Watch Hemingway & Gellhorn For Free

One of my all time favorites.

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

What exactly was Phillip Kaufman trying for with this film? Kaufman's a pretty great director, but the material he's given to work with here doesn't even succeed as melodrama.It's not flattering to Gelhorn, so that's out. Hemingway's already been (justifiably) reviled in many other outings. Most of the war sequences are either simply unbelievable or grotesquely long. It takes a special kind of anti-talent to make conflict and history boring, but Jerry Stahl and Barbara Turner take it there in spades.It's not a plausible love story, or even a true one (Gelhorn cheated many times on Hemingway). It's not inspiring, interesting, or fascinating.Why HBO let them shoot a 155 minute opus that amounts to another lame 9 1/2 Weeks parody is just staggering.Avoid this film, it's as narcissistic and self-indulgent as Hemingway's overrated body of work and reputation. He was more a product of marketing than literature. So is this movie.

It doesn't benefit from being an HBO made for television film, but it does have an indulging romantic moments and enthralling storyline. I wasn't expecting a voice as deep as the one Kidman uses for Gellhorn, but her performance works and you are with Martha's motivations and actions every minute. Clive Owen isn't as successful as Kidman, but he has scenes to seize the audience's attention. Hemingway and Gellhorn mixes the typical style, specifically, the cinematography sparks creativity with different film stocks it utilizes. Not a must see, but a worthy watch.Rating: 7/10Grade: B

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.

cannot begin to understand how this expensive never ending film succeeds in gathering layers after layers of clichés, poor one liners, overacted scenes, and pointless attempts at recreating moments in history ; what Nicole Kidman, tartily dressed in various attires to make one believe she portrays a reporter, possibly achieve is giving close to nil a performance compared to Clive Owen complete tourist approach in his Hemingway role. It took me a while to figure out why I stayed with it, hoping for a redeeming scene, or some sort of irony to put it all in perspective, but i was almost relieved by the end, seeing the aged journalist picking up her same old gear tottering away from her desk. The award for the worst scene being the sex scene happening in a room at the Florida hotel in Madrid, where Gellhorn and Hemingway roll in a cloud of dust and go cuddly after being blasted to ecstasy...