Rating: 
Summary: Wooden, Tiresomely Predictable, and Condescending to Boot
Review: Ah yes, those laughable people in their two-dimensional suburban lives. How unworldly and repressed they were. How unlike ourselves, we of the modern, cosmopolitan, hyper-educated elite. Aren't we so much cleverer than they were?This movie was incredibly tiresome. It was smug and conceited. It painted two-dimensional characters and then maneuvered them through a dreadfully obvious plot that shed no light on the past, and reflected painfully clearly the self-satisfied smirks of the people who put it together. Movies and their creators need to respect their subjects and their audience. This movie does neither. Don't waste your time.
Rating: 
Summary: Far From Interesting
Review: All style, no substance, and devoid of sympathetic, interesting, or believable characters, this flat Dick & Jane universe communicates nothing we don't already know about life in the 1950s. Visually beautiful with technically adequate performances, but slow and evaporates quickly. The movie "Diner" is probably a better period piece.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the Best Films of 2002
Review: Focus Features came out with two movies in the year 2002: The Pianist and Far From Heaven. The Pianist was a holocaust film and Far From Heaven was a social commentary about homosexuallity and racism in the 50's. I must note that Far From Heaven was a better movie as far as acting goes (with the exception of Adrien Brody, who I thought portrayed his character's sense of horror and shock very well) as well as cinematography and enjoyment. I feel that with The Pianist, it is more of a "one time see" and that Far From Heaven is something that you want to buy and watch maybe once a month if you like it. That statement brings me into my next issue. Most people, I think, will not like this movie that much. It takes a certain perspective, I think, to be able to enjoy this movie. A lot of people I know would stray away from it for its depressing subject matter, but that was the what made this movie. This movie was supposed to look pleasent on the outside, but there is so much devastation within that it shocks you and makes you see the real depth. The synopsis even explains this point. A perfect 50's family (stay-at-home mom, a boy and a girl, and of course, the big executive dad)is torn apart by homosexuality and scandal. Julianne Moore's character is what helps hold everything together...in the mean time. The cast was wondeful. Dennis Quaid deserved an Oscar nomination and possible win for his best performance as Mr. Whitaker, an advertising executive. He brings his family to the top, but his feelings threaten to tear it back down, and his emotion and cripling suffocation are evident through his movements, through every thing he does. This was Quaid's shining morning. Julianne Moore plays Mrs. Whitaker and her internal devastation is well-portrayed by Moore, whose best performance is this movie. She did recieve an Oscar nomination, and an apparant close win. She would be the first reason to see this movie. Patricia Clarkson also deserved an Oscar nomination who plays Moore's possibly-could-be-less-than-a best friend (if that makes sense). Dennis Haysbert plays his role as Moore's gardener well, but not to an amazing extent. One thing I noticed about the filming of this movie was how the colors changed. The movie went into a sequence of hills and valleys. There were high points and low points. During every high point, there were bright colors and everything seemed pleasent. But when the low points arrived, the lights seemed to fade and the colors seemed to darken. I think this, among many other reasons, should have influenced the Acadamy's nomination choices for Best Picture. Bottom Line: Should have been nominated for Best Picture over The Pianist for its outstanding cinematography, story, direction and, of course, acting. (I gave this movie an A+)
Rating:
Summary: Difficult movie to review...
Review: This film is like being presented a beautifully arranged meal on a crystal dish atop a silk tablecloth...that tastes bland.
Julianne Moore is an astonishing actress - she is so good that I cannot believe she hasn't won an Oscar by now. But while the acting in this film is great, it really leaves you feeling empty and somewhat confused. It is depressing, not because of the subject matter per se, but because there is no lesson to be learned, or truth to be told. If you want to watch great acting, then rent it. But we warned that you'll probably stagger to bed with a headache afterward.
Rating:
Summary: Far From Heaven
Review: Far From Heaven aims to recreate to movies of old, back in the 50's and 60's, and at the same time try to shatter this picturesque timeframe with an issue that is brought up for sheer plot-moving irony. Unfortunately, unless you aren't easily mesmerized by issues like this, and dumb sheer ironic circumstances caused by politically arguable topics; then this movie is just movement through well done cinematography. Before you even consider seeing it, you have to know it barely contains any entertainment. In fact, as far as a movie, it's just a front for a speech, a long and boring speech. I think it really depends on how much you care about watching two suburban-esque people's lives getting destroyed, and then watching their transformation into completely different people. And redemption movies, no matter how artsy they seem, are still redemption movies. Not to say this movie's an oscar boat, but it certainly retains what it has to tell. If you're going to bring a subject out into the open, at least cover all aspects of it, and don't shy out. As for the DVD, it's just a flimsy run of the mill DVD with mediocre special features and a pretty bad transfer. Only watch this movie if you are into watching suburbanites go through the works, and come out as different people with new goals.
Rating: 
Summary: thank God I missed the 50s
Review: "Far From Heaven" is the perfect antidote to all those right-wing reactionaries who hold the 1950s as a time of perfect peace and tranquility. As this film clearly shows, for many people the time was "far from heaven". I would say that the main theme of this film is repression. There is the closeted gay husband who is forced to undergo psychiatric treatment in order to cure his "illness" and the interracial friendship that creates such scandal. And nobody ever gets angry (Julianne Moore's character still calls her husband "dear" even after he's hit her)! The way the movie is filmed is worthy of note as well. An emphasis is given to soft colours and hues, as if it were all something out of a women's magazine from the period. The one glaring note in it is the portrayal of the children, particularly the requisite boy and girl of Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid's family. They are little more than caricatures, fresh from a Norman Rockwell painting, saying things such as "Aw shucks!" and "Yes sir." Perhaps that was a deliberate move on the part of the screenwriters and it would be difficult to find time for better characterization, but watching the film it began to irritate me.
Rating:
Summary: Looks Good, Says Nothing
Review: First, this is a gorgeous movie. The sets, colors, angles, costumes and lighting all come together to make some dazzling images of idyllic 50's suburbia. The disc contains the show "Anatomy of a Scene" which describes in detail how the filmmakers achieved the look, for those who want to know. If only it were a good movie. It's clear early on that the plotlines are about homosexuality and racism - a "message" movie, I thought. But no message is ever delivered. Later on I thought maybe it was about Julianne Moore's character's life coming apart and her anguish, but up until the very end she expresses nothing - she gracefully, stoically handles it all as if it were nothing more than a spilled drink at a cocktail party - her problems are irritating but are to be dealt with promptly. Perhaps some club soda will fix it... The filmmakers just got too many things wrong. The '57 Hartford they present could not have been that overtly racist; Dennis Haysbert's character is the cliche'd "wise oppressed black man" character; Julianne Moore's friends are waspy caricatures; and this is another show in a trend I've noticed - it has a "gay" theme but nothing gay is ever seen - Dennis Quaid is on screen maybe half a dozen times, that's it, and his "other" life is barely shown at all. Finally, the movie just ends. There is no closure, no resolution. You never find out what anything meant to anyone. So - if you like lush visuals you should check this out. If you want to watch a good story, look elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: I am glad that the dvd romote got a 8X fast forward
Review: what a plain and boring movie! the script is so loose and the acting, so contrite and strained like watching a staged play. the ghost in the closet turned out to be a big nada. all i saw was mucho people dressed up in the 50s', with lot of old cars driving around to enforce that period. hollow script, hollow acting. don't know what's the big deal of this movie. had to use 8X fast forward to finish it, or, well, did i finish it?
Rating:
Summary: Oh, the Humanity!
Review: Life in the 50's isn't the chocolate covered cherry you always thought it was. No sirree, Bob. In fact, those corny movies from the 50's barely put a scratch on that sickly sweet veneer. You see, back then, issues like racism, homosexuality, and misogyny were big no-nos, meaning you couldn't discuss such things in polite company - OR in the movies. Well, this devastating, and penetrating, oeuvre d'art rips apart the lies, misconceptions, and half-truths, and reveals America in the 50's for what it truly was: misogynistic, homophobic, and racist. WATCH as the achingly beautiful Julianne Moore struggles to maintain her composure (and coif) as she catches her husband KISSING another MAN! PUZZLE over Dennis Quaid CRACKING UP over losing his family and job because of DARK DESIRES! LAUGH OUT LOUD as Dennis Haysbert (the, uhh, love interest) slow dances with Julianne Moore, in the middle of a sunny afternoon, at a COLORED SPEAK-EASY! SIGH as the NASTY neighbors SPREAD GOSSIP! All of this set to a 50's STYLE MOVIE SOUNDTRACK, filmed to look like a 50's STYLE MOVIE!! The irony of it all! Boy, just imagine if they actually made movies like this back in the fifties - by now, we'd all be cross-dressing, vegetarian, collective farmers, gulping down anti-depressants like M & M's and longing for someone, anyone, to distract us from gazing at our own inch-deep navels. More than likely, though, if they REALLY had made movies like this back in the fifties, by now anyone with one-quarter of a spine (or more) would be in re-education camps (a/k/a Gulags) being forced to learn about cultural 'heros' like Che, Fidel, and everyone's favorite Comrade, Papa Joe. Sitting through this "IMPORTANT" film can't be all that different (but the films at the Gulag probably have better pacing).
Rating:
Summary: Ignore the hype, it's not that brilliant
Review: I was eager to see this based on all the hype. The hype was obviously generated to boost interest in a rather dull movie. I cannot fault the acting or the beautiful cinematography, but the storyline is far-fetched in many ways. Take the friendship with Moore and her gardiner - particularly where she goes to lunch with him. It just wouldn't have happened in the 50's. No woman with such a high reputation to uphold would have done that then. On the whole, the film tries to tackle too many issues in the 98 or so minutes. By the time the characters are really starting to develop the film is over - and I could care less about them.
A very over-rated piece of film which has been 'disguised' by nice colours and good acting. Just avoid it, it's a let-down.
|
