First I want to make it clear that I did not hate this movie. It will never break my top ten or even my top 100 & it is very doubtful I will watch this movie again unless bribery is involved, but I don't mind saying that I didn't hate this movie, though I am also positive that it sounds like I am trying to convince myself instead of the readers of this review.

Andy Warhol died on February 22, 1987 which means since February 23, 1987 anyone who knows anything about Andy Warhol has eagerly antisipated a screenwriter who can write the biopic, a director who could bring the biopic to life, & an actor who could harness the spirit of Warhol & resurrect him for 2 more hours to bring some finality of insight that thousands have searched for since the 60's. It is now 2007 & we are all waiting for a messiah who can put this holy trinity together.

The first obsticle in this concundrum comes in the form of a question,"How do you make a movie about a man who not only make avant-garde films, but lived his life avant-garde?" There have been great documentaries on, Andy Warhol. I personally own a copy of Ric Burns/James Sanders 'Andy Warhol: A Documentary Film' which is a great film, but it simply recites information that I knew long before I viewed the movie.

Then there is the 2001 documentary,'Absolut Warhola' by Stanislaw Mucha which follows Warhols heritage all the way back to Slovakia. This film shed some light some of the catalytic events in his life that were instrumental in making him the artist he was, but it showed us nothing on the man himself.

In 1993 it seemed our prayers were going to be answered by, Gus Van Sant until just after the stroke of midnight on Halloween of 1993 River Phoenix dropped dead from a overdose outside of the Viper Room in west Hollywood.

Since then the only time Andy has been immortalized on the big screen is in supporting roles of movies such as, 'The Doors', '54', & even a movie that bared his name in the title,'I Shot Andy Warhol' though some would argue that Jared Harris was great as Warhol.

So this brings us to 'Factory Girl' a movie that stars Sienna Miller as Edie Sedgwick & Guy Pearce as Andy Warhol, along with Hayden Christensen who is credited as 'The Musician' who bares a striking striking resemblance to, Bob Dillan.

'Factory Girl' is a fictional biopic that follows Edie Sedgwick as she leaves Massachusetts to escape her wealthy & overbearing father, Fuzzy (James Naughton) in order to join the pop art scene of Manhatten in the 60's & launch her career as a model. Once she arrived, she gets together with her long time friend, Chuck Wein (Jimmy Fallon) who ushers her into the exclusive sub-society where she meets Andy Warhol.

It after he invites Edie back to his studio called,'The Factory' seem to build a rapport with each other which leads to a plutonic relationship, where Andy appears to be smitten by her charms, wealth, & beauty. While Edie is completely drawn to him because he is everything her father is not.

From here on out, the movie follows the two in theie deeply charged & fragile friendship. As insnuated by refering to the film as a fictional biopic, the movie is a complete fabrications between the mention of any collabration between the two or any moment in there relationship that has been documented. I can not understand for the life of me, why Captain Mauzner fictionalized this movie.

Both Edie & Andy's lives were very interesting. Edie's family has had rich ties in New England & the Sedgwick name pops several times in the recorded history of Massachusetts as well as the history of New York City which go back as far with 17th century when NYC was New Amsterdam.

Another thing that I hated about this movie is narrative given solely by Edie while she talks to her psychologist. I usually despise narration because I feel like the screenwriter is tell me along with everyone else, that we are complete morons & uses narration to dumb down the movie for the audience, but this movie is the only time I thought there needed to be more narration which should be given by Andy Warhol. The only duty that Edie's narrative serves is to continue to remind everyone that she was completely naive, while we get little to no perspective on Andy's thoughts & emotions, because Guy Pearce plays Warhol perfectly which works against the audience and the movie, because the real Andy Warhol rarely answered any question from a reporter with more then a quick monosyllable & while he was around his friends he would very rarely say anything about he feels, instead he would continue to give placating compliments or shift focus by asking for the opinion of someone around him. Which shows how twisted this movie becomes in the second half of the movie.

The only other performance that is worthy of praise comes from Hayden Christensen portayal of "The Musician" because it is the first time I watched a movie with him & forgot that he was Anakin Skywalker. I just wish they would gave his character a name, they could have named him Dob Bylan.

The relationship between Dob Bylan & Edie in the movie seemed to a short lived one night stand when infact Dob Bylan & Edie had a complex relationship with would have have been great to have seen properly adapted.

All in all, this is only the second film I have ever watched & realized that the true story was much more dramatic & entertaining then what was on film. So I am not going to tell you to watch this movie or avoid this movie, in this situation I think it is best that you decide on your own.

P.S. The first movie was 'An American Haunting'

If you see any typos or errors in grammer, feel free to point them out since I have no time to proof read.

Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: None of the Above
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age