Hemingway & Gellhorn

A truly miserable film that trades in posing, overacting and phony' hyperdramatic lines. It is Insipidly researched: a five-minute read of Wikipedia may seem adequate to the badly underdeveloped, but why would they be the audience for a film like this. It is clunkily written, in dialogue and in its scenarios. The film is unfair to Hemingway, reducing him to a loud bully conspicuously and constantly panicked about his manhood and ignoring the balance of his life and personality. It is unfair to dos Passos, portraying one who saw much combat and who was regularly passed over for literary prizes because of his conviction. making him appear to be a weak and feckless hanger-on. It is also unfair to Gellhorn, who was a truly great war correspondent.

The actor Clive Owen is quite an unfortunate choice to play Hemingway. Owen never sounds appropriate.

The film's author seems to have a grudge against Hemingway, too.

This seems aimed at no one past a high school freshman level. In fact, it seems to be written by three or four of them, and directed by the least tasteful of the group.

Is American movie-making deliberately getting dumber or are such movies just negligent.

Good try at combining a study of complex people and a look at the completely incomprehensible war torn twentieth century experienced first hand by the famous authors. Not an easy assignment.

The suffering of the ravaged and the slaughter of the human race and the love of two volatile writers are given equal time but the subjects are heavy and elusive at best.

The best one can hope for is a film worthy of the fight against Fascism (that could destroy the spirit in the best of us) and hold our interest in these two interesting people.

Still some insight about journalistic war time coverage comes through and there is some good use of cinema tricks and smooth transitions that helps move it all along at an entertaining clip.

Nice Movie, and excellent performance by all the actors, and Nicole Kidman is another story, i was stunned by her performance, i mean she is a really talented actress, and she keep impress me say after day, so i think she deserve an EMMY, specially for the older Galhorn part. its a bit long but not boring so it was a movie to watch. And Clive, he was good. and Rodrigo and all of the other actors. Lars Urich of Metallica surprise me so much. I think Kaufman deserve a life time achievement award for his life work, and i think the film should get more high rates. so i advice everyone to watch it, because it talks about two important American literatures.

The movie left me flat. I was interested in the history and intrigued to see how it was portrayed. Skipping back and forth between the sepia, black and white and colour formats was disruptive. Further I don't think that the two principals did their roles justice. Like Hemingway they tried, almost painfully at times, to be larger than life and it resulted in inconsistent portrayals of these remarkable characters....both are good actors...probably a function of bad direction. The love affair didn't work at all....I guess a combination of things got in the way of my enjoying the movie. Several times I commented "this is not a very good flick" as we watched...and yet we watched it to the end...knowing how it would end....a strange viewing experience. I wanted it to be better and it had such potential to be so.

Visually, a cinematic masterpiece on the big screen (San Francisco Castro Theater, May 27, 2012). The old, historical footage blended artistically and imaginatively with the new. The music! Moving and memorable. Nicole Kidman is beautiful as ever. (Can I get the name of her plastic surgeon?) The opening immediately catches your attention, with Ms. Gellhorn telling the story, as a woman of a certain age who is looking back.

On the other hand, I was disappointed to learn so little about their life together and their professions, especially hers. The in-your-face sex left nothing to the imagination. I simply got tired of watching Nicole Kidman and Clive Owen faking it.