Frida

Rating:
Summary: A TANGO OF LOVE, PAIN, AND SEXUAL REVOLUTION!
Review: One thing I do not like is comparing a book to the movie that is based on the book. For one thing they are two very different art forms. And hardly ever will the Twain meet. And that is a good thing.
Frida is an amazing collage of one of the most fascinating artists, sexual and political women of our time. Like many others her paintings, at first repulsed me, but after reading excerpts from Herrera's biography on Frida- ( which is bogged down on the love letters and love making, with hardly a comment on the political and national turmoil of the times),- one could see why the painting's were so full of sorrow and life defying pain.
Frida lived in some very volatile times the revolution in Russia with Trotsky living in her house. Her husband and mentor and much admired muralist Diego Rivera going to New York, commissioned to paint a mural for Rockefeller and painting Lenin as one of the struggling workers. When asked to remove Lenin from the painting, he refused and Rockefeller tore the mural down.
It was a time of great nationalism and the struggle to stop the European influence in Mexico.

Many kudos' to Salma Hayek for her devotion to this biopic. I was very concerned that it could not be done, but it has been done and a great job. There's got to be some Oscar nominations out of this beautiful movie. The vivid colors and the musical score are in themselves worth the trip to see this great movie. The two main characters, Salma and Molina fit as a pair of gloves and Tango around each other as honeybees around a bright red poppy.
If you miss this movie you will have missed one of the best biopic's ever.

ciao yaaah69
I give it 4/5

Rating:
Summary: GOOD - BUT NOT WORTHY OF FRIDA
Review: Frida was an over the top, dramatic, animated, unpredictable, brilliant, loud, emotional, unexplainable, force to be dealt with -- this was not the Frida I saw in the movie.

In the movie I saw a mildly witty, pained, timid but can be obtrusive at times humble artist. This is not true - Frida was drama. I NEEDED MORE DRAMA! After reading the biography of Frida I realized that she was a rock star to the fullest extent. Her art was not her dreams but it was her reality. When people that knew Frida spoke of her they talked about her witty attitude and her fearlessness. She was a woman of depth. I felt Selma had a difficult time swimming into that depth. I wanted to see the Frida that i read about - that one that threw things, cursed like a sailor, a drunk, a drug addict, an angry woman but yet one who was motivated by her anger. In this movie you see moments but it wasn't RAW. I believe Frida would have wanted a movie about her to be as raw as her artwork.

The movie was so extremely pretty. At times it helped the movie but at times it ruined it. Frida wasn't into that beautiful things. It seemed they were worried about giving her a positive representation that they really didn't show a true account of her. Now some of the imagery -- mainly when they showed her paintings was very intense -- because that is when you seemed to feel Frida's spirit. While watching Selma i believed she did the best she could do but i never really forgot it was Selma and said, "Now that is Frida." Like Diana Ross in "Lady Sings The Blues" or Val Kilmer in "The Doors" I felt the spirit of Holiday and Morrison. People need to know that Frida was just as over the top (if not more) as Billie Holiday, Jim Morrison, Hendrix, Cobain.

Frida lived everyday in pain after her tragic accident. I didn't believe that in the movie. It seemed after the accident she got better and then when she got older her pains came back but that wasn't true. Frida was always on pain and doped up on medication. They don't really deal with that towards the end.

I think the most disappointing thing was the way they handled her death -- just showing the painting. They didn't even mention the fact (or show) that many people thought Frida committed suicide because of all the pain she was in. I would have loved to see that explored in a risky and thought provoking way. You don't even know how she died. I guess you're supposed to assume one day the pain was too hard and she just died but it was deeper then that. She was actually working on a painting when she died -- there are pictures of the unfinished painting.

The biggest problem is this movie should have been in Spanish. Frida LOVED Mexico and it is obvious that SHE would have wanted a biography about her to be in her native language and not a Hollywood money maker project.

Overall I don't think it was a bad movie. The script lacked some depth and true exploration about Frida's life and times. Also, Selma lacked the crucial emotion that it took to play such a deeply psychological woman. I don't think that Selma deserves an Oscar at all but I hope she is nominated just cuz of the lack of Latinos in Hollywood.

Rating:
Summary: Great film
Review: Go and see this film.It has wonderful performances and captures the essence of Mexico.

Rating:
Summary: Convincing portrait!
Review: I was a little bit skeptical in the beginning because of difficulties associated with approaching this topic and because my doubts in acting abilities of Salma Hayek. I was wrong on both accounts. The movie is both very well done and doesn't step aside from history. It's amazing how Salma Hayek looks like real Frida. The same could be said about other characters judging from photos (besides Diego Rivera). The movie is a combination of art (almost every scene is practically a statement), romance and political farse (although maybe the last quality wasn't intended). It creates a very convincing and tragic portrait of this very strong woman. Thumbs Up!!

Rating:
Summary: A Work of Art
Review: I LOVED this film. Selma Hayek embodies Frida Kahlo and, from what I've read in Frida's journals, gives a very accurate portrayal of this gifted and complicated character. Mixing animation--making paintings come alive--was a brilliant touch. I'll watch it again and again especially for the colors, but also in the brief history lessons provided.

Bravo!

Rating:
Summary: A Great Story
Review: Before I saw this movie I knew very little about Frida and after seeing the movie I was compelled to find out a little more about her. I was very surprised to find much of what the movie showed you actually happened to her. It is a very artistically visual film that shows you the best and worst sides of the characters, which often in movies you see too much of the glamorized versions of people. I really wasn't thrilled when my wife wanted me to see this film, but I'm really glad we rented it because I ended up buying it, it is a film worth owning just so you can learn about the artist and hopefully it will make you go buy some of her books so you can learn even more about this amazing artist.

Rating:
Summary: Conventional 'Frida' treats art as novelty
Review: It is tempting to say that the lack of narrative structure in "Frida," Julie Taymor's biographical film about the surrealist Mexican painter Frida Kahlo, is an intentional emulation of the stream-of-consciousness writing style of the surrealist movement. It is probably more accurate to say that it suffers from a malady common to biopics: trying to depict the entirety of an exceptional life in two hours.

The film begins with a long sequence of a four-post wooden bed being carried out of a Mexican villa, past vibrant orange sculptures and green cacti, and into a truck waiting in the street. As the camera pans out, we see that Kahlo (Salma Hayek) lies in the bed, dressed in a white nightgown. "Careful, this corpse isn't dead yet," she says. Kahlo is very clever, and her biographers rest on her laurels.

The film covers most of Kahlo's life, from her youth as an irrepressibly passionate schoolgirl, past the bus accident that turns her into an irrepressibly passionate cripple, into her irrepressibly passionate years as an artist, and then back to her dying days, when, still passionate, she cannot be repressed.

Hayek's performance is consistently good (as is Alfred Molina's, who co-stars as Kahlo's husband and fellow painter Diego Rivera), but you begin to feel sorry for her for having to repeat the same expressions of determination and despair, elation and artistic inspiration. It is as though the filmmakers are so enchanted with themselves for making a film about Frida Kahlo that they forget to bring something new to the way her life is portrayed. Taymor's film plays as though the four screenwriters had a checklist beside them as they wrote (Trotsky? Do we have Trotsky in there? Yes, he appears and begins a subplot an hour and forty minutes into the film. Unibrow? Check. Lesbianism? Sir, we see Kahlo slide her hand up two sets of female thighs, sir).

For a film that depicts the life of such an extraordinarily unconventional woman, "Frida" is very conventional. The movie is so conscious of depicting Bohemians that it inadvertently treats Kahlo, Rivera and their culture like novelties. They have fearless sex and art and Latin music, but it lacks the central warmth of Kahlo's art and life. There is an unshakable sense of artificiality; it is too easy to imagine the off-camera grips eating potato chips while Kahlo sensually tangos with Tina Modotti (well played by Ashley Judd). It's as if the exoticized depiction of "hot-blooded" Mexicans speaks for itself, and the film need not elaborate on these preconceived notions or link them together into a coherent whole.

"Frida" never makes a big enough commitment to any single climactic moment, and so it fails to elicit an emotional response. There isn't a scene that lasts more than six minutes and it doesn't seem like there is a shot that stays still for more than one. Every scene is supposed to be of the utmost emotional importance to every character involved, but with so many scenes, the actors end up seeming like models. "Frida" is more like an emotional portrait gallery than a film. The many recognizable Hollywood faces (Edward Norton as John Rockefeller, Geoffrey Rush as Trotsky, Antonio Banderas, and Judd) give the movie the feel of a giant costume party.

However, "Frida" is undoubtedly visually interesting. Taymor, famous for her artistic eye in the stage version of "The Lion King" and her film adaptation of Shakespeare's "Titus", experiments with aesthetic possibilities by interspersing some of the most pivotal scenes of Kahlo's life with various mixed-media artworks; paintings turn into life action and Kahlo's dreams appear in surreal hallucinations. The film may be worth seeing purely for a beautiful shot of Kahlo just after her bus accident, lying unconscious and bloody as debris and thousands of tiny gold leaf shreddings float down on to her.

"Frida" is messy and ridiculous, but it's also really fun to watch. It's a romp. And you haven't seen so many boobs since your last birthday party at Hooters.


Rating:
Summary: An great film and an interesting performance.
Review: I really loved this film, I admit I'm biased, I have found Frida Khalo captivating, mysterious and interesting for years.
What I liked most was it's bravery in the tale telling and the avoidance of the usaul "Frida" cliches. Too often Khalo is dismissed as strange and kranky both in her relationships and her art. For me it has never been enough that the art world simply labels her as a "surrealist". Here Hayek plays Khalo as the passionate, caring, pained genius she was. The film endevours to display her agonies through accidents, infidelities, dissapointments and differences. She plays the head strong feminist and communist, a woman passionate about her nation and it's values, traditions and beliefs, a woman agonising to love her family while plow her own trough. A woman uniquely skilled in her creativity and brave enough to tell of her pain and development on canvas. Hayek is a brilliant leading lady and completely dominates the film with Frida's passion and personality, there are other strong roles, Molina and Rush are superb but they never detract from Hayek. The cinematography is delicious and the music is both appropriate and engaging. It's a shame this film didn't get a better run and better audiences. It's a joy to see Hayek get the chance to command a film and see her do it so well, in Hollywood she is too often the token latin girl.
The film is a real tribute to an inspirational and hugely misunderstood woman.

Rating:
Summary: Instant Classic!
Review: Salma Hyak looks amazingly like the actual Frida Kahlo in this wonderful testiment to one of the most misunderstood and fascinating personalities of the 20th century! Frida was the victim of a bus accident that nearly crippled her and left her in agony throughout her life. As a result, Frida saw the dark side of life and painted some of the most amazing abstract works of art that I have ever seen.

Frida formed a bond with the famous political painter, Diego Rivera. The two share a stormy relationship and eventually marry. Frida overlooks most of Diego's extramarital affairs until Diego goes after Frida's sister. Thus, she feels betrayed and leaves him.

Frida herself is a kinky persona sharing relationships with both men and women. There is a very erotic scene of Frida dancing tango with another woman.

Frida eventually meets Leon Trotsky and the two united by their socialist political views end up having an affair. When Trotsky is murdered, Frida and Rivera are suspected but are later exonerated.

In a touching scene in the movie, an incredibly ill Frida is brought in her bed to attend her own art exhibit at which her talent is expounded to a crowd by Rivera.

This movie should not be missed and anyone with an appreciation for good art would love it!

Rating:
Summary: I HATE THIS MOVIE
Review: With the exception of the opening credits, this has to be one of the WORST films ever made. Where to begin? I thought that this was going to be an interesting biopic judging from the reviews at the time it originally came out. Having seen the dvd however (and forcing myself to watch it to conclusion), I can tell you I hardly know anything about this woman's art - ostensibly the reason why the film was made to begin with. I hate that the audience is manipulated to feel that Frida, was a woman of passion! Who felt things deeply! Don't YOU feel it, viewer? Oh, the drama! Oh, I beat my breast as a sign of solidarity!! Of feeling!! Ohh ohhh ohh!!! Oh, Frida! You were such a passionate artist!! Ohhh!!! Your life was a celebration!! Oh!!! Your pain!! Your life!!!! WHAT RUBBISH! And I did NOT buy AT ALL, her attraction to Alfred Molina's character. What? Were all the men in her town GAY? Was he really the best catch around? I think this entire film is a complete waste. One or two of the songs stick in the mind, but this production is a joke. I didn't buy into it on any level. Salma Hayek tried TOO HARD with this film. She owes everyone who paid to see this in a theatre or on dvd a refund.