MovieChat Forums > The Hours (2003) Discussion > The worst movie I've seen in a long time

The worst movie I've seen in a long time

posted 15 years ago by thelayups
51 replies | jump to latest

There is so little character development in this movie that it is difficult, or nearly impossible, to care about any of these characters. For instance, we know Julianne Moore is depressed, but we have NO IDEA why. From her opening scene, she is teary-eyed and on the verge of a breakdown, and the heavy-handed soundtrack is constantly implying some DEPTH and MEANING to her pain. Yet all we really know about her life is that she has a nice husband, a cute boy, and a baby on the way. Yet for some reason, THIS IS TOO MUCH TO BEAR. Since she has no apparent problems, it is impossible to empathize with her, UNLESS one brings with them and inserts the culturally pervasive myth that ALL Amercian women were sad, repressed, etc. in the 1950s, for reasons that (again) need no explanation (even the myth lacks gravitas). But aside from reading that in, which I think we are all expected to do, there is nothing, literally nothing, there. I won't bother to get into the other two story lines, which are only slightly more developed (but which again require certain assumptive myths). And the pairing of Philip Glass's ultra-emotive soundtrack and the lack of any explanation of the subjects' pain (that isn't externally imposed by the viewer) registers particularly high on the unintentional comedy scale. Basically, if you bring with you the belief that all women in the 1950s were obviously unhappy, that any two women alone in the same room will kiss (for no apparent reason other than that this is simply what happens), that everyone contemplates suicide ALL THE TIME (often times for no discernable reason), etc., etc. etc. than you MIGHT enjoy this movie. If any of these (or countless other, yet equally necessary) presuppositions are not yours, you may have a hard time understanding why the characters are behaving as they are - there's certainly no character development to aid you in that understanding...

[–] RyanCShowers 15 years ago

I disagree with you 100%, I think you missed the point of the film completely. The Hours is one of the best films ever made about depression and happiness and understanding both of those emotions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpHaFUZWAd0&feature=related

[–] keithruth 15 years ago

Wow. What movie did you see? Julianne Moore was like so many 50s women who thought they had to marry. She liked her husband but didn't love him. Her whole life was a charade. She is likely in love with her neighbor, Toni Collette, but can't say so. This scene is powerfully evoked in that amazing scene during which all of the stories and emotions coalesce. Julianne's in the bathroom trying not to cry, answering questions of her sweet but clueless husband about Collette's illness, unable to admit the depth of what she feels. All the while Richie is soaking up his parents' deep unhappiness, already absorbing the damage that will make him oneday take his life. No character change? Meryl Streep embodies the movie by going from ditzy to profound within a day, just as Mrs. Dalloway's day changed her forever. Can't believe your review!!

[–] lamont-hard 14 years ago

@ Keithruth...Great post,but in your description, I feel you are way off about the son seeing his mother unhappy and that played the biggest roll in his suicide. It was a lot more of what he suffered from watching his lonely father die of cancer. And his little sister die as well. He knows he was abandoned by the mom witch did not help as well.

[–] heaintloveu 13 years ago

Actually, the older Laura Brown tells Clarissa she's done the worst thing a mother could do, which is she abandoned her children. Then she says she realizes nobody's going to forgive her. Julia comments to Sally, "So that's the monster."

I'm simply under the impression that Laura leaving is the underlying cause of his suicide, only because the movie tells us so. Laura mentions that her husband died of cancer, young, and that her daughter died in a car accident. We don't even know if Richard was raised by his father - he could have been placed in some kind of alternate situation. We also don't know what relationship he had with his sister when they were kids, or if they even had one at all.

Not saying you're way off the mark, but merely sharing my own thoughts. The Hours is my absolute favorite movie.

[–] bite_me_loser_86 14 years ago

Agreed. It is beyond me that anyone could miss that Julianne Moore's character didn't love her husband. The movie wasnt exactly subtle about the fact that she was unhappy in her marriage. She only married because she HAD to. Not because she loved her husband.

I personally think this movie is overrated, but OP's claims are just ridiculous.

[–] tbennett20 13 years ago

I agree with Keithruth. I really like this movie. I just love Julienne Moore too. They all did a good job .Toni Collette is so versatile it took me a while to figure out it was her. This movie makes you think. Good movies do that. It also makes you think of your own demons or troubled times and even about death.I also like the music very much.

[–] adrnlize 8 years ago

People want a movie spoon fed to them. Eck. What a shallow, sad society. May as well say "Green Eggs and Ham" was far better than "Catcher in the Rye." Sam I Am was definitely fleshed out as a character. It's maddening to read reviews on this forum.

[–] KartofflMuter 13 years ago

I am watching the movie NOW. I'm at minute 14. I have never been so drawn into a movie before in my entire life and I'm oldddd. The music is -magnificent. For that alone,I give the movie a 5. Any acting will have to be added to that and so far-at least another 4 points look well deserved. The small expressions on the women's face say so much more than what they say. And as an old woman,I can read them. Maybe others can't-not enough flip dialogue,dirty innuendos or car crashes. But all the small gestures and looks,how we stand,walk,tap on the door,mean the world. What a banquet of emotions. Roses ,roses,everywhere. And I have new respect for Nicole Kidman. My G-d-I will spend the day watching and re-watching this. How the actors must have been thrilled to be able to be part of this.

[–] NoraMR 13 years ago

this is a great movie and i find it to be very meaningful. i am glad i bought its DVD a few years back and i have even memorized the dialogue unintentionally.

[–] hauntingsummer 13 years ago

I disagree with them and agree with you 100%. I watched it today for the second time ever and was deeply moved.

[–] jack_wood 15 years ago

I thought Moore's character Laura Brown felt angst and depression because she felt trapped in a monotonous family life. For some the idea of a tedious married-with-kids life seems ideal but others like Laura want something different [romp with the neighbour]. I thought that since the women's role as a housewife was the social norm of the time, she feels guilty and alien that she isn't happy, adding to her frustrations. You don't need to about 1950s America to empathise with these feelings of not fitting in and nowhere is it implied that ALL of the women were like Laura Brown- the point is in fact most women were happy in their housewife roles. I don't know if you are serious in your citicisms- you seem to have taken a few themes from the film multiplied them by 100 and then come over all cycnical. Also thought Phillip Glass's soundtrack adds loads to this film.

[–] thelayups 15 years ago

Jack,

You're making my point about what the viewer is required to bring to the movie to make sense of it.

"Moore's character Laura Brown felt angst and depression because she felt trapped in a monotonous family life." Well, since we only see one day of Moore's life (a few hours actually), "monotony" must be read in by the viewer. We are supposed to bring our presuppositions about 1950s life (i.e. trapped monotony) to the table and read them into the movie, beacause they exist nowhere in the movie itself. As far as we can tell, she is "trapped" only in the sense that she has made a commitment to be a wife and mother (a commitment we later find she bails on in both cases in order to "choose life" as a Canadian librarian). And nowhere in the movie is she indicted for this choice, and even recieves sympathy from Meryl Streep (even though Streep's character knows that Moore's selfish decision to abandon her family was a huge factor in her son (Ed Harris)'s psychosis and eventual suicide). And why the double-standard? Men are routinely criticized for abandonment (and rightly so) while for a woman whose family cramps her style, abandonment is called "choosing life"? Give me a break.

"I thought that since the women's role as a housewife was the social norm of the time, she feels guilty and alien that she isn't happy." Again, we must read much of this in. At the end, she says has "no regrets" about having abandoned her family (she "chose life" after all) and she certainly admits to no guilt over the issue. And the "social norm" you mention is nowhere to be found in the movie, it must be read in; no "normal" housewives are present in the movie itself (they may be implied, but our presuppositions must subconsciously supply them). It is simply not true that "nowhere is it implied that ALL of the women were like Laura Brown"; the ONLY TWO 1950s housewives portrayed (Julianne Moore and Toni Collette) are both woefully unhappy/neurotic/suicidal (AND repressed lebians?). Is that not the TRUE, HIDDEN the "normalcy" the movie suggests was festering beneath the surface of the 50s? You say, "the point is in fact most women were happy in their housewife roles." Ummmm, if that is the point of the movie, why don't we see these happy housewives? All we see are depressed, repressed, suicidal housewives. Again, you are reading this in yourself, which was my initial point, and which was backed up by your post.

Anyway, this could go on and on...

[–] Oraclon 15 years ago

Agreed. This movie had far too little spelling it out for you. I think it's best to stick to the Donna Reed reruns.

Nothing is impossible, except for dinosaurs.

[–] sugarnspicey13 15 years ago

To begin with, I do not understand how a few of you think that Julianne Moore's character's abandonment is "celebrated" in the film. When she arrives at Clarissa Vaughn's apartment, Clarissa's daughter whispers, "So that's the monster." The character herself says she did the "worst thing" a mother could do by abandoning her child. The abandonment obviously weighed on Richard — Moore's character talked about their strained relationship. It is not as if she waltzed into the scene radiating happiness to be greeted by a loving and forgiving son and his friends. Sure, Moore's character justified it by saying she wanted to "live." But I think that's what we all do when explaining our bad actions — justify them with some ends to a means.

Also, thelayups: I don't think Toni Collette's character was portrayed as a unhappy/neurotic/suicidial/repressed lesbian. I think her character was purposefully established just to be a stark contrast to Julianne Moore's. Collette is happy and popular and maintains that typical 1950s attitude of "Women must bear children for their husbands." The film even has Collette and Moore LOOK drastically different in their scene to drive home the point. Collette is meticulously put together, made-up and well-dressed. Moore, on the other hand, looks plain, mousy, and unimpressive. Again, Collette : "normal" 1950s women :: Moore : "different." Collette is unhappy for the moment because she has growths in her uterus. How is she supposed to be anything BUT scared and unhappy?! She's just scared and probably can't discuss womanly problems with her non-woman husband. This is not a slam against him. As caring as he might be, he probably can't empathize with her inability to bear children as well as a fellow woman. Men probably feel the same way about prostate cancer or impotency.
As for the kiss, I don't think this reveals Collette's character to be some closeted lesbian...or else she wouldn't have sprung up from the table and left. I guess...what else do you say in a situation like that while trying to maintain that sense of well-practiced control and politeness?

As far as Moore's character's monotony...there are hints throughout the movie that this is her daily life. The fact that her husband is cooking breakfast being something "new." The fact that he cannot easily navigate his way around the kitchen. The fact that Toni Collette's character basically walks in to the house (indicating she's over there quite a bit). The fact that Moore has an established "babysitter" that watches Richie when she runs errands. The movie does this without having Moore come out and say, "Well, here I am making dinner like I do every day. Well, here I am picking Richie up from the baby sitter's like I do every day."

I think you're supposed to read into this movie. You're supposed to read into Richard's space rocket pajamas and Richie's space rocket bedsheets and draw conclusions before the movie outright tells you. You're supposed to see that all three generations use brown eggs while cooking and the similarities between Woofle's necklace and Vaughn's earrings. You're supposed to pick up on the subtle and vague hints - whether or not the movie intends to explain them. This is what makes this movie Oscar-worthy and not some run-of-the-mill romantic comedy.

"Live it- Do it- Or shut up."
--Katharine Hepburn

[–] adrnlize 14 years ago

You must read a lot of books with pictures. Movies with depth of this caliber are not meant to spell every little thing out for the viewer.

I can see you REALLY liking any movie that Kirk Cameron has started in.

[–] patschican 13 years ago

After learning that Meryl Streep used a sperm donor to conceive because she desperately wanted a child, Julianne Moore tells her that she is a lucky woman. The implication is that Meryl is lucky because she knows what it is to want children - something Julianne Moore never felt. She also says:

"There are times you don't belong, and you think you're going to kill yourself. Once I went to a hotel. Later that night I made a plan. The plan was I would leave my family when my second child was born. That's what I did."

So, though she loved her son, she never wanted children. She didn't feel like she belonged - perhaps in that time period, perhaps in a heterosexual relationship, or perhaps in the role of wife and mother. Most likely all of those things.

Re: Toni Colette's character, I don't think the purpose of that character was to imply that all women in the 1950s felt that way. Rather, I see Toni's character as an interesting juxtaposition to Julianne's character. Both are rather unhappy, yet one is able to bury the feelings and keep playing the part, and the other one isn't.

[–] kelvin_wks 12 years ago

You are right! the most important line of the film to find out why Laura is so unhappy was what she said to Meryl Streep at the end~ she never wanted a child, that's why she is getting more unhappy when she got pregnant again.

[–] americanvenus-1 15 years ago

I just finished the book on which it was based and it had the very same problem. I have no interest in the film now after reading it. The prose sounded as if the writer was struggling to be creative, had ZERO character development and put a lot of his writing exercises to print and wove them together with a Virginia Woolf plot line. I'm a pretty visual person and could not even imagine how they could make this dreadful book into a film!

[–] Mellotron-Scratch 14 years ago

I completely disagree. The book was beautifully written, and the characters were astounding.
There was a huge amount of character development, considering that the whole book consisted of the workings of their minds over a full day.

[–] The_White_Hotel 14 years ago

The novel that this film is based on is spare, delicate and one of the most beautiful things I have ever encountered in print. Just thinking about it gives me chills. The idea that the author was "struggling to be creative" is astounding to me. It is one of the great American novels of the late 20th century.

"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"

[–] bittermilk2 14 years ago

I'm trying so hard to watch this for a second time in my life! I have to say I adore moore, like streep but I can't stand kidman! but the film is so depressing I feel I'm going to leave it and get some sleep. I'm sure it must be my fault yet I don't understand any part of the story. maybe when I read the book I'll try once more.

[–] AmbienWineDiet 14 years ago

hahaha what you wrote bascically contradicts itself. a huge amount of character development in one day??? isn't that oxymoronic? unless in this day there was massive conflict, introducing tonnes of new idea, did the characters change in the end? what there a noticeable difference?

When looking at films there is implied knowledge which make take place in the story but not nessecarily the plot.

What comparisons are we given? i have never seen the movie but apparently the only women really shown are both suffereing from the same problem.

it would seem to me this film does make you formulate too many of your own, unrealistic assumptions. I hope this wasn't like a campion movie for all your sakes. The movie the piano sickened me. how the *beep* is rape a romance? cuz at first thats what it was. had a man released this i would ahve been even more disturbed, as it would have appeared my fellow man attempted to bring rape mainstream, in the form of a hollywood "romance" that romanticizes putting women in unconfortable sexual situations until they see no other choice they must give over thier body to get the only thing important left to them (besides her daughter the piano)

[–] ryansassy1 15 years ago

You're right--we can only assume Laura Brown had a chemical imbalance (knowledge that wouldn't have been common back then), because nowhere else are we given a clue as to the source of her depression.

But then, if it was a chemical imbalance, how was that solved by abandoning her family? It made absolutely no sense.

IMO, take away the wonderful Glass score and we have a very empty film. I'd recommend people buy the soundtrack instead of watching this movie.

[–] wishingwell57 15 years ago

In my opinion, after reading all of your reviews and re-review, I believe this movie was made for a certain audience that regularly discusses and lives to avoid the reasons that made these women so unhappy. That is why there is no punishment for the abandonment issues. They were based on selfish motives obviously okay and celebrated within certain communities.

While the story was different, there were other numerous areas to celebrate with the movie.

[–] My_Name_Is_Lydia 11 years ago

Four years later, I have to respond to this. Laura abandoning her family didn't SOLVE anything and that wasn't even close to being implied in the film. She had what she HAD to do to save her own life - and the life of her unborn child - but she was never happy.

No signature required

[–] sebacascardo 15 years ago

Hey thelayups, it's very clear you didn't understand the movie at all........your review is funny actually. Stick to Iron Man and that kind of movies. Thanks!

[–] helluvadrug 15 years ago

At least after watching 'Iron Man' I had an idea why Tony Stark was motivated to be Iron Man. 'The Hours' is full of RIDICULOUSLY sad people, and yet we're given no clues as to why some of them are so impossibly sad (namely, Kidman's and Moore's characters). It's one thing to be dissatisfied with one's life, to feel trapped, to be angry, frustrated, scared, but these characters were just way beyond that. Are we supposed to assume it's because they're trapped in middle-class heterosexual marriages? Well, that might explain some of it, but again, Moore's character was so sad that she seemed mildly retarded. Was she on sedatives? Is that why she was so dim?

Look, I have no problem with extreme depression as a subject matter or explanation of character behavior, and I have no problem with angst re: middle-class heterosexual marriage as subject matter (although it's so played out at this point), but I do have a problem when the audience is provided no back story. The story begins and Kidman's and Moore's characters are already very, very sad. Having watched the entire movie, I still have no clue whether Kidman's and Moore's characters were chemically imbalanced, or just severely dissatisfied with their lives, or both.

(And don't say 'Well, in real life, Virginia Wolff suffered from x, y and z...' That's irrelevant. I shouldn't have to do biographical research beforehand in order to understand a character's motivation. I've seen bio-pics regarding people I've never heard of before that made much more sense to me.)

(Oh, and one last thing: Some of the dialogue is sub-hackneyed. I cringed repeatedly throughout. Especially when Ed Harris talks about all the stuff he never got a chance to do, like write about how a robe feels. Ugh.)

[–] Obiwindukin 14 years ago

I won't try to change your mind. However I would ask you open yourself up. There any many pieces of work, movies, literature and theatre that as the audience we must learn to appreciate.

often when things are over simplified, like "iron man", it is easy to justify character motive, but when the characters themselves are complicated we are forced to think about what that their motivation is. our thought process is pushed and we either challenge our selves or give up and simply say "I don't like it".

"Kick your ass, I will" Master Yoda

[–] kelvin_wks 12 years ago

Totally agree, i watched it for the 4th times tonight, and I picked up more and more detail of all the 3 women stories~ especially why Laura so unhappy~ you have be careful with all the dialogue they said in the film, all the answers are in there~ you have to connect em all together in order to understand the meaning of the film.

[–] szisoman 14 years ago

Only idiots post with titles like the worst movie they ever saw.

Your rambling was as interesting as watching paint dry on a crumbling wall.
I suggest you go & watch transformers or something to cheer you up.

" I am talking about..ethics "

[–] vikram8402 14 years ago

I found the movie superior to the book- and poetry in motion. One needs to know the feeling of alienation to understand what lies between the hours.

[–] lee_style 14 years ago

Isn't the aim of art to evoke a strong response in it's audience. To force feed such an audience would completely diminish the movie's artistic value. The best kinds of films are those, where a reader response interaction is required, when the movie becomes stratified and subjective. To mock a movie which does this is to buy into the mainstream. If being forced to think irritates you I suggest you watch The Muppet's instead. They may be more up your suburban street...