Rating: 
Summary: Powerful and Haunting.
Review: Based on Michael Cunningham novel, The Hours is a true tour the force that really deserved more attention than it received at the Academy Awards. The movie is a sophisticated and soul searching look into the lives of three women who lives in three different moments in time but share in the same pursuit of acceptance, self discovery, and fantasy that is beautiful, and at the same time self destructive as well. The script written David Hare weaves together the struggles of these characters in a way that really brings each of their stories into focus and makes the final moment almost as powerful as the first. Nicole Kidman earn Her Oscar in spades with her gut wrenching performance of Virginia Woolf, and Julianne Moore is just as great as the lonely housewife who daydreams about the life she years for. Meryl Streep rounds out this exceptional cast as a woman trying to give some support and dignity to a friend dying of Aids, who is played By the ever great Ed Harris. This film is a truly powerful and haunting piece of movie making, and it will not only hit you close to home with some of it's issues, but will at the same time give an up lifting feeling that will stay with you right after you see it. Grade: A, (I wise I can go higher.)
Rating: 
Summary: "My life has been stolen from me."
Review: Stephen Daldry's "The Hours" is one of the more courageous and thought-provoking cinematic works of recent years. You will literally be thinking about the many themes this film covers for days to come after seeing it. While events never truly repeat themselves from era to era, there are certain experiences that remain constant. Such experiences echo throughout time but take on a new shape with each succeeding generation. "The Hours" features three story arcs: the first is set in the 1940's and features author Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman), the second is set in the 1950's and features housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), and the last is set in 2001 and features modern woman Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep). All three women project strong facades to the outer world although each of them is suffering inside. The pressures of conforming to the role of nurturer expected of them continuously clashes with the cultural and social liberation they so desperately crave. There is sadness, despair, and guilt in all of these women's lives and the cold indifference in which their male companions regard their suffering forces them to seek support physically and spiritually in other women. "The Hours" does not directly link the three separate arcs together in any conventional narrative. The three stories exist to illustrate how events throughout time rhyme with each other rather than truly repeat themselves. This film provides unique, but indirect, insights into the female experience through nuance and metaphor. It will therefore prove disorienting to those used to more straightforward styles of storytelling. However, those interested in sampling something different will be rewarded with an emotionally powerful viewing experience. The cast is astonishing with Kidman, Moore, and Streep all showing why they are considered three of the best actresses working today. The supporting cast of Stephen Dillane, John C. Reilly, Allison Janney, Claire Danes, Ed Harris have enough talent themselves to headline their own film but distinguish themselves well in strong supporting performances. Mention must also be made of Philip Glass' musical score which works to accentuate the strong emotional states of the film's various characters. All in all, "The Hours" is an impressive feat of filmmaking that will not easily fade from memory.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent, Profound Film
Review: I am stunned by the bitterness of boxman's review. This movie is not a jot as he describes it. This film--with three stunning actresses in supremely well-acted roles--tells a tale as no other film I've ever seen. Of course, for some men, a movie in which women are empowered and males in the sidelines may not be exciting; but for anyone interested in gender studies, or even just a really beautiful film, this movie couldn't be more apt. Nicole Kidman truly does justice to the role of Virginia Woolf; she truly becomes the author; that is, she is not simply "playing a role." The amazon.com review does an excellent job of reviewing the movie--read above for the review--and is absolutely correct. This film is like a slightly jarring piece of music--it WILL move you in unexpected ways. When I finished it, I sat on the sofa, mouth opened, in tears for the next hour.
Buy this movie. Watch it. You won't regret it, unless you abhor profundity or thought.
Rating:
Summary: More movies ought to be like this.
Review: I know I'm only thirteen, and I admit I haven't read the book (I have a two page reading list already), but if more movies had deep, moving stories that made you think like this one does instead of hours of car chases and battles and whatnot, then we would all be better off. Action is good in small amounts, but the amount of movies in the theater that don't contain action is deppressingly low. This movie combines the lives of three different women in three different times, yet they are all connected in a way. This movie is creepy at times, due in large part to the erie music, in some ways it is scarier than most horror movies. But it is scary in a way that even the wimpiest people can watch it with out a problem. I am probably not making much sense, but you'd know if you'd seen the movie. It is truly a masterpiece that should be seen by everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Haunting, Beautiful, Sad, a monumental achievement
Review: The writer of this film has achieved the impossible in the movie business: create an intruiging, beautiful, yet filmable version of a very untheatrical novel. And boy do they succeed. The film focuses around three women, remarkably portrayed by Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore and Nicole Kidman.
Kidman is Virginia Woolf, whom is the key in the plot and a link between the other two characters. As she begins to write "Mrs. Dalloway," perhaps her most famous novel, we see events unfolding in a single day in the lives of two other women in different locations and time periods: Pregnant Laura Brown, in a haunting, nearly silent performance by Moore mainly opposite a small boy, is coming to terms with the fact that she is miserable in her marriage to the humble and loving Dan (John C. Reilly). One of her only comforts is reading Virginia Woolf, in the film mainly "Mrs. Dalloway." The third woman is Clarissa Vaughn, in a wonderful performance by Streep, whose link to Woolf is that she is actually living the novel "Mrs. Dalloway," except in present-day New York. As the single day unfolds, the emotions and personalities of the characters are the main focus, much like in Woolf's novels, and the seamless edits and chilling Phillip Glass score contribute to the overall sad mood. All in all, the transition from book to movie is highly successful and smooth, the performances are marvelous, and director Stephen Daldry proves once again how talented he is in his craft. I can also provide evidence for those reading negative reviews: the short running time in one review is actually pushing two hours, and comments about "no plot" are made with little knowledge of Virginia Woolf; the plot is the character, and I was as entertained with this movie as any of the other critically hailed films this year.
****/****.
Rating:
Summary: All Time Favorite Movie
Review: This is by far the best movie I have ever seen. Most people say that I am exagerating and that it isn't that good of a movie, but I beg to differ. This film perfectly weaves the three time periods so exquisitly that the message and emotion the book and movie try to create are there at every moment. I think that a lot critics either saw it as a chick flick or thought it was boring, but if you look at the certain detail of every scene and every actress, you will find a treasure. This movie can be a confusing setting, but the way director Stephen Daldry crafted the plots makes it a clear film. It starts out with Virginia Woolfe's suicide. Then it progresses to introduce the three women: Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) of 1951 who is living for her husband's sake and her son's sake and suffocating under the pressure to create a perfect household and a flawless image; second to appear again is Virginia Woolfe (Nicole Kidman), who is living according to what her docter's say and her husband wants; and finally, Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep) is a 2001 New York woman living to care for her best friend, Richard (Ed Harris), who is dying of AIDS. Throughout the film, certain characters approach each woman at different times and help reveal that they are all living (and dying, somewhat) for other people. This movie is about how they discover happiness and what this emotion requires. I believe everyone should see this movie for the acting, alone. Nicole Kidman proves herself to be a magnificent actress that is versatile and will continue to show her skill. As Woolfe, she lets her inner-pain spill out and manifest itself in one of the most spectacular scenes of the movie. Moore was the second best of three. As Brown, a nearly silent role, she feels devastation that she was sucked into the life she has. She really explains this through tears and facial expressions to the point where you have figured her out completely. Streep plays Vaughn a.k.a. Mrs. Dalloway acording to Richard. She literally is living for Richard. Every day she goes to see him, and feed him, and care for him. In the movie, she is buying flowers for him, bragging for him and planning a party for him. Streep really grasps onto Clarrisa Vaughn's sense of unhappiness with life. She has yet to learn what it is to live for herself. Throughout the rest of the film there are many smaller performances that caught my eye. The first of which is Laura Brown's friend Kitty, played by Acadamy Award nominated Toni Collette. She resembles Mrs. Dalloway in Laura Brown's explanation. She is a confident woman that suffers but does not show it. Collette has an ability to really portray these feelings so well. Another great supporting performance was Ed Harris'. He successfully plays a dying man, slightly insane but one who recognizes Clarissa's problem. John C. Reilly, the boy playing Laura Brown's son and Claire Daines all had shining moments. Bottom Line: Everything about the making of this film and everything about the acting and the writing were all so hauntingly beautiful it stops you in your tracks and makes you realize that this is a classic of film making. (I give it an A+ and it is number 1 on my Top Ten Favorite Movies List)
Rating: 
Summary: Drab
Review: Julianne should have gotten the Oscar. A little too long and slow-placed for me. The story-line did not grip me at all. If life sucks, do something about it other than cry. What's the point of this film.
Rating:
Summary: Top notch in every way
Review: I'm not a Nicole Kidman fan, but she is stellar in The Hours, in which she plays Virginia Woolf during the 20s as she begins to write Mrs. Dalloway, her first great novel. Then there's Julianne Moore playing Laura Brown, a repressed, depressed, and frustrated suburban mom during the 40s (and her very frightened, preternaturally 'aware' young son) who begins reading Mrs. Dalloway and starts to question her own life and its goals - and wonders if it's really worth going on. And then, in modern-day NYC, there's Clarissa (named for the title role in Mrs. Dalloway and played by the incomparable Meryl Streep) acting out the book itself as she buys flowers and plans a celebratory party for her friend and former lover, played by Richard Harris, who is dying of AIDs.
It's a convoluted movie, and while we can easily make the connection between Virginia Woolf's life and Clarissa's NY life, Laura Brown's place in this trio is unclear until the very end, when everything ties together so beautifully that it leaves you breathless.
See it now. Then read the book, and of course, if you haven't already done so for some college lit course, read Mrs. Dalloway.
Rating:
Summary: Great performances.
Review: Stephen Daldry's film, adapted from the novel by Michael Cunningham, is certainly flawed. It doesn't quite achieve exactly what it tries to, and its mood is occasionaly, for lack of a better word, incorrect. Three women are trying to find something. In 1920s England, Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) is trying to find inspiration for her newest novel. Thousands of miles away and several decades later, 1950s housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) is trying to find time to read the aforementioned novel. Even yet more miles and years away, Y2K socialite Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep) is trying to find something, too-- although we're never sure exactly what that is. Long story short, the three stories are linked both on superficial and deeper levels, and a lesson is to be learned. Hint: I think it has something to do with hours in the day. Daldry captures cinematic parallelism very well, but he fails to capture any form of parallelism in the persons of the three female leads. Kidman is humorless, dry and cold; Moore is humbly subtle and conflicted; and Streep is curiously boisterous and campy. Indeed, the three actresses all turn in riveting performances; notably Moore, whose Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress was overshadowed by her simultaneous nomination in another category for "Far From Heaven." Kidman, who won the Oscar for Best Actress, is ironically the weakest of the three leads and has the least screen time. The entire supporting cast is certainly the film's strongest asset, with strong performances from Jeff Daniels, Miranda Richardson, the delightful Toni Collette, and the underrated Stephen Dillane as the conflicted Leonard Woolf. Others are sorely underutilized; namely Allison Janney, Claire Daines, and John C. Reilly. However, Ed Harris, Best Supporting Actor nominee, is merely disappointing even at his best moments. The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is safe but adequate, and David Hare's screenplay is the same. The musical score by Philip Glass is at times rather distracting-- it's one of those musical scores that is better when listened to by itself. The film's real problem is that it fails to capture a fitting mood that is necessary to thoroughly move its audience in the end. The film's message is lost in all the moviemaking and one isn't exactly sure why these "hours" are so significant. Still, the film is worth a watch (and even an 4/5 rating) for some brilliant performances, especially by Moore and Streep.
Rating: 
Summary: Airy Fairy Ending
Review: I found the movie to be a bit too melodramatic. The first two women suffered from the claustrophobic pressures of their societies. But Meryl Streep's character I didn't get. I could not understand why she was so miserable unless it was over the loss of happiness she used to have with her AIDS-ridden ex-lover Richard. He did nothing to ease her pity for him and almost blamed her for being selfish in missing the happiness they shared instead of allowing him to die in peace. Ungrateful, if you ask me. In the end, Julianne Moore's character creates a sort of closure for all those involved, but I certainly have not seen the results of that closure. I'm still confused. What was resolved, if anything was resolved at all? The theme of the movie went along the right dramatic lines but the ending just fizzed away. Performances were rightfully brilliant but story line just a bit too airy fairy for me. Not a heavy drama, but not a light drama either. Watch it if you have the patience.
| 
