewife who wanted to take risks in her ordinary life. Photography and deformed friends were just a springboard for her to find an outlet. It's also an excuse for the movie to want to tell the story. It's just a part of Diane Abbas' skin. Well, all in all, I think it's an underrated work.
Back to Grace Kelly, this time it is really a biographical film, and it should indeed be played by someone who thinks about it! At first, I was also very confused about the director's vision, although I am a fan of Nicole Kidman. I think even if Sister January is not good at acting, Gwyneth is better than Nicole. But I seem to understand the purpose of the director after watching the movie. Although this is a biographical film, it is only a storyline that is framed by intercepting a very small passage in Grace Kelly's life. He mostly happened when Monaco was struggling with French isolation and Grace Kelly's marriage was in a state of crisis. So it's a very unsettled part of her life, she's in a state of anxiety, and this temperament is what Nicole Kidman can express. Even Gwyneth was a little flat. Well, the theme of the movie is to show the state of a woman facing marriage and various crises. She is confused at first, painful, then anxious, and finally forbears and makes a choice. I think the director really needs a heroine with a bit of aura to complete the story and theme.
Anyway, the movie does lack a bit of a blast, the focus is entirely on Nicole Kidman's high-level formulation and close-ups, and the story seems to be trying hard to create a climax but not satisfactory. But I can see the director's intentions, the lighting is beautiful, the beginning and the end are also very good, and I don't think Nicole Kidman is the dark spot of the movie, although she plays all herself, but She is indeed playing a woman who is facing life's predicament. The menace and the decisive aura of the characters in that story are still there.
Movies are not parodies, and biographical films have various purposes, some are to restore a person's life so they must be vivid, while others are just to reproduce a legend, a miracle or a special segment, or to borrow This spawned something new, so we wanted the movie that best suited that moment and theme. Well, although I have said so much, I really don't want Nicole to act in a biopic again. It's useless to play a role and be scolded once. It's useless to try hard. It's better to play a witch. Neurotic and Desperate Housewives come easily.
View more about Grace of Monaco reviews
