Even if there is no apparent reason to the anguish. This movies tells us the different stories of three women living in different times but united by the same thread: the difficulty to harmonize the world that is within their heads with the world outside which is so much different from the former. The first one is a real character: the famous British novelist Virginia Woolf whose novels depict characters so much like the other two and who has ended up by committing suicide at the age of 58 by drowning herself in a river. There is one of her most famous novels, "Mrs. Dalloway" that is over present in the movie since the novelist is precisely writing it at the time and feeling greatly moved and even anguished by that creative work. Of the other two women who lived much later, one is reading the book and the other one is called Mrs. Dalloway by a friend who is a poet and dying of AIDS, probably because he thought that she was much like the character in the novel. Suicide is also present in the other stories in a dramatic way. The image sequences in the movie are constantly crossing themselves, telling the three stories simultaneously thus underlining the similitude of the episodes in the life of the three women and in their states of mind. To appreciate this movie you must be familiar with Virginia Woolf's peculiar sensitivity so well expressed in her novels and the characters she created. This is not a realist movie and rather a movie where just like in her novels the most important feature is the stream of consciousness within the women's minds sometimes shown in acts or words and sometimes by the silence or their face's expressions. The movie direction and the actresses' performance is rather successful in making us feel in tune with it all.
Add a Review
-
valadas2 December 2011
-
Superunknovvn25 April 2004"The Hours" is an extremely intelligent movie. It's deep and sensitive and the script is something different for a change. The acting couldn't get any better. EVERY role was casted perfectly. I never really liked Nicole Kidman but she is a fantastic actress and at the moment she just chooses the right roles. She definitely deserved the Oscar. Juliane Moore is amazing, too. I wonder if there is any genre she can't do. And then, there's Meryl Streep. Will this woman ever stop being great? I mean after all the great movies she's been in in the 80's, she's still making exceptional films such as "Adaptation" and "The Hours", whereas other actors who were great 10 years ago pretty much lost it today *cough*Pacino*cough*DeNiro*cough, cough*. The director did a wonderful job and the score is another big plus of this movie. The haunting music underlines the depressing all around atmosphere and lets one feel how miserable these main characters are all the time. At times I felt like these women's sadness was explained too little, though. Maybe that's manly ignorance but I couldn't totally figure out why Juliane Moore's character was so depressed all the time. It was a little annoying that she never stopped crying and you couldn't tell why. I paid attention and I did try reading between the lines but that was a mystery to me. Probably just a personal problem. All in all I think this is the 2nd best movie of 2003's Oscar movies (1st being "The Pianist", 3rd "About Schmidt").
-
WARNING: This is an intensely depressing film and should not be seen by kids or the severely depressed. Additionally, if you just can't handle an unrelentingly dark and somber film, then you might want to look further.
"The Hours" is a very unusual film in that there completely separate but parallel stories that are interwoven throughout. While "Julie and Julia" did this with two, "The Hours" manages to do it with the lives of three women--three very, very, very depressed women who are suffering in silence.
I loved reading Claudio Carvalho's review. While short, it really summed up the film very well when "The Hours" was called 'A depressive and boring movie with outstanding cast'. I couldn't have said it any better. While there are three dynamite performances by three top actresses (one of which earned the Best Actress Oscar for this film), the film itself is all about depression and is a bit slow. Despite this, the writing IS good--and weaves together the disparate stories in a very unusual manner that is quite clever. So, it's a film I can respect but certainly didn't enjoy. After all, three ladies who have parallel stories who are fixated on suicide--this isn't exactly a comedy!! I see this film as one that is worth seeing for the performances and I can respect the way the film was constructed...but I just felt disconnected from the characters and didn't like the film. Well done but very inaccessible for most viewers--including me. If you are severely depressed, I sure DON'T recommend you watch it--it might just send you over the edge. Also, it's really NOT a film for kids...so think twice about having them watch it. -
amandakaykuenzi20 September 2014I know a lot of people criticized this film for various reasons but please do yourself a favor and do not listen to any of it. This movie touches on subjects that deeply affect those who either have struggled with mental illness or have a loved one who has. Everything about this movie resonates with me in a very deep way. When the book was getting popular before this film was ever created I went and bought it and read it. I realized about midway through that this was a book that would probably haunt me the rest of my life. I think I see much of myself in each of these women. Virginia Woolf, creative and thoughtful, deeply depressed and almost comforted by the idea of death. Laura Brown, trapped and terrified of her own existence. Clarissa Vauhn, always looking for a trivial distraction, a quiet storm brewing underneath the surface. Everyone questions the meaning of life and the value of life. Everyone thinks about happiness, and remembers the moment they were happiest. These are all mortal realities. Thoughts that plague even the strongest of individuals. Suicide sometimes seems like an inevitable fate, and even a comforting solution. The moment when you meet Laura Brown at the end of the film as an old woman, you think she is going to be this broken and sad person full of regrets but she isn't. You realize that out of all three women she was the one that ultimately chose life. After speaking with Clarissa, you can tell that Clarissa finally understands that sometimes regret is just a word that means nothing. How can you regret when you didn't have a choice? It was either death or leave. Many times in my life I have felt this way. I have left my hometown without saying goodbye to anyone and moved three thousand miles away. I felt trapped, suffocated and very dangerously depressed. When I got to my final destination I felt so free. I could write for days about this movie and it wouldn't do this film justice. If you are a woman and you struggle with mental illness do yourself a favor and watch The Hours. It will give you perspective and comfort. Life isn't always beautiful and sometimes someone has to die to create contrast so that the rest of us value life. It humbles us to see someone take their own life, it makes us squeeze our children a little tighter, makes us sing a little louder, makes us love a little deeper. When Richard dies at the end of the film, you think Clarissa will fall apart and when she doesn't, and you watch this woman in shock somehow come back to life you realize that this man has been holding her back from really enjoying life. His sadness was almost an anchor for her and when he disappears it almost releases her from this darkness that surrounded him. You realize that he really was only sticking around for her. She watches him jump and it's almost like a relief to her. The darkness goes with him. One of the best scenes of the film is almost at the very end. Meryl Streep so passionately kisses her partner. It's beautiful. You can tell she is choosing life. She wants to feel that happiness she once felt again. This movie changed my life. I will never be the same.
-
"The Hours" more than lives up to its critical praise. If nothing else it is a must see for the originality of the technique. The film (and the book by Michael Cunningham) is structured around the process of linking up three stories set at different points in time. Each story concerns a woman trying to define herself, to identify what she needs, and to find a way to get it.
The 1920's story concerns Virginia Woolf's (Kidman) efforts to write her first successful novel, "Mrs. Dallaway"; which is the story of one day in the life of a woman named Clarissa Dallaway. The story set in the early 1950's concerns Laura Brown (Moore), a woman who is reading "Mrs. Dallaway". Finally the contemporary story concerns Clarissa Vaughn (Streep) who is essentially living Mrs. Dallaway's life in modern NYC. All three performances are extraordinary in their own unique ways and there are wonderful performances from all members of the supporting cast. It is as if each member of the ensemble brought out the best in each other.
Some interesting and not always obvious things to look for as you watch "The Hours" are:
Each story begins with the husband/lover of each woman leading the camera to the woman. All three women are found in bed and this begins a match cut process that will repeat itself throughout the film as the director and editor work to connect and unify the three separate stories. Woolf writes: "Mrs. Dallaway said she would buy the flowers herself" just as Laura Brown reads that sentence and Clarissa speaks that sentence.
Kidman's Woolf is an amazing character. She is a psychological mess, making life difficult for those around her and full of torment and despair. Yet she has a subtle charm that helps you to understand why people found her fascinating.
Like "The Big Chill", this is an ambitious character study film with many characters. By necessity, both films rely more on behavioral language than dialogue in revealing the personality of its characters. Note Laura Brown's (Moore) neatness obsession as she readies her house and herself prior to leaving for the hotel.
Woolf began the book "Mrs. Dallaway" with the intention of basing it on a society woman she knew who unexpectedly committed suicide. Brown describes the book to her neighbor as: "Oh, it's about this woman who's incredibly - well, she's a hostess and she's incredibly confident and she's going to give a party. And, maybe because she's confident, everyone thinks she's fine... but she isn't".
At its core this is a movie about art but it is a broad definition of art, writing a book-baking a cake-giving a party. Each woman/artist is driven and frustrated by a need for unattainable perfection. There is a touch of irony to each situation. For example, Laura Brown is where she is because her husband has pulled her into the great American dream without realizing that it was the worse thing he could do to her. Although all three women love their children/child/niece, those relationships do not give them what they need.
There is a visitor and a kiss in each story central to the self-definition process each woman is going through. Virginia kisses her sister Vanessa (brilliantly played by Miranda Richardson who looks amazingly like she could have been Kidman's sister), desperately trying to force a better connection with her. Vanessa understands this, she is not shocked by the kiss but by the implication that her sister needs this so desperately.
Sophie Wyburd who plays Virginia's young niece was obviously cast for her haunting voice and her ability to display such a focused intensity. Each woman has a child picking up on their needs, which the adults around them do not seem to be aware of.
Watch the scene where Laura's husband is urging her to come to bed. Moore's voice does not betray the revulsion or the internal struggle which only viewers can see on her face. In fact at this point each woman's partner is urging her to go to bed but each must first a make choice. Then watch for the great match cut, Virginia announces that she has decided that the poet will die in her novel and they cut to little Richard lying in his bed. Moore's expression finally tells us that she has decided to leave her family. Streep's kiss signifies her recognition of the preciousness of what she still has in her life and her choice to embrace it and move forward.
Ultimately this film is about the increasing difficulty we have as we get older in making choices. This is because as we discover who we are, we also experience loss and accumulate grief over the course of our lives, making us ever more aware of the cost of our choices. Like the Moonlight Graham character in "Field of Dreams" (who assumed he would have more than one major league at bat), Clarissa looks back on a short moment that she thought was the beginning of happiness and realizes that it was her only moment of actual happiness.
There are some criticisms of this film. That it is not political enough but rather is for the elite and about the elite, or conversely that it is condescending to the masses with too obvious a message told in an unnecessarily simplistic way, and finally that it is a success of structure rather than ideas. Whatever the validity of these issues, the very fact that discussions are at this elevated level is the best testimonial the film could have. My only criticism was a production design issue, young Richard gets his Lincoln logs out of a Erector Set box. -
Buddy-5127 January 2003The first thing that may strike you about 'The Hours' is that this film features more major characters who are gay, or at least bisexual, than any mainstream movie I can think of. Based on the novel by Michael Cunningham, this is the powerful story of three women from three different time periods who have one thing in common: they are all leading lives filled with depression, despondency and despair, not because they are gay, mind you, but because they are human.
First there is the famous early 20th Century author Virginia Woolf (played by Nicole Kidman), who is doing daily battle with her own mental illness, a disease that is slowly destroying her own life and the lives of those around her. The story picks up her life at the time right after she has been released from an institution and been sent to spend a quiet, uneventful and restful time convalescing in the country with her husband. It is here that she begins writing her famous novel 'Mrs. Dalloway,' an introspective tale of a woman who comes to realize that her well-ordered life is really just a collection of meaningless routines meaninglessly performed. This novel serves as the glue that binds together the three women of the story as they, too, come to see their own lives in this way. Julianne Moore is Laura Brown, a housewife living in the 1950's, who finds her domestic existence to be as much a prison as Virginia Woolf finds her life in the secluded countryside. Despite the fact that she has a husband and a child who clearly adore her, Laura struggles with the fact that she is unable to find the fulfillment she seeks out of life in the role of wife and mother which society has decreed for her. This leads her to a feeling of perpetual ennui and depression and even to the notion of ending it all through suicide (suicide is, in fact one of the major motifs of the work). This role provides an interesting counterpoint to Moore's character in 'Far From Heaven.' In both films she is a woman attempting to cope with the stifling nature of life for a typical housewife in the 1950's, yet in the other film, SHE is the one devastated to discover that her husband is a closet homosexual, while, in this film, she herself is the one harboring secret lesbian feelings. This, of course, strengthens the parallels with Virginia Woolf, since she too had love affairs with women. The third character is a contemporary woman played by Meryl Streep. Like the fictional character Mrs. Dalloway, Clarissa Vaughn is a woman whose life appears to others to be well ordered and fulfilling, yet she realizes that it is really a life built around meaningless triviality. Clarissa has a lesbian partner of ten years, yet the spark of love between them seems to have gone out. Clarissa spends most of her time regretting the loss of her one true love, the troubled poet, Richard Brown (Ed Harris), a gay man struggling with the final stages of AIDS, who wants nothing more than to rant against the injustice of his fate.
Cunningham's story is, obviously, a symphony of despair. In fact, I haven't seen this many depressed people in one film since Ingmar Bergman passed from the filmmaking scene some twenty odd years ago. Yet, 'The Hours' isn't really a depressing film because the artistry used to tell the tale elevates it to the realm of poetry. David Hare's screenplay does a beautiful job weaving in and out of the three different time periods, finding effective transitions that link the various women and their situations. Director Stephen Daldry establishes a lyrical, melancholic mood that draws us into this world of sadness and regret. He also, of course, has a veritable who's who of some of the world's top film actors to work with here. Nicole Kidman gives a beautifully controlled, heartbreaking performance as the troubled Ms. Woolf, conveying a veritable cauldron of seething inner emotions through a strangely unchanging, passive and emotionless exterior. Her work here is a model of restraint and discipline, especially given the fact that many other actresses might have used this showy role as an opportunity to 'go all out' in a display of thespian overkill. Julianne Moore does the same with her role, also underplaying the emotions her character is experiencing, the better to highlight the sense of stultifying confinement she finds in her life. Streep is allowed a little more leeway in the sense that she alone gets to emote at a higher level, actually raging against the demons that haunt her (as, perhaps, befits a woman living in the 21st Century). Ed Harris does a superb job getting to the core of his character as well. He doesn't have much actual time on screen, but he makes his scenes count for all they're worth.
'The Hours' is, obviously, a movie made for a specialized audience, one not easily scared off by a film with powerful themes and complex characters. In this epic of angst, three superb actresses end up taking us on a journey deep into the darkest recesses of the human soul - a journey that would be pretty much unbearable if they themselves were not there to guide us through it. -
koalaquesadilla5 November 2010To fulfill the "guidelines" of IMDb, I will start off by saying that I did not enjoy watching this film. However, I found it to be an incredibly accurate depiction of depression supported by impeccable acting by a knock-out cast; plus, the positivity of the final scene (for some of the characters, at least) was refreshing.
Moving on to my motivation for a review-please post this, IMDb. This segment is still elementarily in regards to the content of the film and I think it will also provide a necessary rebuttal to a polarizing argument which could keep folks from experiencing what is really a great piece of cinema.
I just read a review by Eric Allen. The writing was satisfactory and it made a couple of valid points, but I was displeased with the piece in general.
There was one point in particular with which I took offense. The review expressed utter disgust and disillusionment with the angst in this movie, or, more specifically, with the admittedly large quantity of *sighs* present in the film. It went on to discuss the over-the-top nature of Woolf's (Kidman's) Clarissa's (Streep's), and Laura's (Moore's) respective depressions, making such post-production suggestions as titling the film "Just Kill Yourself Already".
I will offer that I, too, was a bit put off by the overall negative attitude of the film and the constant over-analysis and drama on the part of its characters. However, I recognized that these aspects of the film were accurate to actual depression patients.
And consider this: the film is about parallels between the minds of three women, one of whom is Virginia Woolf, writer of the tragic "Mrs. Dalloway" and eventual suicide case-a victim of her own torturous mind. Entering such a film, is there not an expectation or rather a necessity of the presence of angst? Additionally, the reviewer I mentioned earlier made it seem as though these women are anomalies of the human condition. They are not: According to the National Institute of Mental Health, 14.8 million Americans, or 6.7% of the population ages 18 and older, suffer from Major Depressive Disorder, making it the country's leading cause of disability. Though there are some clues as to the causation of depression, such as chemical in-balance or lack of exercise or proper nutrition, no one knows for sure.
As one can see, these women are not anomalies. They are not freaks to be looked down upon by some ignorant, condescending internet reviewer-these characters provide incredibly accurate representation of the experiences men and women who for centuries have suffered silently with similar symptoms of depression. Depression is real, and it is all too common.
So, as happy as I am that Mr. Eric Allen is ignorant to the realities of depression, I would appreciate it if next time he conducted some research to gather adequate knowledge of his subject before he writes his reviews. That way, he won't sound like an ignorant bigot and we won't have to waste our time on unfounded "pseudo-intellectual" (Allen) scribble. -
pierlorenzodangelo6 January 2007Nicole Kidman is writing a book, Julianne Moore is reading the book, Meryl Streep is the book. A brilliant conceit by master David Hare, astonishingly performed by Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep, Ed Harris, Toni Collette, John C Railly, Allison Janney,Stephen Dillane, Miranda Richardson Jeff Daniels and Clare Danes, even Eileen Atkins in a tiny, but revelatory moment, as the flower shop owner, is a true standout. Nicole Kidman's Virgina Woolf is a bit of a miracle, specially now, 5 years later, when you can actually look at her without noticing her nose. What you do notice is her thinking, her beautifully torturous battle for sanity - whether conscious or unconscious - "Even crazy people want to be asked!- she blurts at her sister to admonished her for not having been invited to a party. Kidman is truly sensational as is Meryl Streep, although one has come to expect that and that's why Kidman makes the bigger splash. Julianne Moore however, as the depressed perfect mother/wife of the 1950's, took me completely out of the emotional tornado Kidman and Streep consistently nurture and provide. Her performance is a performance and I was painfully aware of the machinery working just behind her eyes. Regardless "The Hours" is a rewarding experience a totally accessible intellectual and emotional ride.
-
hamilton-32 September 2003I respect this movie more than like it. An interesting scrapbook of fine acting performances, but nevertheless it left me less involved than I expected to be. Perhaps it is because the story is spread so thinly across the three time periods, or maybe it's because the story doesn't know where it's going. There is an "aha" moment that eventually arrives, but it can't save the story from muddle. Maybe those who are more familiar with literary precursors will appreciate it more.
The luminous Julianne Moore has the toughest job, acting her way through yet another poorly written 1950's housewife role (as in "Far From Heaven"). Jeff Daniels delivers a finely nuanced cameo performance. I wish I enjoyed the entire movie as much (7/10). -
brenttraft9 February 2003If you have read any of the other reviews on this page, you have probably figured out "The Hours" is not the easy, mainstream film it was made out to be by the ads and the reviews. Starring three of today's most popular leading actresses, winner of some Golden Globe awards, based on a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, and the recipient of numerous rave reviews; it would seem to be a film that would appeal to a lot of people.
"The Hours" is not a regular Hollywood type of drama film. It has more in common with Ingmar Bergman films than with "Terms of Endearment." I think the thing that most people are having problems with is that the film does not explain what takes place or the significance of the context of what takes place. Things happen and it is up to the viewer to decide what it means. This is a controversial film and people will not only argue about whether or not the film is worthwhile, but they can also debate what exactly takes place during the film. How a person interprets this film says more about the person than the film.
The film follows a single day in the lives of three women in different time periods. During this day, each of them makes a decision that will affect the rest of their life.
I felt the film improved upon the book by bringing more clarity into the decisions of each character. Also, some of the most memorable lines and scenes in the film did not exist in the book.
While I would normally be the last person in the world to say anything positive about Phillip Glass, his score is evocative of the relentlessness of time. This is accentuated by the ticking of the clock throughout the film. The ethereal music also helps tie the three storylines together, to make it seem as if they are happening simultaneously.
I think a lot of people were taken off-guard by this film because they were expecting a more standard type of drama. Also, the PG-13 rating implies a lighter subject matter than is actually in the film. Just as a warning: There is crying, suicide, and women kissing women. Even though the violence and language is mild and there are no sex or nudity in the film, it should have probably been given an R rating because of the extreme emotion displayed in the film. Emotionally unstable people should probably not see this film.
As I said earlier, people will interpret this film differently since things are not spelled out for them. For the record, I did not think all three women were suffering from clinical depression as suggested by some people. Virginia's malaise would seem to fit the description of schizophrenia rather than clinical depression. Clarissa was suffering from regret over a decision she made thirty years previous and the feeling that she will never experience that happiness again. That does not necessarily mean she is clinically depressed. Laura is the depressed one and she makes a decision to handle that depression the way she thinks is best for her. Also, I do not feel Virginia was either incestuous or a lesbian. I think she was expressing her desperation through her disease and it came out in a socially unacceptable manner.
There is no doubt in my mind that "The Hours" is a great film. I only recommend it to people who are up to the challenge of thinking about the film long after they have left the theater and deciding about what it means. It is not a film for everybody but I felt it was worth the effort. -
grantss9 January 2015OK, but not great. Takes a while to get going, is filled with superficial melodrama and ultimately isn't overly profound. Still, the Meryl Streep-Ed Harris storyline is quite moving, and makes the movie worth watching.
I am not a Nicole Kidman fan, and this movie didn't change that. I always found her characters so prissy and pretentious, and this was no exception. She certainly didn't deserve her Best Actress Oscar (though there wasn't much competition in the 2003 Oscar year).
Ed Harris and Julianne Moore got Supporting Actor/Actress nominations for their performances, and Harris' nomination was well deserved (he lost out to Chris Cooper, in Adaptation). Meryl Streep should have at least gotten a nomination for her performance. -
rodmans54515 April 2003Boasting an exemplary cast, purposeful direction, authentic production values, and a haunting musical score, The Hours is a sincere praiseworthy attempt to adapt Michael Cunningham's prize-winning novel to the screen. It is provocative, introspective, hopeful, and at times downright desolate. As evidenced by the opening sequence, the value of life itself is called into question and it sets the tone for the rest of the film.
The complex storyline focuses on one day in the lives of three women from three different generations. Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) is living outside of London with her husband in 1923, recovering from mental illness and beginning work on her now famous novel, Mrs. Dalloway. Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) is a 1950's suburban housewife, married to a World War II veteran (John C. Reilly), raising a small boy while expecting another child. And then there is Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep), a present-day version of Mrs. Dalloway, so named by her one-time lover and now AIDS-stricken writer Richard (Ed Harris), living in New York and planning one of her renowned parties for him following his reception of a prestigious poetry award.
Yet there is a common thread among them that effaces any 'real' normalcy in their lives and ultimately forces each of them to make life-altering decisions. Themes revolving around feminism and sexual preference stir just below the surface. But it is the prevailing sadness of these women brought on by the confinements of a restrictive and often stifling society that is at the core of this film. Their yearning for something more or for that 'one perfect moment' in time places each of them in the painful position to question their own existence. The sequences in each of their lives are carefully interwoven throughout the movie, enhancing their parallel struggles.
The Hours is skillfully directed by Stephen Daldry and contains some of the finest performances of the year. Julianne Moore's depiction of Laura Brown is filled with subtlety and nuance. She epitomizes a 1950's housewife with a constant shiny exterior who can barely contain the internal struggle of her life's claustrophobic confinements. Meryl Streep's Clarissa Vaughn, though bound by memories of her past, is somewhat less restricted in her character as a modern New York editor living with her female lover and therefore has more opportunity to display her considerable emotional range.
However it is Nicole Kidman's portrayal of Virginia Woolf that is the most mesmerizing and transforming performance in the film. She is completely submerged as the famous novelist of the early twentieth century. The hype concerning Kidman's prosthetic proboscis and its alleged distraction is much ado about nothing. To the contrary, it enhances her performance and allows her characterization of Virginia Woolf to fully emerge. Audiences will not recognize her, nor should they.
But if it is familiar players and plotlines you are seeking then The Hours is not for you. It is neither fantasy nor escapism, yet what it lacks in pure entertainment it makes up for with introspection and a somewhat hopeful ending. -
Boyo-217 April 2003In all honesty, as much as I liked Nicole Kidman's performance, the movie was made for me with Julianne Moore's. She made me so nervous, has me so much on edge, cause you didn't know what the hell was wrong with her. Did she have a crush on Toni Collette? Did she just have a breakdown? Does she want to burn the house down? To the movie's credit, you don't know what exactly is wrong, until the end. But as tense as it made me, I realized that in most movies you are clearly tipped off as far as who is angry, and why. This movie doesn't, and I didn't appreciate that until it was over.
Kidman was great, but I've always thought she had more talent than she was given credit for. Not many people could have made "To Die For" so convincing. Kudos to Nic for her career choices, post-divorce.
Streep, Ed Harris and Jeff Daniels were non-entities. I worship Streep and Ed Harris, but their part of the story didn't do a single thing for me. I kept waiting to see if Julianne was going to drive her car off a cliff. Without having seen all the nominees in Best Supporting Actress, I'd have to say another actress would have to go pretty damn far to impress me as much as she did. 8/10. -
rlaux10 March 2003This film begins with Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) walking down to a river, filling her pockets with rocks, wading in and drowning. This will be the only lighthearted moment in the film. After that it gets really depressing. It should have been titled "Frustrated, Suicidal Lesbians" but I doubt it would attract an audience. It wallows in misery and self-pity and celebrates suicide and abandonment as legitimate solutions. It also suggests that true genius can only come from neuroses.
It is an unbelievable misuse of acting talent. "The Hours" is how much of your life you will waste watching it. -
lou-5018 January 2003"The Hours" is about time - time we have left to make our lives enjoyable or to spend it in misery. It features the lives of three women, which might explain why half the film-goers (the males) might not want to see it and why it was left out of Ebert and Roeper's Top 10 films. If that perception is true, that would be a shame. "The Hours" is a wonderfully crafted film about universal themes of life and death, suppression and freedom, and unresolved love. That it is told from the viewpoint of three women should not diminish any of its appeal. Virginia Woolf must combat her life long mental affliction even as husband Leonard tries to manage her condition. Using the novel, 'Mrs Dalloway', the film conveys the heartache of isolation and forlorn lives in two other women who are directly connected to the book. In 1951, we meet Laura and Dan who, with their young son, would seem an ideal family. But Laura yearns for freedom, much as Mrs. Dalloway, and she must choose between giving up her family or dying. Move to 2001, and there is yet another Mrs. Dalloway in Claire and her dogged responsibility toward her former lover, Richard, now dying of AIDS. The themes of liberation, lesbianism, and dying enthrall all three women, and one does die in order that those around her might value even more the living. You cannot find three better actresses to portray these very complex individuals, in Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep, and Nicole Kidman, any or all should be nominated for Oscars. An equally fine supporting cast of Ed Harris, John Reilly, Stephen Dillane, Claire Danes, and Allison Janey make "The Hours" one of the most interesting and intelligent melodramas to come along in a while.
-
MCrulzLiron1 January 2003"The Hours" was the first movie I've seen in 2003. I'm easily going to name it as the best movie of 2002 and something tells me that in 12 months time, I will be saying it's one of the best movies of 2003 as well.
Based on a Michael Cunningham novel, "The Hours" combines a real life story (Virginia Woolf), a re-written one (Laura Brown's interpretation of "Mrs. Dalloway") and an original creation as well (Clarissa Vaughn).
We get three different stories, each fascinating on its own edited together into a complex, intriguing drama that will have you in tears a couple of times before the ending credits start rolling.
What glues the stories together is "Mrs. Dalloway" - the book. Virginia Woolf, a suicidal author in England (1923) creates the character, the novel inspires a lonely housewife in Los Angeles (1951) and a 'trivial' 2001 New York City gay woman is called "Mrs. Dalloway" by her dying friend who points out the similarities between them. Later on, we find out another connection between the characters.
It's clear that the thoughts that have been put into this movie go beyond the screenplay and acting. Things like the settings & clothing for each story help compile a perfect, believable plot.
However, what really left me with awe was the PHENOMENAL acting.
Nicole Kidman (with the word "Oscar" stamped on her forehead) delivers a performance of a lifetime playing a rather difficult role while disguising everything that is usually so associated with her. With a fake nose, a cold, dark and distant attitude and above all a rough change to her voice, Kidman portrays Mrs. Woolf exactly as the writers wanted us to grasp her and manages to be the most outstanding of the three despite getting the least screen time. Absolutely amazing.
Meryl Streep (C. Vaughn, 2001) and Julianne Moore (L. Brown, 1951) give impressive lead performances themselves with memorable emotional scenes. Cameo appearances by Ed Harris, Claire Danse, John C. Riley, Alison Janney & Toni Collette all support this exquisite masterpiece.
MUST SEE. 10/10 -
keith_g22 October 2004When I asked him about this one, the young chap in the video rental shop said it was just about the best film on the shelves at the time. I had no idea about it whatsoever and just went with his recommendation. He wasn't wrong - it is impossible to fault at any level: Acting, dialogue, costumes, locations, soundtrack, scenery, settings or storyline.
Films like this don't come along too often - beautifully made in an almost understated way, it relates to no major event or cataclysm, it chronicles no turning-point in history and it poses no worrying conundrum for the future. It is simply a quietly-told story that will criss-cross between various points in time and take you deep into the characters' emotions and portray the effect that they have on their lives. When you have seen and come to understand the events that take place, by the time it concludes it will leave you feeling refreshed and perhaps a little better in touch with the emotions in your own life - just like good films should, but sadly, so rarely do...
Easily 9 out of 10 - If you watch this one, you will not regret the time spent. -
lee_eisenberg2 March 2006"The Hours" is not the easiest movie to describe. It portrays three women affected by Virginia Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway". The first is Woolf herself (Nicole Kidman) in the 1920's, slowly but surely descending into madness. The second is 1950's housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), beginning to feel unfulfilled with the suburban lifestyle. The third is present-day Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep), contemplating the future.
This is an interesting movie, although it certainly is a downer. Moore's role is particularly interesting, since she played almost exactly the same kind of character in "Far from Heaven", released around the same time. Also starring are Ed Harris, John C. Reilly, Claire Danes, and Jeff Daniels. Certainly worth seeing. -
danielll_rs7 June 2003Not everyone liked THE HOURS, and that may be the reason why it took only one Oscar- Best Actress for Nicole Kidman. Having read the novel, I can say that the adaptation was amazing, but there's nothing wrong if you haven't read the novel.
Being a man, a young one but a man, I can't understand women but I'm still fascinated by them. THE HOURS is a feminine film (not a feminist one; there's a difference), but I could feel what these women felt, and that's the magic of cinema.
From Stephen Daldry's impeccable direction to the terrific performances, without dissonant notes, THE HOURS is a film to be remembered for years.
10/10 -
Lester1Adams8 August 2005I don't usually do movie criticism, but it has been a long time since I saw a movie that left me with such a sense of torpid despondency and hopelessness as THE HOURS. My friend Michael insisted that I go see this "wonderfully crafted little gem of a movie called THE HOURS that {had} so much to say about the 'human condition'." That should have been my tip off right there. Why is it that a certain strain of intellectual men (and most women) equate depression (as well as other negative emotions such as sadness and grief) with "deep thought" while happiness and uplifting themes (such as the feeling of ecstatic joy one gets from watching the bad guy get what's coming to him in the form of an exploding hand grenade) are equated with air headed frivolity and vulgar pedestrian taste? Their idea of a perfect intellectual conversation seems to be sitting around in a coffee house somewhere in the West Village gazing down into a cup of steaming Kenyan java while complaining to one another about how life has f*$#ed them over; and what beautiful human beings they once were before an unfeeling world crushed them down. Anyway, what follows was my response to an e-mail from Michael asking me how I liked the movie.
Well Michael, thanks to your prodding, I went to see THE HOURS, staring the lovely and talented Nicole Kidman, and co-starring Meryl Streep; and Julianne Moore. After leaving the theater I filled my coat pockets with heavy rocks and began walking zombie like toward the river so despondent was I at the prospect of having to face all of those joyless hours which the movie made me feel certain lay ahead of me in life. Only the quick thinking and fast talking of a kindly stranger saved me from a watery grave. The movie was beautifully photographed in hushed, muted, sepia tones to accentuate and reflect the somber, gloomy, disconsolate and hopeless mood of its main characters. (Wasn't it H.D. Thoreau who once said that behind their facades of genial conviviality most women lead lives of quiet desperation in a huddled mass yearning to breathe free?) The acting was exceptionally good and, at least to me, I found the actresses to be compelling in their portrayals of women overcome with, at best, unremitting ennui; and at worst, soul numbing despair. The movie had all the cheer of a cancer ward on a bleak and rainy New England afternoon in late December.
Notwithstanding all of the movie's many virtues (and there ARE many), I disliked it for the way it made me feel; and am sorry I went to see it. I should have stayed home and played a nice little uplifting game of Freecell on my computer. For some reason I don't like to be depressed or saddened by things, and very much like to stay out of touch with those particular emotions as much as possible. Years of study and experience have led me to conclude that there is every bit as much to be said for the repression of unpleasant emotions as there is to be said for, say, avoiding contact with hot stove tops. I realize how shallow this is, Michael, but I just can't see DELIBERATELY going to view something that is going to make you feel bad. But that's just one man's opinion; and BEING a man, I recognize that there are certain things that I am simply incapable of understanding.
But I DO understand this: On a chick flick scale of one to ten, this movie hits a perfect ten. From a woman's perspective it has everything: unrequited love, love that has died, crying, death, loss, homosexuality, poetry, pernicious diseases (both mental and physical), infidelity and abandonment, manipulation of others, Edwardian settings, turn of the century costumes, the emptiness of life for women in the pore-liberation 1950's, victimized and exploited women, ineffectual and overcompensating men, hand wringing, educated people in touch with their feelings (and those feelings, without exception, all relating to either loss or depression {or both}), sensitive and intelligent women sacrificing their lives for incognizant men who are, for the most part, oblivious of their needs; or, on the flip side, the hollowness of life for over-achieving career women of the 1990's, and on and on and on.
You can bet your boots, Michael, that the next movie I go see is going to have plenty of jet fighters in it as well as machine guns, explosions, hand grenades, chain saws, cyborgs from the future, a plot that can be written on the back of a matchbook cover; and plenty of long legged big titted women! I know, I know. I'm a knuckle dragging philistine who should be horse-whipped out of town. -
jotix10010 January 2003The Hours is a great achievement for all of the people involved in this project. Credit must go to the director, Stephen Daldry, who pulls all the elements together.
Having admired the text where this film is based, I wondered what would any writer do with Michael Cunningham's book where three lives of three different eras intermingle with one another. David Hare treatment of the material rings true to the novel in which it's based.
The biggest revelation in the film is Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf. I have been a great admirer of this, up to now, underrated Australian actress, right from her beginnings down under. Her approach to the role is very subdued, perhaps underplaying, where someone else might try to have gone over the top stressing Virginia's madness. All the praise Ms Kidman has received for this film is certainly well deserved.
The other great performance is Julianne Moore. This actress keeps getting better and better with any new appearance on the screen. Her Laura Brown is a pathetic figure. She's a desperate soul trapped in the Los Angeles suburbia of the 40s. She has a man, who obviously loves her. She has a son who shows all the signs, even then, of what he might ultimately become in life. Laura wants to end it all. She just doesn't belong in that world of domestic bliss. Ms Moore gets the right tone in playing Laura. There's not a wrong movement in her approach to this demanding role.
The third outstanding portrayal is Meryl Streep's. The sure hand of the director is obviously behind her reining the excesses she likes so well. This Clarissa Vaughan is in limbo in her own life. Her relationship with the younger lover is clearly over, or at least seen better days. Ms Streep gives a dignified reading of this character.
The rest of the cast is brilliant: Miranda Richardson, Tony Colette, Ed Harris, John C. Reilly, and little Jack Rovello. They are all on the mark. -
alansabljakovic-3904427 March 2019Greatest women cast maybe ever and this really is the powerful woman movie. Performances are beautiful and so thrilling. Very hard movie to watch, you have to prepare for it. Kidman totally deserved that Oscar.
-
qeter18 December 2022I saw this movie 20 years ago and did not see it since. One day, I want to see it again. But it must be on the big screen. I will not watch this one on a flat screen. The story og these 3 women tells so much more - the chemistry of life, the struggle of co-existence, the paradox of decision making without knowing all the numbers. Why, go on and on? And why, some try so hard? And at the end of the doorway there is no angel waiting with open arms.
20 years ago I left the movie with my then-girlfriend and felt in her arms - sobbing and unable to articulate what was going on in my hearth and brain. Up to today I do not know it. But that feeling has never left since I went out of that cinema on a cold night in Vienna so many years ago. The movie ist bound to my body and soul. It is part of my own character. To me - therefore - it is my best movie of all times. -
taikman9 March 2003The Hours' is a strange film: sad, intelligent, expertly crafted and superbly acted, it should be great, but it adds up to less than the sum of its parts.
The film focuses on three women living parallel lives in different times and places during the last eighty years. In the 1920s Virginia Woolf (an unrecognizable Nicole Kidman) is writing her novel Mrs Dalloway', which is about a hostess who is hiding how empty she feels behind a mask of happiness, much like 1950s housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) and modern-day socialite Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep). All are locked into suffocating relationships with men who do not understand them, except for Clarissas ex-lover, the dying poet Richard Brown (Ed Harris), who understands all too well. There are other themes running through the womens' lives: emotional repression, bisexuality, parenthood and above all suicide. Director Stephen Daldry does a good job of visually showing how the women echo each other they look into mirrors, depressed at what they see there, flowers are arranged and moved, food is created and destroyed. A strong image is that of eggs being broken, for the women lead eggshell lives strong on the surface but fragile and liable to break into shards. Other images also linger, as this is a very well shot film: a woman walking into a river, the terrible arid neatness of Laura's house, a child's judging eyes, water flooding a hotel room.
Daldry also draws out nuanced and powerful performances from his actors, though you would expect them from such a talented cast. As well as Harris and the three leads it also includes John C. Reilly, who seems to be in every good film out at the moment, Toni Collette, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Dillane in a complex, touching role as Woolf's husband Leonard. The actors are given a good script to work with too. Particularly poignant are some lines between the Woolf's.
Leonard: In your novel. Why does somebody have to die?' Virginia: So that others will value life more. It is necessary for contrast.'
But for all the good things about it, The Hours' does not reach the level of emotional power it aspires to. Paradoxically it feels both overcharged and too slow, because we are hit by too much of the same things. The Hours' is nearly all painfully shallow conversation or emotional turmoil there are hardly any light moments to catch your breath or build up the tension for the next big scene. Watching it is like listening to a symphony that is all crescendos no matter how moving they are they feel flat after a while.
7/10 -
cajackson20 January 2003This movie is devoid of any redeeming qualities. A Tuscon Citizen reviewer writes: "The Hours" creates a 75-year-long link of desperate women drawn to the promise of lesbian tenderness but ultimately seduced by the promise of suicide." -- and not in a good way. Please don't spend your money on this garbage. Go look up who exactly votes on the Golden Globes instead -- that's a real eye-opener.