Rating: 
Summary: A real showcase for a stunning women cast
Review: 3 Women tied together by a book. 2 women tied together by 1 man. This is the basic plot of The Hours. Nonetheless, as simple as it seems, it is one of the most emotionally intense movies you could expect from a spectacular leading cast of Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore and Nicole Kidman. Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf wrote the book Mrs Dalloway was read by Julianne Moore who substituted herself into the character of Mrs Dalloway and questioned about her own life. Meryl Streep, who was identified as Mrs Dalloway by her best friend felt herself suffering the way she didn?t mean to suffer. These 3 women, who were all on the crossroads of their lives, had to make a decision. However, no matter what decision they made, they had to live up with the outcome and the consequence. It is a question of life and happiness. Being identified as a happy person doesn?t necessarily mean that you are happy. Happiness is something you found within, but it is also a decision of whether you want to let it out or trap it inside. The process for searching for true happiness and relief is never easy, for you have to know what you want first, which is the catalyst to true happiness. Feeling being trapped in a life you think you don?t want to life requires enormous courage to break out from it. Nonetheless, this is another decision that one must live up to for the rest of his or her life. Death, regrets, relief may all be the outcome, but the problem is whether you are true to your own life. You may not agree with the ways these characters chose to break through their lives, but feeling the love, pain and happiness within them is the main focus of the movie. Without doubt, all Meryl, Julianne and Nicole put on a spectacular show in front of the audience. You may have personal favour for anyone of them, but they are all unquestionably great in the movie. Their acting is detailed and delicate. You can feel the life of these characters and feel the painful dilemmas that they went through. The movie would not be complete if it lacks anyone of them in it. Apart from the leading cast, the movie also has a very strong supporting cast ? Toni Collette, Claire Danes, John C. Reilly, Ed Harris etc., which added so much colour and life to the whole movie. Their performances are so natural and beautiful and finely tuned. One could not expect anymore refine acting than this one. The Hours may be emotionally intense and draining, but it would be a movie that touches the deepest part of your heart. Also, not to be missed out is the beautifully composed soundtrack that fits into every single corner of the screenplay.
Rating: 
Summary: Now that is what I call drama.
Review: This was probably the hardest movie I had to watch in a long time. Not to give out the wrong impression, it is probably one of the best as well. It is just so sad. If you are in any way emotionally down (if you are depressed in another words) do not watch it. Wait till you feel better about life. I found myself on the verge of dropping tears at the end and that does not happen to me. Movie is emotionally very involved, portraying lives of characters in emotional paralysis unable to express their desires to people around them Film follows lives of three women in three different times: Virginia Woolf 1920's through 1940's as an author of a book "Mrs. Dalloway"; Laura Brown in 1950's as a reader of the book and Clarissa Vaughn in 2001as an embodiment of a title character of the book. Sounds confusing? It is NOT. This movie is a rare example of an excellent filmmaking. The cinematography is striking, shifts between scenes unlocking the interrelationship between these women are incredibly well guided and performances of all the stars involved in this film are superb. Although there are a lot of clues that connect Laura Brown with Clarissa throughout the film, realizing what that connection is worth the whole movie. It is a very well told story and is presented in a most beautiful way. Excellent movie.
Rating:
Summary: Stunning!
Review: A book is not a movie. A movie is not a book. While both are visual media, in the sense that we absorb the content through our eyes, a film must succeed primarily via what is unstated but suggested, while a book must make a statement. I loved the book. I was reluctant to see the film. I needn't have been concerned. The film is faithful to the essence of the book, and that's what is important. With heartfelt performances throughout, exquisitely fine-tuned editing, and great directorial skill, everything pulls together to make a series of intertwined statements about the inner lives of women versus what is displayed externally. Without question, this is the best performance Meryl Streep has given in a very long time. Her Clarissa is strong yet vulnerable; she is the classic caregiver whose feelings get glossed over or put on hold while what must be done gets done. Julianne Moore is, as always, flawless in her ability to make us feel what her character feels. And the big surprise is Kidman's performance; she moves in and takes up residence inside Virginia Wolfe--haunted and driven, conflicted and yet optimistic, even in her contemplations of death. Splendid as ever in supporting roles, Claire Danes, Allison Janney and Toni Collette each offer fully dimensional characters in their brief times onscreen. I was particularly taken by young Jack Rovello as Richie and Ed Harris as the poet Richard. There is something very potent both in the casting and in the roles as they're played out. Altogether this is a remarkable film--one that is about women but that doesn't show them to be weak or helpless or dependent upon men either for rescue or survival. It's about struggling to get past the restrictions of society and its imposed definition of who and what women ought to be. This isn't lightweight material; it's thoughtful and provocative--just as the book was. And so the film succeeds brilliantly in carrying the message successfully from one medium to another. Not cheery viewing, but definitely enlightening.
Most highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic film, but I wouldn't recommend it to just anyone
Review: for the simple fact that this is a very intense film focusing on the debilitating suicidal depression of three very different women in three very different time periods. See this film on your own merit if AND only if it really is a film you want to see. Do not go by recommendations or the fact that it is one of the major (and well deserved) Oscar worthy contenders this year. In some ways, 'The Hours' reminds me of Fassbinder's 'The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant' another film I absolutely love but would never recommend to anyone. Although each film is completely different from each other, both films are about successful women and both explore similar themes of homosexuality, suicide and depression (common themes for Fassbinder who eventually succumbed to an untimely end through suicide). So it's understandable why many will not enjoy 'The Hours' and why I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't already want to see it on their own merit. I won't go into the particulars of the film; by now everyone pretty much has an idea of what 'The Hours' is about. Instead I will say why I liked it so much. What I found to be the most fascinating aspect of this film is how all the different stories tied together maintaining such an amazing linear quality. Throughout the film dramatic events that occur in one scene are carried over and applied seamlessly to the characters in the next scene. The flow between characters and time periods is flawless, further accented by the engaging qualities of all the characters. I also enjoyed how there were several events, three of which instantly come to mind, that are never addressed throughout the course of the film. Instead, they're left up to your own interpretation in spite of their importance to the story. I also enjoyed Toni Collette's cameo role as Julianne Moore's buxom 50s neighbor Kitty. Collette is such a compelling and brilliant actress that I enjoy any film she appears in. Also, one reviewer felt the Laura Brown character's decision was despicable and disgusting yet that's what makes this such a good film: it makes you feel. Whether or not you like this film you will come away feeling something. My eyes hardly stayed dry throughout the entire film. Excellent. 4 ½ stars.
Rating:
Summary: It's a good thing my wife didn't walk out of the theatre
Review: 30-40 minutes into the movie, my wife wanted to walk out. She was bored stiff from the slow pace. Others had walked out. It's a movie you need to stick with, though, and because we stuck it out and finished the movie, we found ourselves really enjoying the movie. She and I talked about it for at least two hours from the moment we left the cinema. The movie definitely makes you think.
It trusts its audience members to figure things out for themselves...though it takes its time with a lot of tedious details. After the first hour, you think Laura Brown is a little slow in the head or a freak, Meryl Streep needs to take a long drive and scream her head off to remove some of that stress, and Nicole Kidman needs a trip to London. The intertwining of the three periods is very interesting and keeps the mind moving, even while the film is sluggish. The point is, stick with the movie. Watch it from beginning to end. Unlike Royal Tannenbaums, which was slow from start to its miserable finish, The Hours gets much better as the movie progresses, and ends nicely. Don't show it to anybody who enjoys cow tipping or Eminem.
Rating:
Summary: Three Women. Three Decades. Three Cities. One Book.
Review: Stephen Daldry's admirable "Billy Elliot" couldn't even begin to hint at the strokes of brilliance that make up his followup, "The Hours." Based on the award-winning Michael Cunningham novel of the same name, "The Hours" tells the story of three women whose lives are numbed to all feeling and are desperate to escape the private hell that enslaves each of them. The story travels within four decades and jumps back and forth from the United States to England. Nicole Kidman is author Virgina Woolf, who is battling depression while living in the suburbs of London with her overprotective husband in the 1920s. Julianne Moore plays a 1950s Los Angeles housewife, apparently stifled by her marriage while coming to terms with her sexuality. Merryl Streep is living in present-day Manhattan and is preparing a party for her longtime friend and AIDS-stricken poet (Ed Harris). To explain how these three stories are connected would give away potential spoilers (if you haven't already read the book), but the film's performances are nothing short of excellent. Kidman digs deep into the angst and despair of Woolf; her performance is a blazing revelation, and it excels by a nose (pardon the pun). Moore's scenes with her young son are crushing and heartbreaking; you don't know whether to pity her or resent her for her selfishness. And Streep, is, as ever, a powerhouse. But the real star of the movie is director Daldry, who extracts great performances, and does a wonderful job at bringing the screenplay to life. "The Hours" is hardly a feel-good movie, and the recurring themes of suicide and despair may put off some. But it's no doubt one of the best films of 2002.
Rating:
Summary: Rarely So Stunning and Provacative
Review: I doubt I will see many films more compelling and beautifully acted in my lifetime than was this one. I read the book and thought, "What a bunch of self-centered, boring women!", though it did get me started reading Virginia Woolf for which I will be eternally grateful. The movie was quite another story from my reading experience, I must have missed a lot and am now going to have to read it again! If you are not more captivated by this film than any that you've seen in a very long time, well then, your tastes run differently than mine. I saw it on a Saturday and went back to see it the next day. Nicole Kidman was truly remarkable as Virginia Woolf, which is not to say that Julianne Moore and Meryl Steep were not as good. No, they were every bit what one would expect. It has been categorized in some circles as a "chick flick" which is too bad. If it doesn't walk away with at least 6 Oscars, I will be very disappointed. Do yourself a favor and see this one on the big screen.
Rating: 
Summary: Sullen Sentiment
Review: The Academy Awards has done it again. Take an obscure picture about a simple subject, bequeath it with several nominations from the major categories (Best Actress, Best Picture, Best Director), smother every movie trailer that airs on TV with propaganda (complete with rave quotes from magazines and newspapers) and everyone will feel compelled to rush out and see it. The aftermath? Most people are incredulous that they spent $8 on something they wouldn't have looked at twice at their local Blockbuster. 'The Hours' has relied on the glitter of marketing since it opened nationwide in January 2003 and it takes advantage of every favorable critique it receives. The result is a continued and reliable box office profit that will persevere through late March if it manages to win a few Oscars. The movie begins with a simultaneous look at the morning routines of the three pivotal characters ' first off, in the year 1921, novelist Virginia Woolf (Kidman) awakens in her Richmond, England home to the sound of her doctor whispering to her husband Leonard (Dillane) downstairs. The next clip takes place thirty years later in 1951 with pregnant housewife Laura Brown (Moore) sleeping soundly as her husband Dan (Reilly) roots around the kitchen. Lastly, in the year 2001, Clarissa Vaughn (Streep) slaps her alarm clock with a heavy hand as she rises from bed, planning an extravagant dinner party for her friend Richard (Harris) who has just won a prestigious award for his latest novel. All three women wrestle their inner demons throughout the film, Woolf battling schizophrenia; Brown, dissatisfaction with her cursory and monotonous life and Vaughn with her feelings toward Richard, tortured by the reality that he will soon die from a long, arduous battle with AIDS. The entire film alternates between the different eras in which these women live, forming interesting parallels as aspects of their personalities and lives are revealed. Woolf writes her pivotal novel 'Mrs. Dalloway' while contemplating thoughts of suicide, Brown reads 'Mrs. Dalloway' and also contemplates suicide and Vaughn's life seems to mirror the book altogether, the start of her day echoing the very first line of Woolf's novel. The biggest setback with David Hare's screenplay (who has only written for the stage and TV) is not only loss of characterization but also a distinct amount of insight into the characters' psychological dissension. The adaptation of Pulitzer-prize winning author Michael Cunningham's 228-page novel to a two-hour film forfeits a considerable amount of poeticism and personification, a detail that most times cannot be avoided when adapting a book to a movie. What is ultimately confusing is the homoeroticism incorporated into the story, Julianne Moore's liplock with Toni Collette and Nicole Kidman's passionate smooch with Miranda Richardson utterly perplexing. Most of Cunningham's beautiful prose is retained in the story's central figure - as Woolf, Kidman manipulates the pastoral dialogue with ease, her delivery rarely coming off as cliched or strained. This is a high-caliber performance that not only well warrants her nomination for Best Actress this year but tops that of her nomination last year for 'Moulin Rouge'. Moore (also nominated) is slightly constricted as Laura Brown, her role more or less relegated to either holding back tears or letting them flow. Streep, whom I adore, doesn't really get a chance to showcase her awesome dramatic powers because the role of Clarissa Vaughn leaves her little of an outlet. This is a woman who has been nominated thirteen times for an Academy Award (and has won twice for 1980's 'Kramer Vs. Kramer' and 1982's 'Sophie's Choice') and it's a little disappointing that such incredible talents only receive a small degree of divulgence. Ed Harris comes off a little inadequate as Richard ' the most memorable aspect of his character is the incredible job the film's make-up artists did in rendering an AIDS patient completely emaciated by the disease. Claire Danes, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Dillane round out the supporting cast and Toni Collette, although making a very brief appearance as Brown's neighbor Kitty, steals the scene with an affecting portrayal of a woman suppressing profuse heartache. Speaking of make-up, 'The Hours' contains some subtle but remarkable transformations, most notably Ed Harris' haggard physique and Kidman's transformation into the 40-something reclusive author. Her prosthetic nose completely changes her physical countenance, rendering the actress nearly unrecognizable, along with her liver-spotted hands and arms. Moore gets quite a transformation as well, her character showing up once more towards the end with a considerably aged face (60's to 70's, if I had to guess). Director Stephen Daldry, responsible for 2000's cutesy critical fave 'Billy Elliott', is at the helm of the picture. He presents 'The Hours' in much the same manner as the classic novels of Woolf's time ' heavily laced with idyllic sentiment but languorously paced, at times to the point where it can exhaust the patience of more attentive people. There are even moments where there is too much silence, Philip Glass's lovely sonatas completely and utterly absent from the background; this is yet another aspect that can make people start shifting in their seats because the lack of a musical score can mean a failure to evoke a specific mood from its viewers. Of course, for all I know, this could be Daldry's very intention, the silence that all three women keep the very reason for their torment ' we are meant to share their discomfort with the stillness to gain a small understanding of their anxiety. Although 'The Hours' has a lot going for it (a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, an ensemble cast complete with Golden Globe/Emmy/Oscar winners), it has surprisingly little to flaunt in the end. Despite the nine nominations it received from the Academy Awards, it is still just a trifle of a film. If you want to watch a good examination piece, then rent 2000's Best Picture winner 'American Beauty' ' Lester Burnham is the moot prophet of the 21st century.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best of 2002!
Review: One of the absolute best crafted films of 2002, The Hours flawlessly combines the stories of three similar women in different times during one significant day of their lives. The women; author Virginia Wolfe (Nicole Kidman), a 1950s housewife (Julianne Moore), and a modern day magazine editor (Meryl Streep), are the core of this film. Each feels trapped in a life they're not happy with, and want to find a way to improve it, or end it. This is a heavy film, dealing with suicide, sexual identity, love and happiness. And between the cross-cutting in time, the film could have been a terrible mess. But instead director Stephen Daldry created a masterpiece. He never stays too long with one woman, knowing the exact moment to switch to another story. But each story is fully engaging, drawing you in. Equally as astounding, if not more so, is the superb acting by each and every actor. If anyone stands it, though, it would be Kidman. She absolutely becomes Virginia Wolfe in a restrained, sorrowful way. She deserves the best actress win here. Moore and Streep also give powerhouse performances, but Ed Harris's magnificent supporting role as an AIDS stricken man is as astounding as Kidman's. His physical transformation is astounding in itself. John C. Reilly also turns in a good performance as Moore's disillusioned husband, but no one performs less then amazingly. The subject matter may be a downer, but that doesn't make the film any less perfect. How it deals with sadness and the desire for happiness is realistic for many people experiencing depression. The world we live in is far from perfect, and this film shows how if we're not careful, it can bring us down in despair. The Hours is a rare, wonderful film that deserves any awards it gets Oscar night. Though it may not be very cheerful, it is one of the best of the year. It gets my highest recommendation.
Rating: 
Summary: Technically good, horrible content
Review: This film was excellent from a technical standpoint - the three timeframes were seamlessly blended and the cinema work was great. For that I give it 2 stars. Having said that, the story itself was little more than a blatant celebration of homosexuality and lesbianism. It is a sad testimony that so much effort is being made to 'make mainstream' a deviant lifestyle. Interesting that the advertising never points out the true nature of the film - otherwise, my wife and I would never have gone to see it.
|
