|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 172)
|
|
 |
An emotional touching movie. It has been a few years since I saw it ---- will have to have another look!!!
9/10
17.5.2007 -
connollymarjorie@ - age: 50+
I LOVED the book and this movie is a fantastic rendition of it. I do recommend reading the book first, because nothing beats it. But this movie is honestly very, very good. Full of a certain gut-wrenching bitterness that is very beautiful all the same.
10/10
14.5.2007 -
islam,farah@ - age: 18-25
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Meryl Streep, ed Harris, Julianne Moore, and Nicole Kidman are ALL excellent in this film I cry every time virgina woolf looks at the dying bird. Go see it now a film fans must!
10/10
4.6.2006 -
lab_lover89@ - age: 13-17
Nicoel Kidman's voice still hauts me.
10/10
1.12.2004 -
alexis_male@ - age: 18-25
Ed Harris's best work, he should have got the oscar.
9/10
13.7.2004 -
bpbenson@ - age: 36-49
I can appreciate the acting but this one bored me to death, I fell asleep the first time and was determined to give it an honest try, so I watched it again in its entirety only to conclude that this one's a cure for insomnia for sure... I couldn't get anything out of this one...
3/10
6.2.2004 -
joblagdon@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
This movie was rather confusing at first but it was very good and the acting was superb.
7/10
6.11.2003 -
crezmur@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
This is a movie for intelligent and patient people, as you might gather by reading the reviews -- those who can't spell (or type too quickly and carelessly) generally hated the movie. But the audience at our repertory-house cinema was captivated, and even stayed for all the credits. I bought the sound-track immediately after seeing the film, and have since bought the books "The Hours" and "Mrs. Dalloway". The movie moves in the same manner as Virginia Woolf wrote, and some of those who tend to watch "action flicks" just will not understand it. Also, the emotions are very powerful in this movie, but are shown in a quite restrained manner, again fitting in with Wolfe's writing style. Those who are used to the overblown acting common in many Hollywood films may have trouble recognizing the emotion in this piece, but there were few dry eyes in the theatre the day I attended. This is definitely not a movie for the very young. It is a movie for lovers of great books and for people who have "been around the block a few times". It does not surprise me that it appeals more to women than to men, since most of the lead characters portray a particularly female point of view. It will most certainly not appeal to homophobes, since homosexuality and bisexuality are portrayed as normal parts of the wide range of human experience. Lastly, despite what some reviewers have said, this is not a movie about schizophrenics. It is a movie about intelligent people in difficult circumstances, and the varying choices they make in order to cope with those circumstances. A rare feat of movie-making, and worth every moment of screen time.
10/10
16.9.2003 -
refilyer@ - age: 36-49
Watching "hours" was both confusing and captivating. I must admit I never have watched a movie of such caliper that kept you on edge until the very end. I find it unfortunate that a lot of people cannot get past the lesbianism shown in film, mostly because the whole message of the film was lost. The actors/actresses did a remarkable job in portraying these characters. While I will admit times there were scenes that were confusing, after watching the movie you should understand it was meant to be so, alas such is life. I would highly recommend this movie to all who have an open mind, and mostly women of all ages who have felt lost and confused at one point in time. Amber DeBaie.
10/10
23.8.2003 -
ambodebaie@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I was thirteen when I saw this film, I'm fourteen now, and I still find myself visiting the official site and continually trying to dig deeper and deeper into the meaning of the hours daily. It irritates me that on every site there is a group of people who dislike the film because of the lebianism or the supposed "pointlessness"--how could it be pointless when it was based on a pulizter-prize winning novel? The same sex kisses were not acts of lesbianism, they were acts of rebellion, of self-discovery. Each woman was trying to break free from the bonds of society in the only way they could, they were being suffocated. The direction was without a fault, the screenplay was tremendous, and the score was passionate and overwhelming. Nicole Kidman succeeds in conveying both the brooding depression and the artistic genius of woolf, who is engaged in an internal struggle, the struggle between life and death, and the struggle of a brilliant authoress trying to release herself from society's expectations of her as a woman. The same prison exists for laura brown, clarissa vaughn, however, is able to look past her sorrows and regrets of the past to continue on with her life, which shows not only her strength as an individual, but also the advance of sociey regarding women's rights. I noticed that teenage females loved the movie, as did females over 50, but middle-aged women were not thrilled about it. I wish individuals in that age group would stop being so practical and realistically grounded; I wish everyone would just open up their minds and their souls to this film, look past the exterior lesbianism and depression, and experience the hours as it is meant to be experienced--a glorification of life as it is meant to be lived."To look life in the face, to know it for what it is, to love it for what it is, 'tis the right of every human being." -Virginia Woolf.
10/10
6.8.2003 -
child_of_treebeard@ - age: 13-17
This movie is beautifully directed. Nicole Kidman is phenomenal as Virgina. Intense, intelligent, and very sub-textual. If you are perceptive about subtle details in a film, you will see a master craftsman in this film's direction.
10/10
23.7.2003 -
tina,sollows@ - age: 36-49
The book is great! But the movie bored me, never seen a movie that boring. The book is touching and emotional, the best novel I ever read. The movie... really bad, it is too slow, can't hear a word... I can't believe this is the same story from the book! What a waste of good talent... All the actors should get award because they made the best out of this movie...
2/10
10.7.2003 -
luong1356@ - age: 26-35
This is a movie for mature people. Very depressing. I did not understand the theme.
5/10
5.7.2003 -
emy_m@ - age: 36-49
Very well-balanced and powerful movie. Ed Harris's character is also a very sobering one, with an almost "catharthic" effect. Nicole Kidman's sad yet vibrant playing as well as Meryl Streep's reality-based character are a treat. Julianne Moore's character gives a glimpse of what it is to be in a life crisis.
9/10
5.7.2003 -
intuitions5@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
This movie was wonderful. Three different women, three different situations and three different time periodes. This story consisted of both depth and truth. Each woman in this story was in a severe depression or in severe denial of her life. Each woman in this film was indeed a lesbian, but in different times. Virginia Wolfe lived in a time where it was unheard of to be a woman living alone or with another woman. Although she loved her husband deeply, she did not love him in a way that you love your soulmate. Therefore she chose death instead of life, for she knew that from her death not only she would find peace, her husband would also. The other character played by Julianne Moore lived in a time where it was still unheard of, but a woman could live alone and get a job. She loved her children but truly did not love her husband. She felt obliged to marry him for he had said that she was the only reason in which he survived the war. As she said in the end she chose life. A life free of pretending and free of guilt. The third women played by Meryl Streep lived in a time where being a lesbian and living as one was truly excepted and not as frowned upon. Her issue was that she had a very hard time getting over Richard. Richard and her had been together a whole summer before coming to terms with the truth of their sexuality. He was the father of her baby and that is a bond which is impossible to break. In th end after having a revealing discussion she realized that she too must chose life and so she did. Three films about dealing with sexuality and the times that chose the fate of lives. Wonderful performances and wonderful story. 10/10.
10/10
29.6.2003 -
adidasdevil_2002@ - age: 13-17
I would have to say that this movie really got to me. It was a bit tangled untill I sat down and really thought about it. I thought it would have a little more importance to the plot. I felt it to be a touching movie, if it wasnt I wouldnt be writing this!
9/10
27.6.2003 -
ekturpin@ - age: 18-25
One of the brilliant minds of the past century. The superb acting from the cast. One of a kind, and if you can read inbetween the lines give your self a bonus. I enjoyed it very much.
10/10
18.6.2003 -
gananian@ - age: 36-49
Beautiful!! Great script, wonderful performances and, ultimately, very uplifting. Loved how the connections among the characters unfolded.
9/10
16.5.2003 -
rcadoret@
Wonderfully done!!!
8/10
15.5.2003 -
tavenord@ - age: 50+
Waaaaaaay toooo long but good acting.
5/10
7.5.2003 -
ssnowman33@ - age: 36-49
Beautiful indeed... but rather confusing. My friends and I were giggling at many scenes because we were beyond confusion! And I personally feel that Meryl Streep ought to win an award instead of Kidman.
6/10
2.5.2003 -
enel_lene@ - age: 18-25
I whatched it few days ago and I can't let it get away from me any more. I turn the player on and go to bed, listen to the conversations and the music until I fall in sleap..
9/10
1.5.2003 -
neda_76eth@ - age: 26-35
The best movie I've seen in a very very long time!
10/10
12.4.2003 -
meghann,lloyd@ - age: 18-25
Coming out of the movie discussing with other people... this could only mean 2 things... the movie was really good or the movie was confusing... cast was great.
9/10
12.4.2003 -
movies@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I just LOVED the movie, I don't think I can make a good critic because I liked the film beyong reason. I just can't understand why my family didn't understand it. I loved the way it takes the unconformity of someone's life. Go see it now!!! If you don't like it... I'll give you my car.
10/10
10.4.2003 -
lillie_toreador@ - age: 18-25
I read the book on my way to Las Vegas. Loved the book so much that I went to see the movie. The book was better. The movie classic, Mrs. Dalloway, was better also. However, I did enjoy the movie and felt that reading the book first helped me to connect the dots. The acting was superb.
7/10
8.4.2003 -
vperry@ - age: 36-49
Its one of those films that touches you to the bone. A dark diamond. When I hear people saying that they found no meaning in this film makes me think of the word shallow and cynism or perhaps they never met someone beyond normal-ordinary-boring people.
10/10
8.4.2003 -
horizon@ - age: 26-35
Bah worst ever.
1/10
5.4.2003 -
hyper_chick8@ - age: 1-12
If you love Virginia Wolfe and If you have read Mrs. Dalloway, this is the film for you. The slow pace, wondeful dialogue, and rich cinematography make this a film worth savouring. I was particularly taken with Juliane Moore's performance as a 1950s housewife and think that she deserved an Oscar for her work. The three main characters' stories are beautifully interwoven. Try to enjoy every nuance of this film; don't be in a hurry.
8/10
5.4.2003 -
fjgoldstein@ - age: 36-49
I know that everyone is saying that this is an amazing movie and it won a lot of awards, but personally I didn't like it. I though it was really boring. I don' t think I would give it all the awards that it won, but I would give Nicole Kidman the award because she did do an amazing job.
4/10
1.4.2003 -
teen_movie_queen@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Fabulous film. Truly, amazing.
10/10
30.3.2003 -
csalmon4@ - age: 18-25
This was one of the best movies I have ever seen. If you like charactor-driven plotlines and a strong ensemble cast then see this movie NOW! Very well acted, each charactor was portrayed with deep emotion and nuance that suggested complex, layered histories. It is one of my top ten all-time favourites!
10/10
29.3.2003 -
peachcanella@ - age: 26-35
The Hours is up there with my top 10 films ever. A literary masterpiece brought to life, the film works on so many levels and touches on so many aspects--happiness, regret, love, relationships... The three stories are woven together beautifully, and there was never a dull moment. If you truly appreciate literature and art, you will love this movie.
10/10
29.3.2003 -
the_electric_ant@ - age: 18-25
It has an interesting storyline to begin with - but what was the purpose of this film? I found very maningless and boring, not for men anyway... but Ed Harris, once again, is very good.
5/10
28.3.2003 -
clchsa@ - age: 26-35
The only thing missing in The Hours is subtitles.
6/10
27.3.2003 -
1mears@ - age: 36-49
It should have been called "What's the point" it was so draggy & convulded I was aching to walk out of the theatre. I felt no emotion, no sympathy, no connection to either Meryl, Nicole, nor Juliana. Yet, they are "3" top calibre actresses. I could not get into any of the characters. Then Claire Daines pops in as Meryl's daughter. Couldn't get into her character, nor did I want to either.
1/10
26.3.2003 -
mimik@ - age: 36-49
INTELLECTUAL FICTION FOR WIVES. I survived through the movie and tried to see all the interconnections between the roles and could only solidify 2 out of 3 even though I read most critics beforehand. And at the end I didn't care enough that I couldn't connect all 3 parts. I wasn't disatisfied but I also wasn't in extasy with the threads. Interesting but not satisfying enough for an intellectual exercise. See Vertigo for a better satisfaction in interconnectedness. Julianne Moore's acting was hard to swallow at times with her mousy role.
6/10
26.3.2003 -
moochowping@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I thought the movie was good and very origional, but sometimes it was a little confusing. Other than that it was the best... it was easy to relate to the characters, and the setting and duration of the movie was perfect.
7/10
25.3.2003 -
ellenslovenr1@ - age: 13-17
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
This movie riveted me as few have in the recent past. Although there is little action per se, there is no letup in the film's pace, and this is quite an achievement... The hours is a cumulation of emotions and of haunting scenes, such as the dead bird's, the sister's visit, the railway station's and many more. Many scenes involve Nicole Kidman, who offers here quite an astounding performance. Higher art indeed! A movie to watch and FEEL!
10/10
25.3.2003 -
rocco1964@ - age: 36-49
This was one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. And one of the saddest ones. Brilliant acting, screenplay, it was just amazing. I couldn't leave the theatre. I can't understand that some people don't like this film! Beautiful, I totally recommend it!
10/10
25.3.2003 -
justa@ - age: 18-25
This movie provides some insight into the hell that can be found in many forms of mental illness and how one can ignore it, be manipulated by it and others or embrace it. Interesting way to do deal 'lives' of people over such a period and have a common thread. As is often the case, too short for some and too long for others. For me, it was too short. Remembering the times of Virginia Woolf, Mrs. Borwn and 'Mrs. Dalloway' and lining them up makes for a long pause to consider. See but do not expact an action movie or one that will necessarily move you greatly. It is in the reflection that it works.
8/10
23.3.2003 -
alin@ - age: 36-49
Although I love Nicole Kidman and serious, thought-proking films, I was very disappointed with The Hours. I found it attepmting to try to link together too many lives and issues, resulting in convelution and no real point.
2/10
22.3.2003 -
ljtarrant@ - age: 26-35
Great movie. Great stories. Great actresses. For those moviegoers who like intelligent films.
9/10
21.3.2003 -
casyl87@ - age: 36-49
So much potential with some great acting but somewhat of a vacant story that just seems to drag on. The Hours feels like a longer movie than it is (so it's a suitable name) I felt compelled to see this film due to all the nominations for Academy Awards, but I found that it didn't deliver where it needed to. The story is intentionally depressing (which can be interesting if the story is told well) , but the Hours does not deliver any real moral or compelling message. I was surprised to hear that this film was nominated for make-up (you can actually see that Nicole Kidman's prosthetic nose is a different color than the rest of her face!) The psychological aspects of the film are interesting, but there's much better films out there if your looking for a cerebral experience that examines the human condition.
3/10
20.3.2003 -
mimus@ - age: 26-35
Fabulous, thoughtprovoking, astounding acting... but definitely not for everyone. You can say it's an artsy fartsy kind of flick, so if you're not into analyzing symbolism and prefer quick moving more obvious entertainment, don't waste your time.
8/10
19.3.2003 -
heylucygirl@ - age: 26-35
Hours of wasted time... abyssmal.
2/10
18.3.2003 -
keycounsellor@ - age: 50+
This movie is appropriately named 'The Hours' and hours and hours. It seemed to drag on forever. Guess what? I didn't like it and neither did the group I was with. They found it extremely slow as well. I'm not sure why it was nominated for any awards. It doesn't deserve any.
4/10
17.3.2003 -
charliem@ - age: 36-49
I went into this movie with high expectations and was not disappointed in that regard. At first, I found the bouning back and forth between timelines to be distracting but after getting used to the style, I began to appreciate the unique structure. Masterful acting by all, including the all-star supporting cast. There were many rich and haunting images in this film, underscored by the beaufiul music of Philip Glass. It's wonderful to see such strength and intelligence in movie roles for women.
9/10
16.3.2003 -
shirlscorner@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
What a brilliant movie! I enjoyed it thoroughly.
10/10
15.3.2003 -
jdbecker@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
Pretty well a complete waste of time. Wonderful for sad and wanna be sad women. What a waste of acting talent!
2/10
15.3.2003 -
rodbaker@ - age: 50+
| 
