Watch Frida For Free

Please don't spend money on this.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

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's life was a soap opera, and seemingly tailor-made for a film, but the tiny budget and mediocre performances don't do justice for such a brilliant artist. The lethargic pacing and frustrating sense of unexplored avenues gives the viewer the sense of an unfinished film. Salma Hayek is suitable in the main role, but she lacks the finesse and stage presence to portray such an iconic figure. Alfred Molina, normally a brilliant, chameleonic actor who vanishes into whatever role he plays, seems strangely inert. Even Geoffrey Rush as Trotsky isn't that great.This claustrophobic film is mostly confined to the interiors of houses or studios, except for a hike up an Aztek pyramid and the famous bus accident that gave Frida lifelong pain. Even the trip to New York is a cheap, unsatisfying pastiche of flat graphics that any high school film studio could put together. One gets the impression that if they threw twenty million more at this film, it would have been as visually stunning as the artist's paintings themselves, which by the way aren't featured as prominently as you might expect.I guess I was expecting the film equivalent of Frida's magical surrealism, but what came across instead was a paint-by-numbers drama force-fitting famous lines everyone knows, such as the mother's lament that Frida's marriage to Diego was like a dove marrying an elephant.

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

After being attached to a number of actors, directors, and producers, this long-gestating biography of one of Mexico's most prominent, iconoclastic painters reaches the screen under the guiding hand of producer/star Salma Hayek.Frida is a biographical film which depicts the professional and private life of the surrealist Mexican painter Frida Kahlo. It stars Hayek in her Academy Award nominated portrayal as Kahlo and Alfred Molina as her husband, Diego Rivera.The movie was adapted by Clancy Sigal, Diane Lake, Gregory Nava, Anna Thomas and Edward Norton from the book Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo by Hayden Herrera. It was directed by Julie Taymor.Hayek ages some 30 years on screen as she charts Frida Kahlo's life from feisty schoolgirl to Diego Rivera protégée to world-renowned artist in her own right. Frida details Kahlo's affluent upbringing in Mexico City, and her nurturing relationship with her traditional mother and philosophical father. Having already suffered the crippling effects of polio, Kahlo sustains further injuries when a city bus accident nearly ends her life. But in her bed-ridden state, the young artist produces dozens upon dozens of pieces; when she recovers, she presents them to the legendary -- and legendarily temperamental -- Rivera, who takes her under his wing as an artist, a political revolutionary, and, inevitably, a lover. But their relationship is fraught with trouble, as the philandering Rivera traverses the globe painting murals, and Kahlo languishes in obscurity, longing to make her mark on her own.Sporting mustache, Salma Hayek gives a solid performance in the otherwise conventional and mediocre biopic of the noted Spanish artist.Ms. Taymor also gets magnificent performance from Alfred Molina as the oversexed Diego Rivera.The film is passionate, provocative, hilarious, tragic and just dizzyingly beautiful to behold.But nevertheless,the screenplay's flatness ultimately defeats a film that's always a treat to look at.Taymor's only triumph is that her film, despite its distance from us in some ways, is pertinent and enthralling.