Rating: 
Summary: Came in a DeLorean
Review: If you used Doc Brown's time machine and brought someone from the 50's to watch "Far from heaven", this immaginary time traveller would notice no difference. Todd Haynes' best film so far is a complete and very accurate re-creation of a movie from the half-century, most notedly Douglas Sirk's dramas and romances. Figurine, cinematography, art, direction techniques, sound score, etc. everything was made to provide the viewers with the feeling of fifty years ago. "Far from heaven" is indeed very well produced and researched, without being annoying and out of date. Julianne Moore, once again acting with perfection, is Cathy Whitaker, the wife of a television-set company executive, mother of two children, owner of an excellent house with beautiful gardens. In other words, the typical successful family of Hartford, Connecticut. But then, she suddenly finds her husband, Frank (Dennis Quaid, very good) is gay. Yes, he likes men, an though they try, in many different ways, to cure his "disease" togheter, the always-smiling Cathy powerlessly watches Frank drift away. Then, she finds confort talking and unwillingly falling in love with Raymond (Dennis Haysbert), the black and enlightened gardender of her house. Obviously, this is not seen with good eyes among her circle of friends . So, as you've already noticed, "Far from heaven" is a movie about a hypocrit society, and about prejudice, in a double front: blacks and homossexuals. We have to remember, this is New England, where "people know better than people in the south", so blacks are tolerated and treated with a distant respect. No riots, no confrontations. But when Cathy is seen talking with the black gardener in a vernisage, the high-class society is shocked. Even to the point that Frank, who is "surely ill - he's gay" shouts at her wife and asks her "what is she trying to do with his life?". This is the subtetly of "Far from heaven". The problem is, this movie is too subtle. Dealing with a level of prejudice like this, in a society that was perhaps at the top of its hypocrital fit, "Far from heaven" could be a little more agressive, more in-your-face. Of course, the movie would loose part of its beauty, but the way it is it seems a little pointless. I left the theater with the impression that I'd watched a terrific movie, but there was something missing. Or maybe I didn't understand what Haynes was trying to show. Maybe he's saying: "Some lives are really pointless and have no way to get better", like that famous Jack Nicholson's character: "What if this is as good as it gets?". But I don't think like that, and that's why in my opinion "Far from heaven" is lacking in obviousness. But a great movie nonetheless. Good script, amazing visuals (pay attention to the sets of trees and leaves), and top-notch performances by Julianne ("the forgotten") Moore and Dennis Quaid. Grade 8.4/10
Rating: 
Summary: A beautifully made & very depressing recreation of the '50's
Review: The director Todd Haynes does a wonderful job of recreating the mood and film style of the '50's in FAR FROM HEAVEN. The Buick station wagon, georgeous New England autumn, welldressed and polite suburbanites are all true to the period and the locale of Hartford , CT., as I remember so vividly having spent my chldhood growing up in a Hartford suburb in that decade. And as the title implies, our memories are different from the complex reality of a time when race and homosexuality seldom openly intruded into life for the majority of the white middle class and yet for many it was indeed far from the heaven of their memories. The movie is technically superb, and tells it story at the leisurely pace of the films of that period while tackling topics directors such as Douglas Sirk (whose ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS is the model for this film) could not touch at that time. Dennis Quaid is excellent as the corporate man of the period struggling with his sexual orientation; Julianne Moore is wonderful as the proper suburban wife and mother; and Dennis Haysbert plays the role of the "Negro" gardener who befriends her during her difficulties and cause them to both discover that the cost of breaking the unwritten code of that period was much higher than they had understood. While I was glad that I saw the film, in the end it did not move me and I left admiring its artistry but disappointed. I can understand how other reviewers found it powerful in its examination of the hidden bigotry of the period, but I found it slow, it's message a little too obvious, and the ending very depressing with only despair offered the moviegoer. Even at the time portrayed by this film, most suburban whites, even if prejudiced, were aware that life was from far perfect even while believing in the American dream. And just a final historical note, as the credits reveal, the movie was not actually made in Hartford, the train station looks like an idyllic suburb at the time Hartford was a vibant city (which did have a meaningful black population).
Rating:
Summary: An ambitious and original movie that almost earns 4 stars.
Review: Although I did not get around to seeing this movie when it was originally released, it has been almost universally praised so I gave it a shot. As usual I did not get into the details of the reviews that I scanned before seeing it as I don't to know too much about it so that I can judge it based on my own perspective. After seeing most movies that, I do go back to read the finer points of several reviews to bring the experience full circle. While not the masterpiece that some of the best known reviewers have made it out to be, it is certainly not the absolute polar opposite than some reviewers here (one of my very favorite sites due to the democratic nature of the sum of the ratings) have made it out to be. One major quibble before going on with my review. For some reason almost every single review told the ENTIRE STORY and more than ever I was happy that I read them after seeing this movie. Even reviewers who make it a point not to give too much away, failed miserably as it is possible to introduce and review a movie without giving everything away. Here are my two cents. To me this movie faithfully represents and looks like one of the best movies of 1957. This is not a back-handed complement as it never introduces the wink, wink, nudge, nudge irony that has been done to death in almost every genre in recent pictures. When I say one of the best movies of 1957, it say it because it not only convinces you that it is a 1957 social melodrama yet takes it a little further than those actually being made at the time. I am not giving too much away by revealing that the movie centers around an ideal white-upper middle class suburban family from the 1950's, where not everything is like it appears to be. Behind the perfect house, effortless parties, ordinary kids who are constantly reminded to mind their manners, great friends, we soon will learn that the parents of this household are living in very different worlds and things will never be the same after they move beyond the written, and unwritten, expectations that society had and continues to have (albeit to a different degree) with regard to racism, homophobia, the role of women, men, and even children. The ideal parents in this perfect family are expertly played by Julianne Moore (one of the very best working actresses in the business and very much earned her Oscar nod) and Dennis Quaid. Their roles are very difficult because in every single scene there is the possibility of them falling flat on their faces by over-emoting or being too droll to cause any reaction to what would be explosive material even today. Almost every supporting player, especially Patricia Clarkson and Viola Davis, is exceptional. The one exception for me is Dennis Haysbert who is always a strong presence, but he gets the almost impossible task of bringing to life a character that is almost not human and simply too perfect to be true. I kept seeing a somewhat kinder "President Palmer" as played by Haysbert in the hit series titled "24." The movie accurately reflects the values of the 1950s (and risking beating a dead horse, very much alive even in the 2000s) and looks at the downside of what is an era when life seemed so much simpler largely because of "family values". Maybe for some, but if you were not white/male/heterosexual/or even simply a personal who acted in accordance with beliefs, things were even worse than they are today. Recent events in the US, lead me to believe that were a coming full circle as having an opinion can literally have worse consequences than it may have in the 1950s. Although I enjoyed many aspects of the movie and would recommend it if only for the amazing cinematography, acting, and originality, the movie does not pack the punch that it could have had the script focused a little more of how people really spoke in the 1950's and not how they sounded on TV and in the movies. I understand that this movie was an homage to some of the "women's pictures" of the era, but the writer/director would no have been any less faithful to the genre if he had taken even further what those movies only hinted at, and this one stretches to a certain degree. This movie would have hit a homerun if it had not only addressed some core issues with every perfect TV/movie family of the era, but also went behind closed doors and tried to look behind closed doors to create an entirely full picture of not only the gloss of the era, but those details that humanize all characters. Unlike most, I think that this movie deserves 3 and like I said at the beginning it's neither the mess that some believe this movie to be, but it is not anywhere is good as critics made it out to be. I am upping the grade to almost 4 only due to Julianne Moore's challenging performance.
Rating: 
Summary: Not far from Heaven!
Review: Julianne Moore gives a fabulous performance as Cathy Whitaker, a housewife in Connecticut in 1957. She has a successful husband, Frank (Dennis Quaid, in an equally fantastic portrayal), and two children. She has a normal, perfect life. Or so she thinks. One night, she discovers a dark secret of her husband's. Shocked, Cathy stands by him as he sees a doctor for help. Through this difficult time, she seeks some comfort in her gardener, Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert). They are seen talking to each other and in his car together, which causes a major stir since Raymond is black. Soon there is whispering all around the town. As her life seems to be falling apart, she receives another devastating blow, that has her thinking more about Raymond, who she has romantic feelings for. Far From Heaven is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. The cinematography & backdrop of the film is gorgeous, the script is wonderful (the dialogue sounds just like it would have in the 1950s) and the acting is superb. Both Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid gave marvelous and outstanding performances as people with secret desires. The DVD also features some nice extras, like commentary and a special look at the making and filming of the movie. If you haven't seen Far From Heaven, you are missing out on a stunning and poignant movie. This is a must see.
Rating:
Summary: Not Far from Disappointment (3.5 stars)
Review: Being born in 1970's, I am unable to remember the 1950's. And being a central-European, with no knowledge about what Douglas Sirk films were like, I had no preconceptions about "Far From Heaven". I took it as plainly as possible, ready to enjoy the cinematic treat many critics purported this to be. In the end, I must say I was vaguely disappointed. Although the movie has many redeeming qualities. "Far From Heaven" certainly recreates setting of 1957 with striking sense of detail. From the beginning you have to but admire exquisite colors of cinematography, nice production design and beautiful music by Elmer Bernstein ("The Age Of Innocence"). The story unfolds when a typical mid-class housewife Cathy Whitaker (played by Julianne Moore) discovers that her handsome husband Frank leads a double life -- the other being homosexual -- something that probably was missing from the 1950's film productions. Cathy finds solace around their Afro-American gardener Raymond (Dennis Haysbert, a distillation of Nat King Cole and Sidney Poitier), before nasty gossip -- and unsuccessful 'treatment' of Frank -- mark the beginning of the end of Cathy's life as she'd known it. The viewer of course must feel sympathy with Cathy (merited also by Moore's flawless performance), who is portrayed as conventional, yet inside a very strong woman. The storyline itself flows conventionally, there's absolutely nothing surprising in the plot. Director Todd Haynes said he had wanted to shoot a movie about 1950's the way it couldn't be made in 1950's. This art-for-art approach basically works very well, but as a result the film -- perhaps on purpose -- lacks real, deep emotions and its impact on some viewers may be lukewarm at best.
Rating:
Summary: Atmospheric drama; just wish it were longer
Review: This movie plays in the 50's and the atmosphere of that period is brilliantly portrayed. The exaggerated retro-font of the film title is already one indication, and consequently the screen is filled with old-timer cars, typical house interiors and much more that points to the 50's. Some might find the world Haynes creates more like a doll-house: the environment is almost too autumnal and the streetcars are too new. But he nevertheless manages to create a very striking sphere. But it is the storyline and the characters above all that give this 50's-atmosphere. The -on first sight 'perfect'- couple of Cathy (Julianne Moore) and Frank Whitaker (Dennis Quaid) struggles with taboos from that era: Frank has a coming-out as homosexual, after which Cathy falls in love with the black gardener Raymond (Dennis Haysbert). Cathy discovers her husband kissing in a room with another man, and the mighty gossip circuit of the town soon tells Frank about the adventures of his wife. Not surprisingly, this situation results in trouble for their family. There is a clear message about the morals of the 50's: Cathy's friends suddenly aren't very good friends anymore as soon as they hear about her friendship with a black person. Cathy herself clearly doesn't feel very much at ease between her friends, while she gets completely in her element when Raymond is nearby. This Raymond is an interesting character, if only because he is played by Dennis Haysbert. While he is here a simple black gardener who meets a lot of racism from his surrounding, the same actor plays the role of the first black president of the USA in '24'! Talk about changes! The character of Raymond may be a little too 'perfect', as others have already pointed out, but it contrasts nicely with the image of gutter rats that is attached to many people in Cathy's social environment. The cast here does its job very nicely: Moore is great in her performance of a typical 50's woman who slowly becomes more adventurous and 'human'. She plays merely restrained, as if to make her role not too stereotypical. That certainly succeeded. Husband (in the movie) Quaid is another seemingly normal person with unexpected sides (his being gay) and is terrific as a tormented and desperate man. Haysbert makes a very convincing case as the sympathetic gardener, with his seemingly relaxed acting that makes his character Raymond almost cosy. Also, the gossip aunts are irritating to watch and that's exactly how they were meant. Some could find the film a little too compact, and I certainly wish the director had taken more time to shed more light on the relationship between Raymond and Cathy. Same for the other relationship: Frank's gay mate is a bit cartoonish and this aspect could certainly have been worked out better. The film didn't leave me unsatisfied, far from it, but I think the story would have benefited from a broader, longer approach. But that criticism shouldn't keep you from seeing this very worthwhile and enduring movie. The sometimes 'implied' acting sheds a special light on the dramatic storyline and the atmosphere just breathes the 50's. Certainly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful Cinematography Rescues Hackneyed Story Line
Review: Far From Heaven aims to display and confront contemporary issues in an era where they were anything but. Set in 1950's Connecticut, this film follows a rather streamlined, cookie cutter plotline. However what makes this movie worth watching are its strong performances by Julianne Moore and Dennis Haysbert along with deliciously crafted cinematography. It takes a conventional story and brings it vividly to life with a precise display of colors, genuine wardrobe, and authentic environments. There is a familiar scent of Hollywood detectable throughout the film, though all other aspects of the movie strengthen its appeal. The story follows the plight of a well-to-do housewife (Moore) in conservative era Connecticut. Her seemingly story book existence is challenged when she learns of her husband's (Dennis Quaid) homosexual indiscretions and she takes solace in the confidence of her new acquaintance and gardener (Haysbert) who happens to be black. In this time frame her interracial fraternization, as innocent as it may have been, tarnishes her reputation as the idyllic housewife. The major issues addressed are amplified by the time frame in which they're set. One aspect in particular the movie excels at is recreating the acting element of 50's cinema. The performances are both compelling and genuine and the movie, while slow moving at times, in its entirety is certainly worth watching and wholly enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: A Disollusional Period
Review: Postwar was enjoyed by the few that had the privilege to move to suburbia, get a good job, and raise a family. However, most people weren't able to enjoy the comforts of the new era. Discrimination, homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. existed but was shielded by false images of Dick and Jane with a white picket fence and the perfect mother and diligent yet handsome father. Cathy Whitaker, a Connecticut housewife, had the perfect life--a husband, two children, maids to take care of the household. Beneath the surface, she was forced to confront homosexuality and racial discrimination. Her husband was living a lie. Being seen with a black person was scandalous. Keeping up with appearances can be hard on the body, mind, and soul. Cathy went so far as to take her husband to a clinic to get treatment for his "condition".
Despite the fashion trends, housing opportunities and creation of jobs and inventions, the 1950s were nothing more than false appearances that racked people emotionally and physically.
This movie was good at covering segregation and homosexuality. People don't go outside of their world because of fear and ignorance. The combination of the two can hold us back.
Rating:
Summary: Todd Haynes is a hopeful promise
Review: The story is simple but haunting. A middle marriage. Connecticut.
Set in the fifties, Julianne Moore discovers the hidden secret sexual of his husband. The visual effects and the lights game are exquisite when she talks with him in the hall. The camera is not over them, but it gets far, in a obvious signal of discrete sense of intimity.
Haynes has surprised me in a positive way. The handle of the camera is elegant, fluid and never abuses about the close takes and either the close up.
The natural landscape is superbly photographed; and the story is told organical without any hole, with clever clues you slowly are discovering and finding all the details.
His style reminds me the influence of two great directors,the first one obviously is Douglas Sirk and the other one is Joseph Losey. The script is built following the classical structure of the soap melodrama, but its flowness and the articulation of smart secondary themes avoids falling that road.
The camera shows no mercy with the double moral in that neighborhood. The envy and bitter sights falls under the raising relationship with her gardener. Once more the racism phantom rises as a veil that surrounds and warns her friends.Remember the explicit sequence in the modern art musseum.
But the most remarkable aspect from this film is the way is told. It's an european approach, all along the story and specially remarked in that exquisite ending sequence.
I really expect great future works from this young film maker.
And obviously the support given by Mrs. Moore is first rate. She is one of the twenty top great actress in the world.
Watch this one. It will let you thinking for along, long time.
Rating:
Summary: Well Done
Review: A bit of a long drama, but the acting is captured well. Moore does a bang up job portraying happy housewife Mrs. Whittaker. I loved the quality of her staying formidable and solid in public while the turbulence is stoking beneath. She let s on to no one except her closest friends the types of problems that goes on in her household. Dennis Quaid, just as brilliant, is supposed to play the archetypal solid father figure, but his character is very weak compared to his wife. This is personified in the end when he breaks down in front of his wife and children. Wife quickly takescontrol of the situaition and tries to return it normalcy. What a worse time for a man and his wife to be more different than they know...which is the beauty of the film.
|
