# The Hours



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

So, I went to rent some movies last night and couldn't find anything so I figured I'd watch The Hours to see what all the fuss was about. I love Nicole Kidman in nearly everything she does and do think she did a good job in this movie. But overall, I thought the movie kind of sucked. And I'm pretty open to getting something out of a movie. I got nothing out of this one. Nothing. And as someone who's feeling a bit down and out these days, I just didn't get it. What was the point? Maybe you have to be a depressed housewife to get it? It's just, I think it would have been better if the ending had had something more. I don't know. It seemed a bit pointless to me.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2005)

I absolutely hated this movie too. I thought it had no story or message except misery and boredom. I agree with you-- I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. The only good scene was when Virginia Wolfe's nephews started cracking up when she is muttering Mrs. Dalloway aloud. I did like the gardens around the "old" house-- wonder where it was filmed, exactly? Was it a famous house, was it her actual house? I wish the movie had been a documentary about that garden instead.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I loved this movie, much to my surprise. It was rented out by the ex-breadknife, but I was enthralled.

It's not just about depression....it's about three women in three different time zones who are:

a.) Extremely mad - Virginia Woolf
b.) Lesbian caught in a marriage - Can't remember her name.
3.) Woman tortured by her past - Meryl Streeps character

Depressing stuff, yes, but I enjoyed it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2005)

I hated it, too....lol.

Yes, NIcole was WONDERFUL (she is much better with the "nose" lol), but aside from her, I kept looking at my watch.

It was a chick flick, and I tend to hate those. Sorry. Rantlet over, lol

Martin, the lesbian in the marriage was Julianne Moore.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Strange. I thought it would have appealed to us DP'ers.

Anyway, here's something funny. Female literature is frequently called 'Chick Lit', yeah ? Well, there's this very respectable bookshop in the city near me with a section of female literature labelled 'C.l.i.t Lit'. If this is intentional, which I doubt in such a stuffy establishment, then it's mildly amusing. If not, it's bloody hysterical.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2005)

my main problem with the movie is that it lacked life-- it was 2 dimensional somehow, like a soap opera. Maybe the term I'm looking for is "pathos" that it lacked? It was depressing and dark, but in a lifeless and unappealing way. There are plenty of miserable movies that are much more moving-- "House of Sand and Fog" comes to mind.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2005)

I think this movie was created to sell drugs. I bet the anti depressant sales went sky high after this movie came out. They ought to put a warning label on the box saying "warning, may cause a perfectly happy person to become suicidally depressed."

Anyhow, you get my riff. This movie was flat, vague, lifeless, bloodless, pale, bleak etc..It was symbolic of what unhappiness and severe depression are. It was also a movie that was showing a dominoe effect: how the actions of one person can so catastrophically devastate another person.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2005)

It is a bit of a boring movie I must agree. I would have liked to see that the thing going on between Julianne Moore and the neighbour lady (Toni Colette) had gotten a bit more of a story to it. I liked that part (that kiss) the best, the total unexpectedness in that. And eventhough how cold she was, at the end, she showed some emotions which made her human after all. I didnt like the Meryl Streep part, I couldnt connect with it at all. 
All in all I would have liked it much better when the homosexuality in all three stories had gotten more attention. Not neccessarily sexual, but more the emotional & love connections between the women. I missed that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2005)

I thought Nicole was wonderful and the only other actor who made me BELIEVE the character was real was the lesbian lover of Meryl Streep (the woman who plays "CJ" on West Wing, actually). She was authentic and I saw an entire person in her....agree with Wendy about Meryl - I didn't buy her one bit. And yes, Julianne MOore in her last scene was believable, but I didn't like her young housewife at all...found her very plastic.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Why was everybody in the movie gay? That seems a little odd. Were they trying to make a point? Of course I don't care they were gay but what was the point? The movie was just lacking too much. Maybe the book had more of a reason behing things and they threw it together in the movie and it ended up sucking.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Are we sure Julianne Moore's character was gay. I just thought she was kissing the woman because the woman was so free and she liked her.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2005)

Enngirl I did some googling and found this article (moviereview). Maybe it answers some of your questions. I never really thought about the movie long, but I do now understand why homosexuality was portrayed so poorly.

http://www.isteve.com/Film_The_Hours.htm


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2005)

I agree with Wendy, they should've focused more on the lesbians.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

:lol: Exactly, you can't get enough Lesbians....etc.

At the time I thought that Julianne Moores problem was that she was gay. Is that not the case ?


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2005)

> At the time I thought that Julianne Moores problem was that she was gay. Is that not the case ?


LOL PN and Martin! 8) 
Martin, I think thats what we can conclude.


----------

