Customer Reviews

The Hours (Full Screen Edition)

5 star:		(101)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(25)
1 star:		(37)

 

 

I really liked this movie, even if it is rather depressing. As another reviewer said, this is not just a film, it is an experience (and one worth having)...

If possible, try to see it when you are not particularly sad, because the story in itself is pretty gloomy. It talks about depression, bleakness, suicide, sexual identity confusion and lack of purpose. The whole film is pervaded by hopelessness and ennui, and the melancholia is omnipresent.

On the other hand, Stephen Daldry (the director) somehow managed to achieve magnificently what previously seemed impossible: a movie based on Cunningham's book, "The hours". Where is the difficulty, you might ask (only if you haven't seen the movie)?. Well, the answer is in the plot of the film, based on three women: Virginia Wolff, Clarissa Vaughan and Laura Brown. They live in different times and cultures, but they share something: a feeling of vacuity, a total absence of matter,an all encompasing emptiness that threatens them... It is really beautiful to see how the film goes seamlessly from one woman's life to that of the other: there is a wonderfully perfect inconsistence that is only explained (and linked) at the end of the movie. You must pay attention, because the film, in order to link the story, shifts permanently forwards and backwards in time. However, that extra attention is compensated when at the last minutes of this movie you comprehend the meaning of the name of the film, and which is the link (besides those that are evident) between these sories.

Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman)is depicted as an intelligent woman battling against madness in the 1923 England, while she starts to write what will be one of her best novels, "Mrs. Dalloway"... Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep), a successful literary agent in the present, is planning a party for her former lover, who is now dying of AIDS. Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), a seemingly happy pregnant woman in 1949 Los Angeles, is trying to make a cake for her husband's birthday, while she starts to read "Mrs. Dalloway". Three women, three different lifes but something in common: how to fight against that we cannot touch, against depression, inner demons?.

"The hours" shines... Its light is rather dark, that is true, but it is incredibly good even for someone like me, who generally doesn't like dramas. It is not only a film, but a masterpiece...

I know that i have not seen this moxie yet but it has oscar nominations written all over it. Meryl streep should get her 13th oscar for this picture or Adaptation. Nicole 80% chance will be nominated for this movie for best actress. Julianne Moore will be nominated for best actress(and might win) for another movie she did with dennis quade.

I actually saw this movie before I read the book--something I rarely do. And for once, I'm glad it was in that order. The trio of actresses playing the roles did such a fabulous job, that I liked having pictures of them in my head as I read the book, and in retrospect, marveled at the film maker's ability to jump back and forth in time so seemlessly.

A beautiful, thought-provoking and creative story. Well done.

And just for the record, a condition to won an Oscar, look like an idiot, sick of Aids or ugly. That's the way Hanks won their awards and Nicole won this one. She's an excelent actress, but in this film fail badly... On the other hand, Meryl, superb as always. Regarding the movie, the idea is interesting, the execution, so bad, so predictable. All in all, could be a great movie. The director is to blame?

I had put off seeing this film, mostly because of a couple friends saying how "dark" and "depressing" it was. To the contrary, I found it to be just beautiful. The acting is of course brillant--a handful of the most talented actresses of our time. But the real star is the script! Just the most amazing piece of writing ever. A very moving film that I can't recommend more.

Recently I viewed the movie, "The Hours" starring Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Ed Harris and Julianne Moore. The movie is based on the book by Michael Cunningham and follows the book's ideas about as precisely as possible for a screenplay conversion.

The story revolves around the author, Virginia Woolf, as she writes her story, "Mrs. Dalloway" and how the words she writes affect two other women in different time periods. Virginia is portrayed by Nicole Kidman and she does a wonderful job showing the essence of Virginia's depression and self-doubt. A brilliant writer who involves all of your senses in her prose she succumbs to the artist's tendency to be self-doubters and insecure, possibly from all the exposure to critics at every bend and corner. The cigarettes she smokes seethe about her as she contemplates her suicide and a word to leave behind, like her soul is going up in smoke. She lies beside a dead bird and she feels dead before her time, unable to fly and stifled by depression that is never fully explained. Her end is filmed in such a way that she surrenders herself to the river's current and slowly gets swept away by nature but she seems somehow freed by her own death, floating along in time and crossing the borders that time presents.

Julianne Moore plays the character, Laura Brown; a pregnant homemaker in the 1950's who is struggling with what life has to offer her. She seems to exist in a blur of emotion all of which sways towards depression. She attempts to bake a perfect cake for her "perfect" husband's birthday and fails sending herself into a moment of panic that almost produces her own demise. She runs away from her child and stays alone in a hotel ready to take her life and that of her unborn. She reads "Mrs. Dalloway" and becomes involved in another's misfortune which somehow awakens her to her senses and she retreats back to the normalcy of her mundane life. I could not help but be emotional during a scene where she is preparing herself for bed and her husband calls from the bedroom, "Come to bed Laura Brown," it left me with a sickened feeling. In Laura's eyes you see her sadness and her desperate need to leave but she stays, unhappily, like a servant.

Meryl Streep plays, Clarissa Vaughn, a modern woman who follows the footsteps of Virginia's character "Mrs. Dalloway" as she spends her day catering to others. She buys flowers in desperate attempts to cheer up those around her when in fact she is the one who is in need of cheer. She tries to revive a dying man played brilliantly by Ed Harris, Richard, who is succumbing to the power of AIDS and all of its downfalls. Clarissa opens windows for brightness where all she sees is gray; she perks up the grayness with flowers but only manages to bring a feeling of hopelessness to Richard instead. His writing award seems to go unnoticed although she plans a tremendous celebration his soul just shuts down. Under all of the pressure Clarissa breaks down and experiences the sadness of the day and the reality of death. Richard falls from his own window in his desperate act of suicide and mercy. Clarissa is left to deal with all of the pain.

In the end we learn that Richard is in fact the son of Laura Brown. Seemingly she has transferred her loneliness and despair to the life of her own son without regret. She explains that she abandoned her family after all, needing to conduct her life on her own terms.

The music and the language of the film inspire creative juices, especially the scenes where Virginia Woolf is speaking. Having read the book first I was able to experience more than the film managed to contain although the film was more easily explained. I recommend both expressions for the full impact of these desperate women and the lives they lead. It will not take hours to be gripped by their needs.

Rare is the film in which you've heard of almost everyone in it. Like Gosford Park --similarly robbed with a single Oscar in 2001's competition--this film assembles the talent needed to bring a difficult script to life.

Weaving three stories together is a deft feat, accomplished here by connecting the stories with the ties that bind them. These include the party each of the three main characters plans to host on the day in which the film takes place, the same-sex kiss each shares before the day is out, and Mrs. Dalloway , the Virginia Woolf novel that one character is writing, one is reading, and one is living. Also instrumental in keeping the flow of the movie going is a superb score by minimalist Philip Glass.

It's the acting that really shines, though. Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, and Meryl Streep earn our empathy in every scene, radiating their feelings above and beyond the carefully crafted script. Kidman's scowling Woolf, battling husband Stephen Dillane for the right to control her own troubled existence, is as believable a tortured genius as can be imagined, outshining even Russell Crowe's portrayal of John Nash. Moore's '50s housewife hides the pain of her discontent from her husband--an excellent John C. Reilly--but not from us. Streep's face telegraphs her joy at buying the flowers for her party and her guilty dismay when Ed Harris scolds her for living to throw it.

Still, why should you watch a movie about three women in the throes of crisis? Because the film conveys at least two messages of profound importance. The first is that happiness is not to be taken for granted. As Streep lies on her bed, talking to daughter Claire Danes, she recalls the day, long ago, when she awoke at dawn from a night spent with Harris, before both embarked on lives with same-sex partners. She felt such possibility, such joy--the beginning, she thought, of happiness. But that was happiness, she now knows. She should have known it then. She should have understood it sooner. She's been trapped in that moment ever since, looking down a road never taken, rueing the brambles that have long since overgrown it. She should have been living the life she's got.

The second message is that things are getting better. The three stories carry across four generations. In the first, Virginia Woolf kisses her sister in desperation at her situation. Miranda Richardson's reaction is a fit of hysterics, and she flees to London. In the second, Moore's housewife kisses neighbor Toni Collette to comfort her about an impending medical procedure that threatens her womanhood. Collette partakes, then pretends it didn't happen. In the third, Streep kisses lover-of-ten-years Allison Janney passionately, seeming to acknowledge in a moment Janney's years of living in the shadows of a memory and renewing a relationship that seemed troubled as the film opened. Danes gives a hug filled with forgiveness whose significance, in my opinion, outweighs all three kisses, showing that the next iteration of the story can contain not only a modicum of happiness but also forgiveness for those who suffered through the stories of the past and couldn't quite cope.

The Hours begins and ends with a suicide, with another in the middle for good measure. Yet it affirms the value of life, of moving on, of progress, of the notion that tomorrow will be better. It is a movie of depth and ideas. If you haven't seen it yet, you're missing out on one of the decade's most profound cinematic achievements.

Wow....this movie was incredible. Almost every actor had a top notch performance going. The only character whose feelings i didn't really understand were those of the man with AIDS. This is not a film for those who cannot take two and a half hours of thoughtful emotional things taking places in real life, not some mission impossible film. The ending of this movie is a bit unsatisfying, but in real life does anything really conclude itself into a nice sappy ending? And to those who say that the despair of the three women isn't plausible- because they're just a bunch of spoiled rich brats- depression can affect anybody of any race gender age and income level. Shame on you for thinking money is the key to all happiness.

Just a warning to those who have not seen it: This is a very emotionally draining film. I have not seen a film that is more depressing than this one.. Dont watch it at a party because everybody will just be gloomy for the rest of the celebration.

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.

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.