Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus

In 1958 New York Diane Arbus is a housewife and mother who works as an assistant to her husband, a photographer employed by her wealthy parents. Respectable though her life is, she cannot help but feel uncomfortable in her privileged world. One night, a new neighbor catches Diane's eye, and the enigmatic man inspires her to set forth on the path to discovering her own artistry.

Turning her back on her wealthy, established family, Diane Arbus falls in love with Lionel Sweeney, an enigmatic mentor who introduces Arbus to the marginalized people who help her become one of the most revered photographers of the twentieth century. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus torrent reviews

Caroline C (ca) wrote: Wild ride, enjoyable entertainment....fun!

Gareth D (de) wrote: Weird, cringe-worthy, scatological - and in most parts downright bad. How on earth they got all these big name stars in it, is quite amazing.

Derek R (nl) wrote: This made up for how bad the previous installment was, it had good writing for once, and an awesome as fuck twist, this is easily the 2nd best Saw.

sander t (br) wrote: it's a fucked up movie no fun watching

Asa B (nl) wrote: The extra star is for the movie remakes in the film, particularly the Ghostbusters one, but otherwise it is a painful experience.

meg b (ag) wrote: KICK ASS! CAN KICK YOUR ASS!

Orlok N (ru) wrote: It's set in the _Blade Runner_ universe!!

Soufian E (ag) wrote: The Principal, Narayan Shankar, of a prestigious college, decides to rusticate one of his students, Raj Malhotra, for making romantic advances against his only daughter, Megha, knowing fully well that both Megha and Raj are in love. Megha is heart-broken, and eventually passes away. Years later, Nar.

Ashley H (ca) wrote: This is one of the most hilariously awful movies of all time.

Aiden M (kr) wrote: In an absolute masterpiece, Welles pieces together light and shadow along with masterful cinematography and acting to help lay the groundwork for every film that comes next.

Scott M (it) wrote: Don't get what the fuss is about this movie. Yeah, the director Orson Wells was ahead of his time technically. But this is a dull movie. I will never watch it again.

Andrew B (nl) wrote: Have spent my life around people that take the holy trilogy this seriously.Yes it's not perfect but a fun ride nonetheless

Jason T (ca) wrote: Boseman gives an amazing performance as James Brown. This Biopic features some great musical numbers and plenty of music to satisfy fans. Everything else though is your typical biopic stuff. Few surprises and the films drags in some of these scenes. Less talk more funk!

Larry C (kr) wrote: Thought provoking. I liked it.

Kordell C (nl) wrote: One of the best movies ever made. It's extremely layered, creative, smart, and mind-blowing. It is perfectly directed and the cast is all on their A game. This movie perfectly blends clever indie movies with large blockbusters. There's literally something for everyone to love about this movie.

Jeffrey N (nl) wrote: I officially don't like Diablo Cody. Juno was nice and quirky, made even more appealing by Ellen Page. However, after that abysmal show, The United States of Tara and now this poorly written movie, I'm convicted that, while performances, like the superb ones by Patton Oswalt and Charlize Theron in Young Adult, can enhance bad writing, it can't mask it. This movie is full of holes, the inability to stay focused on a solid story and, at the beginning, painfully dull. By the end, I'm affected by Charlize's near-perfect portrayal of a self-righteous, arrogant, narcissistic depressive, so she played the part well. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Diablo's screenplay could have had a hand I how this messed up character is displayed, but the overall story is choppy, poorly plotted and void of basic comprehension in certain areas that I feel as though I could have written it

Farah R (br) wrote: A fantastically traditional haunted house horror film. We Are Still Here is cleverly written and acted with perfectly timely scares and a pleasant 70s aesthetic. That's about everything to love about it as it falls short in instilling horror when compared with The Conjuring. The Dagmar family's makeup was the only freaky element in the entire movie and it wasn't even put to good use in delivering jump scares or eerie hallway creeping. I personally really enjoyed watching it but felt disappointed at the potential of how much better it could've been.

Kenya N (ag) wrote: One Word - Extravagant