I've come to the regrettable conclusion that celebrity biopics are mostly pointless.

[Tommy Carcetti]

Not saying that they can't be good or entertaining to watch. For example, I like Walk the Line's take on Johnny Cash, if nothing more than for the music and Joaquin Phoenix's intense acting.

But on the other hand, they mostly just feel like they're running down a Wikipedia entry about a famous person and checking various boxes and that's it. Basically, you're just recreating things we already know about a famous person. There's usually nothing genuinely new that comes out of a biopic.

If anything, the most they serve a purpose is to be a platform for someone's campaign to get a Best Actor or Best Actress award, and little more.

Just my opinion.

[grumpyduck]

1. I agree, and I seems that most of the time

they'embellished or dramatized or something, i.e., not accurate.

If they wanted to be accurate, they'd make a documentary.

[Tetrachloride]

2. I found the biography section of my local library to be harmful to my compass.

[Goonch]

3. Salma Hayek as Frida Kahlo, Frida

[LeftInTX]

4. "Lovelace" was pretty much an unwatchable snoozefest

[Harker]

5. For a long time, I thought it rhymed with 'myopic.'

Myopic biopic.

I tend to avoid them, as I do not want to conflate actors with historical people, e.g. Val Kilmer and Jim Morrison.