The Hours Reviews

  • Jul 13, 2020

    The Hours is an extremely intelligent movie. Its deep and sensitive and the script is sometimes different for a change. The acting was good , every role was casted perfectly. When I saw Nicole Kidman, I didn't know it was her, she did not look nothing like at all like herself. As that being said The Hours is one of the most interesting and intelligent melodrama to come along in a while. So for that I give " The Hours " a C-.

    The Hours is an extremely intelligent movie. Its deep and sensitive and the script is sometimes different for a change. The acting was good , every role was casted perfectly. When I saw Nicole Kidman, I didn't know it was her, she did not look nothing like at all like herself. As that being said The Hours is one of the most interesting and intelligent melodrama to come along in a while. So for that I give " The Hours " a C-.

  • Jun 30, 2020

    a tough watch but an interesting one, thanks to a bunch of fantastic performances.

    a tough watch but an interesting one, thanks to a bunch of fantastic performances.

  • Apr 25, 2020

    4 Stars!!! This 2002 drama is the story of how the novel 'Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf affects three generations of women, who will have to deal with suicide in their lives in one way or another: a New Yorker preparing an award party for her friend in 2001; a pregnant 1950s California unhappy housewife; and Virginia Woolf herself in 1920s England, who is struggling with depression and played by the marvelous Nicole Kidman, who went above and beyond for her performance for which she won her Academy Award, among other countless accolades. Deeply philosophical and a bit depressing, but also moving, it may make us all question life itself, and its magnificent and mysterious score pulls at your heartstrings and will keep you in suspense for the entirety of the film.

    4 Stars!!! This 2002 drama is the story of how the novel 'Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf affects three generations of women, who will have to deal with suicide in their lives in one way or another: a New Yorker preparing an award party for her friend in 2001; a pregnant 1950s California unhappy housewife; and Virginia Woolf herself in 1920s England, who is struggling with depression and played by the marvelous Nicole Kidman, who went above and beyond for her performance for which she won her Academy Award, among other countless accolades. Deeply philosophical and a bit depressing, but also moving, it may make us all question life itself, and its magnificent and mysterious score pulls at your heartstrings and will keep you in suspense for the entirety of the film.

  • Apr 12, 2020

    Holly Davidson The Hours is a deep and profound look into depression and mental health issues. Originally a book by Michael Cunningham, the movie perfectly captured the constant sense of dread and longing living with depression causes. The music that Philip Glass composed for this film are works of art. The notes he crafted speak of anxiety and the deep heavy feelings associated with poor mental health.

    Holly Davidson The Hours is a deep and profound look into depression and mental health issues. Originally a book by Michael Cunningham, the movie perfectly captured the constant sense of dread and longing living with depression causes. The music that Philip Glass composed for this film are works of art. The notes he crafted speak of anxiety and the deep heavy feelings associated with poor mental health.

  • Apr 04, 2020

    Complete opposite of a feel-good picture while complexed with intriguing character study being apparently psychologically connected through the impeccably casted, excellent performances. (B+)

    Complete opposite of a feel-good picture while complexed with intriguing character study being apparently psychologically connected through the impeccably casted, excellent performances. (B+)

  • Feb 24, 2020

    It's really not a movie that everyone loves, but it's worth every damn minute, it fills you with emotions and it's impossible to stop watching it

    It's really not a movie that everyone loves, but it's worth every damn minute, it fills you with emotions and it's impossible to stop watching it

  • Jan 26, 2020

    Que roteiro e que montagem e quês atuações! Divino!

    Que roteiro e que montagem e quês atuações! Divino!

  • Jan 15, 2020

    The filmmakers do an excellent job bringing all the narratives together into one story.

    The filmmakers do an excellent job bringing all the narratives together into one story.

  • Dec 05, 2019

    Unrealistic movie. I'm not saying that people don't struggle with depression but as a whole this movie was way out of touch with reality.

    Unrealistic movie. I'm not saying that people don't struggle with depression but as a whole this movie was way out of touch with reality.

  • Jul 29, 2019

    People tend to hate this sort of Oscar baity film that has an air of tastefulness that can sometimes be stifling but I think this actually a good example of the genre as much as I abhor The Reader (2008) and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011), director Stephen Daldry's other successes. What buoys the film, which admittedly goes over material better examined in other films, is the power of it's performances as few films are able to bring together talents like Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore and give them both ample opportunity to shine. No, I don't think that Nicole Kidman is fantastic in this film and I am confused by her Academy Award win but I do personally believe that this was the best of the films nominated for Best Picture in 2002. The film follows three different women living in the 1920s, 1950s and 2000s as we see how social values have changed and while women's freedom is still partially restricted they have more opportunities. In 1921, Virginia Woolf, Nicole Kidman, is writing Mrs. Dalloway while feuding with her housekeepers and struggling to ward off depression while her long suffering husband, Leonard, Stephen Dillane, attempts to reach out to her before her tragic suicide. In 1951, repressed housewife Laura Brown, Julianne Moore, is feeling increasingly isolated from her husband Dan, John C. Reilly, due to the restrictions of their lifestyle and her lesbianism. She abandons her son for a day to try and find herself but later returns to her family despite feeling trapped. Finally, in 2001 the fastidious Clarissa Vaughn, Meryl Streep, is seen planning a party for her friend and the man she pines after, Richard, Ed Harris, who is suffering from AIDS and is frustrated by her continuous devotion to him despite his indifference. Eventually two of the three are able to reconcile their problems and discover the joy of living life. By far the most interesting storyline in the film was the one that followed Meryl Streep as it presented something that felt newer and more exciting than the other two storylines. The scenes in which she interacts with a man who she loves hopelessly, who is aware of her endless devotion and in many ways resents her for it, are horribly touching as we see a woman who is so capable and intelligent give herself to a person who will never fulfill her. Part of this, of course, is that Streep is the best of the three lead actresses as she brings all of the Streep-y loveliness that she gave to The Deer Hunter (1978) and Ironweed (1987) while also being utterly captivating simply having a breakdown in the middle of her living room. I was totally engaged throughout her story even as it took odd turns and I would have liked to have spent more time with her time as she simply goes about her day while still carrying these weights with her. When she describes the experience of falling totally and irrevocably in love with Ed Harris as she saw him on the beach at age eighteen I felt a strong rush of emotion that I did not expect to feel during a film that looked so stuffy. His later recount of the events of that day only add to the emotional impact of the moment as we see how this relationship has shaped the lives of two very different people who rely on one another in a strange way. This moment worked better than Kidman's final reading of her love letter to her husband or Moore's discussion with Streep at the end of the film. As previously stated I think that of all of the actresses in the film Streep is giving the best performance and while I think the other two performers give decent turns as characters who could have been conventional cut outs they are overshadowed. That is what it makes it so odd that Kidman won the Academy Award for Best Actress when she isn't even giving the best performance in her own film. It's not that I do not like the performance, she is very good at putting on the accent and appearing aggrieved, but I don't think it allows her to show much range and she has given much better performances in Eyes Wide Shut (1999) and Rabbit Hole (2010). Personally I would have given Best Actress that year to Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven (2002) who is absolutely sublime.

    People tend to hate this sort of Oscar baity film that has an air of tastefulness that can sometimes be stifling but I think this actually a good example of the genre as much as I abhor The Reader (2008) and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011), director Stephen Daldry's other successes. What buoys the film, which admittedly goes over material better examined in other films, is the power of it's performances as few films are able to bring together talents like Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore and give them both ample opportunity to shine. No, I don't think that Nicole Kidman is fantastic in this film and I am confused by her Academy Award win but I do personally believe that this was the best of the films nominated for Best Picture in 2002. The film follows three different women living in the 1920s, 1950s and 2000s as we see how social values have changed and while women's freedom is still partially restricted they have more opportunities. In 1921, Virginia Woolf, Nicole Kidman, is writing Mrs. Dalloway while feuding with her housekeepers and struggling to ward off depression while her long suffering husband, Leonard, Stephen Dillane, attempts to reach out to her before her tragic suicide. In 1951, repressed housewife Laura Brown, Julianne Moore, is feeling increasingly isolated from her husband Dan, John C. Reilly, due to the restrictions of their lifestyle and her lesbianism. She abandons her son for a day to try and find herself but later returns to her family despite feeling trapped. Finally, in 2001 the fastidious Clarissa Vaughn, Meryl Streep, is seen planning a party for her friend and the man she pines after, Richard, Ed Harris, who is suffering from AIDS and is frustrated by her continuous devotion to him despite his indifference. Eventually two of the three are able to reconcile their problems and discover the joy of living life. By far the most interesting storyline in the film was the one that followed Meryl Streep as it presented something that felt newer and more exciting than the other two storylines. The scenes in which she interacts with a man who she loves hopelessly, who is aware of her endless devotion and in many ways resents her for it, are horribly touching as we see a woman who is so capable and intelligent give herself to a person who will never fulfill her. Part of this, of course, is that Streep is the best of the three lead actresses as she brings all of the Streep-y loveliness that she gave to The Deer Hunter (1978) and Ironweed (1987) while also being utterly captivating simply having a breakdown in the middle of her living room. I was totally engaged throughout her story even as it took odd turns and I would have liked to have spent more time with her time as she simply goes about her day while still carrying these weights with her. When she describes the experience of falling totally and irrevocably in love with Ed Harris as she saw him on the beach at age eighteen I felt a strong rush of emotion that I did not expect to feel during a film that looked so stuffy. His later recount of the events of that day only add to the emotional impact of the moment as we see how this relationship has shaped the lives of two very different people who rely on one another in a strange way. This moment worked better than Kidman's final reading of her love letter to her husband or Moore's discussion with Streep at the end of the film. As previously stated I think that of all of the actresses in the film Streep is giving the best performance and while I think the other two performers give decent turns as characters who could have been conventional cut outs they are overshadowed. That is what it makes it so odd that Kidman won the Academy Award for Best Actress when she isn't even giving the best performance in her own film. It's not that I do not like the performance, she is very good at putting on the accent and appearing aggrieved, but I don't think it allows her to show much range and she has given much better performances in Eyes Wide Shut (1999) and Rabbit Hole (2010). Personally I would have given Best Actress that year to Julianne Moore in Far from Heaven (2002) who is absolutely sublime.