MovieChat Forums > Love, Marilyn (2013) Discussion > Documentary ruined by pretentious boring...

Documentary ruined by pretentious boring narrators


What was the point of using random actors and actresses who were to either emote on behalf of Marilyn when they bore no resemblance in the aura projected. Glenn Close, Lindsay Lohan(who looked awful), a very stiff looking Uma Thurman, etc. At first, I thought they were recruited to chip in with conveying to the viewer what they heard about marilyn from older actors they worked with and how that would work in current times. BUt nooo, they were just reading the letters and showed hilariously unrelated emotions while reading their lines.

Then you had t6he male narrators who just seemed to walk in on a set and just deliver lines fed to them on the spur of the moment. It looked worse than some amateur auditions.

reply

I enjoyed the actual documentary, but I think the execution would have been better if the actors they used were strictly voiceovers and never seen. The people who actually knew and interacted with Marilyn should have been the only ones onscreen. Showing the actors superimposed over the letters and diaries was what made them seem so pretentious. Just hearing the voices would have been haunting and made a bigger impact. But then the director wouldn't have had his hook.

reply

Marisa Tomei was definitely the worst in an already hideous idea. Who in 2012 decides to use these special effects? They were so cheap. Was she intending to show in this in Hallmark channel or Lifetime?

reply