Rating: 
Summary: Great film
Review: AT first I was concerned about this movie, about whether it would sustain my interest beyond the sheer force of the actresses involved. Watchign Nicole Kidman first appear and then vanish like a wisp of smoke into Virginia Wolff was amazing. Since To Die For, I've always thought her talented at the art of vanishing but she proves here again that its not a trick but a conscious ability.
Julianne Moore as always is a woman on the verge of....soemthing.....she plays longing well. Someone who MUST make a change in their lives and who knows it. Of the three actresses she gets to bridge the time frames of two of the characters to interact and though thsi requires heavy makeup, it sort of works. Not very well but it does work.
Meryl Streep's piece is more ethereal because she's at the center of so many people's lives and expectations and she seems like she's been maintaining distance for awhile and no one has noticed. The ability to play someone who wants to speak up but can't or won't is pretty incredible.
All in all this is a great film, and as always I advise patience with the film, its revealed how everyone is connected soon enough.
Ed Harris who's scenes are him floating in and out of dementia are also gripping as we only have Streep's character's adore for him to project what his life was like, who he was onto the canvas of someone in their last days.
Rating: 
Summary: A life I have no wish to live....
Review: I approched "The Hours" with very high expectations, perhaps due to my reading the novel of the same name prior driving an hour to view the film. I must say without doubt, I was not disappointed!
Nicole Kidman was, to say the least, captivating, as the troubled and wonderful, bi-polar, Virginia Woolf! It seems that Kidman has not only erased every trace of her physical beauty, replacing it with the unkept, frumpy, and simply grey Mrs. Woolf, but she has also replaced her entire persona with that of the brillant, yet shocking, Woolf. Her stature, her body language, and her voice, were not her own!
The film begins in 1941, when Virginia Woolf put rocks in her coat pockets, and walked calmly out into a river, ending her own life. The film then backtracks to a day in her life years before, a day like any other when she rises to work on her books, Mrs Dalloway in this case, and then goes on to prepare tea party for her sister and her children. Later, Woolf runs away from home to the train station, her intention being, to escape to London. In these desperate moments, Nicole Kidman delivers a very heartfelt speech about her longing to return permently to London. "I'm living in a town I have no wish to liuve in. I'm living a life, I have no wish to live!"
Julianne Moore put in a fair battle for her character Laura Brown, but I believe the character was simply too complex for her, or anyone, to adequatly convay to an audiance. But this is not purely at falt to the actress. Many of the events which occur in the day we observe in Mrs. Brown's life occur in the mental realm, rather than the physical realm, and cannot be protrayed on film in the same manner that the book can protray it. In the day we see of her life, she wakes to begin reading Woolf's Mrs Dalloway. (A very well written book I might add) Mrs. Brown then goes on to create a cake for her husband's birthday party, which does not come out to her satisfaction, so she tosses it. She then decides that she must escape for a while, and leaving her son with a sitter, she goes to a hotel, her intention being to end her life then and there, takeing a collection of medications she has brought with her, much of this is left unexpained, and could, I suppose leave the audience to wonder her purpose in visiting the hotel. Although, after a rest, she decides to live, and returns to pick up her son, and to bake another cake for her husband.
Meryl Streep plays the third woman Clarissa Vaghen, a New Yorker who is the modern personification of Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, as well as being nicknamed "Mrs. Dalloway" by her best friend Richard. Streep's character is perhaps the one the audience will most readally understand, being her expressions are the most outward of the group, as well as being in a setting most familiar to the viewers. Ms. Vaghen's day encompasses her preparing a party for her friend Richard, being he has won a poetry award. I will not give away the revealing details of the story, which tie the lives together, but is safe to say, on this ordinary day, this day of all days, Clarissa's day, her party, and her life are radically changed.
This movie is exceedingly gripping, and entertaining, if you let it be. I recommend you read the Pulizer Prize winning novel of the same name before you view the film, as it will not only give you a deeping understanding of the story, but also of the characters themselves explaining how the characters feel about many of the situations they face!
If you love deeply involved and complex films, this one will not disappont!
Rating:
Summary: Multi-layered
Review: "Multi-layered" is the best phrase I've heard used to describe The Hours. There are the more obvious themes which tie the main female characters together, however, there were many subtle themes as well (e.g., watch how the themes of eggs and baking recur during the different time periods).The acting is absolutely top notch. Although Meryl Streep did not get an acting nod from Oscar, she did deserve it for this performance moreso than some of her past nominations. This is a movie to be watched over and over again to truly appreciate the strength of the characters, the strength of the direction, the strength of the supporting cast, and the timeless flow of the haunting score by Philip Glass.
Rating:
Summary: Sad sad sad sad
Review: The viewer has to prepare himself before watching "The hours". This is not a common movie. It's a deep, sad, and very depressive movie. There are three timelines in "The hours", and director Daldry chose to show them simultaneously; all stories are about one day in the lives of three women. I'll list the three timelines: 1) England, 1923 - Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) is trying to write her novel, Mrs. Dalloway; she receives the visit of her sister; she tries to set her life straight, as she's not living the life she wanted, because of medical and psychological problems. 2) California, 1950 - Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) is a housewife with a little son; this is the day of her husband's (john C. Reilly) birthday; she's reading Mrs. Dalloway; she has doubts about everything, from her sexuality to her will to go on living. 3) New York, 2001 - Clarissa Vaughn's (Meryl Streep) day is about organizing a party to her friend and ex-one time-lover, the poet and writer Richard (Ed Harris), who is receiving an important prize of lifetime achievment in poetry. The three stories are connected; the most obvious connection is that Clarissa Vaughn is the modern Mrs. Dalloway. There are recurrent themes in the three stories, all related to Mrs. Dalloway and Virginia Woolf's life: sexual doubts, depressive thoughts, death wishes. Stephen Daldry made a movie more complex than he wanted, without knowing he did it. Uncounsciously, "The hours" is deeper and denser than its director wanted it to be. You have to get a degree in psychology to fully understand all the relationship between the women characters. Although "The hours" is starred by women, a movie about women, with three of today's top actresses, their constant presence and the fact that the three of them are so sad, depressive and unresolved characters, makes the male actors' (Stephen Dillane, John C. Reilly and Ed Harris) acting excellent. The best one in my opinion is Stephen Dillane's Leonard Woolf. Two things I didn't like: A) Meryl Streep lost herself here; her acting seemed a little bit forced and self-conscious, trying to make Clarissa a different character from other characters she's played in other movies: she couldn't do it. I've seen this same Clarissa in other Meryl Streep movies (Meryl Streep is much better in "Adaptation"). B) Nicole Kidman, although in good acting shape, played a character (Virginia Woolf) so sad and depressive that I couldn't care one bit what happened to her. I think the writers exagerated Virginia's depression to make the audience understand better what happened to her, but this trick completely backfired. No one can stand Virgina Woolf in the movie. And the scene with the dead bird is the oldest metaphore ever. Without any doubt, the real star of the movie is Julianne Moore. As the sad and unloving Laura, she is the most complex, convincing and believable character of "The hours". There are other aspects of this movie to be discussed, but this review is already too long. So, to wrap it up, Grade 8.7/10
Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent-Oscar-By-Default-Flick alert?
Review: If you sense an overly-critical tone in my review it's due to frustration. This had all the potential for ranking right up there with Dangerous Liaisons in my book. However, I couldn't help but notice the hint of irritating pretentiousness with the film in general... and what was the deal with Kidman's nose (extreme and annoying). Her performance was Oscar-worthy but the nose was an overdone and unnecessary distraction. Streep was good... though not outstanding (despite her lame melodramatic character who I could've cared less about). Until the kiss, I honestly spent part of the movie thinking Julianne Moore's character was umm... shall we say... "mentally challenged"? Considering her character's issues I'm not quite sure if that qualifies as a good or bad performance. In the case of all 3 women, I failed to grasp the reason for all of the self-absorbed suicidal angst.
In a situation like this, the real problem usually isn't with any of the aforementioned. Cinematic near perfection could've been achieved here. I've not read the source material but I felt like the screenplay may've missed some important theme(s) or failed in its attempt to sufficiently make the "tie-in" of the characters meaningful. There were tie-ins however. AND HOW! That "Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself" thing that spanned all three storylines had all the subtlety of a train wreck. Perhaps instead of throwing the audience that anvil they should've spent more time on character development... and I'd assume that this IS supposed to be a character-driven film. The leads didn't seem legit, especially Laura (how could she leave such a beautiful son that, clearly, loved her so dearly). Possible I'm sure but they didn't develop her enough to make it credible. As a woman who loves women, it should've been relatively easy relating to or caring about them. The movie stayed in "misery mode" too much for my tastes without enough character development to really explain the misery. Instead I found myself either loathing them or occasionally thinking "the acting's great but who cares?".
There was something else that I'm not quite sure of that disturbed me deeply about this film... IT'S INTENT. Some of the messages and portrayals in the film were questionable at best and unacceptable at worst. All 3 women were portrayed as oppressed and the oppression is ended only by some form of flight, abandonment (of devoted husbands and CHILDREN) or by relationships being severed through suicide. Husbands are portrayed as pathetic one-dimensional ball-n-chains. (Male-bashing in a lesbian flick is a cheap shot) The only enduring relationship is Clarissa's lesbian relationship. In the two scenes where the wives are busy "feeling up" neighbors and sisters, oddly enough a child is in the background silently watching the entire episode. What's that all about? In one of the final scenes with Clarissa the film actually attempts to validate Laura's self-serving abandonment of her own children. "That was death. I chose life". That was the moment when I wanted to nuke the film. Overall I gave it 3 stars. The photography, direction, art direction and acting definitely made the difference. The score's presence, or lack of, had its moments. I also thoroughly enjoyed Toni Collette (always hot), Stephen Dillane (the train depot scene was perhaps the film's best), Allison Janney (remarkably sexy) and Claire Danes (remarkably good)? All actors/actresses carried their roles extremely well. The exceptions were Ed Harris (his appearance was Oscar-worthy as an aids victim but his peformance was so pathetically over-the-top, I wanted to push him out of the window myself) and Laura's husband, who was so flaccid and one-dimensional that he was more like a caricature. I wasn't exactly sure if Laura was trying to kill herself because of the "unhappy existence/sexuality thing" or just to get away from him.
Though I noted the limitations of the screenplay earlier I must admit that there were some truly exceptional moments which I enjoyed. This type of film can walk a fine line between brilliant and unbearable (in this case it's closer to brilliant).
Rating:
Summary: Complex and overwhelming. 2nd or 3rd viewing a must.
Review: "The Hours" was a boring pretension, I thought as I left the local Famous Players multiplex two months ago. I was heartbroken, not by the film, but by the fact that I just spent hard-earned money to see a film that not only is being hailed as a great film by movie critics but been nominated and won various nominations (including a non-deserved win for Best Picture in Golden Globes) by almost movie award shows in the previous months of the year. If a movie like this is considered high-caliber cinema, then the impending apocalypse in this world is coming sooner enough than we actually thought. However, low and behold, I am now giving this movie 5 stars. Why? Apparently, the movie went over my head. I skipped my Religion class to catch a viewing of this film, so I guess I was too stress to get it the first time around. The haunting of the film that occured in my head throughout the span of weeks after first viewing prompted me for another trip down to the theater. I didn't even realize it. It was subconsciously communicating, "Watch me again..." Love is what I gave to this movie during the second time around. The story that I originally thought was boring and uninvolving got me to take part in with all ounces of my heart and mind. It just needed concentration on my part. Based on a book by Michael Cunningham, which is based on "Mrs. Dalloway", written by Virginia Woolf, "The Hours" is skillfully directed by Stephen Daldry. What I really love about his direction is the integrity he gives to the characters as human beings (everyone whom comes off as selfish and uncaring people in the beginning) and the artistic nuance he presented on every levels (Although I must say the tone is very claustrophobic and hopeless, as it shoud be). It wasn't heavyhanded or manipulative, given the subject matter. It was very subtle. Almost poetic. Of course this wouldn't be as successful as it is if it weren't for the three actresses. They are simply amazing. But then again, I thought they were amazing on my first viewing. Nicole Kidman is just astonishning to watch. This is her best performance yet in her career. Back then, I consider her roles in "To Die For", "Moulin Rouge" and "The Others" to be a testament of how a great actress she is. But "The Hours" blows those performances out of the water. It's hard to believe that an actress who played a cold-hearted homicidal maniac, a red-headed prostitute with a heart of gold and an overly religious, depressed mother is capable of something like this. Okay, maybe so, given the variety of aformentioned roles. But still...From her statuesque posture to her frantic eyes, she wasn't Nicole Kidman. She was Virginia Woolf. The dialogues that are spoken in the movie are very stilted and slow, as if in a live play, But Kidman injected them spoken lines with powerful emotion, in which, in her case, anguish, longing and hopelessness. You could actually feel her desperation radiated to your body from the screen. The second best performance belongs to Julianne Moore. She's just a beauty to look at and her character is just full of repressed sorrow that you just wish you could just magically go through the screen and either hug her or slap her (Maybe both). However, one could not help but compare her here to her very same persona in "Far From Heaven", an even more tragic and sympathetic character. Nevertheless, the poignancy never ceases to be felt with intensity. Meryl Streep is very good as well. But not as memorable as the other two main ladies simply because, in my opinion, her character arc is not as involving as the other two's. Oh, let's not forget the other thing that stands out. Minimalist Philip Glass' overbearing but haunting music score. I just love it! It added an element that makes the movie hypnotic and mysterious. It's almost like a spiritual journey with that kind of music on the screen. It also stands great on its own, having played the soundtrack three times before I saw the movie. Suffice to say, "The Hours" is a very good movie. It's very somber and at times depressing in delivering its many themes such as interconnection of one's life with another's through the cosmic nature of things. And suicide. And homosexuality. And love. And death. And making choices. And baking birthday cakes without much success. Did I mention suicide already?!? I heartily recommend this movie but be forewarned that it might leave you cold and underwhelmed initially speaking. Thus, second and third viewings are absolute requirement. Once you undergo that, you will feel the slow passages of time and the pain of the characters and you will understand the true meaning of life. The hours...
Rating:
Summary: Moving, intelligent, magnificent
Review: With its shifting timeframes, towering literary heritage, and relentlessly melancholy tone, "The Hours" could have been a disaster. Thankfully, in the hands of writer David Hare and director Stephen Daldry, it's an emotional powerhouse that enthralls from opening to final frame. Adapting novels, especially award-winning literary ones, is a challenging business. But David Hare's wonderful screenplay grabs the bull by the horns, boldly re-imagining whole sections of the book and creating action where there was once only interiority. Moving seamlessly between three time periods, he delicately interweaves the emotional lives of three women. But nothing is forced; his writing allows the connections to declare themselves, rather than making them obvious. Such subtlety is helped enormously by the superb performances Daldry extracts from the actors. This is truly an actor's movie, and it's blessed with an extraordinary cast. Nicole Kidman has been the focus of most of the publicity and Oscar-mongering, but don't let that fool you. Julianne Moore deserves the Supporting Actress award, too. Meryl Streep is, as always, effortlessly perfect. Ed Harris has never been better. Even the minor plays - Toni Collette, Miranda Richardson, John C. Reilly and especially Stephen Dillane as the saintly Leonard Woolf - are superb. Everyone here is so good the Academy is going to find it difficult to divide the spoils. Kidman deserves the Best Actress award. She has less screen time than you may expect but from the harrowing opening her presence hangs over the film even when she isn't on screen. Some have criticized this as a rather humorless portrait of Woolf, with Kidman's performance failing to capture the wit and the charm of the great writer. But the screenplay doesn't give her much scope. And why should it? This isn't a Virginia Woolf bio-pic. It's more a film about her work and its impact than it is about Woolf's own personality. And in that sense, "The Hours" succeeds brilliantly.
Rating:
Summary: Hours of pleasure!!
Review: One reason I knew this film would be good: Meryl Streep. Beyond the greatest actress of our time, everything else is absolutely brilliant about this remarkable film following the hours in three women's lives in different decades, each with similiar and compelling problems. Nicole Kidman is perfect as Virginia Wolfe, the depressed writer dealing with a life that is stifling her, a world that she desperately wants to escape. Julianne Moore is superb again (also giving another great performance in "Far From Heaven") as a 50s house wife that is also living in a life that she can't bare living. Meryl plays the modern gal, rounding out the trio and all three are drawn together in some way by the book Virginia is writing called "Mrs. Dalloway". Both Moore and Kidman received Oscar nominations for their roles and its a disappointment that Meryl didn't receive one as well. But nonetheless, the entire film is beautifully directed and acted. Ed Harris does an incredible job as a good friend and former lover of Streep's character. This is the kind of film that makes you realize how important and artistic the media of movie making is. Make time and see this film. You won't regret spending a few hours with these three incredible women.
Rating: 
Summary: Bailed after 45 minutes
Review: Someone (Naomi Wolf, I think) said that men weren't "evolved" enough to appreciate this movie. I have to say she's right. Clearly, my Y chromosome prevented me from properly ignoring cliche and pretentiousness in order to appreciate this movie. Pretentiousness, in my opinion, is when the banal and commonplace is treated with reverence as if it were a fresh insight. There's a scene where Virginia Woolf finds a dying bird, which is used as an obvious metaphor for her own trapped, fragile condition. Tell me, has any 18 year old in Creative Writing 101 not used this metaphor before? Why is time spent emphasizing such a leaden, obvious parallel? And the dialogue is full of such commonplace insights as "This is what people do; they stay alive for each other." Really? I mean, I thought people stayed alive for the sake of their pets. This is an insight? "It's the right of every human being..." On and on; the director should have spared the audience this wooden dialogue and instead had the actors wear sandwich boards on which they could have carried their epiphanies. The actors were horrible. Do not be fooled that this is an actor's showcase. It is, perhaps, for the secondary actors, those who are spared the need to impart life's lessons every time they open their mouth. The principals, however, are dreadful. Streep is hammy as hell, unwilling to let a scene lead her and instead filling each second with twitches and mannerisms. The breakdown in the kitchen (which is when I bailed) was acted entirely with her hands. Julianne Moore gives a typical Moore performance, playing a woman so sub-literate and inarticulate she seems to be swallowing syllables even as she attempts to speak them. And Kidman gives the stereotypical "Madwoman in the Attic" performance actors favor when playing literary geniuses. If anyone had walked around with so much fevered intensity, they would have been committed immediately, whether they were a writer or not. And, in the spirit of feeling commited, I took myself and my Y chromosome as far from this movie as I could get. I recommend that you, too, do the same.
Rating:
Summary: "The Hours" Fly By
Review: I had three reasons to wanting to see this movie, badly. 3. Its a drama about depression. And I really needed a good, sad movie.
2. I had read the book.
1. Nicole Kidman starred. I loved the book, and because Nicole Kidman played Virginia Woolf, maybe I am a bit bias when I say, the movie is so much better. Which says a lot because the book is wonderful, groundbreaking. Could anything but win a Pulitzer prize? But the shockingly real performances of the three starlets was amazing. A movie that should have been boring, never lost its pace and always held your ineterest! BRAVO!
|
