Frida

Frida_720p(480P)

source: Frida

for story. for status of homage to a great Mexican artist. for Salma Hayek. or for Alfred Molina. for the large territories behind the dialogs. for the spirit of Frida Kahlo who seems be , in few scenes, more than realistic. for the delicate poetry of image. for the slices from a period looking best form of expression for freedom. for colors, sounds, pain's shadows, search of happiness, crumbs of madness and for music. a film who is not a revelation. or trip in past. but a large map for dreams who are hidden in each of us. because it has the science to reflect, with grace, the complex life of a woman who has courage to be herself ignoring the price of her gestures. a film about different sides of the love.

I was very disappointed with this film. If it weren't for its exceptional music, costumes, and set design, it would seem just like another run-of-the-mill network TV movie. It presents the major facets of Frida's life--the terrible accident, her great love for Rivera, lesbian dalliances, miscarriage, her art work, affair with Trotsky, etc.-- as if it were marking off a list. There isn't enough grit, or something, in Hayek's protrayal of Frida. Alfred Molina is good as Diego, but there is little chemistry between him and Hayek; their great love does not seem really palpable to me. To its credit, it does show many of her paintings, but it doesn't linger long enough on any one of them. I would rather it linger on a few and have the story built around them. There is a lack of cohesiveness in the story. It was a let-down to me.

This is an important film from an historical standpoint as well as from a theatrical one. The casting is ideal. The cinematography is as creative as the artistry that it portrays. There is romance, intrigue, jealousy, love and hate, history, communism and democracy, and many many more topics exloited in this movie. The imagination is challenged by the talented transitions from portraits to reality. The story likewise ebbs and flows throughout in a sense of stick-to-itism that rivets the viewer for the entire showing. I give this film a three thumbs up and highly reccommend it to cinema fans of all ages.

This is an important historical movie done with taste and delicacy that is practically unmatched in todays moviedom. It is a must see film and it is deserving of awards beyond those provided annually by the academy. One should definitely put this on one's movie list. It is a close race between this one and "Frailty".

Throughout the entire film I was unable to avert my gaze from the bushy forehead of the amazing 'woman with one eyebrow' - and nowhere on the net can I find a photograph of Frida Kahlo with such an impressive hedgerow plastered across her face. Why it was felt necessary to portray her thus, is a mystery to me. It may seem trivial, but it really did detract from what is essentially an immense performance. Hayek excels, and definitely makes the movie more palatable for mainstream audiences who may not be interested in the social and artistic merits of what is an important historical era. She is ably assisted by the talented Molina, and the beautiful sets and photography are a fitting tribute to the story of one quite amazing woman. So even if you think art is bunkum and history is naff, I think you will enjoy this sad but uplifting tale of a beautiful, spirited and unforgettable woman. Surely a must-see for any cinema buff.

I can't determine how the Academy thinks in nomination standards (just look at Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan to see where they loose logic in the past), Hayek's role as Mexican artist Frida is definitely the best part of seeing the biopic on the woman. The film tells her life story from school days to death, and is pitched up into occasional surreal country in the dramatic structure, or rather a sense of her art is incorporated into the storytelling, which is an impressive move on Taymor. While I thought at times the overt drama had dips and peaks, the subject matter is of interest enough to reccomend it, and art admirers will get a good view not only of her paintings, but of her, as Hayek, in some brief, intoxicating sex scenes (first film since Desperado to have so). Credit should also be given for the supporting cast, in particular Hayek's husband Molina and Rush's role as the communist exile. B+

This movie explores the life struggles of Frida .It will inspire you to paint and like art.

I never heard of this Frida before, and after seeing this, I know why. Her life was rather boring as depicted in this movie. We see her in a trolley accident and she has to wear this body cast. This injury causes her pain throughout her life. Then she marries this other famous painter who is nothing but a womenizer and we see she's into women too. Like we are supposed to care when he cheats on her with her sister. Frida knew what she was getting into. And I don't get why her paintings were considered good. They were just boring pictures. So, that is about all that happens. Oh yeah, Salma Hayek shows some skin to try to win awards, which can be OK, but it this case I thought it was just a bunch of needless nudity, which should be left for no-name actresses. FINAL VERDICT: This movie seemed closer to 3 hours because it was so boring. The main story is just about a couple who constantly bicker and fight because they cheat on each other. Don't waste your time on this "art " film.