Frida

This is an interesting movie, but less interesting perhaps than the reactions it draws.

First, the nuts and bolts review. Selma Hyack does a great job portraying the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, who marries, puts up with, and in some ways, maybe even excells famed Mexican muralist Diego Rivera. It's a tough role and Hyack seems to let it all hang out in many ways.

Alfred Molina is good, but not great as Rivera, and the rest of the supporting cast also performs well, including a cameo appearance by Ashley Judd as Italian born-photographer and leftwing activist Tina Modotti.

The direction is crisp and effective throughout, and the colors and ambiance of the film are simply great. This is a movie about artists and it fullfills the first requirement of art. It is visually stunning to look at.

What intrigues me is the heated debate this generates among those who know and admire Frida. It may well be impossible for anyone to make a bio picture that satisfies purists, those who are quite familiar with the subject matter. But purists have to realize that movies are too expensive and difficult to make (this one took decades)for the moviemakers to concentrate on such a small audience. They have to look at the big picture and make a film that is understandable to mass audiences, or else count on losing millions of dollars.

For myself, I knew next to nothing about Frida Kahlo, only that I had seen some of her paintings and that she was Rivera's wife. Since I like Rivera's work, I went to see the film. But I knew more about Tina Modotti when I walked into the theater than I did about Frida.

Whether this was an accurate portrayal of her character and life, I haven't a clue. But I do feel I came away knowing a lot more about her than I used to.

My single gripe is that the film seemed to make Frida take a back seat to her husband when it came to art. She is portrayed as someone who is very unsure about the value of her own work. But I can't get too mad about that, because Frida may have been that way in real life for all I know.

I am a leftist politically, but I think we often get much too caught up in politics and rhetoric and often assign political meanings to things when they don't apply. It is very, very complicated to make a biography and no 2 hour film is going to capture every facet of a complex person's personality, mucy less cover every aspect of their lives.

Overall,I'd say "Frida" accomplished its limited mission. It told me something about an artist I knew little about. I will now look for more of her work. I provided me with some fine acting, direction, etc. And perhaps best of all, allowed me to spend two hours in Mexican culture in some way, shape or form. I enjoyed the experience.

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...

Frida is a biopic, as decadent and beautiful as the art of Frida Kahlo. I can't imagine how you could make it any other way. Yes, we follow Frida through her dysfunctional and broken relationship with both Diego Rivera and the international socialist movement. But the way this story is told is key. The editing and cinematography pays enormous tribute to Frida's paintings and the genre of art that she represents. Salma Hayek is tremendous as Frida. Alfred Molina is tremendous as Diego. It's thoroughly exquisite.

Visually stunning - if this film does not win for cinematography at the Academy Awards, I will be shocked.

This film, based on the biography of Frida Kahlo by Hayden Herrera, is a masterpiece. I read the book several years ago & have been a Frida fan ever since.

I heard an interview w/Hayden on NPR not too long ago talking about her book & the movie adaptation. She did years & years of research on Frida and is probably as close to an 'expert' on her life as we could come across in the year 2003. She praised Julie Taymor for this film and was quite happy with her adaptation.

Reading the reviews on this page, i find it hard to believe that there are critics of this movie. Everything from the music (beautiful!) to the cinematography to the acting . . . greatness!! Selma really put her heart & soul into this role and she has now made her way onto my list of 'favorite actresses'.

It would be hard to put anyone's life onto the big screen & get every single detail right on - esp. someone who lived 50+ years ago. I think Julie Taymor has done an amazing job of representing the life of Frida.

Ahm.. I just watched this, it was from 2002 but I had no interest what so ever in the movie or the story when it came out, I knew about it I read in papers but never did actually saw it. Well, tonight was the night. And know this.. I will see it again.. and again until I understand that woman.. Frida Kahlo.

This is the kind of story that goes straight to your heart, straight to your brain and you sit there wondering " How could this really be true.. how could this really happen to a person?" I think that Frida was one brave woman, hell of an artist.. and I wish for myself to be like her if something so horrible happens to me. She was strong, she was a prey to conflicting emotions but she survived. The movie deserves a 10!

My neck hurts from sitting in that uncomfortable chair we have in the dining room but I couldn't feel any pain while watching "Frida". Why?! Simply, because I thought.. "wow.. how was that woman capable of staying alive for so long? How did she bear all that pain?"

This is a "have to see or regret for life".