Frida Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Prepare to be seduced
"Frida" chronicles the life Frida Kahlo (Salma Hayek) shared unflinchingly and openly with Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina), as the young couple took the art world by storm. From her complex and enduring relationship with her mentor and husband to her illicit and controversial affair with Leon Trotsky, to her provocative and romantic entanglements with women, Frida Kahlo lived a bold and uncompromising life as a political, artistic, and sexual revolutionary.
| Valeria Golino | Lupe Marín |
| Alfred Molina | Diego Rivera |
| Diego Luna | Alejandro 'Alex' |
| Roger Rees | Guillermo Kahlo |
| Salma Hayek | Frida Kahlo |
| Mía Maestro | Cristina Kahlo |
| Amelia Zapata | Maid |
| Alejandro Usigli | Professor |
| Lucia Bravo | Auditorium Model |
| Patricia Reyes Spíndola | Matilde Kahlo |
| Loló Navarro | Nanny |
| Fermín Martínez | Painter on Bus |
| Roberto Medina | Dr. Farril |
| Ashley Judd | Tina Modotti |
| Antonio Banderas | David Alfaro Siqueiros |
| Julie Taymor |
7.50 out of 10 (10353 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Julie Taymor's Triumph
posted on 08 Aug 2009Salma Hayek may be the ostensible star of this biography of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo but director Julie Taymor is the real driving force, triumphantly displaying an astute eye that crams each frame with as much information as possible and boldly exposing the viewer to a variety of artistic experiments--the project seems as important to Taymor as it does to Hayek, whose sincere passion, as producer, for the subject is honorable and reverent. It's a bit of an about-face for Taymor, whose feature debut, `Titus', a graphic adaptation of Shakespeare's `Titus Andronicus', was filled with time-warps and sparse sets. Here, Taymor tells the story with simplicity, the use of some picturesque pastels that create an authoritative mise en scene, and some fun animated moments (she employs delightful dioramas to indicate shifts in settings and time; a garish hallucinatory sequence was created by the Quay Brothers, whose work has always been permeated with Kahlo's influence) presented with an unabashed fervor that pays homage to Kahlo's art while enhancing her own. Taymor works aggressively, approaching Kahlo in an almost masculine manner; as a result, she seems to respond better to the male aspects of the performances and though Hayek does a decent job as Kahlo (herself exhibiting many mannish tendencies), she's acted off the screen by Alfred Molina, as husband/mentor Diego Rivera, with an exuberant yet smoothly modulated performance that shows up Hayek's histrionics, heartfelt as they are. There are a number of interesting supporting performers, including Roger Rees (as Kahlo's father), Valeria Golino, Geoffrey Rush and, briefly, Diego Luna (from `Y tu mama tambien') as well as cameos from Ashley Judd, Antonio Banderas and Edward Norton as Nelson Rockefeller. Taymor shows that with this and `Titus' under her belt that she can deftly navigate between commercial and alternative narratives and that her natural creativity can only enhance any project she chooses to work on; hers is a rare and welcome talent indeed and it's employed to great effect here.
'Chick Flick' With Lots of Skin
posted on 29 Jul 2009Now that I've offended the sensibilities of many of you, let's talk about how this relates to 'Frida'. If you examine the art of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, you find it provocative, compelling and painfully truthful. Well, the painful truth is that men and some women will flock to 'Frida' to ogle Salma Hyek naked, however brief these scenes are. Other women will be fascinated or repelled by Frida's intimate relationships with other women, both sexual and otherwise. Finally, there will be those of us fascinated by all these things, the historical and political trapping, the beauty, the pain and the love shared by Frida and famous Mexican artist Diego Rivera. Their love is the most fascinating thing of all. For Diego's and Frida's love survives numerous affairs, political intrigue, jealousy, separation and Frida's horribly deteriorating health. To reveal more would spoil this turbulent love story. Let's just say, the first half is much stronger than the second and that the movie should have given us more of Frida's last years, her suffering notwithstanding. The jump from Trotsky's assassination in 1940 to Frida's last days in 1953 is jarring, seemingly cut to meet a running time requirement. Further, director Julie Taymor shows no talent for displaying time passage. Five years pass between the first and second confrontation between Frida and Diego, yet for all we know only a year or so has passed. The abundant female nudity, particularly that of Hyek sometimes seems gratuitous till one realizes how 'Frida' herself integrated her nude body into her art. 'Frida' boasts some extraordinary performances, most notably Salma Hyeck, who convincing ages from 16 to 47. Equally as great is Albert Molina as Diego. 'Frida' boasts fine supporting performances from Valeria Golino as Diego's former wife, Roger Rees as Frida's loving father and Geoffrey Rush as Leon Trotsky. Despite her pain and personal torment, Frida was never a pitiable character. She was too tough, too free spirited and too prepared to commit the same kind of acts of infidelity as Diego. Nonetheless, Frida Kahlo was a compelling, fascinating woman, and I feel I'm a better person for discovering so thanks to Hyek, director Taymer and Molina. 'Frida' is a class act all the way, from the lovingly created art direction to the cinematography, editing and music. I give 'Frida' a '7'.
I don't know
posted on 27 Jul 2009I think that Frida it's just a little Frida's life, this movie it's just a love story, I didn't like it because it is spoken in English, it must be in Spanish and I think that there are better actress than Salma.If you think that this is the best film about frida's life, you do not know anything
Mixed feeling overwhelming
posted on 23 Jul 2009You see, there's nothing new that I have seen in directing "Frida". Nevertheless, some things really rocked me. You know, I saw Frida's trailer, it was so bright and vivid that I looked forward to watching Frida. So I did. What can I say? Firstly, music by Elliot Goldenthal. Firstly, I had seen "The Hours" and thought the Oscar would go to Philip Glass, but then I changed my mind. The score was, in fact, beautiful. Secondly, acting was quite convincing. Valeria Golino is definitely the most memorable personage of Frida. Salma Hayek was qute good, but not of Oscar calibre. So I give **** out of *****
visual feast
posted on 05 Jul 2009This film is certainly a beautiful and often dazzling display of Julie Taymor's innovative visual style, and she pushes the envelope of sexuality here like she did of violence in "Titus", sometimes it seems just to rub the audiences face in it rather than to serve the narrative, but always to great effect. "Frida" bursts with life & color & the global politics of the 20's and 30's, and as a biopic it works well in fleshing out an artist who has become very totemic in recent years, more to feminists and disability activists than to painters and artists I think.
As with any biopic or historical drama, fundamental questions always arise about accuracy, the agenda of the author/director, and the romanticizing of the subject. I personally kept thinking, without knowing too much about Kahlo and Rivera, that they were undoubtedly, in "real life," much less likable than these two characters as portrayed by Hayek and Molina. And yet, the second, conflicting question arises "Does it matter?"
Ultimately, it doesn't, because this is an entertainment and a romantic saga that honestly tries not to flinch from the pain and heartache of this woman's life. It also gets into Frida's art in a uniquely organic way and in that sense I found it superior to recent artist biopics like "Basquiat" and "Pollack," which were full of angst and in the latter case, downright boredom, and didn't really succeed in showing how the artist's work mirrored his life. I would have given this 4 stars for its memorable imagery, music, and rendering of the artist's work, except for the Trotsky story, which was no doubt true and politically significant, but Geoffrey Rush was so badly miscast and laughable with his changing accent, and the romance so unpleasant, that it detracted a half-star from my rating. Still, highly recommended for all audiences that don't recoil from healthy sexuality, albeit bisexual and amoral, and enjoy a sumptuous visual feast.
Nobody keeps the promise.
posted on 05 Jul 2009Frida shows the spirit of a movie that you can't complain about but you can't adore it either. The flashbacks are well put in order, about the music, I guess you already believe that it's really moving.She's courageous and different from the others, she can't stand clichés, she doesn't suffer instead, she just doesn't care during childhood and before marriage.The scene right after she wakes up in the hospital is a sample of her complex thoughts and imaginations of the outside world. She also shows a little infatuation of lesbian love affair. Diego goes: "Sex is like pissing, people take it too serious", that could be the tag line for Diego's sexual life and later about the Frida herself.One other issue which is really accented in the picture, nobody keeps promises, Diego promised to be loyal, he was also an idealistic communist, but he broke that for Frida at the end of the movie. Frida at the other hand, stood Diego's numerous relationships, but she couldn't face it when two people were betraying her, her husband and her sister.The song performed by the old fellow in the bar is absolutely a piece of art and well arranged with the scene of murder of Frida's lover (the communist preacher), I just love it. What injects more chaos in the movie is the sacrifices they make for each other out of their love. By the way Diego has a taste of his own medicine when he realizes that Frida wasn't that loyal to him.I'll say, the movie was very good, but it could have been better.
Commie Unibrow
posted on 01 Jul 2009In the grand tradition of "Evita", "Primary Colors", the upcoming Steven Soderbergh directed "Che", " Thelma & Louise", the Oliver Stone fluff piece on Castro "Comandante", and... well the list goes on and on. Comes yet another film about a turd. This time the piece of excrement in question is Frida Kahlo in the form of a less pronounced unibrowed Selma Hayek. I say less pronounced as the real Friday needed a weed whacker taken to her one monstrous brow. Of course this being Hollywood and all certain elements of Frida's like had to be somewhat sanitized for the mass public, less the common person know how pinko Hollywood really is. And as such Frida is elevated to "Feminist Icon" status (on a side note, I find Feminist adorable in their naivety). Skip this drek.My Grade: D-
Selma and Julie Overextend
posted on 09 Jun 2009Frida is a labor of love for Selma Hayak, and it shows in her heartfelt performance. She portrays the famous Mexican painter Frida Kahlo, from her adolescence through late middle-age, and everything in between. What a life Frida led; wife to Diego Garcia, lover to others of both sexes including an elderly Leon Trotsky. Drinking, fighting, painting, and loving with the best of them. Hayak and Alfred Molina are very good and totally believable in their portrayals of Frida and Diego and their stormy relationship. Geoffrey Rush provides a realistic performance as the aging Leon Trotsky, on the run from Stalin's assassins. Edward Norton and Ashley Judd put in good cameos, Norton as a young Nelson Rockefeller. The cinematography, directing, and musical score are all on target. The only shortcoming of the film is that it tries to cram too much of her life into the movie. If the film-makers had cut the number of events down by a third and filled the time getting to know the characters it would have been a better movie.
STUNNING MOVIE MURAL
posted on 20 May 2009Watching Julie Taymor's stunning film biography of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo gave this viewer a strange sense of deja vu ; although Ms. Taymor's considerable gifts as a visual conjurer are abundantly on display here , just as they were in her stage musical THe LION KING and her previous film TITUS , her new movie FRIDA belongs to that familiar genre that Hollywood studios used to release toward year's end to qualify for Academy Award consideration : the traditional Great Man or Woman Life Story .Back in the 1930's and 40's these exceptionally well-produced biographical films proved tremendously popular with audiences , some even garnering Oscars for Best Picture ( THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA ) , Best Actor ( James Cagney's portrayal of song writer George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY ) or several technical awards , such as the critically acclaimed Presidential saga WILSON. More modern variations of this type of film include William Wyler's entertaining but undistinguished musical biography of Fanny Brice which showcased Barbra Streisand , repeating her unforgettable stage performance and subsequently winning the Best Actress Oscar of 1968. Richard Attenborough's shallow account of CHAPLIN was immeasurably enhanced by Robert Downey's extraordinary performance of the comic genius.All of the above mentioned films seem to share a common bond : despite superb production values and star-making turns, the movies as entities unto themselves seem to have eluded greatness. Perhaps this is due to the fact that in depicting an artist's or performer's life , only so many moments in a life can be selected to fill a 2 to 3 hour running time. A written autobiography or biography can amass an enormous amount of information that can be digested by the reader in leisurely increments. A life story transformed into a written screenplay must use spoken dialogue that in many cases was never uttered by the real life people involved but utilized by actors for dramatic effect. Life situations almost always become "greatest or most significant moments" ; as a result the everyday existence that characterizes most people's lives are missing from these films , the result being that the movie characters seem larger than life. In very rare instances can this problem be transcended ; when it is , as in David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA , it's because the subject is such an enigma to begin with that a genius director takes off from another point , adhering to the basic facts of a life but incorporating a brilliantly subjective camera eye and astounding technical wizadry to produce a great work of art. I have no idea if Julie Taymor is headed for David Lean territory. That she has a superb eye for color and detail is a given. She seems as comfortable composing film images as she does creating an imagined world on stage.She seems to be the ideal director to transform the life of Frida Kahlo into a major film biography. Her movie is filled to the brim like a pinata ready to burst , which it frequently does , exploding into a myriad of vivid hues. The movie begins at the end of Kahlo's life. Confined to her four-poster bed, she is eerily transported , bed and all, to what is presumably her final gallery showing before she dies. The film then flashbacks to her early years as a struggling young artist , her first meeting with her future husband , the physically imposing mural painter Diego Rivera ( Alfred Molina ) and the terrifying bus accident that left her physically disfigured (her back and pelvis were impaled, which after numerous surgeries left her in constant pain for the rest of her life.) Much of the film concentrates on the volatile relationship between Kahlo and Rivera. A man with a roving eye , Rivera cheated on his wife on innumerable occasions , always proclaiming loyalty to Kahlo but insisting on living a profligate life of extra-marital sex. This was tolerated by Frida for awhile but ultimately she had her own flings , depicted in the movie as romantic trysts with the likes of Leon Trotsky and Josephine Baker. Amid all the discussions and arguments concerning artistic goals and marital faithfulness , the viewer is treated to several glimpses of Kahlo's art, from varied self portraits to surreal depictions of events in the artist's life. Just when the movie seems to get bogged down in the Kahlo - Rivera relationship , director Taymor takes off on an incredible flight of fancy , leaving conventional narrative behind and linking several story segments with what I can only describe as moving visual collages that cover various aspects of Kahlo and Rivera's life. A trip to Depression Era New York City is depicted as a moving illustration consisting of paper cut-outs of the awed couple wondering through a cardboard canyon of skyscrapers. Earlier sequences depict the aftermath of Kahlo's bus accident as a crucifixion image flecked with gold and an operation on the artist's back presided by alien-like puppets representing Frida's surgeons. Taymor does return to the more conventional storytelling narrative , but the movie gets mired down in cliched dialogue about art and the love lives of the artistically famous.Despite my reservations, I highly recommend this film for a number of reasons. Unlike many biographical films , this one has a very distinct and often brilliant point of view. Julie Taymor may not succeed in telling us much about Frida Kahlo, but she definitely kneels at the altar of this artist's unique talent. Beautiful cinematography , costumes and set design are not unusual in this day and age , but this movie is truly exceptional. The other big factor that makes FRIDA a must-see is Salma Hayek in the title role. This gorgeous looking actress has played in a number of inconsequential films in the last several years. This is undoubtedly a defining moment in her film career , and Hayek makes every moment count ; even when the movie seems artificial in depicting certain events , Hayek never loses sight of the character. She holds the audience in thrall and lifts FRIDA several notches above the typical movie biography.
Four pillars on which the film is constructed: sexuality, politics, art, pain
posted on 10 May 2009Some spoilersThe innate problem of looking at a film based on a true story is that there is not going to be a consensus on whether the personalities and facts are faithfully reflected, particularly the personalities. This seems to be particularly the case when you look at the various comments on Frida. Having acknowledged this problem, however, I shall not dwell on it, but will go directly to the four aspects cited in the summary line.Sexuality in Frida (the film) has attracted too much discussion, which is not surprising given the attention the filmmakers have paid to it. Within this aspect, there is a variety of themes.Look first at Diego Rivera, who is "physiologically incapable of fidelity". The film goes to a considerable extent to demonstrate this point. However, over the years since Benjamin Braddock and Mrs. Robinson's time, the saying that having sex is like shaking hands has become banal.Of Frida Kahlo's occasional homosexual tendencies, repeated references approach the point of being irksome. Starting right from the beginning when she dresses as a boy for the family portrait, we see further hints in the exquisitely crafted dance scene with Tina Modotti (Ashley Judd), then more explicit treatment in New York when Gracia claims that Firda is "even better than her husband", building up to a grand finale in Paris.Yet another theme on sexuality is the exploration of the sexual relationship between an elderly man and a relatively younger woman. While this one is less frequently tackled, a good example can be found in an excellent treatment and performance by Burt Lancaster and Susan Sarandon in Atlantic City. In comparison, Frida's relationship with Leon Trotsky is more transient, but sufficiently interesting to leave an impression.Politics purportedly constitutes quite an important part of Frida's life. The treatment of this aspect in the film, however, verges on an interpolation into the sexuality aspect, an interpolation that is often so abrupt as to leave the film a little disjointed. Politics as an important part of Frida's life has not come out clearly. At times, it is more like an afterthought.Similarly, Frida Kahlo's stature as a legendary painter has not been fully projected on the screen. One reason maybe that during most of the duration of the film, she is under the shadow of Diego Rivera. There is perhaps also the distraction of the other aspects. For whatever reason, the prerception of "Frida Kahlo, the great painter" somehow does not seem to project as much as one might expect in this film.In the final analysis, is it not true that Firda Kahlo's life was really shaped by her enduring the unendurable physical pain, day in, day out? If that is the case, the audience has not been led fully into this inner world of suffering. After witnessing what appears to be an amazing recovery from the accident, the audience goes on to share her colourful and turbulent life which she meets head on with vibrant energy and zeal. The full magnitude of her punitive predicament is not brought home until close to the end, when, at the top of the mini pyramid, she intimates to Leon Trotsky the true depth of her pain.On casting, I must say it's splendidly done. Oscar nominee Salma Hayek and equally impressive Alfred Molina consistently complement each other's performance. The Kahlo family (father, mother and sister)is superbly portrayed by an ensemble of talented Central and South American artists not generally known to the global audience. Also deserving mentioning is the role of Diego Rivera's first wife, played by Italian actress Valeria Golino (I think).The globally better known members of the cast are basically in cameo roles, except for Geoffrey Rush who plays Leon Trotsky. Of the remaining three, Ashley Judd playing the flamboyant Tina Modotti has relatively more scope, and is excellent. Interesting to see how her southern accent in Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood has gone even further south! The appearance of Antonio Bandaras and Edward Norton, as David Alfaro Sequeiros and Nelson Rockefeller respectively, albeit brief, would give a degree of satisfaction to people looking for some Hollywood flavor.Tony Award winner (The Lion King) director Julie Taymore, who is also well versed in mime and puppetry, took on Frida as her second full-scale cinema motion picture. Other than faint traces here and there, the film does not betray her stage background. Interesting to note that there is a degree of surrealism in her handling of certain scenes, such as Frida waking up to the gravity of her injuries after the accident and her first impression of New York City. We also see scenes with a hypnotic blend of music and image. There is a pervasive aesthetic quality throughout the film.In conclusion, althought not everybody's cup of tea, Frida has enough to interest the general audience, and intrigue some.
An Oscar contender!
posted on 28 Apr 2009Salma Hayek is wonderful and should win an Academy Award for her performance in this must-see film. It was screened at the Telluride Film Festival 2002, to a packed & enthusiastic house. Brava to the director, Julie Taymor, too! Fantastic cinematography & editing! Don't miss this one.
A movie about one brilliant artist directed by another brilliant artist.
posted on 26 Apr 2009"Frida" is easily one of the best films of 2002, and though that might not be saying much it is a good enough film to have held it's own in a year full of good movies. Julie Taymor's direction is nothing short of magnificent. Her bravura filmmaking really brings the story of Frida Kahlo to life in ways which would surely have pleased the artist herself. This film never falls into the traps of most film biographies. We neither lose sight of the art which made us care about Kahlo initially, nor do we lose the human being behind the artist. Taymor's storytelling keeps us riveted throughout, and she is more than abetted by her excellent cast. Hayek's impassioned work as Frida from girlhood through the vivid experiences which created one of the most distinctive artists of the 20th century will shock anyone who has seen her largely unimpressive work in earlier films. Alfred Molina is simply magnificent as Diego Rivera, the brilliant artist who both inspired and frustrated Frida in equal measure. He is a sure fire Oscar contender for this performance. In a stellar supporting cast, Geoffrey Rush also stands out as Leon Trotsky.The world in which the Riveras lived and travelled is vibrantly recreated by Taymor and her crack production team. Gorgeous location photography, art direction worthy of the subject herself and atmospheric music all contribute towards making this one of the richest films about an artist ever filmed.
Others, like the recent "Pollock", have boasted equally fine acting, but none has had a director with a style to equal that of the milieu being explored before. "Frida" is a wonderful movie, and with it Julie Taymor proves herself one of the most imaginative filmmakers of her time.
The movie should be done in Mexican
posted on 20 Apr 2009The only thing that makes it worth watching is the good cinematography and the exibit of Frida's paintings. At some time or another in the movie, the focus becomes on the sexuality of Frida rather than her political and social views. We didn't have to see Frida more than once in bed, but I guess that to be nominated for an OSCAR-Best actress, you better get your cloths off. I like Salma Hayek, but her performance was average, and that of Alfred Molina too, probably because of the weak script. Sentences were short, too figurative, and ambiguous. Overall, I think English wasn't a good choice; Mexican would have been excellent. Roberto Benini did a movie (Life is Beautiful) in Italian and he still got an OSCAR.
Soap Suds and Oil Paint
posted on 18 Apr 2009While Salma Hayek should be saluted for creating a somewhat interesting vehicle for her good talent, an effort that is, in fact, a visually interesting and stylish product, the script, unfortunately, is nothing but a linear, soapy exposition, a chronology of events not even woven into a plot.
Nor did FRIDA offer its audience substance beyond the visual presentation.
The protagonist was into the early communist movement, for example, but there is not enough of a hint of why this was so. This also holds for her slightly better known husband, the early 20th Century Mexican painter Diego Rivera. Scenes open and close like soldiers passing by in a parade. A film worth making should be based on a meaningful and significant scenario. FRIDA is a laundry list abstract of the little-known painter's life and because it is not well written it will more than likely be quickly forgotten. If the script is not there, the legs will not be there.That said, there are some marvelous graphic elements in the film that while not seminal delight the eye while a wonderful Hispanic music score and its on-camera performers warm the heart. At the bottom line, however, this is another case of missed opportunities.
Frida Hayek or Salma Kahlo ?
posted on 10 Apr 2009A great great movie. Salma Hayek was the perfect choice to impersonate Frida Kahlo. Not only because of their amazing likeness (minus the eyebrow line...), but also for the sensitivity and the flamboyant femininity she brings on. Frida was a crippled, Frida was a revolutionary, but, beyond, she was first a woman, a loving woman, a sensuous woman. And the lovely Salma, even much more beautiful than the real Frida Kahlo, knows how to show the too short journey of the Mexican surrealist artist through the pain and the sorrows to the immortality, fueled with an incredible strength and an everlasting love. I will add that the filming and the editing are perfect and that Alfred Molina is an above average Diego Rivera. That's why I give "Frida" a 10. I enjoyed my evening, last night... Frida Hayek, Salma Kahlo, I love you !
Can't say I fell in love with this movie but...
posted on 10 Apr 2009...there's a lot I came away liking in it.Frida follows most of the life story of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo(SAlma Hayek,who pushed hard for this show,produced it and her passion for it shows in this role!),from her days as an Art school student in 1922 to her dying days in the(I'm guess-timating here)late 1960s. THrough it all,she goes from being a carefree student head-over-heels for a boy--a fellow student--as she suffers from severe spinal injuries from a trolley accident,to an active Communist with her mentor,friend,lover and eventual husband(twice)famed artist Diego Riviera(Alfred Molina,reliable and versatile),who promotes her career but also ends up cheating on her at least twice and gets introduced into the world of Marxist personalities,among them a fugitive Leon Trotsky(Geoffrey Rush). Through it all,she paints the world she knows and steadily: her joys,her pains(i.e. Diego's infidelity,her miscarriage,her disabilities and failing health)and much of what she observes in her travels.Beautifully filmed by director Julie Taymor,off an adapted novel,and featuring extended cameos by Ashley Judd and Edward Norton and augmented by touching performances by Roger Rees(as Frida's patient and loving father),Valeria Golino(as one of Diego's former wives)and Mia Maestro as Frida's sister,this movie is colorful,lush and passionate. I suppose maybe the whole "political passion" element of the show was somewhat lost on me,a late 20th century/early 21st century American,who did not grow up in an era when Socialism could capture a sense of liberation or constructive change. Also,the arty direction of the film changes narrative direction just enough to confuse or disorientate. Still,all in all,worth a look and a film that is effective in--if nothing else--getting you to feel it5s passion.
What a Gem of a Movie!
posted on 31 Mar 2009OK, OK, I am a troglodyte, never heard of Frida Kahlo before I saw the movie with my wife, daughter, niece and son. Yes, I was outvoted. But what a treat it was. For an artist to fight personal pain, constant infidelity, humiliation and yet shine as Frida did was indeed a biography worth telling. The sweep of history had a Forest Gumpish quality, only this was real.What struck me about this movie was the resplendent colors, the photography. That scene at the beginning and end of the movie-- chihuhas wandering and a peacock strutting in a picturesque courtyard-- captured so beautifully the essence of Frida Kahlo's life. Hope the Academy has the guts to award Salma Hayek the Best Actress award.
Before the mullet, there was the uni-brow.
posted on 23 Mar 2009First off, if any of you guys out there are reading this review to see if it has anything in store because your girlfriend is going to make you watch it, read on. Make no mistake, Frida is definitely a chick flick.....a chick flick that shows Salma Hayek naked about a half a dozen times! I know I'm a pig, but seriously guys, this is the only reason you'd want to watch this film. So, let her make you watch it and enjoy.Now that my lewd itch for the day has been scratched, let's get to the actual film. Frida is supposed to be a story about the amazing life of a wonderful artist who had her fair share of tragedy, greatness, and heartache. The film and cinematography are truly stunning, using moving adaptations of Frida's art, certain scenes and moods are expressed with passion. Visually, it is quite epic and gives the actors much scenery to chew. Speaking of acting, Hayek and Molina are at the top of their game here and each have much character to work with. Hayek probably deserved her Oscar nod. There are also several interesting cameos by several great actors such as Ed Norton and Antonio Banderas...but their parts are very minimal and don't contribute much to the story.While the aforementioned acting and visuals are truly great and impressive, the story for just didn't cut it. I simply did not care about it or what happened really. I was constantly looking at my watch as a result and felt that much of the film could have been cut down. There seemed to be many pointless scenes that added nothing to the picture. It could be that this is just not my cup of tea and I'm fine with that. I have no doubt that this is a favorite of many, but it probably caters to the more feminine crowd. I'm not saying it was a bad film, it's just not my bag and didn't do anything for me. It probably didn't help that I watched both Kill Bill films directly before this one.If you enjoy either of the leads, you'll probably find some interesting elements here. For me, I found it to be average.
beautiful surface but not enough depth
posted on 21 Mar 2009I 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.
An gorgeous looking film but without passion
posted on 28 Aug 2009"I paint self-portraits because I am so often alone, because I am the person I know best" - Frida KahloFrida Kahlo may have been alone but her compelling self-portraits allow us to connect with and experience her anguish and perhaps make it easier for us to endure our own pain. Frida, a film by Julie Taymore based on the 1983 biography by Hayden Herrera stars Selma Hayek as the Mexican painter Frida Kahlo who suffered through a lifetime of physical pain and a tempestuous marriage to leave the world a legacy of great art. Frida is a gorgeous looking film that intersperses its conventional narrative with surreal and imaginative touches, yet is reluctant to give us more than a conventional film version of a Greatest Hits album, compressing events of 47 years into a two-hour biopic that is mostly surface veneer. Hayek spent eight years in developing this movie and it is clearly a labor of love. Ms. Hayek looks like Frida in her colorful Mexican dresses with heavy necklaces and braids wrapped around her head but the psychology of her art and the political issues that she cared about are presented only in a very superficial manner.Frida first met the muralist Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina) at the National Preparatory School in Mexico City where he was painting a mural in the school auditorium. In 1925 when she was only 18, she broke her spine, collarbone, ribs, pelvis and legs in a trolley car accident and had to lie flat, encased in a plaster cast and enclosed in a boxlike structure for many months. It was at this time that she began to express her agony in art. Several years later, she met Diego again and, after she asked him for an honest opinion about her paintings, the two fell in love and were married. They traveled together to New York, Detroit, and San Francisco but their life was filled with constant turmoil. They divorced, then reconciled at the time Diego was seeking asylum for the Russian leader Leon Trotsky (Geoffrey Rush) with whom Frida also had an affair. Frida was hospitalized for nine months in 1950 and had her right leg amputated in 1953 as a result of gangrene. Drugs and alcohol and an embrace of Stalinism marked her final years. Her final entry in her diary read, "I hope the leaving is joyful and I hope never to return". I am grateful for any insight into the life of this unique artist and if it does nothing other than stimulate further investigation, Frida, will have served a useful purpose. Yet its preoccupation with her love affairs and shouting matches takes away from a deeper understanding of her art and the complexity of her character. Frida Kahlo took traditional Mexican folk art and transformed it into a postmodern tableau that mirrors the emotional torment of her life. Some of her paintings are filled with shocking and disturbing images but in the end, we remember her mainly for the enormous vitality of her spirit. Diego Rivera observed, `It is not tragedy that rules Frida's work.... The darkness of her pain is just a velvet background for the marvelous light of her physical strength, her delicate sensibility, her bright intelligence, and her invincible strength as she struggles to live and show her fellow humans how to resist hostile forces and come out triumphant." This sense of triumph seems to be missing from the film and the result is an experience that is without passion. "It meant nothing," Rivera pleads when confronted by Frida about his extra-marital affairs. "It had all the emotion of a handshake." That could also describe the film.