IMDb > The Hours (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Hours
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Hours More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 10 of 66: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]
Index 654 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Very affecting

Author: Phase_Out from Pakistan
6 September 2004

I can see why this movie may not be liked by many. It's very sad. It has no 'movieistic' plot. Honestly, I had few expectations when I started watching it, having already been warned against it by a reliable source. And yet, I ended up liking it.

The Hours feels like an expression of honesty - a continuing thought sprung from some pain or grief or sadness in the life of the author, bundled together with the story of another author, one who reads her works, and one who seems to live the life of one of the characters.

The Hours brought tears to my eyes more than once. It depicted the situation of people wandering near the brink of depression, and some crossing it - to that part of the mind where so much seems to weigh us down - an unconscious pain to which, in my opinion, the most basic solution is to turn to God and sprituality. We all face moments of helplessness, and that is the time we need to put our problems in the hands of God and ask for His help.

The ways in which the characters deal with such depression varies in degrees. Some lines in the movie are particularly thought-provoking, lines like "why does someone have to die? Ans: So that others value life more"... or something like that.

Basically I suppose it depicts three women in different circumstances but similar states of mind: One woman (Virginia Woolf) needs something from life which she feels she cannot get. She seems to feel trapped and inhibited and is troubled by it. Another (Laura Brown) needs something from life, and she feels like her situation is not conducive to getting it. A third woman (Clarissa Vaughn) seems to need something and is conducting her life as though to make up for it's lack.

It's an interesting point that I noticed: the helplessness level seems to reduce over the years.

There is another 'victim' of the story. His involvement is strange, but he stands to complete the connectivity in the story.

I feel The Hours was a powerful contribution to acting. Each actor did a terrific job and Nicole Kidman was unrecognizable - hats off to the make-up artists!

I repeat, many may not like this movie. But I feel that it needs a deeper level of thinking than many are willing to do. A must watch for those who wish to think deeply to understand another aspect of human nature. A must-not for those who want pure entertainment.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Melancholic beauty.

Author: reddragon1110 from Paris, France
10 June 2004

3 women, 3 different times, 3 different stories, one film. Nicole Kidman plays Virginia Wolf while writing Mrs. Dalloway, and how her life is filled with melancholy, loneliness and suppression. Julianne Moore plays Laura Brown, a woman living if the 50's who is reading the book and has with a life so depressing, (even though she has everything, and last but not least Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep) a woman leaving in the actuality, preparing a party for her friend, a poet (brilliant ed Harris) dying with AIDS. Those three stories deal with suicide, love, sexuality, sadness and loneliness. A melancholic story based on the novel by Michael Cunningham and directed by Stephen Daldry, this film is exquisite. It's a slow, melancholic film, reflective, with great performance (probably the best is Julianne Moore), exquisite music and a great script (adapted). I found this piece to be a reflective story about life, and what is behind loneliness, sadness and happiness. This acclaimed piece of art got 9-academy award nomination. I at lest deserved Best actress (Nicole Kidman), Best actress in a supporting role (Julianne Moore) and best-adapted screenplay. 9.12/10.00

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Directors, take lessons from Stephen Daldry

Author: unbend_5440 from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
8 March 2004

Of the 5 best picture nominated movies at The Oscars, The Hours was the most deserving. Stephen Daldry should've won best director just for making an incredibly difficult concept work. Daldry has proven with this and Billy Elliot that he can make original movies that can't be compared to anything else. He builds the story and tension like someone who's been making movies for decades. I was shocked at how tense I was when watching this. During all the scenes with tension, Daldry did something so unusual. He built tension based on unimportant background noise. Cracking of eggs, a printing press slamming, chopping on a cutting board. This trick works so well. I am surprised that Nicole Kidman got the Oscar for lead actress when there are 3 lead roles. What makes this even more confusing is that Kidman probably had less screentime and dialogue than Moore and Streep. As for the performances, I thought all 3 deserved to be nominated, but Julianne Moore's more subtle performance was more intriguing to me. Phillip Glass' music is a little too overpowering at times, but it definitely qualifies as some of the best music I've heard in a long time. I appreciate that Glass didn't write separate themes for each character. Using the same theme throughout works because this is a movie where you have 3 totally different stories, that are connected by similar events and story themes being used. The Hours is unique and fascinating during every moment. This was one of the first times I've seen a movie and been literally captivated every second. Thank you to Stephen Daldry for making one of the only movies this decade that deserves to be reffered to as a masterpiece.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: onin imago (MariahCareyCantSing) from manila, philippines
2 March 2004

When I've watched the film, i noticed that Ms. Nicole Kidman had only just a 20 or 30-minute appearance in the film? But despite that, she's the only one in the film who gave such an impressive impact, i didn't notice the ala-Grace kelly acting of Kidman. She totally disappeared from the character and that's what makes an actor BEST. I could not think of any one who could have done the same performance as that of Nicole's. I mean, the eyes, the execution of the body, the walk, the words are well spoken, and......... uhmmmmmmm.... the NOSE. But Nicole won an Oscar, not because of the nose but because she's overdue at the time of the release of the film. Julianne Moore should have won over Ms. Zeta-Jones. Moore is so poweful in the film. As to Ms. Streep, nothing's new. She did great as always but admit it, kinda boring.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: MustardSnakes from Springfield, Missouri
28 July 2003

I had been told that if I wanted to see acting, I should see The Hours.

How true. The acting in this movie is absolutely astonishing. Nicole Kidman does an absolutely amazing job at portraying Virginia Woolf. Every quirk was perfected. I really don't have adequate words to describe her.

Meryl Streep was breath-taking as usual. A seemless performance.

Ed Harris blew me away. Even though his screen time was short, it was sweet. Or bitter, if you will. I had no idea he was up for that caliber of performance, but he brought tears to my eyes and opened new paths in my mind simultaneously.

Even the little kid - I thought he did a really good job. And not just a good job for a little kid- I mean he was really, really good.

The acting in this movie was about the best I've seen for years. Too bad it takes more than acting to make a good film.

To accomodate such a talented cast, there needs to be an equally compelling story. Unfortunately, this was not the case with The Hours. The whole movie was spent showing the connections between the three time periods. As long as it was, it did what could/should have been done in an introduction.

And no- I'm not missing the whole point. I understand the theme of "the hours". I understand that the pace was part of the artistic direction. I understand the point that was trying to be made - I just thought that a poor job was done at making it.

And I could nitpick forever on the AWFUL continuity problems throughout the whole film. There's too many to list.

Finally- there was no flow. No touch of reality. All the actors' performances seemed like they were shot seperately and then pasted together.

I know that when working with actors, you do whatever it takes to get a certain performance - but you can't forget that they are only secondary. The actor is just a tool used to create something much larger - much more profound.

So to wrap it up - The Hours is an acting show. not a movie. It ended up being a cheap chick flick for art students. Art students who need to drop whatever it is they're nailing to a tree in central park and go see a good jewel heist movie.

anyway- that's my two cents.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

2 hours waiting for the suicide.

Author: superkjell from Stavanger, Norway
13 April 2003

I found this movie to be a two hours of boring, whatever the opposite of life affirming is, wait for another suicide. I hated the movie. Which is strange, the movie is very well made, the acting is first class. I actually fell asleep.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

"The Hours" felt like weeks---

Author: Ishallwearpurple from United States
6 February 2003

Three fine actresses in roles that give them nothing to do but gaze out windows, gaze at their hands and think! And we watch them think. And we are bored.

Voice over of what they are thinking; they are depressed and want us to identify, so it is dead slow. Kidmans' Virginia Woolf is only animated when she tries to get her cook to go to the village and get something for tea time. Moores' suicidal housewife bakes a cake. Twice! It takes all day! Streep is a little more lively, but not much. Lots of gazing and dithering.

I'm sorry, I can't see why any of the three were nominated for acting awards. They don't DO anything.

The cinematography is fine; the 1930's costumes just right; the 1950's house and decor perfect. So I give it 7/10. But it is not very interesting.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

I gave it a "2"

Author: 7431724 from Palo Alto, CA
26 January 2003

I ranked it so high only because the performances were good. It can't be easy to play such depressed, lonely, suicidal characters. It made me wonder if suicide wasn't a better option than watching the rest of the movie! I am shocked it won Best Movie at the Golden Globes. I understand a major magazine ranked it the worst movie of the year. Maybe the Golden Globe voters had their ballots upside-down!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

I was amazed

Author: layostranslator from Panama
15 January 2006

The first time I saw this movie I fell asleep but I din't give up. So, the second time I took a long nap before I saw it.

I really wanna be honest. This has been one of the best movies I have seen. Since the beginning until the end I was on the edge of the sopha because it was not expected what came next.

Nicole Kidman performance was out of this world. Meaning by out of this world as an excellent performance. The music and the plot of the story kept me just moveless until the end of the film.

That sounds crazy but I have seen this movie more than 6 times and every time I do so, I feel the same way-..-"Stunned""

Congratulations to all of the ones who made this movie and I just hope to see a movie like this again...

P.S-. I know it's hard to understand the movie and it's kinda confusing but it's worth a try seeing it-.-.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Pointless, boring and pretencious.

Author: Pablo from Buenos Aires, Argentina
21 February 2003

Stupid, pretencious, boring, pointless movie. The script is awful. The only reason I gave it 2 instead of 1 is because it is well acted (specially considering that the motives of the principal characters are not understandable at all, I mean, why does Julianne Moore have to runaway? Whats torturing the boring Virginia? They both just have mental problems, besides being disgusting as human beings. Not to mention Meryl Streep´s character, which is only a vulgar shallow woman). But I very much liked Ed Harris, and I was touched by the celestial beauty and charm of the angel Claire Danes (who regretably only appears a minute or two). But I´m talkin´ ´bout the actors, not the movie. The movie´s pathetic. And Nicole´s Kidman face looks just like Tom´s Cruise´s mask in the beggining of ¨Mission: Impossible¨. Awful, awful movie. Don´t let yourself be cheated by the nice photograph.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 10 of 66: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history