La piel del deseo

There has been a lot of bad press about this movie, and, to a point, I don't understand why. Of course, I think that both Hopkins and Kidman were miscast in their respective roles, but at least Kidman trounced her miscasting and turned in a very strong, artistically nuanced performance.

This movie, to me anyways, seemed to be a bit theatrical. The camera shots are often distant, not allowing us to see the actors close up. The script is very loose, allowing for the actors to take the roles and make them their own. Also, most of the actors give very broad, exaggerated ( but not too much) performances. I consider this to be good. We live in an age when theatre is losing its popularity and the director of this film seems to have found a way to bring theatre into cinema.

There are some slight flaws in the movie. Hopkins speaks with a Weslh accent for no apparent reason. The ending is a tad bit drawn out, not terribly so.

Above all though, I consider this film to be a work of art. It certainly made me think about my own life; it's very powerful.

I found this an excellent film.Hopkins and Kidman were superb in their character portrayal especially Kidman.My only qualm is that some of the story could be expanded such as when Kidman meets Hopkins and hit it off. Hopkins had been in her shop earlier and there didn't seem to any spark of love interest at that point............even in the car there seemed to be no real chemistry.I think their initial meeting should have been more intense as for the rest of the story to follow on. I also thought the part of the ex husband could have been beefed up to reflect his often violent tendencies to his ex wife. Overall i was mesmerised by the acting of both Kidman and Hopkins and the superb way the story line was gently weaved out as th film progressed.

This just opened in Lawrence, KS, a university town, at the theater that shows indies and foreign films. Maybe Miramax is hoping for a "Big Fat Greek Wedding" type of reaction?

I've not read the book but, to me, this was a very satisfying film, with some examination of a number of issues: the costs to a black person of crossing over and becoming white -- and/or the price to anyone of becoming disconnected from their families. Although disconnection may give greater freedom in some ways, in others it forms an uncomfortable prison. Another issue might be described as a variant on, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And yet another is that the "stain" that all of us carry also stains others with whom we come in contact. And maybe there's a dear price (and reward?) that may be paid for following heart too much rather than head?

Really solid performances by some great actors -- Hopkins, Kidman, Harris -- and the others.

Some gratuitous nudity was injected, maybe to help ticket sales?, but it was not too far-fetched from the story line.

All the backgrounds fit (I grew up in Vermont and lived in academia many years elsewhere); the landscape and the Volvos plus the professor's house had a very authentic feel.

Based on the superior book by Philip Roth, Anthony Hopkins gives an emotionally strong and convincing performance as the professor accused of a racist comment. The overwhelming consequence of this results in the death of his wife. Alone and embittered, he meets dowdy and troubled Nicole Kidman many years his junior and an unlikely unity is forged. What is grossly underwritten by this adaptation is Kidman's ex played by Ed Harris. Here he appears as nothing more than a sub-plot, when by the end he is anything but and therefore dissolves all tension and drama. Good performances throughout and the direction effortlessly combines the all-revealing flashbacks of the past to reveal the futility of the future.

I'm terrifically surprised at all the middling reviewing of this film, to the point where I feel I have to echo the last few reviews that stand in opposition.

This is a film that just does it right. Unlike so many other dramas with heavyweight casts, this really feels like it's about the story, not the work. Kidman, aside from slipping into her native accent on a handful of words, is fantastic -- perhaps her very best. Harris, like Streep and maybe two or three other actors, brings a real humanity to a role that any other actor would just fill out.

But most of all, everything is in the background and hence subservient to the story. The gorgeous lighting, scenery, dialog -- the whole craft of the film is done the way it's supposed to be done, in the damn background. That all said, I think the real reason this film is slighted is because it's a little too good for the average viewer. It doesn't live up to their idea of what a lit-cum-drama is supposed to feel like. I just have a feeling that in several years this will be revisited and appreciated much more. Now, I'm going to go watch it again!