Has anyone seen Frida yet?

Planning to go in a day or so, Msolga - I will let you know.

Who panned it?

Yes, Deb, do let me know ... I think I can trust your opinion.

The Melbourne 'Age' reviewer basically said it was shallow & lacked important details of her life.
By the way, have you seen Pollock?

NOOOOOO!!!!! I missed it - I will have to wait for the video...

have you?

Nope, been kinda busy with this house moving nonsense ... There are so many films I want to see! Haven't even seen Big Fat Greek Wedding yet.
Have you?

nah - wanna see "Adaptation', "Possession", and several others more than that one, to be honest.

Want to see them, too!
So many movies, so little time!

I have seen "Frida" and thoroughly enjoyed it; however the short description you gave of the local review was accurate. If you are looking for a biography of Kahlo and Rivera, you'll be disappointed, but being a Julie Taymor film it was rich in imagery and attractively filmed. Additionally all performances, major and minor, were excellent.

Yeah, I Saw It A While Ago
I saw "Frida" a while ago and my only complaint about this wonderful film is that Edward Norton didn't receive screenwriting credit, of any degree, on the film -- because he contributed a great deal to the script that was filmed and the script is very well done.

It's an entertaining and energetic -- and courageous -- film.

Hums the Bird- I don't doubt your statement that Edward Norton was involved in the script, but since I was not aware of the fact, I am curious as to your source of this info.

H the B- The particular source of your info has become academic. I found several sources on Google, and now I am probably as disappointed that Norton received no script credit as you are. Apparently it was a decision by the Screenwriters Guild due to Norton's not being a Guild member; and since he was the only writer to work directly with Taymor, we end up with credits that are both misleading and unjust.

Thank you for your feedback, flyboy & Hums ...
You've both inspired me to see it, despite the rather damning review I read. Looks interesting!
Incidentally, any "must see" movies you'd like to recommend?

Hums

Just noticed your just hatched status ...
A big welcome to A2K! Enjoy, enjoy!

Msolga- Here are five that I've seen recently that I would consider "must sees". None are in the "sleeper" category.
"Chicago"-A splendid adaptation of the stage productions with an equally thin story line. It does not have the Fosse choreography, but has its own active style and has many "tricks" not available to a live performance.
"Far from Heaven"- Excellent performances by Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid (the best I can recall for him). I was particularly impressed by the '50's feel of the film; not only did it reproduce the '50's, but it had the "feel" that it was actually produced in the '50's. I make an exception for the fact that today there were direct references to things that could only have been made by inference back then.
Others: "About Schmidt", "Lord of the Rings:the Two Towers" and "Catch Me if You Can".

Thanks for those suggestions, flyboy. Much appreaciated.
I mean to get into some serious film watching (theatre & video) now that I have a little more time again. I might also take another look at a few oldies but goodies ... Like China Town, or the Conformist...

Saw 'Frida' today & have mixed feelings -
I found it wonderful, visually .. Gorgeous to look at & also to listen to. Also terrific acting .. Oh, & I loved they way the images in her paintings were integrated with the action in the film.
But, but .. a few things nag, mainly with the script. (call me picky!): I'm wondering why Frida's constant physical pain wasn't more obvious through most of the film. It must have been terrible & would have affected her profoundly. Everything she did would have been influenced by it. ... Yet most of the time she was glowing, beautiful & healthy. It was almost a surprise when she had to have yet another operation, then the amputation ...

Also her relationship with Diego: Surely it must have been far more intense (& less romantic? More obsessive, or dependent, maybe?) much of the time? ... The affairs (on both sides), the heavy drinking, their political commitments, his self absorbtion .... For most of the film (until he became sexually involved with her sister) Frida appeared rather hurt by his infidelity, though hardly devastated by it. So her regret, toward the end of the film, that she had never been in a proper marriage with him, seemed a little out of character. That didn't appear to be at all what they had committed to.

Perhaps I'm frustrated that the things that bound them together were not explored more fully ... Possibly because they might not be as attractive or appealing than the relationship presented in the film? But far more interesting, I think .. I just have this nagging feeling that both Frida & Diego were far more flawed as people, far more complex & probably far less attractive than what we saw. I would have loved a little more depth. It might not have been as pleasant as what we were presented with, but to me, far more interesting & real.

===============

Google wasn't the source of my knowledge about Norton's contributions to the script for "Frida," and, yes, you've accurately described the reason why he didn't receive screenwriting credit, among a few other things.

I saw Frida the day it opened here, and thoroughly enjoyed it. The visuals were just amazing. What they managed on a $12 million budget compared to most of what's out there...

dlowan mentioned Possession - it was my personal favorite of the many films I saw last year.

I also recommend Chicago, unless you really can't stand musicals. I loved it!

FRIDA was glossy junk-- a popcorn movie for people who drink espresso. It gave zero sense of what kind of painter Kahlo was, what drove her to express herself as an artists, or even ultimately why she and Rivera were so closely linked for so many years. If Edward Norton was responsible for the script, it's no wonder, because the writing was superficial and amateurish. Trotsky's appearance made no sense unless you already knew who he was. The movie was entertaining the way a made for TV movie is--eye candy--but nothing more, which is too bad, because it wasted a great subject.