This is what Jim Emerson of RogertEbert.com wrote about the movie:
Originally Posted by Robert8x10
'Perhaps the two biggest problems with "Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus" are the last two words of the title. This through-the-looking-glass "[COLOR=#0000ff]Beauty and the Beast[/COLOR]" fable has little to do with Diane Arbus, the famous photographer, or with her work, which is not seen in the film. As a Lewis Carroll title card explains, this "is not a historical biography" but instead "reaches beyond reality to express what might have been Arbus' inner experience on her extraordinary path" to becoming an artist. Sure. All that's missing is a sense of who Arbus was, and how the fictional journey depicted in the film is reflected in (or, rather, distilled from) her art.
What we're left with is a gorgeously mounted, impeccably framed fantasy that exhibits the sensuous aesthetic of an ad in [COLOR=#0000ff]Vanity[/COLOR] Fair but provides no particular insight into Arbus' psychological or artistic sensibility. ...
As it is, "Fur" is stuck with offering a reductive and unenlightening view of the real Arbus.'
This should give you a clue why not many people bothered to go see it much less talk about it; which comes as no surprise to me. The general public knows little of Diane Arbus so the producers took creative license and turned the movie into a vehicle to showcase Kidman and Downey hoping to attract viewers.