Ok, well i watched the movie yesterday with hope that was going to b a really worth while movie but to be honest i didn't enjoy it that much. Maybe i just didn't "get it" the movie was about these 3 women's struggle for freedom, right? Or am i not getting it?
>>By Too Smart for a nickname (Tuesday, 23 Sep 2003 09:07)
I liked the movie because it wasnt just about a guy meets a girl and they fall in love....its about hoe women have secrets that they keep from the outside world and keep bottled up...making some do unexplainable things. It adds controversial issues(homosexuality, incest, mental illnesses etc) into the twisted plot that Virginia Woolfe wrote stories about these characters...and it showed how it may affect a real person. I loved it...even if it was a little bizzare :) watch it sometime
>>By WhimsicalChild (Sunday, 26 Oct 2003 21:47)
Like with all good movies (or bad movies, but this one's good according to me) the book is better. Slower, more contemplative. It's a creative rewrite by Michael Cunningham of Virginia Woolf's own Mrs. Dalloway, by the way.
Philip Glass has caught exactly the right tone for his score. It clings, you can't get rid of it anymore. Superb acting, too.
>>By Aywin (Thursday, 6 Nov 2003 18:19)
I was just wondering what other peoples thoughts are on Nicole Kidman winning the oscar for this particular role. I though all three women did a Superb job and to be honest the rolls were evemly spread all three of them should have been nominated in my opinion.
>>By kudos (Tuesday, 11 Nov 2003 10:59)
What am i missing? Was this movie supposed to change my life or something? i just didn't think it was that great! In answer to Kudos about Nicole Kidman getting the oscar, yeah i think she probably deserved it. In the fact that she played Virginia Wolf pretty well and made the audience sort of empathise with the charachter?
But i dont think Meryl streep really out did herself, im not really a fan and dont think she's a particularly great actress, to me she just read the script in an acting manner but didn't bring anything to the charachter herself. I know that sounds weird but its just what i think. Julianne Moore is another actress that i think is overrated, but she was good in this film and i have to admit that.
>>By Too Smart for a nickname (Tuesday, 11 Nov 2003 15:19)
It was one of the most boring films I´ve ever seen sorry ...
>>By Ornella (Friday, 21 Nov 2003 00:19)
Ornella, please try to refrain from showing your ignorance. That's not an insult. You are obvioiusly just ignorant to the depths of this movie. Wait 3 or 4 years, until you are settled into your 20s, and watch it again. It is a beautiful, incredibly well done film.
>>By JenDHen6 (Friday, 21 Nov 2003 01:53)
Like Woolf's writing, by many found boring as well, this film requires a slowness of pace, although compared to the book it's a rapidly moving waterfall. Statements about any kind of art never say anything about the work of art. They only tell something about the person who said them.
It's okay not to like a book or film, but let's not forget that this is entirely because of ourselves and not because of the book or film as such. It is what it is.
>>By Aywin (Friday, 21 Nov 2003 17:33)
This is definitely my favorite movie of all time. I think in this film there is at least one theme that everyone can relate to. I do however agree I thought the book was better, but I do not think they could have adapted it to the screen any better than they did. All 3 actresses outdidthemselves and I was surprised to see not all were nominated for this particular role. There is however one thing on this board I myself do not agree with. I don't think incest was an issue or theme of this movie. I viewed the kiss as completely non sexual in nature but as the ultimate portrait of virginias desperation to feel connected to something.
>>By ArikaDawn (Tuesday, 16 Dec 2003 19:19)
I agree that kidman's performance was relatively flat -- as Virginia Woolf was not! Bad direction & inadequate script. The section of the script which portrayed Woolf did not do her justice and probably is confusing to the majority in the audience who are completely unfamiliar with this major early 20th Century writer. Woolf, along with James Joyce, completely changed the way writers and others think about the novel. At the time of her suicide (1941) she was only 59 years old. She had periodic episodes of mania and deep depression over her life time. Today we would diagnose her as Bipolar "with psychotic features." (AKA manic depressive psychosis). She was having auditory hallucinations. At that time there was no effective treatment for her condition. Today a number of prominent writers and actors and historians etc. who are Bipolar and talented are enabled to function at a very high level by various medications. Woolf was afraid that she would not recover from the episode of depression which she knew was coming on -- and she was probably right. Untreated symptoms get worse and each cycle is worse.
Her sexuality seems to be a big issue among many who have never read her writiing. She and her sister Vanessa Bell very probably were molested sexually when children by their 2 much older stepbrothers. Each married --
Vanessa had several children (including Quentin, a son who wrote an excellent biography of Virginia Woolf). Woolf and her husband and business partner, Leonard Woolf, had no children. Virginia had close relations with several other women -- and may have had love affairs with some, including a brief one with her sister. On the other hand, these may have been basically non-sexual but very intimate relationships. Her abuse in early childhood (before age 6) seems to have had lasting negative effects on her interest in sex (as early sexual abuse usually does). It hardly matters, after all. In the novel which is featured in this movie,"Mrs. Dalloway," she has her "hero" reflect to himself
on how much he enjoys the company of women because "women are such jolly good companions."
The important thing is that Virginia Woolf, despite the difficulties of her childhood and her Bipolar disorder, became one of the two most important English language novelists of the 2oth Century. That would have been an accomplishment had she not had those heavy burdens to carry.
>>By Padrigh (Monday, 12 Jan 2004 22:29)
That was a great entry Padrigh - let me guess you're a fan Virginia Woolf? I love your last comment.
The Hours is one of my favourite films, despite the fact that I am not a fan of Woolf (I'm more of a Hesse and Salinger reader). The book was even better - what an amazing juxtaposition of three women from three different eras who are neverthless so inherently similar.
>>By muse junkie (Tuesday, 17 Feb 2004 22:30)
Beautiful film, but I don't think Kidman deserved the Oscar. Rather I think it should've gone to Julianne More. The way her face displayed the quiet, sick dessperation that she was feeling, being trapped and not being able to change her situation. I thought that she was sadly overlooked.
>>By Moonknight03 (Tuesday, 17 Feb 2004 23:10)
After all this time, I have just watched the DVD. I have to say I was impressed by the Julianne Moore scenes. There was no explicit statement of her character's discontent, yet it was made obvious by her acting. As Moonknight03 said.
>>By flamencoprof (Monday, 27 Jun 2005 19:00)
I think the movie was great! it is not boring at all when you watch it by heart.and i think women can understand it better as it has a melancholic,depressing tone and as it tells much about women(according to my opinion).
>>By Rag:( (Wednesday, 21 Mar 2007 15:06)
The hours,the minutes...got trapped in a Hungarian cinema.
it wasn't the beggining...it was happiness
>>By Okine (Monday, 1 Oct 2007 21:48)
The discussion board is currently closed.