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


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...

reply

Well thelayups, obviously you didn't like the movie if you didn't understand it at all!! I think you're those who want cheap movies (transformers, etc) or cheap dramas with very direct conflicts (a movie where some child has cancer o something like that). The Hours is ment to make you think, and you obviously won't like it if you don't.
It seems you never understood anything about the movie. I won't explain everything, just the Moore part: she was a lesbian in the 50's, when being gay was so taboo and forbidden that she had to live a lie. She was trapped in a lie, with a man she didn't love and not being able to do what she wanted (being with a woman, free of her trivial family). She was unhappy in ways it seems you can't imagine. You don't need them to tell you why they're unhappy, it only requires an open mind with some feelings to see the reasons. But it seems you need dying childs, car accidents or something more straightforward to understand unhappiness.

Actually, reading many of the comments in this post I think I'm talking with some robots that have no feelings and no interpretation. Chemical balance issues? WTF!! She's a lesbian trapped in a live she hates!!!

reply

Now we are all making assumptions. I am not convinced that the Moore character was a lesbian. I am not convinced I was able to fully comprehend the movie at all. Much like the original post (and I HATE Ironman movies), and I even watched it twice to see what I missed the first time, it still left me a little in the dark. I am not a shallow movie fan, not at all. I "get" a lot of things that aren't "spelled out" for me. But this one confused and perplexed me.

I understand that these were the lives of three unhappy women from three different historical and geographic origins, all dealing in some fashion, with suicide. Still, it was depressing and slow, and didn't especially ring any bells. In fact, I didn't even recognize Nicole Kidman until near the end when I stopped looking for her and realized that she was Virginia Wolff. How did they do that? What did I miss? She was unrecognizable. Maybe I need to watch it again or something.

reply

U must be kidding.
this is one of the best movies of all time.
The best movie from 2002 alongside with the Pianist.

reply

This is a brilliantly articulated critique , thelayups. Your point is a very cogent one and I admired your expression of it. Of course , it's a subjective response. I loved the film and thought it a superb exploration of depression ..... but that's neither here nor there.

reply

I thought the troubles and difficulties of the three main characters were clear enough.

However, my overwhelming thought about the film was: So what? So three people lead troubled lives? Well - thats life! And in the scheme of things, millions of others have endured far worse hardships than these three characters.

This was why I thought Meryl Streep's character was the most clearly defined and engaging. She had the most upbeat dialogue. And she dealt with her troubles in the most sympathetic and unselfish way.

I also thought the part where she recognised that her daily troubles were small and insignificant was ironically the MOST significant and endearing moment in the movie.

reply

I could not disagree with you more! perhaps you should watch this film again?

reply

I saw The Hours on first release and watched it again last night for the first time in several years. The same things I loved about it the first time have not changed -- its intelligence, its flow, the marvelous performances and the fact that there was no sledgehammer in the script or director Stephen Daltry's hand to ruthlessly drive home the reasons why the three women are where they are now. This truly is the kind of movie that either grabs you and leaves you breathless, or befuddles you and leaves you cold.

The task of film editing, which is an essential part of a movie that weaves several strands together, is one that Peter Boyle (not the actor) fulfills brilliantly. He was nominated for his work here, but lost the Oscar to Martin Walsh (Chicago). Boyle bravely uses cuts that are sometimes only a frame or two. It is his substantial contribution that draws the distinction between the similar events in the lives of these women over one day in each of their lives, and how they handle them.

There is plenty of character development. During the birthday dinner for Laura's husband, he describes to their son what his mother was like when they first met, in high school. She was strange, he says, and always alone. Even though he is a meat-and-potatoes kind of guy he was drawn to her, fell in love with her, and still loves her, although he is unable to reach her. He masks her depression for Richie, explaining she needs her rest, and that becoming a big brother is an important job... it's not just 1950s housewife angst that's driving Laura to despair... she has always been lost. When Kitty jumps up to see what book Laura is reading, (Wolff's Mrs. Dalloway), of course, Laura tries to explain the novel's plot and Kitty's eyes glaze over. She doesn't get what would draw her friend into a book like that.

Laura wants to escape, and eventually does off camera, obviously causing a lot of irredeemable pain and suffering to the family she leaves behind. She "chose life," as she says, but selfishly, and at a tremendous cost. But this is what those suffering from major depression often do: the isolation, fear and bewilderment at their inability to connect with other people drives them to alleviate their own pain in one way or another. It isn't that they don't care about those who love them, but that their own pain is insurmountable, and they will either fight for their sanity, or surrender to the fear that they've lost it. Laura tries both, but ultimately her choice to live life on her own terms leaves a void in her family that is as deep as if she had had to be carried out of that hotel room on a stretcher, a sheet covering her wet and lifeless body.

It isn't essential to have read anything by or about Virginia Wolff to understand her character. Her depression, hospitalizations, hearing voices and attempting suicide are all alluded to her by her husband, her sister, her cook and Virginia herself. She, too, wants to escape -- "I'm dying in this town." But she will take her problems with her. Her husband Leonard is filled with longing to have his wife be the person she was before she went mad, and is relentless in his pursuit to help her recover. He will go to whatever lengths necessary, and his devotion to her is deep and powerful, but in the end, it isn't enough for Virginia who begs him in her suicide note not to blame himself. Of course he will. In order to achieve acceptance of the loss of a loved one to suicide, those left behind have to come to the realization that they will never understand all the reasons why their loved one chose to leave them in this way. Frankly, I don't know enough about Leonard Wolff to know if he ever did reach that plane.

Clarissa most successfully conceals her fears from others, but her daughter points out that all her mother's friends are sad, and Richard's death brings about in Clarissa the sense that she is sad, too, and has been that way for a long time. She spends all her spare time attempting to create happy experiences for others, perhaps hoping that she will again find that sense of "possibility;" that idea that she has achieved perfection. Only Richard has brought her to that place, but that was a long, long time ago. He gave her that sense of possibility; the contentment and ability to see every day as a promise, and eventually he takes it away from her, in the cruelest of ways.

reply

It didn't occur to anyone that this movie was also about homosexuality? The kiss between Laura and Kitty? Hello!!! Laura says it herself to Clarissa that she was born at a wrong time. Laura wanted a free life. It was this or death. I perfectly understand that.

reply

To 'layups': This is my all-time worst movie of all time. If the film maker's intention was to depress the hell out of the audience, I guess he got what he wanted. But entertainment? Not in MY world! It's #1 followed by AMERICAN BEAUTY (child abuse), MULHOLLAND DRIVE (NOT intellectual--just stupid), THE TREE OF LIFE (no--I don't think I'm going to waste my time on looking for some kind of hidden meaning in this pretentious piece of garbage), & LOST IN TRANSLATION (less amusing than watching someone read a newspaper). Oh, one more: SEX, LIES, & VIDEOTAPE (another one so boring that I would have rather watched water dripping from a faucet).

If a movie isn't fun, interesting, or intriguing, count me out!

reply

I've never seen it, but I once made the mistake of reading a Woolf novel, I think I was 12, and after 3 pages, I said, "Yuck!" Slammed the book closed, returned it to the library. I've never read any since.

I grew up in the 50's, I wore pants except at school, my mother wore pants also. But things haven't changed that much. I just read where a girl got expelled from a christian school for having hair a quarter inch shorter than Jesus.

I read books about the Saturn project and horses, only the first 3 pages of National Velvet, which I thought was a horse book. In the mid 50's to the 80's I showed horses, my mother seemed to like to go out drinking with her friends, but she always went to the horse shows. I never lusted after any boys or girls, I just loved horses.

Obliviously, some of you joy in seeing people unhappier than you. This does not make it the best movie of all time. I believe you would all love "Double Indemnity". I only like Carol Burnett's version "Double Calamity".

reply