Rating: 
Summary: ...but very Close to Hell
Review: Sorry for the lack of eloquency here, but all I can say is "dreck, dreck, dreck!" This movie has concept, but no plot.Slow, boring, minimal conflict, strange overacting and unbelievable reactions from Dennis Quaid... If you are looking for an interesting angle to racial prejudice and closeted homosexuality, keep searching. If you find All My Children overwhelming, and are in need of a more plodding soap opera, then this is the movie for you. God only knows why I stuck through this movie to the end...and end that was so anticlimatic, that I was surprised (yet relieved!) when the closing credits rolled.
Rating:
Summary: Far from good.
Review: I really wanted to like this movie, but it is painfully slow, trite, and heavy-handed. Characters are used rather than developed (for instance, all three of the children); Dennis Quaid is in way over his cute head; Haysbert's character's decision at the end is not emotionally real, based on his earlier actions. The visual symbolism (flying scarf, witch hazel, etc.) is irritating. At least you get to hear an Elmer Bernstein score (a plus if you like his style) and see Julianne Moore, who makes very interesting choices as an actor.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant
Review: I was so absolutely amazed at this movie. Haynes' direction is absolutely brilliant. He has completely captured the essence of 50's film -- dialogue, color scheme, costuming, sets, end credits, fades from scene to scene -- Obviously great time and care was put into this production. Moore is perfect. She is not acting as a 21st century actress, she is playing the role through the eyes of a 50's actress (amazing). But the real brilliance lies in the themes which Haynes tackles: homosexuality, racism, and the burdens & confines of the social structure-- all of which would have never been truly approached in a 50's film -- Haynes is ultimately making a film about the products of that era's repression. He maintains the idyllic surface, yet probes the dark unspoken corners of that world. Surely this was the best film of the past year -- and no, "Chicago" doesn't come close in my books...
Rating:
Summary: Stilted
Review: Life is too short for trite movies like this. With all the subject matter that this film touches on something interesting should have come of it. No such luck
Rating: 
Summary: further from heaven
Review: It's difficult to classify this movie--in one sense it's a parody of the sticky-sweet love movies of the 50s (and hence the cinematic effects are appropriate), but it's not funny. Dennis Quaid dramatically overacts his anger and frustrations of not wanting to be gay and explodes without warning (or apparent reason) in a totally un-believeable performance. His romance with "the blonde boy" also is unbelieveable as they simply aren't compatible. Julianne Moore is more believeable in her role as the perfect housewife that falls in love with her black gardener, but that's about the extent of credibility in this film. I saw it with a group of 6 men, 2 thought it was great, 4 of us found it incredibly boring and slow.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent
Review: totally snubbed of oscars this film is amazing , Julianne delivers the most heartfelt and amazing performance on screen in rencent years as does Dennis Quaid. A Truly wonderful film , I Love it.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautifully produced, but not very believable
Review: The photography in "Far from Heaven" is truly wonderful -- carefully staged and lighted shots filmed in DEEP saturated color -- but the movie is hard to accept as a realistic depiction of suburban Connecticut in 1957-58. While Julianne Moore and Dennis Haysbert offer heartfelt and touching performances, Dennis Quaid is over-the-top most of the time, and the two Whitaker kids are just annoying. I grew up in that era, and believe me, nobody I knew talked like those kids! It has been suggested that this movie is not intended to be realistic, but instead surreal -- a belated 1950s movie that uses the style and conventions of that era, but address topics (i.e. homosexuality) that would not have been addressed so openly back then. Fair enough, but is it a good movie by today's standards? Overall, I'd say that mostly it is, although it moves at a snail's pace during the first half, and is just a bit TOO "politically correct." Still, it's worth watching just for the photography, sets and costumes, if nothing else.
Rating:
Summary: a movie that plays with the 50's stereotype
Review: Far From Heaven is, without question, one of the best movies of 2002. It may not have made every top ten list or made enough at the box office, but this was a very memorable film. This is a beautiful movie. Set in the 1950's, it sets up an exaggerated reality where everything is too perfect and everyone is too close to the stereotype of the time period. Julianne Moore puts June Cleaver to shame as the perfect housewife and Dennis Quaid is her hardworking husband. The characters try to present an image of 50's perfection, but very quickly we see that things aren't quite right. Far From Heaven takes the stereotype of the 50's image and shakes it up by introducing racial prejudice and sexual prejudice. Moore's housewife becomes friends with a black man. She feels that he is one of the few people she can openly talk to, but this causes problems in the insular society she lives in. Though the civil rights movement does exist, the world of Far From Heaven is separated into white and black, and there should be no crossing over. The friendship of Moore and Dennis Haysbert is viewed as more than a friendship and also as a betrayal of white society (Haysbert has the same problem in the black community). The other big issue that Far From Heaven plays with is that of sexual prejudice. When Julianne Moore catches her husband with another man, Quaid's struggles with homosexuality come out into the open. Far From Heaven is a wonderfully acted movie and is perfectly put together. The exaggerated ideal of the characters only serves to underscore how powerful the emotions are when the racism and sexual prejudice comes into play. Far From Heaven is one of the best movies of the year, and at the very least is worth a rental.
Rating: 
Summary: Disturbing....
Review: This was a beautifully done film. Every performance is awesome, especially Julianne Moore's. It was an interesting idea for a movie, I give it that. I liked this film somewhat, but I would not recommend it without caution. This film deals with some pretty unsettling stuff, considering the era in which all of the events take place. It is not for children, nor those looking for uplifting entertainment. This film has very little in the way of redeeming qualities. See it only if you are in the mood for a different sort of character study. It focuses on every single character's dilemma flawlessly. Once again, not for everyone, but if you think you can tackle it, go ahead.
Rating:
Summary: Genre film mimics the genre too closely
Review: How does one "rationally" review a motion picture whose raison d'être is to faithfully mimic the style of a nearly half-century-old film genre? It's hard to respond to "Far From Heaven" on its own terms when you're constantly reminded -- often in "weird" ways -- of its connection to the films it's trying to reproduce. "Far From Heaven" borrows most heavily from Douglas Sirk's "All that Heaven Allows," which, with its romantic pairing of Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson, is more than a little weird to begin with. * Both films feature a gardener, played by a heterosexual black actor in "Far" and a homosexual white actor in "All." But "Far" has a visibly homosexual character who'd played by a heterosexual actor, and... You get the idea. When you're so aware of the borrowings -- and how they're consciously used in ways that allow the films to "comment" on each other -- you feel you're watching someone assemble LEGOs, rather than viewing a dramatically meaningful story. Haynes' attempt to pay an honest tribute to Douglas Sirk, without irony, satire, camp, or archness, is not completely successful. There are several slips. Elmer Bernstein's "main theme" comes so close to conscious parody that I broke out laughing when it played under the titles. There's another laugh-provoking moment when the view through the rear window of Cathy's car is provided by rear projection! The principal failing of "Far From Heaven" is that it doesn't expand the genre. Merely including homosexuality in the mix of social issues isn't enough. The film treats homosexuality as if would have been treated -- had such a thing been possible -- in the '50s. Frank Whitaker comes off as an emotionally unbalanced freak who cannot control his "perversion." This is especially noticeable when Frank admits to Cathy that he's fallen in love with someone else. Rather than telling her in a calm, "manly" fashion, he blubbers all over the place, showing that he hasn't made any progress in understanding himself. And when he adds "I've never felt this way before" -- implying that his affection for another man is "real" in a way his feeling for Cathy never was - it's unconvincing, because we haven't _seen_ what lead up to this point. If you're going to "break" the genre and show something that couldn't have been shown 50 years ago, why show only part of it? The nearly exclusive focus on Cathy and Raymond unbalances "Far From Heaven." We don't fully experience what Frank is going through. He's little more than a caricature of the Eisenhower-era view of self-tortured homos. Unlike Cathy and Raymond, Frank does not visibly change. In a film that's "about" how people are made to suffer when they step over the social boundaries of their era, "Far From Heaven" is needlessly cautious in its treatment of Frank and his "problem." Haynes has a gift for writing brief, verbally terse scenes that clearly convey the characters' thoughts and emotions. He has time to show Frank cruising and (implicitly) having sex with a teenager while on vacation with Cathy. Adding another five minutes, with Frank meeting and falling in love with someone worthy of his affection, would have added dramatic balance, as well as "pushing" the genre by showing something that Sirk was never able to directly reveal. Providing an implicitly "happy" ending for Frank (while Cathy continues in her solitude) would have made an ironic comment on the "glossy melodrama" genre and the mores of its era. "Far From Heaven" is, unfortunately, a genre film in which the genre is itself the subject. It is reminiscent of the Coen brothers' weaker efforts. * It's a good thing the Production Code prohibited anything even remotely resembling a "sex scene." The idea of a naked Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson in bed together is Truly Frightening.
| 
