Please, you guys have to watch this movie! I was totally won over... though maybe it’s more accurate to say I was captivated by Frida Kahlo herself! The woman was just incredibly charismatic, talented, and one-of-a-kind... The scenes where they weave her artwork directly into the story of her life were especially stunning—just phenomenal!
I heard Salma Hayek actually shaved her eyebrows to match the look—she refused to wear makeup for the role. That is so brave!
I read somewhere that she actually shaved her upper lip just to make those freckles pop. Apparently, they weren't showing up enough on camera, even though in person, they were incredibly obvious. 😁
I haven't caught the movie yet, but I doubt it'll stay relevant for long. 😁
But honestly... Every single time I come face-to-face with her unique persona and her body of work, I can't help but wonder: How on earth has nobody made a movie about Frida Kahlo yet? 😕
I am seriously counting down the days until I can finally watch it....
I don't think she was "really" a lesbian; she just had a pretty wild and colorful life 🙂 It’s obvious she had a few flings—she just wanted to experiment a little
"Superficial" is probably the best word to describe this movie. Don't get me wrong—visually, the director absolutely nailed it. There’s one scene right at the beginning that stays with you: that stylized image of Frida Kahlo after her bus accident, just lying there, lifeless, amidst a swirl of blood and golden dust. Then you have that King Kong recreation Diego, acting like some sort of menacing gorilla. It's striking, but that's about where the depth ends. Imagine Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera’s trip to New York City reimagined as a Dadaist collage, with the two of them depicted as little paper dolls...
The script itself feels pretty superficial... E. Norton wrote it, after all. Honestly, he’d be better off sticking to acting. The movie basically treats famous historical figures like mere cameos—it’s just constant name-dropping. You see people like Leon Trotsky, André Breton, Nelson Rockefeller, Tina Modotti, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Pablo Picasso, but they all just pop up for a second. A few characters get a bit more screen time, but only because they provide context for certain events. For instance, they show the assassination attempt on Trotsky, and even touch upon how Frida Kahlo was briefly implicated in the whole mess. As for David Alfaro Siqueiros (played by Antonio Banderas), who was likely one of the masterminds behind that hit, he barely gets anything besides a brief appearance at a party early on. It's the same deal with Tina Modotti—she’s portrayed quite superficially, despite being a legendary painter and a total communist icon (your classic champagne socialist). 😁...she was actually exiled from Mexico because people suspected she had something to do with the assassination of the president back then... but fast forward ten years, and she's right back in the mix, hanging out with Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera again.
There’s absolutely nothing to suggest how Frida Kahlo actually started her journey toward becoming an artist. It’s almost like she just woke up one morning as a fully realized, master painter overnight. 🙄
The movie focuses way more on Diego Rivera’s legacy as an artist than it does on Frida Kahlo... honestly, though, Molina absolutely nails the role of the Mexican muralist. Salma Hayek is just as stunning as Frida Kahlo... she never misses a chance to show off her curves... and of course, she only let those mustaches out in that final scene.🙄 Even though Frida Kahlo has been nurturing her career her entire life... she’s just totally overacting lately. Honestly, it feels empty, just like always. She’d be much better off sticking to those classic, stripped-back roles of hers.
And one more thing that’s been driving me absolutely crazy... Salma Hayek is actually trying to justify Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera's obsession with communism. 😲 It’s like they had absolutely no clue what they were getting themselves into. And honestly, Frida Kahlo was much more aligned with the Communist party, mostly because she was so deeply devoted to Diego Rivera. 🙄 Of course, if you're going to romanticize Frida Kahlo, you just have to trash communism at the same time... because, hey, it's an American movie after all. Communism and socialism weren't just political beliefs for them—they were woven into the very fabric of their lives. You can see it clearly in everything they created; their art was essentially a vehicle for broadcasting their devotion to those ideologies. It feels like the movie tried its best to soften that edge and tone things down, but you can't really hide that level of conviction. 👎
Geoffrey Rush was absolutely terrible as Trotsky... honestly, one of the worst Russian accents I've ever heard. 🙂
I won't even bother watching this movie... Salma Hayek is just too superficial of an actress to portray such a complex woman, judging by her other roles.
Besides, I have no interest in sitting through commercialized biopics about people I actually respect. It always ends in disappointment.
Betty Rivera14 said:I’m skipping this movie entirely... I just don't think Salma Hayek has the depth to play such an iconic woman, based on her other roles.
Plus, I can't stand those big commercialized biopics about people I actually respect. They always end up being a huge letdown.
Honestly, the movie is still worth a watch... if nothing else, just for the stunning visuals. The director really nailed the cinematography. And Ashley Judd is absolutely gorgeous as Tina Modotti... (Betty Rivera14 would have loved 😉 and she was also into women like 🙂) though her Italian accent is pretty terrible. 😁
That said, if the plot is thin, it's definitely thin... 😁
paliti Blue Eyes said: Geoffrey Rush was absolutely terrible playing Trotsky... seriously one of the worst Russian accents I've ever heard... 🙂
Is it actually possible that he’s even worse than John Malkovich was in "Rounders"?!? I mean, honestly, Rush already has that sort of soft, mushy voice similar to Peter Sellers (he even plays him in that HBO series), so you can probably just imagine how much of a mess it sounds like when you throw a forced Russian accent on top of it.
Ris said:Honestly, I still have no clue who she even is...
Who was she, really?
And why on earth should we care about her?
Well, you don't have to... just like you don't necessarily need to know everything about André Breton, Marcel Duchamp, Dalia, or the rest of those surrealists...
paliti Blue Eyes said: There isn’t even a hint of how Frida Kahlo actually started her transformation into an artist... she just becomes this fully realized artist overnight. 🙄
The movie spends way more time on Diego Rivera as an artist than on Frida herself... plus, Molina is honestly great playing a Mexican muralist.
Yeah, I noticed that too... but overall, I liked the movie. 🙏
That scene where she has the accident—you know, the one with the blood and gold dust paliti Blue Eyes mentioned—and then the hospital stuff with the skeletons? Phenomenal. 🙂
And yeah, Ashley Judd is 🙏 👍 [way better than Salma Hayek, who felt kind of... I don't even know how to put it... vulgar?]
paliti Blue Eyes said:Oh, you really don't have to... it’s just like how you didn't need to be born knowing all about André Breton, Marcel Duchamp, Dalia, or any of those other surrealists...
I mean, were you honestly expected to know all about Frida Kahlo, Breton, Duchamp, and Dalia from the moment you were born??
Blue Eyes said:I wasn't even claiming that... I honestly don't get why there's sarcasm involved here...
It’s not really sarcasm, more like just a touch of cynicism (I always seem to forget that you can't see body language when we're all just typing away on a forum).
So, you mentioned it was a shame that some people only discovered Khalid through watching the movie. But why exactly is that a bad thing? Honestly, a good film can be such a great spark for wanting to learn more about something. Is there really any other way to learn that holds more value than being inspired by art?
