Norma Jean & Marilyn (1996 TV Movie) User Reviews

Not entirely truthful but reasonably entertaining

[hall895 · 7/10 · 23 July 2007]

If you're looking to see the "true story" of Marilyn Monroe's life you're probably better off skipping this movie. Norma Jean & Marilyn takes great liberties with the facts in trying to spice up the drama. There are plenty of half-truths and flat-out non-truths littered throughout. But if you can get past that you may find that this still manages to be a reasonably worthwhile movie. It's not an accurate biographical account of Marilyn Monroe's life, it's a dramatization. And not a bad dramatization at that.

This is a movie with a gimmick in that there are two Marilyn Monroes. Ashley Judd plays the icon in her younger days as unknown Norma Jean. Mira Sorvino takes over when Hollywood transforms Norma Jean into Marilyn Monroe. But we have not heard the last of Norma Jean as Judd continues to pop up now and again as an inner voice so to speak, sometimes to encourage and sometimes to berate and ridicule Sorvino's Marilyn. The point being that young Norma Jean desperately wanted to be a star and refuses to allow Marilyn to screw things up. Suffice to say these constant appearances by her younger self do not help Marilyn's state of mind as her life begins to spiral out of control towards her inevitable sad end. The two lead actresses perform their roles well. Judd is pitch-perfect as the desperate, driven Norma Jean. Sorvino is pretty much stuck doing a Marilyn Monroe impersonation but she makes the best of what she has to work with. As presented here the character may come off as a bit too much of a dumb blonde bimbo to really ring true. Surely, for all the myriad issues she had, the real Monroe was brighter than she's given credit for here. But it's hard to blame Sorvino, she can only portray the character as it was written. All in all it's a fairly gripping, if not entirely truthful, drama. And having two actresses play the famed icon at different points in her life adds a unique twist. This is clearly no work of genius but if you're looking for a reasonably entertaining movie you could do a lot worse.

Odd/Disturbing picture of Marilyn

[Atomic-4 · 5/10 · 21 June 1999]

I must say that this movie was very interesting, and more than a little disturbing. My knowledge of Marilyn info is not that expansive, but I thought the movie glossed over/fibbed/forgot about some important stuff in her life and chose to focus on the drugs/abuse/breakdown side of her personality. I adore both Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino, but neither were very convincing as Marilyn in my humble opinion. (Altho Mira had her voice down pat) The movie was entertaining, but I felt it painted Marilyn more as "deranged over the edge Marilyn" than "gifted star with problems Marilyn".

What a tangled web we weave

[FilmBuff-34 · 7/10 · 1 May 1999]

Now, I can't tell you how exact the film was because I'm way too young to remember Marilyn, I'm 14 cut me a break, but I thought that this was a seemingly good film, especially for an HBO production. It most likely ranks up with other HBO movies like "A Bronx Tale", "Tyson", and the series "From the Earth to The Moon". I thought that both Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino did an excellent job on their parts. Yet hold in account that I really don't enough knowledge about Marilyn Monroe to hold my facts up in a court of law, but I thought it was a truly good, quality film, but maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

More to it than you might think

[SlawDawg · 9 August 2002]

I feel a need to defend this movie, at least against the charges that it doesn't present accurate characterizations of Marilyn Monroe. First of all, for someone to decide that Mira Sorvino plays Marilyn as an extension of her screen persona and not as she "really was" is specious at best. The way public figures behave off-camera isn't exactly something we as an audience can make a decision on. You don't know what happens behind those closed doors. That's why they're closed, so you can't see what's going on.

But, really, that's beside the point. Whether or not Marilyn was truly like Sorvino plays her isn't really an issue. The surreal qualities of Norma Jean & Marilyn give ample indication that the filmmakers had no intention to go out and make a straightforward biopic. What they have in mind here is more complex. As heavy-handed as it may be, the symbolism is the real focus of the movie. Marilyn Monroe had two identities, and Sorvino and Ashley Judd go to great pains to illustrate in no uncertain terms that these two identities were in conflict with one another. The very different characterizations aren't saying that Marilyn was two different people. They are simply a case of filmmakers taking dramatic license to exaggerate something for the sake of making it clearer: Norma Jean Dougherty reinvented herself in her mind as someone who could get what she couldn't get herself. Try not to think of this film as a study of Monroe's outward change from Norma Jean to Marilyn. Think of it as more of a look inside her head, as an analysis of all the motives and frustrations bouncing around in her mind, and ultimately serving to identify her more than any physical appearances could ever do. It doesn't matter whether or not she really saw the word "Bourbon" and read it as "Bonbon." As the film lays it out, this is her image of herself, and in reflex, everyone else's image of her.

And then there are those who will complain that it isn't right to speculate on someone's image of herself. But you can't ask a film to stick completely to facts. Conjecture is what makes nonfiction interesting. And it is what makes Norma Jean & Marilyn interesting.

On the acting and in response to those who see the film as "soapy" and "campy": Life is a soap opera. Most of us are able to keep that at bay and live life as a perfectly reasonable chain of events. But desperate people historically are not able to do that. Drama is what they have, and drama is how they can get results. Marilyn, as the film puts it (and remember, you need to always look at a film like this on its own merits, especially when it doesn't portray itself as factual, which this one emphatically does not) is one of these desperate people, and the script respects that as a mean to that untimely end. Mira Sorvino's performance understands this. Yes, it's pretty wooden at first, but by the time she sings Happy Birthday to President Kennedy, hopped up on her crutch of barbituates and alcohol, her Marilyn has become fully realized in the downward spiral that will eventually take her life. Coupled with Ashley Judd's commanding performance as the girl who can only get what she wants by becoming someone else, and Sorvino's performance makes a full, tragic character, keeping to that perception of Marilyn Monroe as the eternal blonde bombshell legend.

Not a bad film, just wish they didn't painted her as something she wasn't and included unfounded stuff

[hot_in_pink_hate_red · 7/10 · 9 September 2010]

I've seen this movie 4 years ago and I loved it. The only thing I didn't like about it, was that they painted Marilyn as a s*ut and they included stuff that NEVER happened to her in real life. She WASN'T sexually abused by her foster father, she WASN'T stupid, she NEVER had a female doctor when she was in therapy, she NEVER hated being referred to by her real name (Norma Jean), and she NEVER lied around with various men who we don't have much knowledge of who knew Marilyn and were depicted in the film. Ahsley Judd does a wonderful job playing Norma Jean, BEFORE she become Marilyn. But her portrayal of Norma Jean AFTER Marilyn comes in is so tepid and cruel. Mira Sorvino does an amazing job portraying Marilyn, AFTER Norma Jean is gone. She shows Marilyn as the sexy blonde bombshell that she is, but shows her as an emotional wreck who was ALWAYS insecure and feeling like her career-referring to the end of the film-would never come back. I still love this movie and the only thing I wish was that they keep it as true as possible and NEVER included stuff that was unfounded and misconceived.

can anyone tell me that this movie is worth seeing - who doesn't care if Ashley Judd (good actor) is naked or not!!!!????

[elleleea · 6/10 · 15 December 2004]

Hi I have just discovered a listing for this movie - which I had never heard of - not into TV movies per Se, however, since Ashley Judd (good actor) is in it, can anyone tell me if it is worth seeing, is it good etc.

I love Ashley Judd, good actor, nice looking and I love her voice, but not in a gay way!

I saw the other TV movie with poppy Montgomery = Blonde = and it was pretty good. If anyone can rate this movie better or worse, I'd appreciate it.

Ta

TV biopic

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 1 January 2017]

This movie takes a look at the iconic legend from two sides of her persona. Norma Jean Dougherty (Ashley Judd) is the ambitious small town girl and Marilyn Monroe (Mira Sorvino) is the construct after the plastic surgery. She had an unstable mother and an absent father. Her aunt left her in the orphanage after her uncle made a pass. In Hollywood, the married model Norma Jean dates actor Eddie Jordan (Josh Charles) and uses his connections. She vows to be the biggest star ever. Despite the good news of her divorce, she is angrily jealous of Eddie signing a studio contract. She's willing to sleep around including Eddie's uncle Ted to get ahead. Through Ted, she gets to big Hollywood agent Johnny Hyde (Ron Rifkin).

This has the feel of an unauthorized sensationalized TV biopic. Ashley Judd is acting for all her worth in this one. She also gets really naked. It seems desperate. Norma Jean had a desperate drive and I can't separate the story from the sense of movie-making. Nevertheless, it probably has more reality than fiction. This is not some high brow affair despite the high brow concept of two actresses playing the same role. The concept functions well. Mira Sorvino does a fine Monroe imitation although it doesn't feel real. This does try to do a psychological conflict between the two personalities although I like more the Monroe as a smart calculating performer rather than a tragic mental case. Everybody wants the tragic flaw. In the end, this is a functional TV biopic but it seems to be trying too hard for my taste.

A pretty pathetic film.

[katie_w125 · 2/10 · 27 October 2005]

Anyone who is a fan of Marilyn Monroe and has spent at least a little time learning about her life will probably end up being completely appalled by this movie. I know I was.

"Norma Jean and Marilyn" portrays Monroe as a completely superficial, selfish lunatic. It was almost as if the screenplay was written by someone that just heard about her mental problems, and never bothered to read a single biography.

What was the point of casting different actresses to play Monroe before and after her plastic surgery? In reality, the woman didn't really change that much in appearance. Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino are so different in the way that they look... The whole thing was just a bad idea.

And while I will admit that I was impressed at times by Sorvino's acting chops, the casting of Judd was ridiculous, and overall both of their performances were pretty over-the-top.

When this movie ended, I was just flat out mad. Mad because I had wasted two hours of my life watching the stupid thing. And mad because of the unfair portrayal of one of classical Hollywood's most talented stars.

Marilyn Monroe was not crazy. She did not have hallucinations. She did not live in her own little world. She had a drug problem. And she had paralyzing insecurity, stemming from a childhood spent in numerous foster homes, where she was molested and abused. Years after her death, it was revealed that she had bipolar disorder, yet this travesty of a biopic stuck to the idea that she was nuts.

Spare yourself the annoyance, and do not watch this movie.

real sad stuff

[ldavis-2 · 1/10 · 9 October 2004]

When Joe DiMaggio died, Jill Isaacs, the writer of this movie, wrote a piece for the Los Angeles Times about him and Marilyn Monroe that I found moving. It made me wonder what was it about her which compelled his devotion. I was reminded of that as I caught this the other night, and I thought: why didn't Isaacs write about THAT instead of churning out this dreck?

The only original thing here is two Marilyns for the price of one -- kind of like splitting the atom, if you ask me. Imagine Frankenstein and the Creature - each with his own hangups - in the same body, and you get an idea of what it was like to be Marilyn Monroe (based on what I've read, anyway).

Isaacs offers no insight into how or why Monroe became what she became. You can say it was her childhood, but countless others have had miserable childhoods, too. Why did she go into the movies? Most importantly, how did she create Marilyn Monroe? Even after she became the biggest star in the world, she continued to refine the persona with huge chunks of her "real self". I think the reason for Monroe's enduring appeal is that her "real self" was a genuinely nice person, and not the calculating harpy that we get here.

Then there are the campy moments. What was Isaacs trying to do? You don't just stumble upon a brilliant career. What about talent? Determination? Dedication to one's craft? Instead, we get a vapid creature who sleeps her way to the top, and tramples on virtually everyone unfortunate enough to cross her path. As a result, I found myself waiting for her to kick off.

The fact Judd and Sorvino come THIS CLOSE to overcoming all that is a credit to them as actors.

A Misjudged and Misunderstood TV movie...

[ijonesiii · 8/10 · 24 January 2006]

For years, the 1996 HBO movie NORMA JEAN AND MARILYN has been maligned and skewered by critics and viewers alike because it was not an accurate biography of Marilyn Monroe. Frankly, if you're looking for an accurate film biography of Marilyn Monroe, there is no such animal (though the ABC-TV movie with Catherine Hicks is pretty close). NORMA JEAN AND MARILYN is not supposed to be a biography of Marilyn. So much has been written about Marilyn over the past 50 years, how can there be anything that people don't know at this point? That's why this movie took a different tack and presented a probing psychological drama that speculates about the inner demons that tormented Marilyn from her childhood as Norma Jean throughout her adult life as Marilyn. Ashley Judd lights up the screen as a young Norma Jean, the young woman determined to forget a loveless marriage to Jim Dougherty and carve out a career for herself as a movie star, even if she has to sleep her way to the top to do it. Norma Jean makes no bones about what she wants, even if it means using and abusing good friend Eddie Jordan (Josh Charles)to get to his famous uncle as an "in" to the Hollywood crowd. The screenplay splices together fantasies and inner dialogues with some actual events in Norma Jean's life in order to give us a look into Marilyn's psyche. Once Norma Jean gets signed to Fox and she changes her name to Marilyn Monroe, Mira Sorvino takes over the role in an uncanny reincarnation of the screen's greatest sex symbol. Sorvino is warm and heartbreaking as Marilyn, recreating some of Marilyn's greatest on screen moments with frightening accuracy while at the same time beautifully conveying the decay of Marilyn's mind, thanks to booze, pills, men, and the treatment she received from studio heads, acting coaches, and others who tried to help her. What makes this film unique and indicates that it is not just a typical biopic is that after Sorvino takes over the role, Ashley Judd still appears as the inner Norma Jean, coaching and encouraging Marilyn to do the right thing and ridiculing her when she does the wrong thing. This movie is an examination of the inner Marilyn who lived in constant mental anguish and was never satisfied with anything she ever did or any relationship she had. The movie is well-written with flashbacks and flash forwards that require close attention in order to stay with the story but it is well worth it. Sorvino and Judd receive solid support from David Dukes as Arthur Miller, Peter Dobsono as Joe DiMaggio, Ron Rifkin as Johnny Hyde, and Lindsay Crouse as Natasha, Marilyn's acting coach who, according to this film,was in love with her. This is a haunting and disturbing film that will not answer all your questions about her, but might help you to understand what a tormented soul she was. If you're looking for a biography of Marilyn, go to a library and check out a book on Marilyn. If you're looking for a unique film experience about a side of Marilyn we rarely saw, then give NORMA JEAN AND MARILYN a look.

Horrible Portrayal

[marymorphine · 4/10 · 5 August 2005]

A horrible portrayal of the legendary Marilyn Monroe.

If Marilyn Monroe was as dumb as this movie made her out to be, we wouldn't be celebrating her legacy as we are today. Marilyn Monroe was a brilliant woman who knew how to work the cameras. She had a heart and this movie made her cold and without a soul.

Her death scene portrayed in this movie is inaccurate and ridiculous. She not die in an ambulance or in the bathroom and she did not drink down her pills. She took pills that have to be put through the rectum, not the mouth, and she was found by her maid face down on her bed naked in her bedroom with the telephone beside her.

Good Movie Overall

[CharliesFireFlyAngel · 9 August 2002]

I saw this movie when it first premiered back in 1996 and I saw it again last night. I think that it's a good movie overall. Very good concept, screen-writing, and acting, but I don't even worry about the accuracy, because a lot of times in these type of "biographical" movies, theres always gonna be something different to it, especially when most of the people aren't alive to comfirm what is true and what's isn't.

I found this movie to be very interesting more than anything else and times it seemed very depressing; was Marilyn that sad? Ashley Judd is very impressive in this movie and her portrayal of Norma Jean's involvment in Marilyn's then-current life, is one of the reasons that makes this movie so interesting. Mira Sorvino was also very impressive, but I believe that the only fault in Sorvino's performance was that the writter's seemed to portray Marilyn as a dumb blonde, when I believe Marilyn was not even close to that. Sometimes it did seem kind of disrespectful, but I don't think that they really meant any harm by it, but they should've known. Don't go watching this film expecting accuracy, I think that's what too many people are expecting. Go to this film expecting to hear a possible side to this woman's life, not for the absolute and complete truth, cause you will not get it from this film. The only place you can get the truth is from the late Marilyn herself.

A travesty

[bercg · 1/10 · 26 April 2002]

I'm sorry but Mira Sorvino was so bad in this movie it wasn't even funny. Her attempt to portray Marilyn as a simpering, simple minded bimbo was both misguided and upsetting. As the other reviewer commented, Marilyn Monroe's on screen persona was not the person she was in real life. It's almost as if Mira's interpretation was based on an impression she once saw somebody do of Marilyn. It wasn't even a good stereotypical impression of her. I have to say that Ashley Judd's Norma Jean was miles more interesting to watch than Mira's offering.

This movie was poorly conceived, badly written and terribly acted. No-one could possibly hope to even come close to recreating what Marilyn brought to the screen or the effect she had when she walked into a room. How the makers of this movie thought that they could do it with such poor materials to work with is beyond me.

Dead Awful

[im_a_green_gazelle · 1/10 · 29 May 2008]

I saw this at my friends house who said it was great so i watched it and i thought it was dreadful! who did the research? There were so many errors, the biggest one that bugged me was in the scene where she got her stage name, in the movie it said she got her last name from a president, wrong! in actuality Marilyn got her last name from her mothers maiden name (monroe) however in the movie and real life she did get her name from Marilyn Miller. The next at the end, it implied that she died in the bedroom, that may have well been where she took the pills that lead to her demise, but she didn't die there she died in the bedroom everyone knows that. Mira Sorvino usually is a good actress, but this was poor, she softened her voice, however she didn't achieve Marilyn's seductive, breathless voice and she portrayed her as dumb when Marilyn was as opposite to the public's opinion was smart and shy not like that. Ashley Judd however was interesting to watch as Norma Jeane, it surprises my why Ashley agreed to that movie as she has been in so many great pictures. Terrible film!

Mira & Judd are Fabulous!!!

[Sax · 10/10 · 17 May 1999]

I really like Marilyn as she was,before this movie,and even more now.I've never been into her,like a fanatic,but even if it is not an accurate version,the movie is incredible.Even if they did'nt credit her talent,they credited her journey,and her stamina through it all.I can appreciate anyone who goes through the horror of drug addiction:It happens to be my business and I see a lot of it.Victims of drugs and alcohol are,more than not,people who are strong and have massive potential.This ironic but true.Two thumbs up for this awesome portrayal and breath taking performance in memory of a awesome public figure. Just goes to show how "It can happen" to the best of us.I've seen this movie 5 times & will watch it again.Like "Funny Girl",It's one of my all time faves,& was Ashleys' best yet.

Breathtakingly Dreadful

[mandymackie-1 · 1/10 · 14 January 2009]

I don't know why I suddenly remembered this film but when I googled it to see if it had actually been released I was astounded to see that it had!

The reason is that a friend and I took part in an audience research screening and were certain that it would never see the light of day.

Even now I can remember some of my comments on the questionnaire they made us fill in before they agreed to unlock the doors and let us run screaming from the cinema.

Q. What did you like about the film? My answer: "Absolutely nothing"

Q. Is there anything that can be done to make the film better? My answer: "Rewrite the script and start again"

Q. What did you think of the music My answer: (it was something like) "one of the less bad aspects of the film"

Assuming that some amendments were made after the audience research survey what I saw must have been EVEN WORSE that what was released!!!

This is probably the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I say "probably" because usually I would get up on my hind legs and walk out of the cinema or turn the TV off. The only reason we sat through the whole thing is because they did actually lock the doors and we weren't allowed out until we had watched every single shitty minute of it and fill out their questionnaire.

Judd eats Sorvino's lunch

[heckles · 25 July 2000]

This film used a bit of gimmick casting; having one actress play the young and hungry starlet Norma Jean, and another playing 'Marilyn; after she had achieved fame and wealth. Add to that Marianne Davis, who plays Norma Jean when she was a frightened young girl being moved from place to place.

The movie is not entirely successful, because Sorvino plays Marilyn as her flighty image of the films rather than a logical continuation of the Norma Jean persona, making her death occur with a whimper rather than a grand crash. But it is very definitely worthwhile for seeing Ashley Judd play Norma Jean to the hilt as a woman whose delicate features overlay a soul of chromium steel, determined never to repeat the humiliations of her girlhood. It was an entirely different angle on Norma Jean/Marilyn to see her arrive late (!) for an audition and blithely push her way past other starlets to catch the attention of the producer; or watch her, in a fantasy sequence, run over her former hapless self in a car. I was sorry when 'Norma Jean's half' of the movie was over, and pleased to see her return briefly at the end.

a waste of time

[martaF · 2/10 · 6 August 2002]

Years after Marilyn Monroe's death, a portuguese channel decided to pay homage to one of the greatest sex symbols of all time. Starting with a (beautiful) documentary, followed by "Some like it hot", "The Prince and the Showgirl" and (disaster!), "Norma Jean and Marilyn". Let's face it, the movie is a caricature, Mira Sorvino is ridiculous, but Ashley Judd doesn't look that bad.

My advice: stick to the original one.

i think don't watch this film

[af-fet_ne_olur · 3/10 · 27 May 2012]

at first Mira sorvino and Ashley Judd aren't as beautiful as Marlyn Monroe. they are really bad and there was many wrong things about Marlyn in this movie. i don't want to reckon because it takes me so long.

Ashley Judd plays the icon in her younger days as unknown Norma jean. Mira sorvino takes over when Hollywood transforms Norma jean into Marlyn Monroe.

Ashley Judd and Mira sorvino are so different from each other. they are looking different. this is really bad.

i must say that this movie was very interesting and a little disturbing. this is horrible portrayal of the legendary Marlyn Monroe. if Marlyn Monroe was as dumb as this movie made her out to be. we wouldn't be celebrating her legacy as we are today. Marlyn Monroe was a brilliant woman. she had a heart but this movie made her cold and without a soul..

and last i think Michelle Williams more successful Ashley Judd and Mira sorvino and she must play this film.

Marilyn as a schizophrenic manic depressive..

[goya-4 · 9/10 · 21 May 2001]

Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino both star as Marilyn in this HBO picture. Ashley stars as the young Marilyn "Norma Jean" the controlling part of the woman and Mira stars as Marilyn the star. The two fight viciously for control over her personality, ultimately dooming the woman. A depressing dark view of the sex symbol but it is possibly one of the most accurate - at least dealing with Marilyn - who did have a history of mental illness as well as family history, was manic depressive and deeply troubled. A well acted daring film. Give it a try. 9 of 10

Worst movie I've ever seen

[That_Beatles_Girl · 1/10 · 5 August 2006]

Some movies, like "Santa Conquers the Martians" or "Evil Dead", are so hilariously bad that you just have to laugh at them. This is not one of those movies. When I decided to watch this movie I thought, "Oh, cool, a movie about Marilyn. Most of these are pretty poorly done, but I'll watch it anyways just because I'm a fan." Big mistake. This movie is sensationalistic, features gratuitous nudity, and does not accurately portray the life of Marilyn Monroe. Most of the acting in this movie is incredibly crappy, especially from the young actresses who played Marilyn as a child or teenager. Ashley Judd, bless her soul, is just not believable, as a lost soul or as a sex symbol. This movie was so terrible that I turned it off after less than half an hour. The themes of Marilyn being molested are frankly quite disturbing and I don't see why anyone would want to watch this movie. I have nothing good to say about this movie, aside from the fact that it probably saved the studio a bit of money to make, as it is so cheaply and poorly done.

Movie was good, just very dark

[Adriane · 10 February 1999]

As a huge fan of Marilyn Monroe, I was excited to see this movie. Mira Sorvino did a pretty good job portraying her, as did Ashley Judd. The story was just very dark, it shows Marilyn's abuse physically and sexually. She has also been abused emotionally by producers and directors. Although the story is very good, it is just very dark.

Pointless Film - No Entertainment Value

[roark183 · 1/10 · 25 July 2005]

Just exactly why the producers made this film I cannot understand. Now I am not familiar with the exact events of Marilyn Monroe's life, so I could not judge the accuracy of this film in depicting her life. But this film is totally disappointing in the depiction of her life. The question in my mind is "Did the producers & writers of this film truly enjoy telling the world how screwed up Marlilyn Monroe's life really was?" Did the producers really enjoy making this film? It is a pretty degraded purpose to tear up someone's life like this and expose it to the world as "entertainment", regardless of how accurate it is.

To me films should serve as entertainment. The entertainment value of this film is absolute ZERO. It shows none of the happier moments of Marilyn's life, except in her childhood, but then it only goes downhill from there. There is nothing in this film that glorifies the most celebrated of all actresses.

If you want some graphical depiction of the degraded points of Marilyn's life, then perhaps this film is for you. But if you are looking to be entertained, unless you are pretty sadistic, look elsewhere for entertainment. 1/10

Watch the first hour of this...if you must

[MarieGabrielle · 3/10 · 27 November 2005]

The only redeeming factor of this film is the early sequence, wherein Mary Haney (veteran actor, ""Little Girl Fly Away"".....and others), plays one of the foster mothers to Marilyn. We can see some of the history and abuse; which is probably never going to be completely analyzed, which led Marilyn to the profession she chose.

Ashley Judd is passable as young Norma Jean, but becomes the strident alter ego, which, tritely enough, is part of how the writer of this movie portrays Marilyn's untimely death. The film divides Marilyn into her past and present; with no real compassion or realistic explanation.

For the caricature of Marilyn in her superstar era, Mira Sorvino is not a good choice. She is too affected, and at one point you will get a few laughs when she throws spaghetti at former husband Joe DiMaggio. The casting director might have chosen someone less over the top; maybe Joanna Kerns or someone with a more intelligent persona. Although Marilyn, in real life, made it to the top by being a sex symbol; I don't think she was a blithering idiot, as she is portrayed here.

One performance which deserves mention is Lindsay Crouse, as Natasha Lytess, the venerable drama coach. She adds some class and talent to this film.

As for Marilyn's demise, we will probably never be told the truth, since there were too many unsavory characters taking advantage of her, and she was quite a lonely person, it seems. Read Anthony Summers book about Marilyn, which will give you the real information.

At any rate, watch the early part if you are interested in the real Marilyn. Then read the biography by Mr. Summers, or a few other recent books which utilize FACTS. Marilyn's life was sad, but it is even more tragic that she is still portrayed in such a way. She was obviously a woman with some talent and intelligence, especially to have been a successful actress in the era of the 50's and 60's.

Great drama

[dandin765 · 9/10 · 5 January 2000]

This movie is very well acted, and is a good drama, but don't look for a straight biography. This movie goes into the psychological and emotional problems that lead to her suicide. It is beautiful and tragic. Mira Sorvino plays Marilyn fairly well, but also does a great job of acting overall even if she isn't the spitting image. Don't go into this movie assuming and you will love it.