Rarely does a film that you have high expectations for actually end up meeting them.

The Hours really worked for me.

I thought the direction was superb with the cutting back and forth between time periods always keeping you interested in what was happening in all three stories.

The trio of leading ladies were great as expected but the supporting cast (all in tiny roles) were fantastic.

Ed Harris, Miranda Richardson, Stephen Dillane, Allison Janney, John C. Reilly, Clare Danes and Jeff Daniels.

only Danes and Jeff Daniels were not up to par IMO.

Jeff Daniels plays a former lover of Ed Harris' character and he comes off as trying too hard to be gay and subtle about that fact.

This or Chicago will definitely win Best Picture at the Oscars.

If you are a fan of cinema or acting etc. you'd
probably enjoy THE HOURS.

**** out of ****

also, people saying that this film is just Academy Award-posturing and monologues couldn't be further from the truth.

The Hours is something that is probably even more enjoyable the second time around.

But that's just my opinion.

I didn't see any other threads (surprisingly) on this movie.

I thought this film did feature some awfully strong performance by the 3 female leads (Streep, Kidman, and Moore), and it also had good supporting performances by Ed Harris, and even Jack Daniels.

I'm not sure how you'd mount an Oscar campaign for the 3 actresses (which to put up in the leading actress vs. supporting actress categories) because each role is pivotal in how they influence the next generation within the story.

The only thing that detracts from the acting in this film (still a rather moving film in some respects), is that the screenplay doesn't do a good enough job explaining how these 3 main characters get to feel the way they feel at the point in which their stories are told, so you get this sense of emotional restlessness and pain, but you don't really know what caused such anguish and stirring within their hearts for them to behave the way they do in the film.

I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.

Well, the film really just told the story of one day in each of the women's lives - to get into to specifics on how they got there would be a whole different film.

There was an earlier thread that got closed - and on reading that I was lead to believe that this was a slow movie. I found almost the exact opposite - there was hardly any down time and the cross-cutting with stories along with the cues kept me in the film really well.

I thought it was a truly wonderful cast from top to bottom. I don't know who will win Best Actress - but I'd go with Julianne Moore because of her role here and in Far from Heaven.


8/10.

Nicole Kidman - she's sick and she's treated like a child always having to ask permission to go anywhere.

Julianne Moore - her life and husband are just boring to her. She isn't happy at all.

Meryl Streep - her good friend has a terminal disease and looks like death warmed over.

those are the reasons that i saw took to be what caused their actions.

None of the 3 are able to live their lives in complete freedom. Kidman as mentioned above is confined to the country and even the servants are authority figures.
Moore - it would appear is just a loner and got married almost by accident. She is confined by her marriage.
Streep - has been in service to a sick man for an inordinately long time and maybe needed to let go so that she can get on with her life. She is forced to put on a facade of normalcy while she takes care of him.

Ed Harris must've really had to lose some weight for this role.

He looked skinny as hell. For once, I'll give some credit to the makeup people.....it was heartbreaking how pathetic he looked.

The Hours is a film I wouldn't normally see. However, as part of a "double feature" I did get a show for free. So I can't say I was disappointed. I went in expecting (based on the trailers) melodrama of the highest degree. And while there are those moments, quite a few moments of desperate quiet, bottled rage, swelling music and devastating breakdowns, The Hours did intrigue me in a few ways. One was the embracing of its literary origins. The film had a very novel-type of structure (I can't really relate how, just a feeling) that seemed to hint at the importance of writing/reading or just connecting with written words.

But I didn't really care for any of the performances. Neither Kidman's scowl, Moore's fretting, or Streep's instability represented anything other than various ideas. So by the end I didn't much care what mattered. But I had enough interest in the film as a whole and how it related to its various literary influences to make the experience more than just a wash.

I have to say that I was absolutely bowled over by the film.

Yes, it was far from perfect - I disliked to way it tried to "explain" the plot near the end. it was not necessary, and it added little to the ultimate meaning of the film.

Also, the scene where Streep's character broke down in the kitchen was somewhat trite. It is amazing that that Streep is utterly overshadowed here by the amazing performances by Kidman, Moore, and even Toni Collette.

But if you like Virginia Woolf's writing, and you understand the questions that are raised, this is a film that truly *matter*. It is so strange to watch a film that echoes thought so similar to what I have been thinking of late. Mrs. Dalloway's character is refracted through the lives of the people in the film. I felt like, in some ways, I could have been one of them.

I enjoyed this as well as many others. It is not the best film in history, but it is a brilliant film. I agree with Grimfarrow to some extent, however, I can see why the director did what he did. I give this film credit to try something that does not tell us directly what it means but through what is unsaid. With that I leave it to you to figure out what they, I and others mean.

You've got it! The premise of the novel Mrs. Dalloway is that you can derive a woman's entire life by following her examining any whole day of her life ("Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself.")

I think I need to read this book in order to fully appreciate the subtleties of the film...

FYI - did you know that the scenes with Jeff Daniels were actually RE-SHOT? The original actor who played the role came off as too young to be Ed Harris' lover so the footage was reshot with Daniels.

A similar thing happened with the final scenes with Julianne Moore as an old woman - originally an older actress portrayed the character instead.

I wonder if these original scenes would appear on the DVD deleted scenes. Might be cool to see.

Loved the music too! Top notch film IMO.

I thought The Hours was an interesting well made film, not the greatest film of last year, but not bad. The perfomances of Kidman, Moore, and Streep are all excellent in a heartbreaking depressing kind of way, all at the top of their game. Julianne Moore was showed quite a different portrayal of a housewife in the fifties compared to Far From Heaven, but no less great.

The editing of the three characters in three different times was done well and felt seamlessly throughtout the film. The music score is just amazing and fits the movie extremely well especially for editing of the three stories.

I thought more of Virginia Woolf in the movie to understand her a little bit better could have helped the movie as a whole as I felt Woolf was the backbone of the film. Overall I liked the film, maybe reading the book or knowing more about Virginia Woolf or even see it again can help me appreciate the movie even more. Definitely recommend it.

to quote the men on film:

"hated it."

Ok, perhaps I didnt hate it, but I'm pretty sure it will win oscars. All the overrated films of the last 20 years have.

I watched it last night, and thoroughly enjoyed it, I would put it in my top 5 releases of 2002.

There is something about Julianne Moore, who to me seems striking, in the movie, she had some kind of aura around her.

I have never been a fan of meryl, but I enjoyed her performance in this film, it's amazing how small is the difference between someone a happy person and someone who has great sadness.

Meryl's life should have been wonderful, she had someone who loved her, a hot daughter, (so much hotter than kirsten dunst) a wonderful apartment in ny, and so much more, but she could not let go of the poet, so he was dragging her down.

I thought going into the movie I would be filled with sadness, but on exiting, all I could think to myself was the trainspotting motto.

Choose Life. And I know everyday I choose life.

Saw the movie yesterday. I was going to post my opinion, but I found I didn't have to. I agree 100% with grunter's pan in this closed thread:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=261035

I agree with his post as well. This was pure torture to sit through. I tried to force myself to take a nap but the older ladies behind me kept talking.

Here is how the movie summary should read:
Nicole Kidman puts on a big nose, tilts her head down to the lower left, and switches between looking gloomy or glaring at people! Meryl Streep performs her "flustered with a smile" routine! Juliane Moore grins alot while looking teary eyed!

Ugh!

It is a shame that this and About Schmidt will do better than Adaptation, money and award wise. While not a perfect movie, Adaptation is a far superior film, even on a dramtic level.

My two cents:

The doom and gloom aspect of the film really got kind of grating after awhile. Secondly, all three stories harbour on the fact that all these women are living repressed lives in retrospect to their sexuality. All three lesbian women are living bi-sexual lifestyles even though society and the characters around them are trying to change them. This wasn't a negative aspect for me, but I can see that a few might find the subject matter too melodramtic or off-putting. I think this movie suffered from the fact that the filmmakers had chosen to cast big name stars in these roles. If we hadn't seen the three women from past similiar efforts I think the film would never had this much acclaim. The story is fascinating but the starpower ecplises everything about this film. (An amusing comment made in the most recent issue of "Film Comment" stated that "The Two Towers" Gollum had more pathos and was superior to the acting by the entire cast of "The Hours")

On a small note, I found the Philip Glass' music overly bombastic and distracting.

I agree wholeheartedly with Grunter, Groucho and DrCaligari. This was one of the most turgid, self-indulgent pieces of artistic masturbation I've sat through in years. I found the writing ham-fisted and manipulative (perhaps a fault of the source material), focusing on victimization without justification throughout, a shame considering I love David Hare's stage work.

Frankly, telling me someone's depressed and expecting me to empathize is worthless. Of course, what was lacking in genuine character and relationship development was certainly filled by Oscar moments and loving close-ups of bravely weeping faces. It was torture to see such skilled actors in a literary after-school special.

While I applaud anyone who tries to do something other than just another glitzy action flick, this was self-important pretension on the part of the filmmakers.

Well, personally, I'd rather have a film be 'pretentious' than be dumbed down for the audience.

I think both 'Mrs. Dalloway' and the book 'The Hours' point to a certain dramatic treatment, and called for actresses chosen for their chops.

I think the directing could have been better, but the pacing/editing kept the stories interesting.

I hardly need a film to be dumbed down, but I would like a film to be something more than a one-emotion pony, brought to life by filmmakers who clearly feel . I neither saw nor felt any emotional or plot arcs that showed any growth in these characters, nor did I feel that any new depths were plumbed by the film. Just relentless, heavy-handed, calculated sturm und drang.

Too bad this film was both. For example:

Exactly, good point.

I finally saw this last night. Wow! I dont say that much about movies anymore. It was not only well done and well acted but it kept my interest. It was not boring and I left the theatre thinking about life.
They just dont make enough movies like that.

I actually liked the scene with Moore at the end and her wrinkles were very realistic. If she doesnt win an Oscar for that scene or this year at all there is no justice.


To those that didnt like the tone, what can I say, xxx is on DVD now.

Thanks for the heads-up about XXX. Finally, someone who understands that people who disagree with their opinions could only possibly like action flicks!

Precisely.

Although I'll give "xXx" this: it did hold my attention longer than any James Bond film - EVER - in the history of that stuck-in-a-rut, paint-by-numbers franchise.

I mean - the waterski-jet biological weapon injector thingee alone was far more inventive and popcorn-flick cheesy than anything "Q's" dished up for Bond.

But then - that's just my opinion.

YMMV.

Actually, I enjoyed xXx as well. I enjoy a lot of movies. But, like you, I hate to be pigeonholed into a fabled mass of unwashed cineheathens who should only watch action films because we just "didn't get it."