Frida (2002)

What a waste of my time!!!

From my favorite movies..

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

It wouldn't matter what you might show or say - people who have taken a liking to an 'artist' or their particular 'style' will defend them regardless. So it probably is with Frida Kahlo and Diago Rivera. Every country must have its acclaimed legends good or bad - the USA with Pollock and Warhol, Spain with Picasso and so it goes - it's the law of economics and superiority, etc...Oh, not to mention art....This glossy film version of Kahlo's life and work sets out to make a hero of her and nothing will stand in its way. In the attempt to do so it pulls out all stops ~ striking visual imagery from Mexican born director of photography Rodrigo Prieto (Water For Elephants '11) ~ marvelous visual effects from Dawson and Schrecker ~ good performances from most of the cast ~ OK (if overly voyeuristic) direction from Julie Taymor ~ evocative music score by Eliot Goldenthal ~ lots of color and angst.Maybe there wasn't a great deal to work with in Kahlo's life, as the movie spends more time indulging in over detailed examinations of her somewhat sordid private life. This may not seem so sordid if you happen to be into numerous extramarital affairs --with either sex that just happens to suit the situation-- According to the screenplay Frida divorced Rivera on grounds of his extramarital affairs - even though she knew of these right from their first meeting and he had told her many times he was incapable of any control over them. Problem was, Frida's own marital agreement was often broken in the same way but unlike Frida, Rivera (it seems) was not willing to dabble with both sexes. It's also obvious Frida had been known for her unabashed carnal indulgences as a schoolgirl - let alone an adult - in or out of marriage. Of course fans will excuse these dalliances on the grounds of her 'artistic' temperament and physical sufferings - well, so be it. Many will regard this movie highly (especially the fans) others may feel a little left out. Good looking but maybe not a great deal more...

The cast was very good, the costumes were wonderful! It is a great movie, biography of Frida Kahlo and has much to offer. It is a true story of passion, pain, strength, courage and above all unstoppable and unselfish love. One can learn facts of Frida Kahlo's life and talent as well as get known with Frida's paintings and their history, something very important. Moreover after seeing this movie I was "stimulated" to look for more things about Frida and other painters. I vote with 8 just because I want to see the movie again to clarify some historical and political facts that I am not so sure about. Generally, it is an absolutely worth-seeing movie and I highly recommend it to everyone.

Biopics aren't and will never be my piece of cake. Sure, The Pianist is one of my favorite films, i also liked a bit Schindler's List. Rare exceptions. But this one is just like 90% of the bios produced: tedious and uninteresting. Sure she was perhaps a woman with will to life, she had his physical obstacles and tried to win them and stuff, but there is really nothing more in the film. Talking about the plot, i have major problems with the fact that it has little to none focus for the secondary characters, which clearly would be interesting aces if earned a fair amount of screen time to them. The focus always being on Frida really don't helped this film, since that she was either drinking and yelling like crazy or just painting. And that is also my point:The story has no conflicts besides the traditional husband- wive discussion. The relationship of Frida with Trotski is either pointless or bad explored, because it just added useless running time to film. Also, some supposed jokes aren't funny or what's ever. This film tried to expand other limits beyond the melodrama and it clearly failed. But OK, i kinda liked to see the special cameos of Antonio Banderas and Edward Norton, which instantly took this film out of the stagnation and for once brought my interest in it. The cinematography is very nice, the art direction is terrific and got some inspirations from the Spanish paintings and their use of vivid colors in the characters, to contrast with a more neutral ambient. The music used in the film is bad, definitely not a fan. The editing was OK, it wouldn't help that much in this film anyways unless if they had cut lots of pointless scenes from it.The acting by Salma Hayek was indeed good, not impressive, but she did her job fine. She really put effort in her interpretation work of Frida. Deserved Oscar nomination.I wouldn't recommend it. A search in Wikipedia is definitely faster and more interesting.6.2/10

I'm a "Mexiphile", enamoured of the country, its people, culture, history, and am overwhelmed by both Diego's and Frida's art. Salma's labour of love condensed two supersized lives into two hours which, by sheer necessity, had to paint their entwined lives as metaphorically. We just watched it again for the third time. I like it better every time. Probably a box office failure because it was too gringo for the Mexicans and too Mexican for the gringos, a fine balance which Julie Taymor finessed. I give high marks for the acting, the colours of Mexico, the music by Elliot Goldenthal which also captures the flavours of Mexico. The screen writing is terse, tight, humorous, and human. Learn something about Kahlo, Rivera, the muralist movement, Rivera's osmotic art education in Europe and his panoply of styles before he "rediscovered" Mexico...then watch Frida: a classic work of art.