User reviews

Even if there is no apparent reason to the anguish. This movies tells us the different stories of three women living in different times but united by the same thread: the difficulty to harmonize the world that is within their heads with the world outside which is so much different from the former. The first one is a real character: the famous British novelist Virginia Woolf whose novels depict characters so much like the other two and who has ended up by committing suicide at the age of 58 by drowning herself in a river. There is one of her most famous novels, "Mrs. Dalloway" that is over present in the movie since the novelist is precisely writing it at the time and feeling greatly moved and even anguished by that creative work. Of the other two women who lived much later, one is reading the book and the other one is called Mrs. Dalloway by a friend who is a poet and dying of AIDS, probably because he thought that she was much like the character in the novel. Suicide is also present in the other stories in a dramatic way. The image sequences in the movie are constantly crossing themselves, telling the three stories simultaneously thus underlining the similitude of the episodes in the life of the three women and in their states of mind. To appreciate this movie you must be familiar with Virginia Woolf's peculiar sensitivity so well expressed in her novels and the characters she created. This is not a realist movie and rather a movie where just like in her novels the most important feature is the stream of consciousness within the women's minds sometimes shown in acts or words and sometimes by the silence or their face's expressions. The movie direction and the actresses' performance is rather successful in making us feel in tune with it all.

I saw this film for the first time when I was fifteen and beginning to discover my own feminism.

Nicole Kidman plays Virginia Woolf writing her famous novel Mrs Dalloway, Julienne Moore is Laura Brown, a 1950 s housewife reading Mrs Dalloway and Meryl Streep is Clarissa Vaughan, a modern-day version of Mrs Dalloway. These three women, in their separate timelines, affect each other's day as they grapple with the threat of suicide (in one form or another) and the ghosts of their past.

One moment in particular that makes my heart ache every time I watch it is when Clarissa (Streep) is preparing the "crab thing" for a party for her writer friend Richard (who is battling AIDS). Streep has a wonderful way of using her body language to express more than words ever could. Clarissa stands over the sink and tries to hold back tears. In that moment, we know all that she has lost, all that she yearns for, all that she regrets all that she has laboured and all that she can never change.

In case you are wondering, I don t think it is necessary to read Mrs Dalloway or the novel The Hours before watching this movie. Although I strongly recommend an attempt on these masterpieces of literature, this film is a beauty on its own.

Stand outs: Despite being a male character in a female-centred film, Richard (Ed Harris) is a linchpin in this story. Harris manages to balance stubborn martyrdom and crippled pride. Toni Collette also delivers a powerhouse scene as Laura's neighbour Kitty. Overall, stellar performances from the entire cast.

"The Hours" is not the easiest movie to describe. It portrays three women affected by Virginia Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway". The first is Woolf herself (Nicole Kidman) in the 1920's, slowly but surely descending into madness. The second is 1950's housewife Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), beginning to feel unfulfilled with the suburban lifestyle. The third is present-day Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep), contemplating the future.

This is an interesting movie, although it certainly is a downer. Moore's role is particularly interesting, since she played almost exactly the same kind of character in "Far from Heaven", released around the same time. Also starring are Ed Harris, John C. Reilly, Claire Danes, and Jeff Daniels. Certainly worth seeing.

WARNING: This is an intensely depressing film and should not be seen by kids or the severely depressed. Additionally, if you just can't handle an unrelentingly dark and somber film, then you might want to look further.

"The Hours" is a very unusual film in that there completely separate but parallel stories that are interwoven throughout. While "Julie and Julia" did this with two, "The Hours" manages to do it with the lives of three women--three very, very, very depressed women who are suffering in silence.

I loved reading Claudio Carvalho's review. While short, it really summed up the film very well when "The Hours" was called 'A depressive and boring movie with outstanding cast'. I couldn't have said it any better. While there are three dynamite performances by three top actresses (one of which earned the Best Actress Oscar for this film), the film itself is all about depression and is a bit slow. Despite this, the writing IS good--and weaves together the disparate stories in a very unusual manner that is quite clever. So, it's a film I can respect but certainly didn't enjoy. After all, three ladies who have parallel stories who are fixated on suicide--this isn't exactly a comedy!! I see this film as one that is worth seeing for the performances and I can respect the way the film was constructed...but I just felt disconnected from the characters and didn't like the film. Well done but very inaccessible for most viewers--including me. If you are severely depressed, I sure DON'T recommend you watch it--it might just send you over the edge. Also, it's really NOT a film for kids...so think twice about having them watch it.

If you have read any of the other reviews on this page, you have probably figured out "The Hours" is not the easy, mainstream film it was made out to be by the ads and the reviews. Starring three of today's most popular leading actresses, winner of some Golden Globe awards, based on a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, and the recipient of numerous rave reviews; it would seem to be a film that would appeal to a lot of people.

"The Hours" is not a regular Hollywood type of drama film. It has more in common with Ingmar Bergman films than with "Terms of Endearment." I think the thing that most people are having problems with is that the film does not explain what takes place or the significance of the context of what takes place. Things happen and it is up to the viewer to decide what it means. This is a controversial film and people will not only argue about whether or not the film is worthwhile, but they can also debate what exactly takes place during the film. How a person interprets this film says more about the person than the film.

The film follows a single day in the lives of three women in different time periods. During this day, each of them makes a decision that will affect the rest of their life.

I felt the film improved upon the book by bringing more clarity into the decisions of each character. Also, some of the most memorable lines and scenes in the film did not exist in the book.

While I would normally be the last person in the world to say anything positive about Phillip Glass, his score is evocative of the relentlessness of time. This is accentuated by the ticking of the clock throughout the film. The ethereal music also helps tie the three storylines together, to make it seem as if they are happening simultaneously.

I think a lot of people were taken off-guard by this film because they were expecting a more standard type of drama. Also, the PG-13 rating implies a lighter subject matter than is actually in the film. Just as a warning: There is crying, suicide, and women kissing women. Even though the violence and language is mild and there are no sex or nudity in the film, it should have probably been given an R rating because of the extreme emotion displayed in the film. Emotionally unstable people should probably not see this film.

As I said earlier, people will interpret this film differently since things are not spelled out for them. For the record, I did not think all three women were suffering from clinical depression as suggested by some people. Virginia's malaise would seem to fit the description of schizophrenia rather than clinical depression. Clarissa was suffering from regret over a decision she made thirty years previous and the feeling that she will never experience that happiness again. That does not necessarily mean she is clinically depressed. Laura is the depressed one and she makes a decision to handle that depression the way she thinks is best for her. Also, I do not feel Virginia was either incestuous or a lesbian. I think she was expressing her desperation through her disease and it came out in a socially unacceptable manner.

There is no doubt in my mind that "The Hours" is a great film. I only recommend it to people who are up to the challenge of thinking about the film long after they have left the theater and deciding about what it means. It is not a film for everybody but I felt it was worth the effort.

In all honesty, as much as I liked Nicole Kidman's performance, the movie was made for me with Julianne Moore's. She made me so nervous, has me so much on edge, cause you didn't know what the hell was wrong with her. Did she have a crush on Toni Collette? Did she just have a breakdown? Does she want to burn the house down? To the movie's credit, you don't know what exactly is wrong, until the end. But as tense as it made me, I realized that in most movies you are clearly tipped off as far as who is angry, and why. This movie doesn't, and I didn't appreciate that until it was over.

Kidman was great, but I've always thought she had more talent than she was given credit for. Not many people could have made "To Die For" so convincing. Kudos to Nic for her career choices, post-divorce.

Streep, Ed Harris and Jeff Daniels were non-entities. I worship Streep and Ed Harris, but their part of the story didn't do a single thing for me. I kept waiting to see if Julianne was going to drive her car off a cliff. Without having seen all the nominees in Best Supporting Actress, I'd have to say another actress would have to go pretty damn far to impress me as much as she did. 8/10.

I don't usually do movie criticism, but it has been a long time since I saw a movie that left me with such a sense of torpid despondency and hopelessness as THE HOURS. My friend Michael insisted that I go see this "wonderfully crafted little gem of a movie called THE HOURS that {had} so much to say about the 'human condition'." That should have been my tip off right there. Why is it that a certain strain of intellectual men (and most women) equate depression (as well as other negative emotions such as sadness and grief) with "deep thought" while happiness and uplifting themes (such as the feeling of ecstatic joy one gets from watching the bad guy get what's coming to him in the form of an exploding hand grenade) are equated with air headed frivolity and vulgar pedestrian taste? Their idea of a perfect intellectual conversation seems to be sitting around in a coffee house somewhere in the West Village gazing down into a cup of steaming Kenyan java while complaining to one another about how life has f*$#ed them over; and what beautiful human beings they once were before an unfeeling world crushed them down. Anyway, what follows was my response to an e-mail from Michael asking me how I liked the movie.

Well Michael, thanks to your prodding, I went to see THE HOURS, staring the lovely and talented Nicole Kidman, and co-starring Meryl Streep; and Julianne Moore. After leaving the theater I filled my coat pockets with heavy rocks and began walking zombie like toward the river so despondent was I at the prospect of having to face all of those joyless hours which the movie made me feel certain lay ahead of me in life. Only the quick thinking and fast talking of a kindly stranger saved me from a watery grave. The movie was beautifully photographed in hushed, muted, sepia tones to accentuate and reflect the somber, gloomy, disconsolate and hopeless mood of its main characters. (Wasn't it H.D. Thoreau who once said that behind their facades of genial conviviality most women lead lives of quiet desperation in a huddled mass yearning to breathe free?) The acting was exceptionally good and, at least to me, I found the actresses to be compelling in their portrayals of women overcome with, at best, unremitting ennui; and at worst, soul numbing despair. The movie had all the cheer of a cancer ward on a bleak and rainy New England afternoon in late December.

Notwithstanding all of the movie's many virtues (and there ARE many), I disliked it for the way it made me feel; and am sorry I went to see it. I should have stayed home and played a nice little uplifting game of Freecell on my computer. For some reason I don't like to be depressed or saddened by things, and very much like to stay out of touch with those particular emotions as much as possible. Years of study and experience have led me to conclude that there is every bit as much to be said for the repression of unpleasant emotions as there is to be said for, say, avoiding contact with hot stove tops. I realize how shallow this is, Michael, but I just can't see DELIBERATELY going to view something that is going to make you feel bad. But that's just one man's opinion; and BEING a man, I recognize that there are certain things that I am simply incapable of understanding.

But I DO understand this: On a chick flick scale of one to ten, this movie hits a perfect ten. From a woman's perspective it has everything: unrequited love, love that has died, crying, death, loss, homosexuality, poetry, pernicious diseases (both mental and physical), infidelity and abandonment, manipulation of others, Edwardian settings, turn of the century costumes, the emptiness of life for women in the pore-liberation 1950's, victimized and exploited women, ineffectual and overcompensating men, hand wringing, educated people in touch with their feelings (and those feelings, without exception, all relating to either loss or depression {or both}), sensitive and intelligent women sacrificing their lives for incognizant men who are, for the most part, oblivious of their needs; or, on the flip side, the hollowness of life for over-achieving career women of the 1990's, and on and on and on.

You can bet your boots, Michael, that the next movie I go see is going to have plenty of jet fighters in it as well as machine guns, explosions, hand grenades, chain saws, cyborgs from the future, a plot that can be written on the back of a matchbook cover; and plenty of long legged big titted women! I know, I know. I'm a knuckle dragging philistine who should be horse-whipped out of town.

"The Hours" was the first movie I've seen in 2003. I'm easily going to name it as the best movie of 2002 and something tells me that in 12 months time, I will be saying it's one of the best movies of 2003 as well.

Based on a Michael Cunningham novel, "The Hours" combines a real life story (Virginia Woolf), a re-written one (Laura Brown's interpretation of "Mrs. Dalloway") and an original creation as well (Clarissa Vaughn).

We get three different stories, each fascinating on its own edited together into a complex, intriguing drama that will have you in tears a couple of times before the ending credits start rolling.

What glues the stories together is "Mrs. Dalloway" - the book. Virginia Woolf, a suicidal author in England (1923) creates the character, the novel inspires a lonely housewife in Los Angeles (1951) and a 'trivial' 2001 New York City gay woman is called "Mrs. Dalloway" by her dying friend who points out the similarities between them. Later on, we find out another connection between the characters.

It's clear that the thoughts that have been put into this movie go beyond the screenplay and acting. Things like the settings & clothing for each story help compile a perfect, believable plot.

However, what really left me with awe was the PHENOMENAL acting.

Nicole Kidman (with the word "Oscar" stamped on her forehead) delivers a performance of a lifetime playing a rather difficult role while disguising everything that is usually so associated with her. With a fake nose, a cold, dark and distant attitude and above all a rough change to her voice, Kidman portrays Mrs. Woolf exactly as the writers wanted us to grasp her and manages to be the most outstanding of the three despite getting the least screen time. Absolutely amazing.

Meryl Streep (C. Vaughn, 2001) and Julianne Moore (L. Brown, 1951) give impressive lead performances themselves with memorable emotional scenes. Cameo appearances by Ed Harris, Claire Danse, John C. Riley, Alison Janney & Toni Collette all support this exquisite masterpiece.

MUST SEE. 10/10

The film adaptation of Michael Cunningham's novel which was,itself,a re-fitting of Virginia Woolf's "Mrs.Dalloway",is certainly not a bad enough film to be reviled,but it is hardly an enjoyable or rewarding experience.

The film is told in contrasts:1923 rural England,1951 Los Angeles and 2001(pre-9/11?)New York City. Three stories:the authoress herself(Nicole Kidman,maddeningly effective and brittle),losing her grip on herself as she lives her days in a quiet English village doing her writing;a pretty but forlorn housewife and mother(Julianne Moore,so subtle and quiet here,one fears the whole movie will pass before you know what is plaguing her)who desperately wants to make a cake for her husband's birthday;and a middle-aged poet(Meryl Streep,frayed)who frets over her dying best friend,a fellow writer(Ed HArris,who actually about steals his scenes here MHO). The stories take place over about the course of a regular day;not quite twenty four hours,about(I'm guessing)6 or 7 a.m. until about 11 p.m.,and the situations become similar,actions being in synchronicity and a couple of common threads that connect all three stories. I don't believe I'm giving TOO much away in the fact that at least three common themes seem to be interlocked into the characters:suicide,homosexuality(perceived,repressed or real)and depression.

This film is,to me,almost exclusively worthy of a look on the strength of the actors involved. Even though Kidman won her Oscar for this film,this flick is a very effective showcase for Kidman,Streep,Harris,John C.Reilly(as Moore's pleasant but oblivious husband),JAck Morello(as Moore and O'Reilly's son),Stephen Dillane(as Virginia's husband) and Toni Collette(as Moore's well-coiffed,aloof friend) give weight and impact to their performances. But this film is a tough sit-through: it stresses mood heavily,and as a result,this film is a somber meditation of lives that want to live in the present,the "Hours" of the title.

In retrospect,I'm glad I did not spend money to see this film. It would've felt like I'd been double-drained here, monetarily as well as psychologically and emotionally.

"The Hours" is about time - time we have left to make our lives enjoyable or to spend it in misery. It features the lives of three women, which might explain why half the film-goers (the males) might not want to see it and why it was left out of Ebert and Roeper's Top 10 films. If that perception is true, that would be a shame. "The Hours" is a wonderfully crafted film about universal themes of life and death, suppression and freedom, and unresolved love. That it is told from the viewpoint of three women should not diminish any of its appeal. Virginia Woolf must combat her life long mental affliction even as husband Leonard tries to manage her condition. Using the novel, 'Mrs Dalloway', the film conveys the heartache of isolation and forlorn lives in two other women who are directly connected to the book. In 1951, we meet Laura and Dan who, with their young son, would seem an ideal family. But Laura yearns for freedom, much as Mrs. Dalloway, and she must choose between giving up her family or dying. Move to 2001, and there is yet another Mrs. Dalloway in Claire and her dogged responsibility toward her former lover, Richard, now dying of AIDS. The themes of liberation, lesbianism, and dying enthrall all three women, and one does die in order that those around her might value even more the living. You cannot find three better actresses to portray these very complex individuals, in Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep, and Nicole Kidman, any or all should be nominated for Oscars. An equally fine supporting cast of Ed Harris, John Reilly, Stephen Dillane, Claire Danes, and Allison Janey make "The Hours" one of the most interesting and intelligent melodramas to come along in a while.

Boasting an exemplary cast, purposeful direction, authentic production values, and a haunting musical score, The Hours is a sincere praiseworthy attempt to adapt Michael Cunningham's prize-winning novel to the screen. It is provocative, introspective, hopeful, and at times downright desolate. As evidenced by the opening sequence, the value of life itself is called into question and it sets the tone for the rest of the film.

The complex storyline focuses on one day in the lives of three women from three different generations. Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) is living outside of London with her husband in 1923, recovering from mental illness and beginning work on her now famous novel, Mrs. Dalloway. Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) is a 1950's suburban housewife, married to a World War II veteran (John C. Reilly), raising a small boy while expecting another child. And then there is Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep), a present-day version of Mrs. Dalloway, so named by her one-time lover and now AIDS-stricken writer Richard (Ed Harris), living in New York and planning one of her renowned parties for him following his reception of a prestigious poetry award.

Yet there is a common thread among them that effaces any 'real' normalcy in their lives and ultimately forces each of them to make life-altering decisions. Themes revolving around feminism and sexual preference stir just below the surface. But it is the prevailing sadness of these women brought on by the confinements of a restrictive and often stifling society that is at the core of this film. Their yearning for something more or for that 'one perfect moment' in time places each of them in the painful position to question their own existence. The sequences in each of their lives are carefully interwoven throughout the movie, enhancing their parallel struggles.

The Hours is skillfully directed by Stephen Daldry and contains some of the finest performances of the year. Julianne Moore's depiction of Laura Brown is filled with subtlety and nuance. She epitomizes a 1950's housewife with a constant shiny exterior who can barely contain the internal struggle of her life's claustrophobic confinements. Meryl Streep's Clarissa Vaughn, though bound by memories of her past, is somewhat less restricted in her character as a modern New York editor living with her female lover and therefore has more opportunity to display her considerable emotional range.

However it is Nicole Kidman's portrayal of Virginia Woolf that is the most mesmerizing and transforming performance in the film. She is completely submerged as the famous novelist of the early twentieth century. The hype concerning Kidman's prosthetic proboscis and its alleged distraction is much ado about nothing. To the contrary, it enhances her performance and allows her characterization of Virginia Woolf to fully emerge. Audiences will not recognize her, nor should they.

But if it is familiar players and plotlines you are seeking then The Hours is not for you. It is neither fantasy nor escapism, yet what it lacks in pure entertainment it makes up for with introspection and a somewhat hopeful ending.

When I asked him about this one, the young chap in the video rental shop said it was just about the best film on the shelves at the time. I had no idea about it whatsoever and just went with his recommendation. He wasn't wrong - it is impossible to fault at any level: Acting, dialogue, costumes, locations, soundtrack, scenery, settings or storyline.

Films like this don't come along too often - beautifully made in an almost understated way, it relates to no major event or cataclysm, it chronicles no turning-point in history and it poses no worrying conundrum for the future. It is simply a quietly-told story that will criss-cross between various points in time and take you deep into the characters' emotions and portray the effect that they have on their lives. When you have seen and come to understand the events that take place, by the time it concludes it will leave you feeling refreshed and perhaps a little better in touch with the emotions in your own life - just like good films should, but sadly, so rarely do...

Easily 9 out of 10 - If you watch this one, you will not regret the time spent.

The Hours is a great achievement for all of the people involved in this project. Credit must go to the director, Stephen Daldry, who pulls all the elements together.

Having admired the text where this film is based, I wondered what would any writer do with Michael Cunningham's book where three lives of three different eras intermingle with one another. David Hare treatment of the material rings true to the novel in which it's based.

The biggest revelation in the film is Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf. I have been a great admirer of this, up to now, underrated Australian actress, right from her beginnings down under. Her approach to the role is very subdued, perhaps underplaying, where someone else might try to have gone over the top stressing Virginia's madness. All the praise Ms Kidman has received for this film is certainly well deserved.

The other great performance is Julianne Moore. This actress keeps getting better and better with any new appearance on the screen. Her Laura Brown is a pathetic figure. She's a desperate soul trapped in the Los Angeles suburbia of the 40s. She has a man, who obviously loves her. She has a son who shows all the signs, even then, of what he might ultimately become in life. Laura wants to end it all. She just doesn't belong in that world of domestic bliss. Ms Moore gets the right tone in playing Laura. There's not a wrong movement in her approach to this demanding role.

The third outstanding portrayal is Meryl Streep's. The sure hand of the director is obviously behind her reining the excesses she likes so well. This Clarissa Vaughan is in limbo in her own life. Her relationship with the younger lover is clearly over, or at least seen better days. Ms Streep gives a dignified reading of this character.

The rest of the cast is brilliant: Miranda Richardson, Tony Colette, Ed Harris, John C. Reilly, and little Jack Rovello. They are all on the mark.

Greatest women cast maybe ever and this really is the powerful woman movie. Performances are beautiful and so thrilling. Very hard movie to watch, you have to prepare for it. Kidman totally deserved that Oscar.

"The Hours" is an extremely intelligent movie. It's deep and sensitive and the script is something different for a change. The acting couldn't get any better. EVERY role was casted perfectly. I never really liked Nicole Kidman but she is a fantastic actress and at the moment she just chooses the right roles. She definitely deserved the Oscar. Juliane Moore is amazing, too. I wonder if there is any genre she can't do. And then, there's Meryl Streep. Will this woman ever stop being great? I mean after all the great movies she's been in in the 80's, she's still making exceptional films such as "Adaptation" and "The Hours", whereas other actors who were great 10 years ago pretty much lost it today *cough*Pacino*cough*DeNiro*cough, cough*. The director did a wonderful job and the score is another big plus of this movie. The haunting music underlines the depressing all around atmosphere and lets one feel how miserable these main characters are all the time. At times I felt like these women's sadness was explained too little, though. Maybe that's manly ignorance but I couldn't totally figure out why Juliane Moore's character was so depressed all the time. It was a little annoying that she never stopped crying and you couldn't tell why. I paid attention and I did try reading between the lines but that was a mystery to me. Probably just a personal problem. All in all I think this is the 2nd best movie of 2003's Oscar movies (1st being "The Pianist", 3rd "About Schmidt").

The Hours had all the elements in place to be a deeply moving film - a strong cast, rich themes, and a narrative built around exploring mental health and personal struggles. Yet, despite these promising aspects, the movie stumbles in its execution, leaving me feeling more disconnected than engaged. It's not that the film doesn't have its moments, but those moments feel fleeting, overshadowed by a disjointed storytelling approach that's hard to connect with.

Let's start with the positives. There's no denying that the performances in The Hours are impressive. In many ways, the cast is the glue that holds the film together, elevating scenes that would otherwise fall flat. The themes of depression, identity, and existential crisis are certainly weighty, and you can see the film reaching for a kind of profound resonance. But for me, it just never quite got there.

The film's narrative structure is where it starts to lose me. The interweaving of three different timelines - Woolf's life in the 1920s, a housewife in the 1950s, and a modern woman in the early 2000s-feels more like a gimmick than a well-thought-out storytelling technique. Rather than creating a seamless connection between these women and their shared struggles, the film jumps between timelines in a way that feels disjointed and jarring. It's hard to become emotionally invested in any of the characters when the film constantly shifts focus. Instead of drawing me in, it left me feeling detached, like I was watching these characters from a distance without ever really understanding their deeper motivations.

One of the film's biggest challenges is its bleakness. I'm all for serious films that tackle heavy subjects, but The Hours feels relentlessly grim, without offering much in the way of hope or relief. The sense of melancholy is pervasive, and after a while, it starts to wear you down. There's a fine line between exploring dark themes and overwhelming the audience with despair, and The Hours crosses that line a bit too often. By the time the credits rolled, I wasn't left with a sense of reflection or insight - I just felt drained.

Another issue I had with the film was how difficult it was to connect with the characters on a deeper emotional level. Despite the strong performances, I found it hard to truly care about what was happening to them. Perhaps it was the cold, distant way the film presents their lives, or maybe it was the fragmented nature of the storytelling, but I couldn't help but feel that something vital was missing. The film seems more focused on intellectualizing their struggles rather than letting us experience them in a raw, visceral way. It's as if the film is trying to be more profound than it actually is, and as a result, it ends up feeling emotionally hollow.

That said, there are still elements that worked well for me. The cinematography is beautiful, with some gorgeously composed shots that capture the quiet, contemplative mood of the film. The score, too, adds to the atmosphere, enhancing the film's emotional undertones. And again, the acting across the board is solid. But despite these technical strengths, the film doesn't quite deliver on the emotional or narrative level it seems to be striving for.

In the end, The Hours is a film that feels more like an intellectual exercise than a truly moving experience. While the cast does their best to bring these complex characters to life, the disjointed storytelling, overwhelming bleakness, and emotional distance make it difficult to fully connect with the film. It's a well-crafted movie, but one that ultimately left me feeling more frustrated than fulfilled.

Not everyone liked THE HOURS, and that may be the reason why it took only one Oscar- Best Actress for Nicole Kidman. Having read the novel, I can say that the adaptation was amazing, but there's nothing wrong if you haven't read the novel.

Being a man, a young one but a man, I can't understand women but I'm still fascinated by them. THE HOURS is a feminine film (not a feminist one; there's a difference), but I could feel what these women felt, and that's the magic of cinema.

From Stephen Daldry's impeccable direction to the terrific performances, without dissonant notes, THE HOURS is a film to be remembered for years.

10/10

OK, but not great. Takes a while to get going, is filled with superficial melodrama and ultimately isn't overly profound. Still, the Meryl Streep-Ed Harris storyline is quite moving, and makes the movie worth watching.

I am not a Nicole Kidman fan, and this movie didn't change that. I always found her characters so prissy and pretentious, and this was no exception. She certainly didn't deserve her Best Actress Oscar (though there wasn't much competition in the 2003 Oscar year).

Ed Harris and Julianne Moore got Supporting Actor/Actress nominations for their performances, and Harris' nomination was well deserved (he lost out to Chris Cooper, in Adaptation). Meryl Streep should have at least gotten a nomination for her performance.

I saw this with my wife and sister-in-law when it was first released. It was one of the very few movies I would have walk out on had I not been with others. Rather than making one sympathetic to the various women's plight, I found that I saw individuals wallowing in their own misery and embracing it. I have known many who have suffered from depression and bipolar disorder as well - in my own family. They did not wallow in their sometimes self-created depression but rather sought to overcome it. Self-pity is not pretty, and that seems to be what the movie is about. Since 2002 "The Hours" has been up there with "Romie and Michelle's Class Reunion" as the brunt of jokes. For what it's worth, my wife and sister-in-law generally share my sentiment, though not as vociferously.