SnoopyStyle On 1968, Valerie Solanas (Lili Taylor) shots Andy Warhol (Jared Harris) and turns herself in to the police. Her reason lies in her anti-male Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM) manifesto. She was molested as a child. She attended University of Maryland from 1954 to 58 where she developed her theory of the superiority of women. She prostituted herself and became a lesbian. Homeless in 1966 NYC, Valerie and friend Stevie (Martha Plimpton) meet transvestite Candy (Stephen Dorff). Candy is invited to Warhol's Factory. Valerie tags along hoping to get Warhol produce her play. Valerie meets avant-garde publisher Maurice Girodias while doing her aggressive panhandling.Lili Taylor is absolutely amazing. However Valerie's aggressively grating character makes it difficult to fully embrace this movie. There is no real tension. The ending is already shown. It's basically an one-woman show. It goes a long way but for me, it doesn't go far enough for greatness. It's one note played over and over again.

gavin6942 Based on the true story of Valerie Solanas who was a 60s radical preaching hatred toward men in her "Scum" manifesto. She wrote a screenplay for a film that she wanted Andy Warhol to produce, but he continued to ignore her. So she shot him. This is Valerie's story.Dr. Dana Heller, professor of English at the Old Dominion University, argues that the film stages the conflict between Solanas and Warhol as less the result of gender politics – particularly because Solanas intended no connection between her writing and the shooting – than of the decline of print culture as represented by Solanas and the rise of new non-writing media as embodied by Warhol and the Pop art movement. In the screenplay, Harron and Minahan describe Solanas as "banging at an ancient typewriter" and the film frequently shows her typing, for which she is mocked by Warhol and other Factory regulars. Solanas' writing is set against the new technologies of reproduction championed by Warhol.The Andy Warhol in this film is nothing compared to the one played by David Bowie in "Basquiat". The voice and mannerisms are good, but Bowie just nails it. The film in general is excellent, though, and Lili Taylor was the perfect person for the role. What is she up to these days? It seems like she had a good run in the 1990s, playing off of John Cusack, and then disappeared.

fedor8 "I Shot Andy Warhol"... And what a loss it would have been, too, to the world of TRUE ART if she had succeeded in murdering him. A giant. A genius. Or maybe just a hyped-up talentless little autistic freak. The movie title could also be misinterpreted to be about one of Andy's many gay lovers. "I Shot My Load Right Into Andy Warhol's Apathetic Face".As for Valerie S., this woman clearly could not have had a high level of intelligence, while the opposite has been suggested here, rather groundlessly. And as far as being a genius, as some people consider her to be, she was just as much a genius as Warhol. (Look, Warhol seems to have been a nice guy, but everything he did was pure b******t-orama.) That she was molested by her father I do not accept as a fact, as this excuse has been so over-used in the recent decades to the extent that it has lost all believability - which just serves to harm the real victims.The funniest moment in the film (or rather, the only funny moment) was at the very end in the epilogue; here I am informed that Valerie's manifesto is today considered a feminist classic! Funny that, but I was banking on the fact that it must today be considered as funny (or sad) as any other extreme left-wing or right-wing piece of writing, and is hence dismissed even by ardent feminists as irrelevant ravings of a pathetic lunatic. But, as it turns out, I have once again underestimated the tinniness of a modern feminist's brain. Valerie's manifesto seems to be merely a laughable and hateful series of emotionally-induced hallucinations of one woman's twisted view of the world, based solely on her hatred of men. (And if you see how ugly this dog really looked, you'd partly understand why.) It seems to have been enough for her to learn about the chromosome difference between men and women to start arriving to bizarrely idiotic conclusions. A really intelligent person presents their case with logic and facts, not with silly generalizations and theories that have as much of a scientific basis as the infamous babblings of Hitler's and Stalin's medical and biology scientists, with their ideology-driven b******t research. A highly intelligent person in her place - insane or not - would first ask themselves why they hate men so much. She simply hated them, without analyzing herself. How do I know that? Well, she seems to treat everything else with superficiality; judging from this film - and there are plenty of quotes from her junk writings to form a relatively clear picture of her. Her only way of approaching any idea or concept was to disregard all facts, but instead go full steam ahead with emotion, and emotional thinking is the most essential ingredient in arriving to irrational and absurd conclusions.Ironically, with her unceasing emotionalism and lack of logic she was in fact only giving more support to all the male chauvinists of this world who consider women to be emotional and illogical, while she was trying to prove the opposite - that it is men who are inferior. But whether it's men or women, one thing is for sure: the most inferior species of people on this planet are fanatics, radicals and other morons who view the world in black and white terms. And I am not talking about politicians who oversimplify to achieve their goals without actually believing in the ideologies they are selling themselves - I am talking about the real believers, the low-life losers like Valerie S.; pitiful and bitter sods whose intensity of their beliefs should never be mistaken for genius.Perhaps the chauvinists are right; it does seem that women have a surplus of illogicality and emotionalist thinking; after all, it's no coincidence that the late 20th century feminist movement is one that exceeds in stupidity more then any other contemporary movement I can think of - except maybe the Green movement and PETA. But, the again, they are also run by women; there you have it.Anyway... The film is interesting mainly due to Taylor's convincing performance, and the dialog is interesting enough.If you're interested in reading my extensive satire on modern/abstract art, "Picasso", contact me by e-mail.

vmbicu The movie without doubt was great, but why do they call Andy Warhol a genius, did he invent something or discover something outstanding? I ask this because in our society or the Art world, someone will take simple dog feces from the street, freshly 'produced' and create a design on canvas with it and this person will be labeled for life, a genius! This kind of thing makes me wonder, for I can see people use regular paint that is used on canvas paintings and paint their faces and body with it. How many will also take freshly produced dog feces and paint their faces and body with it?!As for the movie, I only have one question, how is it that this girl walks over to Andy Warhol, fires one shot misses or just wounds Andy, and the other two that were there just do nothing! I mean this is a girl they know, petite and according to the movie, she just stood rigid with the gun pointed to Andy. Then when she fires a shot closer to Andy and he falls, she slowly walks to him, points the gun to his chest and shoots. You think there was no time for two guys to rush her and pin her petite body down and wrestle the gun away? After all, Andy was revered as a genius? What other opinions are there on this? Or did the director of the movie take some liberties to show the frame of her mind when she shot Andy Warhol?