Blonde (2022)

Crowther calls the film uncomfortable but engaging, unbridled cinema that will divide opinion. She praises Ana de Armas’s soulful portrayal, while criticizing the exploitative imagery in the final third.

Latif finds the film exhilarating and highly accomplished, though its explicit and disturbing choices may alienate viewers. She especially praises Dominik’s anarchic collage of Monroe’s famous images for conveying her unknowability.

The review finds the film compassionate and eye-opening, though its outlandish style sometimes overwhelms its emotional impact. It singles out the film’s compassionate approach as a strength.

The review finds the film uneven and ultimately unsuccessful at bringing Monroe fully into focus, despite much to admire. It especially praises Ana de Armas’s transformative performance and the inventive recreation of Monroe’s iconic screen images.

Gleiberman finds the film flawed but haunting, with a powerful understanding of Monroe’s tragic inner life. He especially praises Ana de Armas’s shimmering, candid performance, while faulting some choices, including an over-the-top episode involving two playboys.

Ebiri finds the film beautiful, mesmerizing, and deeply moving, though deliberately alienating and brutal. He praises its visual and sonic imagination and Ana de Armas’s committed performance.

The standfirst describes the film as a voyeuristic portrait of Marilyn Monroe. The accessible text does not reveal the critic’s fuller verdict or what the review singles out for praise or complaint.

The critic finds the film a monotonous, miserabilist portrait that reduces Marilyn Monroe to a victim. She praises Ana de Armas’s committed performance and Chayse Irvin’s cinematography, while faulting the film’s lack of nuance.

Felperin finds the film ravishing and moving but also intensely irritating and excessive. She praises Ana de Armas’s persuasive performance, while criticizing how little agency the story gives Monroe.

The critic finds the film boldly confrontational but troubling in its focus on Marilyn’s fragility and victimhood. They praise Ana de Armas’s uncanny, moving performance and the meticulous recreation of iconic images.

Titmarsh finds the film frustrating and disempowering, despite some inventive filmmaking. She praises the cast, especially Ana de Armas’s presence, but says the role gives her too little room to show Monroe’s intelligence and humour.

Rooney calls the film a must-see despite finding its excesses cruel and overwhelmingly unpleasant. He praises Ana de Armas’s raw performance, while criticizing the film’s lurid treatment of Monroe’s suffering.

The review finds the biopic disappointing, calling it unsubtle and myth-reinforcing. It singles out Ana de Armas’s performance as Marilyn Monroe for praise.

Cole argues that the film’s repeated depictions of Monroe’s abuse reduce her to a victim and do a disservice to her artistic ambitions. He praises its ravishing visual style and cinematography, while criticizing its brutality and shallow treatment of Monroe’s work.

Bray finds the film elusive and overly focused on Marilyn Monroe’s suffering, with little sense of her personal evolution. She praises its striking visual reconstructions and surreal imagery, while noting that Ana de Armas’s performance feels constrained.

The critic finds the film visually driven but ultimately lacking insight. The headline singles out its failure to offer insight into Marilyn Monroe.

The review finds the film a troubling, exploitative take on Marilyn Monroe. It singles out Ana de Armas’s performance amid its criticism of the film’s treatment of Monroe.

Chang finds the film punishing, incurious and overly focused on Monroe’s suffering, leaving little room for her talent or agency. He praises Ana de Armas’ intensely felt performance, which he says is lost in the film’s sprawl.

Newland finds the film empty and reductive, reducing Monroe to a relentlessly weeping victim. She praises Ana de Armas’s performance and Dominik’s visual style, but says neither can overcome the character’s conception.

Brody pans the film as vulgar and sadistically focused on Monroe’s victimization. He praises Ana de Armas’s energetic, nuanced performance as the one element that lends it dignity.

Formo finds the film alienating, exploitative, and empathetic, ultimately an effective and disarming experience. He especially praises Dominik’s evocative visual style and de Armas’s portrayal of Norma Jeane’s split identity.

The critic praises the film as a harrowing, visually inventive interpretation rather than a definitive biography. They single out Dominik’s gothic visual artistry and Ana de Armas’s performance, while acknowledging the film’s upsetting impact.

The review finds the film an audacious, unsettling psychological horror, despite its shortcomings as a portrait of Monroe. It singles out Ana de Armas’s raw, humane performance as the element that cuts through the film’s exploitation.

Wise finds the film fascinating and praises its bold, unconventional reimagining of Monroe’s life. He singles out Ana de Armas’s emotionally complex performance as the film’s essential strength.

Hassenger calls the film a daring, empathetic deconstruction that is also a miserabilist wallow in exploitation. He praises Ana de Armas’s performance and the film’s vivid visual ideas, while noting its punishing monotony and uncomfortable excesses.

The critic finds the film ambitious but disjointed, with its ideas and visual flourishes failing to cohere. Ana de Armas’s powerful performance and striking visual moments are singled out as strengths.

The critic finds the film cold and exploitative, despite its considerable craft. Ana de Armas’s vulnerable performance is singled out for praise, but the film’s fixation on Monroe as victim leaves that performance constrained.

Jovic finds the film bleak and over-aestheticised, yet ultimately the exact movie that needed to be made. He singles out its lush, carefully recreated imagery as both visually striking and part of its troubling reduction of Monroe to an image.

Worthington finds the film visually astonishing but ultimately troubling in how it depicts Monroe. He praises the cinematography and striking imagery, while faulting the film for turning Monroe into an aesthetic object.

The critic finds Blonde formally accomplished but ultimately self-serving, arguing that it fails to restore Monroe’s agency. They praise Dominik’s precise visual control, especially the surreal nightmare logic of the closing act.

The review condemns the film as a cruel, dehumanizing portrayal of Monroe. It praises Ana de Armas’s effort to bring humanity to the role, though the film gives her little room beyond suffering.

Nayman finds the film technically gifted but ultimately cruel, self-congratulatory, and emotionally hollow. He singles out Ana de Armas’s performance as its humane emotional center.