Avoid "The Hours" if at all possible
 

The first thing I wanted to do when the end credits finally, finally, finally rolled on "The Hours" yesterday was take a nice, long hot shower to wash off the thick sludge of pretension that I had been doused with.

I don't think I've seen a more self-important film this entire year. What a painfully, stick-up-the-ass uptight little piffle of a film. In every second of every scene every actor is positively bouncing up and down, doing cartwheels to get the Academy to notice them. That's right kiddies - they're all swinging for the little golden statuettes with this one. Clear the aisles, boys and girls, there's "capital A" ACTING happening here.

Every line of dialogue is delivered in sort of a slowed down Captain Kirk-esque monologue, with unbearable pauses between each and every word. This is one movie that would have benefited greatly from those "dead air" eliminating devices that morning radio talk show hosts regularly use to compress their speech and eliminate all the "um's" and "ah's." You could nearly mark the time during these pauses by counting the number of times you could say the word "Pulitzer" in the dead space.

"No (one Pulitzer) I (one Pulitzer, two Pulitzer) can't come (one Pulitzer, two Pulitzer, three Pulitzer) to (one Pulitzer) your (one Pulitzer) par- (one Pulitzer) ty (one Pulitzer, two Pulitzer, three Pulitzer, four Pulitzer) Mrs. (one Pulitzer, two Pulitzer) Dall- (one Pulitzer) -o- (one Pulitzer) -way."

And it's not just occasionally that this slowed down, talking-through-molasses speech pattern is used. Rather it's employed nearly uniformly through the whole piece - setting off each and every line of dialogue as if it were ensconced between a gigantic pair of air quotes. I guess we're supposed to understand that every last syllable that drops from the angst-ridden lips of the actors is unbelievably weighty and deeply symbolic.

Unfortunately the opposite is true. The uniform treatment of every line of dialogue doesn't allow any differentiation between mood and player interaction. Unless you count the occasional burst of hope that accompanies the showy star cameos (look! it's Jeff Daniels! look! it's Claire Danes!), there are no high points peppered throughout the piece to lend the universal gloom any texture or resonance. And in a film who's overt message (as paraphrased from an actual line of Ed Harris' and Nicole Kidman's dialogue) is "someone's got to die to make the rest of you value life all the more," that's sadly ironic. I got to the point where I wanted to start filling in the "loud" deliberate silences with Rocky Horror style commentary. The film practically begs to be heckled.

When the highlight of the film is the remarkable way the makeup artist transforms the usually vibrant Nicole Kidman into a doughty, pinched and somewhat schizophrenic "tortured intellectual" with the addition of a slope-nose prosthetic, you know you're in trouble. But it just may be that rubber nose that gives Kidman the edge over her equally muted, one-note co-stars when those Oscar ballots are penciled in. That little prosthetic makes Nicole stand out - literally - beak-first before the crowd.

Julianne Moore's role as yet another stifled 50's housewife seemed to have been shot on coffee breaks from her far more accomplished and affecting housewife role in "Far From Heaven." And gee - yet another role with Julianne talking all perky and sweet on the phone, while silent tears of anguish stream down her soft porcelain skin. As for Meryl Streep - well, she might as well have had a "plays herself" credit next to her name in the closing reel. She also gets her usual grand crumpling breakdown scene where she can flail her hands before her face (clad in thick celadon dishwasher gloves) and make that oblong black-hole shape with her mouth again. Par for the course, really.

Ed Harris' Oscar-tailored cliche of a role as a world-weary-and-therefore-wise suffering, suicidal AIDS patient in the final stages of the disease has been seen time and time again. Harris does absolutely nothing to differentiate the role from the long-line of modern day sacrificial lambs that have come before him. And for that reason alone, he's probably a shoo-in for a nomination. We all know how the Academy just about creams itself over the crippled and the doomed.

The bottom line. The end product that is "The Hours" is far less than the sum of its parts. All involved are more interested in blurting out some solemnly profound statement about the human condition (or perhaps more specifically, the condition of the "put-upon" long suffering lonely woman) than in telling a story that effectively illustrates the quiet, simple truths that should have underlain the screenplay. All the abstractions, all the time-shifts, all the deliberate weight heaped upon these poor girls just gets in the way and makes "The Hours" positively unbearable to sit through.

Of course, that won't stop it from attracting "best of" nominations like flies to a back-alley dumpster.

so i take it you didnt enjoy the film???

Oh wait.

Let me summarize for the net-impaired.

"The Hours" sucked.

;)

No really, tell me what you really thought of it.

:D

I'll see it anyway, but thanks for the review. I know I will be dragged to it anyway. My gf loves those kinds of films.

I havent seen this movie yet but with all the crap out in droves now, do we really need to trash a movie with Three wonderfully talented actresses.
The reviews have been great and I cant wait to see it.
Surely you can find something better to do with your time.
What is a movie you do like? XXX? A Perfect Storm? Hot Chick?

Oh, again, my bad.

I didn't realize this was the "positive reviews only" board.

Let me revise.

"The Hours" rooled.

;)

Woah. I hope you were joking.

Just because a film has three of the best actresses of this time, doesn't mean the film would excel in everyone's opinion.

And grunter seemed to not like it. Calm down.

You're right. I only watch movies based on Edith Wharton novels, and I only watch them in velvet-lined theaters whilst sipping tea and listening to subdued Beethoven.

Translation: gimme a frickin' break. It's called his "Opinion." It's by no means the final word on the movie. No movies are immune to criticism no matter what their pedigree.

Re: Avoid "The Hours" if at all possible
 

...know what you mean. I feel the same way after reading some of the postings here.


Thank you, but I'll decide on my own what movies I want to avoid.

Re: Re: Avoid "The Hours" if at all possible
 

Do note that my "executive summary" was composed precisely for that reason.

Do check post #3 above.

Kisses.

;)

Thanks for your opinion but I think I'll still check this out sometime down the road.

Poor grunter, he doesn't know that he was Virginia Woolf in a past life. ;)

To quote Mike, from "The Young Ones"...
 

"That was a highly articulate outburst."

Haven't seen the film. I have a bad, bad feeling that Nicole Kidman's Margaret Hamilton impression is going to wow the gullible schmucks in the AMPAS and Julianne Moore's going to be left holding the bag, again.

If Julianne is downcast after coming up short, I could, y'know...help comfort her... :hump:

Maybe Connie Booth should get an honorary Oscar for her work in Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

The worst of 2002 -- The Hours -- For its high-falutin' literary manner, for its eager embrace of politically and socially correct attitudes, for its breathless belief in its own significance, for its sentimental approach to female victimization,for the pretentiousness and torpor of its structure, The Hours takes the prize

hehehe

Now - note: I'm not bringing up the Time piece to somehow "prove" I'm right.

I'm just bringing it up to show I'm not completely a lone nut in being unimpressed with the film.

Just so's you know.

;)

Well since Grunter is always so quick to judge everyone and everything, and we are usually at totally different ends of the spectrum when it comes to taste, I know now that I do want to see it based on his review.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheHours-1117128/


Hmmm. Sounds like its getting really horrible reviews.
Worse than MIB2 and Mr. Deeds.

It was alot better than Far From Heaven atleast. That movie was horrible. I nearly fell asleep a few times while watching it.

I for one really appreciate your review grunter. Thank you for taking the time to not only let us know that you didn't like it, but for taking the time to spell out in a very well thought out manner why you didn't like it. Far to many people would post just the title of your thread and leave it at that. That being said, I still plan to see this movie, but I don't think I will drive to LA like I had intended to do this weekend. I will probably wait until it is in my local theater.

-CM-

Quick to judge? How do you mean? Just because I wrote a scathingly negative piece about the film within 24 hours of viewing it, I've somehow made a "snap decision" about the film's quality? Should I have waited and read umpteen different reviews by syndicated columnists who get paid far more than I to tap out their thoughts and feelings about the film to make sure my opinion more closely conformed to their infinitely learned consensus?

Sorry coop, ain't gonna happen.

And on a side note, I guess I should be thankful. I wasn't quite aware that I'd made my tastes so clear with a single review as to position myself precisely in diametric opposition to your own. Somehow, methinks that just because I lobbed a "rotten tomato" at this precious Virginia Woolf contraption, you've somehow lumped me in with the "car-chase-big-tits-go-boom" crowd.

Sorry coop, film isn't that simple - regardless of how hard Hollywood tries to dumb the medium down. A person's opinion of a single film does not augur their future reactions to all subsequent filmed entertainment.

Some day, I hope you learn at least that much.

Kisses.

;)

grunter got grossed out because "Virginia Woolf" is too close to "VAGINA WOOLF". ;)


:p <<< just say no

It's nice to seem some negative views on this much lauded film.

I'm pretty sure I will like this film a lot, even thought I really disliked the directors previous effort, billy elliot.

I hear kidman's performance is so good some are considering having a prosthetic nose worn on them just like her.

I have to go see it now given all the controversy!

Well, grunter, I agree with your review, except for one small detail:

I think everything you said about the tone and writing of the piece applies to the book. One of the most pretentious and self-important pieces of literature I have ever read.

On the other hand, I loved the movie. Funny how that works out, huh?

While I think Julianne Moore's story and character were underwritten, the rest of the movie is fantastic. Nicole Kidman should win an academy award, and not just because of her nose. She gives a truly captivating performance, and Meryl Streep is right up there with her. Julianne Moore is sorely outclassed here, as she's almost always being paired against a better actor (John C. Reilly, Toni Collette, Meryl Streep). The only time she gives the better performance in a scene is playing against Claire Daines.

As for how you thought everyone spoke too slowly, perhaps these characters are the kind of people who consider their words before speaking? I did not notice too many inordinately long pauses.

In the end, The Hours is one of my favorite films of the year. It's not the best (that would be Adaptation), but it is excellent. And it's so refreshing to see a movie not only be better than the book its based on, but to leave that book completely in the dust.