| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | |||
|
|
|||
The Hours I had been putting off seeing this movie because although I believed that it would be good, I was also afraid that it would be slow-moving and literary to the point that I would find it boring and fall asleep during it. I was mistaken. While The Hours doesn't rush through anything, and does take its time a bit more than some would like, perhaps, it is never boring, and I was mesmerised throughout the entire thing. The story is three-fold; one piece is set in England in the 1920s following the life of author Virginia Woolf, one in Los Angeles in the 1950s following the life of a suburban housewife who is reading Virginia Woolf, and one in New York City in 2001 following a free-spirited woman living a life only dreamt of by Virginia Woolf. The three stories are intercut with one another brilliantly, a movement in one translating into a similar movement in another, shots blending between place and time, all three women sharing frustration, longing, and perhaps freedom. Does anything much happen? Well, no. Not if "happening" implies great movement, visible change, exciting events. The movement here is internal. It is personal. It is each woman struggling against the confines of her particular station in life. The story is about people in places where they do not belong. Times when they do not belong. And what they must do in order to survive not belonging. Actually, I'm going to backtrack. It's too simple to say that all three stories are about not belonging. The three stories intertwine themes and images in far too complex a manner for that. But getting much more detailed will enter into spoilers, and I'd prefer not to do that here. The three women are played by three of the best actresses currently on the screen. Nicole Kidman is nearly perfect as Virginia Woolf, becoming the troubled writer to a remarkable extent. (I will qualify my statements about Nicole Kidman by admitting that I am a huge fan of hers, and pretty much generally like her in every movie, even ones that suck.) Meryl Streep is...simply Meryl Streep. There's really nothing to be said about her that hasn't already been said. Julianne Moore's story was my least favorite of the bunch, but she did a reputable job in it, as she generally does. The little boy in the 1950s section is the cutest thing ever, and I want one! ;) The one thing I question in the story is having the 1950s story and the 2001 story connect so overtly. I haven't read the book, but I assume it's the same in the book, so I can't really fault the movie for it...if indeed it is a fault. I haven't completely decided myself, yet. I just really liked the idea that the three stories were totally unconnected except for thematically, and through the writings and life of Virginia Woolf. Merely a personal preference, though, I'm sure. Overall, I was very impressed both with the quality of the film, and with how much I enjoyed it. Despite its somewhat slow pace, the time flew by while watching it, and I could scarcely believe it was over already when I came to the end. ***1/2 out of ****
Page last updated 8/1/04 |
|||