Factory Girl (2006)

No idea about the historical accuracy, but it was a fairly flat experience.Plenty of opportunity for set pieces, but none of them was interesting. Especially the confrontation between Warhol and Dylan - didn't get a single insight from it. Also the atmosphere was too ... reliable - it should create a nervous uncertainty.In the end the heroine was just sad and lost, no tragedy to it. I guess because she was essentially passive.The music was disappointing too.The actor playing Warhol was excellent - in interview he said he was surprised to hear he was a villain in the finished product. I agree with his approach - less of the judgmentalising, please.The pace is good and it all fits together, but overall underwhelming.

When I heard of this movie, I thought, "Oh good! Edie and Andy Warhol fans will be ecstatic, and kids who've never heard of either will be mesmerized by Edie's tragic beauty and story." Wrong. "Factory Girl" is the clever title for a shamefully Hollywood depiction of the life and times of Edith M. Sedgwick during her time as a Warhol superstar, narrated occasionally by post-drugs, post-Warhol Edie at a psychiatric hospital in 1971. As many other reviews have pointed out, Sienna Miller has been praised as looking like "a twin of Edie." Wrong, again. It is understandable that no one can exactly recreate Edie's quasi-androgynous, fluid, gamine and distinctly individual dark beauty, but Miller looks like a fast Halloween knockoff of Edie. Not even Edie, more like a cheap version of an American Twiggy. And the personality? Not even close. Edie is presented as an innocent, impressionable, unintelligent and unsophisticated child who is used and abused by Warhol, who is bizarrely cruel and childish, though Guy Pearce as Warhol is a pretty believable physical facsimile of the Pop artist. But back to Edie, who in reality, came from a very wealthy and high-society family, was an artist in her own right, and was received immensely well by the Factory crowd for her poise, intelligence, and actress/director versatility. She was not only a muse for Warhol, but a confidante and peer. The most confusing part of this already false depiction of Edie, though, is the Bob Dylan character/romance. Yes, it's true that Edie had something of a crush on Dylan for a period of time, ultimately leading to her break with the Warhol camp for Dylan's attention, claiming to be making a movie with him. But this was a very brief period in Edie's life, leaving him certainly not "the biggest mistake" of her life. She had a much more of a strong affair with Bob Neuwirth, Dylan's right hand man. It's plain to see why the film went in this direction; Edie's life was too messy and too realistically human for Hollywood, and a central romance was easy to portray. Hayden Christensen is pretty pathetic as "Billy Quinn," anyway.So, for all potential Edie/Warhol fans who are looking to find out more about either: don't watch this movie looking for truth. It's nothing but Hollywood debris based on early 60's New York. Watch "Ciao! Manhattan," the original Warhol films, look on Tumblr for the "Only Edie Sedgwick" account, and do your own otherwise research. Just don't rely on this movie.

This film was a great demonstration of art and fashion. The characters were very well portrayed and all performances were acted out very well. Although, many people may say that this film is not accurate, it paints perfect artful depictions of iconic legends. I felt as though I got a better idea of how the 60s were after watching this film. The film was very racy and graphic. Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll was an understatement for this period. As seen in the film drugs made a big impact in society during this time. Edie Sedgwick had a horrible drug addiction that in the end killed her by the age of 28. The role of Edie Sedgwick was performed beautifully by Sienna Miller, not only did she look like Edie she played her part perfectly. Andy Warhol was Edie's mentor and friend; his role was portrayed well and rough by Guy Pierce. All in all, this movie was beautifully crafted and realistic.

I'm sorry but this movie is actually a pretty bad movie. The performances are awful, except for Guy Pierce, even though the best Warholl I've seen in a movie was David Bowie in Basquiat. The problem of the movie is that it paints a pretty dull portrait of Eddie Sedwick. You actually stop caring for the girl like at the first half an hour of the movie. I believe the movie satanizes a lot of characters as well as painstakingly using pretty crappy covers for ambiance music.Somebody please explain me why the HELL does Hayden Christensen still get acting jobs? He is one of the worst actors I've ever seen in my life and his Dylan impression (Please nobody tell me it's a Dylanesque performance or a Dylan like character, it clearly is Bob Dylan people!!)is absolutely awful, no wonder Dylan wanted to sue the production. Siena Miller isn't bad, but just doesn't do it for me.The movie is also a bit slow paced in scenes where it really shouldn't be slow paced and actually manages to turn an interesting subject like the factory and its different characters boring. The Sedwick interviews feel totally out of place and don't go with the movie. I believe Sedwick is a much more interesting character, but this movie does nothing to help her.