Poor little rich girl Edie Sedgwick (Sienna Miller) has a doom outlook on her life. She leaves Cambridge Art School with her 'girlfriend' Chuck (Jimmy Fallon) to go to NYC in 1965. Her wealth soon attracts the attention of Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce). He brings her into the world of the Factory where she meets many personalities like musician Billy Quinn (Hayden Christensen).This is style over substance. Many would say the same thing about the real Andy Warhol. There isn't anything wrong with the performances. In fact, Sienna Miller is great. In the end, there is nothing compelling in her story or at least, the movie fails to make it compelling. I don't care about the character and I don't care what happens to her.

I am really sad to see the known name actors that chose to be involved in this terrible and quite frankly offencive piece of film-making. I have no side as to what is fact or fiction in this story, nor do I have any favouritism at all regarding any of the real life characters portrayed. However I have never felt so manipulated by a director/writers after watching a film. It is kind of like watching a film about how good drugs are for you, as made by the very people who sell them, and without them even making an attempt to be honest about anything at all. This film is so one sided, and clearly overly tries to make one character an innocent victim, and others the total reason for her entire downfall. Basically every aspect of the film also seems to be filled with corner cutting, nothing in the film is well developed at all. It is a complete joke. The really terrible thing about it all is that the film tries to come across as if it did really happen this way. However anyone who has ever even looked at more than a few years honestly in their entire lives, knows that nothing in real life resembles this total sham. I don't know what the whole truth is in terms of the events in this film. However any intelligent person wouldn't hesitate to wager their entire wealth (big or small), that this is not even nearly truth. This is a hateful film at it's core, and one of pure finger pointing and bitterness rather than any artistic observation or study at all. The director and writers should be sentenced to at least 5 years hard labour for this trash, where they can perhaps drop their ridiculousness and actually learn something about honesty and real life. The only reason I didn't give this film a bottom of the barrel rating is because Guy Pearce is really quite brilliant in it. The lone real bright spot in my view. My personal message to the director/writers who are obviously the most responsible for how this film comes across - We all make mistakes. Quit being part of the problem and be part of the solution towards embracing our reality. Then, and only then can we as a species truly move together in a positive direction. Finger pointing and throwing stones only equals broken bones and eventually the extinction of the entire human race. Grow the **** up!!2/10

It's not a documentary.Just in case you read some of the rather hysterical comments and garner the impression that it's supposed to be about real people, it's not. Andy Warhol was never a real person, just a performance.Guy Pearce presents Andy Warhol as the superficial creature he undoubtedly was. The original art-as-business creator, the very God at whose altar such modern day charlatans as Damien Hirst worship. Pearce's performance is riveting, his Andy Warhol is as empty as his crapulous art; just a two-dimensional diagram of someone who leaves no shadow. A cartoon.Sienna Miller's performance as Edie Sedgewick is the best thing she's ever done. Caught in the strobe lights of Warhol's strangely sterile world of non-sexual sex and sofas still in their plastic wrappers, Edie becomes the focus of his short attention span for a while. She flashes across the screen like a speeded up Holly Golighty, while Warhol's voyeuristic viewfinder traps her in it's leering stare. The camera loves her and so does Warhol. But we know it's going to end in tears.Nothing in the movie has much depth, none of the characters are developed beyond what we already know about them and the whole sixties New York scene is represented by a series of iconic "things". The Chelsea Hotel, the Velvet Underground, a soundtrack of songs that sound right but which actually don't fit at all. For instance, "Leavin' here" by The Birds, a British group in which Ronnie Wood was the guitarist, was recorded in 1966 but was never released in America. However, there it is on the soundtrack being played in the factory sometime in 1965.But no matter.The movie pretty much captures the shallow, transient and utterly facile world of Warhol in the sixties and in another way it sums up the emptiness and tragedy of the Hollywood dream machine too. But it doesn't ask any deep questions nor does it pretend to be something it's not. It's entertaining and worth watching for two very good performances by Guy Pearce and Sienna Miller.It's not art, it's just a movie, albeit a superficial one.

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.