The film is based on Michael Cunningham’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about three women linked to Virginia Woolf’s first novel, “Mrs. Dalloway.”
One is a woman much like the heroine of her story, one is a woman for whom the story evokes a sad comprehension and a fateful choice, and the third is Woolf herself.
“The Hours” has four or five of the most wonderful performances of the year.
Nicole Kidman is nothing less than marvelous. If you see “The Hours” for nothing else, see it for her Virginia Woolf.
But go, also, for Julianne Moore and Ed Harris or Meryl Streep. All are masterful. Moore will make you understand why she is suddenly so noticed, though her part of the tripartite narrative is the least well developed.
The language varies widely in force. Scenes with Streep and Harris, while riveting dramatically, seem stilted, almost stagey if you listen to what their characters are saying.
Kidman’s part of the story soars, with lyrical language as well as a haunting story Kidman seems able to tell us with eyes alone.
Don’t miss this one. It is not an easy film, but it is worth what it asks of you.
TEARS OF THE SUN
Rated: R
Down the hall, “Tears of the Sun” offers Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis as only he can.
Nobody should be disappointed with this, as Willis is about as good a tough-as-nails hero as movies have. And since “Die Hard,” Willis has given heroes permission to feel pain.
The U.S. military men in this picture are the ones we want to see.
The world of this picture is, as we have come to realize with great sadness, the one we face. It is, coincidentally, the world looming before us in the coming days.
Two scenes (one of a destroyed mission, another of ethnic cleansing in action) deliver powerful images depicting both such soldiers and such settings.
Alas, the story is full of holes in its logic, if not its heroism and the movie is a case load of clichés. Like last year’s film from its director Antoine Fuqua (“Training Day”), something is missing from “Tears of the Sun.”
It isn’t just that “Tears” slows to a crawl about a quarter of the way in, and creeps inexorably towards the inevitable for the rest of two hours. It is that we deserve a story with greater complexity and characters with greater depth for a film set in such a world. We need greater works from the heroine (especially when played by a fine actress like Monica Bellucci) than breastworks, but that is about all Fuqua seems to want her to show.
It would be gratifying to praise this picture.
Anything that shows what our forces may face, what they can handle, is timely just now.
Frankly, despite a thoroughly reliable performance by Willis, a spectacular score, and breathtaking scenic grandeur, there just isn’t quite enough to this picture.
Bringing
Down the House
Rated: PG-13
“Bringing Down the House” is one more story of another arhythmophobic white man energized by soul power. We’ve seen ’em on TV, and in movies galore. This one has an edge: hugely funny performers like Steve Martin and Queen Latifah.
As a result, there are a lot of laughs.
But think for a minute how the reverse story would look: clueless black enlightened by smarter white. Of course, that story would look racist.
It’s funny. Sharp lines, and a tried and true situation like “The Man Who Came to Dinner” and “Visitor to a Small Planet,” or, more recently, “Housesitter.”
But it takes too few chances, colors too much within the lines, for great comedy. This is just a product picture, and the people are the product.
Oscar Predictions
Now it’s time to predict, so here goes.
Best actor in a leading role will go to Daniel Day-Lewis for Bill “The Butcher” Cutting in Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York.” His performance was nothing short of brilliant, much better than Nicholson’s Schmidt.
The one possibility that cannot be fairly factored is Adrien Brody for his role as “The Pianist,” because it hasn’t played here. He could win; novice nominees sometimes do. But smart money is usually on old hands, especially those who have been passed over in the past.
Nicholas Cage probably should win for the twins he played in “Adaptation,” but he won’t. Richard Gere was not nominated for his terrific turn as Billy Flynn in “Chicago,” so he cannot win.
Besides, “Chicago” is probably going to walk away with lots of gold statues of its own. Renée Zellweger will win for Roxie Hart in that picture, even though Nicole Kidman ought to get it for Virginia Woolf in “The Hours.”
As good as is “The Hours,” it’s a lot more fun to see “Chicago.”
Sentimental bets are with Scorsese for all the great pictures he’s done over the years that didn’t win anything. “Gangs” as best picture. It has a shot at best art direction, of course.
Best actress in a supporting role won’t be Kathy Bates for her double-breasted lady in “About Schmidt.” It won’t be Streep for “Adaptation,” her second nomination this year, or Moore for “The Hours.” As fine as she was, that part of the movie thinned down too much.
It won’t even be Queen Latifah for her dynamite turn in “Chicago,” though she comes close. That Oscar will go to Cathgerine Zeta-Jones (“Chicago”).
Best supporting actor will go to Christopher Walken for Frank Abagnale in “Catch Me if You Can.” Hands down.
That’s even against John C. Reilly in “Chicago,” number two pick, or Chris Cooper who was goofily great in “Adaptation.” Yep, Walken. Best picture of the year?
You kidding? “Chicago.”
Contact John Chappell
at jchappell@thepilot.com
