If that sounds cruel, well, Frida isn't terrible. It's just a tad disappointingly superfical - a movie that has all the elements necessary to be fascinating, involving character study, never really scratches the surface. This a material for a biography of the week. The movie is a linear chronical of the highlights of Kahlo's life beginning in 1922 and ending 30-plus years later. All of the fascinating characters to cross Frida's path are here - muralist Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina), who was the love and heartbreak of her life; Leon Trotsky (Geoffrey Rush), the famous Russian revolutionary with who she had a brief fling; and Nelson Rockefeller (Edward Norton), who commisioned Rivera's most famous mural, then had it torn down.
Good acting does not always equate to good characterization. Frida is blessed with several strong performances. Salma Heyek, who gets top billing, is effective in the lead role, conveying the character's strength and toughness while allowing occasional moments of vulnerability. This is not, however, an Oscar-worthly role, but it does show that Hayek is capable of doing much more that she has heretofore been recognized for. Alfred Molina is terrific as Diego; in fact, his presence is so commanding that he overshadows Frida and made me wonder if the real name of the film should be Diego. The supporting cast is long and luminous: Ashley Judd, Edward Norton, Geoffery Rush, Valeria Golino, and Antonio Banderas.
Although Salma Hayek was the driving force in getting this film made, Frida's visual dynamics are the product of directory Julie Taymor. The bright hues that liven up the opening scene and the stylized image of the broken Frida lying on the trolley car's floor (with gold dust fluttering all around) to the King Kong recreations with Diego as the big, bad ape are all Taymor's The plot is frequently moribund, but at least Frida is always interesting to look at. However, given the wealth of subject material, the result should have been so much better.