Rating: 
Summary: Stunning beauty with a social bite
Review: This beautifully realized film by Todd Haynes not only rediscovers the style of 1950's cinema, but explores the pain and loneliness beneath the stifling facade of 1950's American life. Haynes' highly economical screenplay neatly articulates three key arenas of prejudice: race, gender and sexual preference. And at the heart of this film are three great performances. Julianne Moore is sublime as the confused but brave Cathy Whitaker. Dennis Haysbert is wonderful as Raymond Deagan, striking just the right balance between subservience and dignity. But highest praise must go to Dennis Quaid's rendering of the sexually-tortured Frank Whitaker, teetering between acceptance, self-loathing and violent self-destruction. He was unbelievably passed over in the Supporting Actor Oscar nominations. His performance clearly outshines John C. Reilly's almost embarrassing turn in "Chicago" and Paul Newman's trifling role in "Road to Perdition", and is at least on par with the other nominees. I don't understand the Academy's reasoning anymore. (Or perhaps the producers are to blame. Did they simply want to spend their promotional budget pushing the film in more coveted categories?) Whatever the case, the Academy certainly got it right when nominating Edward Lachman for his cinematography. The deliberately Technicolored style which revives our latent memories of Douglas Sirk's melodramas is an extremely clever choice. The artificiality of the visuals plays against the palpable suffering of the characters. This is a risk, because for some viewers it might undermine the seriousness of what Haynes is trying to say. But for others, it will create a kind of aesthetic confusion which powerfully echoes what the characters are feeling: In a world this lovely, can such horrible things really be? For these viewers, the result will be a film which is as moving as it is beautiful.
Rating: 
Summary: A Brilliant Film and a Masterpiece worthy of Best Picture
Review: Far from Heaven is a classic masterpiece which deserves best picture and director awards. It has been a long time since we have seen this type of film and lets hope it is not the last.
Rating: 
Summary: Not quite limbo, but not heaven either
Review: I had heard, as everyone else had, the hoopla about this being a recreation of a 1950s-style movie, like those directed by Douglas Sirk ("All That Heaven Allows" and "Magnificent Obsession"). Now, as I spent a fair amount of my childhood holed up in an apartment watching those very movies, I fear it falls to me to say that this movie doesn't really evoke those movies. It was the same way when "Pleasantville" came out a few years ago; that didn't do it for me either. What I find curious is that a much better job of "looking like a 1950s movie" was done by "Eight Women" also out last year. That one really had the clothes and technicolor down. So, if your aim is to see That Kind of Thing, then pick up that movie, not this. "Far from Heaven" looks more like the 1960s "The Children's Hour" starring Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine, and perhaps bears better comparison with that movie, because both feature homosexual storylines. Julianne Moore's suburban socialite housewife lacks an emotional center, and that's what kept this from really achieving great movie status for me. She responds to things more like a Stepford Wife than not, so it does play like satire or spoof. Dennis Quaid is doing most of the work in this movie, as he has to deal with his own demons about his latent homosexuality. He's walking a seamy side of life, but can't seem to stop himself. The much-lauded gardener is in the vein of Nat King Cole. One of the other reviewers is quite right when they observed that there is just no way that a character this intelligent couldn't have figured out what would be the end result of his befriending the white Julianne Moore. In fact, Moore's continuing to seek him out demonstrates that she is actually as uncaring about the impact of her desires on his life as her husband is uncaring about the ramifications of his leaving her for his boyfriend. Perhaps more should have been made of this similarity between husband and wife, that both willfully pursue loves that have the power to destroy Somebody's life, though not their own. So, I was far from moved by "Far From Heaven". Not a bad movie, to be sure, but certainly not a cause for ballyhoo.
Rating:
Summary: Far from Heaven
Review: Far from Heaven is a great film which we should see more of this type of film. I loved the Acting, Story, ScreenPlay, Directing, Cinematography, Movie Score, Costumes and just the style of the film was just great. I will be adding this film to my collection.
Rating:
Summary: Far From Perfect
Review: I came out of the theater after seeing "Far From Heaven" wondering what, exactly, the point was of the movie. It still baffles me, weeks later. Perhaps I am putting too much thought into it, and should just accept it at face value, but I know too much of the backstory to be able to do that. The film is most definitely cohesive in its structure, and there are many, many superb elements to it. There are, unfortunately, enough shaky elements that I felt confounded, harangued and even slightly irked with the picture as a whole. But, maybe I just didn't 'get it'? Cathy and Frank Whitaker (Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid) are an affluent middle-class couple living in gorgeous, tree-lined Connecticut, with precisely two children and one big, spacious house. Frank is a successful executive for the Magnatech company, and he and his lovely wife frequently host dinner parties for the town's powerful and well-to-do. Everything seems perfect, until Frank starts to act upon his hidden, homosexual urges. He starts frequenting gay bars, and even invites a man up to his office after hours. Meanwhile, as their marriage is slowly slipping away, Cathy begins to take an interest, purely friendly at first, in their gardener, Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert). Soon, however, Cathy is seeking possibly more than just a friendship with the African-American gentleman. "Far From Heaven" is set during the 1950s, and, according to all the articles regarding the film, it attempts to evoke the look and feel of films made during that decade, particularly those directed by Douglas Sirk. The only Douglas Sirk film which I've seen thus far is "Imitation of Life". I suppose there are slight similarities, but not much. The link is supposedly stronger to another Sirk feature, "All That Heaven Allows". The look of "Far From Heaven" is right - the beautiful autumnal leaves, in all their glorious colors, cascade down from the trees in every shot, adding soft tones to the events of the film. The set design is spot-on. The acting is quite good, by all involved. Julianne Moore is especially exceptional. My quibbles lie with the feel of the film, portions of its script, and with the overall direction.
The director of "Far From Heaven", Todd Haynes, has said that he set out to make a 1950's movie that couldn't have been made in the 1950s, due to the social mores and inhibitions of the time. We therefore are shown the budding friendship/attraction between Cathy Whitaker and Raymond Deagan, a caucasion woman and an African-American man. If it is still a somewhat infrequent coupling today, it most certainly was social heresy at the time this movie is set in. The film reflects this. There are whispers and negative opinions voiced. But the obvious tilt of "Far From Heaven" is that those whispers and voices are wrong. And that's fine. I agree. But, it makes me wonder, do people really want to be hit over the head with such a preachy motion picture? While racism in the 1950s was deplorable, we have thankfully, for the most part, moved on from that now. I can't see what the point is of re-hashing it. And as for the side-story of Frank Whitaker's homosexual affair? That is another odd thing. The emphasis is, at first, on Frank's dalliances, his insecurities with his own sexuality. Then, he proclaims that it is wrong, that he wants to be 'cured', and then the story shifts more toward Cathy and Raymond's romantic interest. The character of Frank is portrayed as volatile, confused, angry, and a home-breaker. This is the homosexual representation in the film. I found it unreasonable, and short-changed. "Far From Heaven" may have sounded intriguing on paper, but it is flawed in its execution. The set design, acting, and cinematography are all excellent. Unfortunately, parts of the screenplay hampers the overall flow of the film, and I did not feel as though the directing was reminiscent enough of the camera shots and pacing of a true 1950's movie. Too bad. "Far From Heaven" had the potential to be a superb experiment, instead it is sadly far from perfect.
Rating:
Summary: Bullseye!
Review: This film is certainly not the "greatest" ever made, whatever that might mean, but if you can show me one more nearly perfect, I will give you money. (We could talk about how much.) Not a false step in the entire production, except perhaps for the Quaid character's (single) use of the "f" word - which a "real" character might have used in 1957, but which would never have appeared in a 1957 film. And this film otherwise looks and sounds exactly as it would have looked and sounded if made forty-five years ago. And yet, because it uses none of the self-referential irony that infects so much contemporary cinema (and even the work of Douglas Sirk), it transmits the power of its story undiluted. I think we haven't seen so seamlessly integrated a piece of work since "Casablanca".
Rating:
Summary: Far From Perfect, but close to perfection!!!
Review: Julianne Moore was magnificent in both "The Hours," as a suburban 1940's housewife, unhappy with her life and family, hiding repressed sexual feelings toward her best friend, Kitty, and in "Far From Heaven," as a 1950's housewife whose husband is hiding his homosexuality, but is unable to control his sexual feelings toward members of the same sex. This made me wonder, can an actress be nominated for two Oscars in the same year--one for Best Actress and one for Best Supporting Actress? She certainly deserves it. Julianne Moore is most certainly an exceptional artist, playing her roles with renewed vigor and great emotion. While both story-lines may sound incredibly similar, the character of Cathy in "Far From Heaven" cannot be more different than that of Laura Brown in "The Hours," and Moore plays both characters wonderfully. Cathy is a loving wife, devoted to her husband and two children. She is living the perfect 1950's suburban life, until her husband's secret obsession threatens to tear their family apart. Dennis Quaid is superb as her husband, and Dennis Haysbert is surprisingly successful in his portrayal of the man who comforts Cathy in her time of need. The feel for the era is most certainly there, and Todd Haynes does a brilliant job of directing, as well as adding little touches here and there. This is much like a sitcom from the 50's, which quickly takes a few drastic turns. Sexuality and racism are explored as things take a turn for the worse. "Far From Heaven" is truly engrossing, wih great performances all around, including Patricia Clarkson, an underrated actress who plays best friend to Cathy. This is a heart-felt and powerful film. A definite must-see for anyone who appreciates a good film.
Rating:
Summary: Far From Heaven, but Close to a Classic.
Review: "Far From Heaven" may not have been filmed in 1957, but director Todd Haynes invests such a fierce attention to detail that it could have very well been made in that era. The cinematography, costumes, dialogue, furniture, and colors recall the 1950s so uncannily it's downright frightening. Even the dramatic score from the legendary Elmer Bernstein recalls that era. But "Far From Heaven" is no movie of style over substance. It's a heartbreakingly effective tale of a Connecticut family whose white-picket-fence ideals are shot to the ground by a series of dramatic events. Julianne Moore gives the performance Oscar fantasies are made of as Cathy Whitaker, the good-natured and dutiful mother and husband of a successful TV executive (an emotional Dennis Quaid). Cathy's comfort zone gets rocked to the core when she catches Frank smooching another guy. As any wife would, she's crushed but remains optimistic that Frank will "beat this thing" that makes him "despicable." But loneliness gets the better of her and she befriends a mild-mannered Black neighbor (dynamite work from Dennis Haysbert), and soon their friendship becomes the object of vicious town gossip. I'll refrain from revealing anything more, but "Far From Heaven" had me hooked from the word go. We all know that racism existed in the 1950's (and, sadly, it still does today), and we all know that interracial relationships were frowned upon in that era (as they still are today). But what peaked my interest is how this film, set in 1957, handled homosexuality in a period that pre-dated Stonewall and the concept of gay rights. And the witty screenplay dodges cliches, avoids predictability, and draws us closer to the characters and their pain. Director Haynes never strives for irony (though the temptation is there) and he tells the story similar to the way it probably would have been told in the 1950s. So, pay no attention to the 3, 2, and 1 star reviews that appear here. "Far From Heaven" is a beautifully done film that deserves your attention as much as it deserves a handful of awards.
Rating: 
Summary: Good performances, lackluster movie
Review: I cannot understand why this movie is getting such tremendous praise. I thought it was an ok movie, but it wasn't resonanting in my mind very long as other movies this year did. I thought more of the story about how Julianne Moore's, who did do an excellent job, charcter felt about her husband's extra-marital activities could have been explored. When she found out, it was like she didn't really care. Maybe it was, because she already knew insde, but that was never conveyed to the audience. I thought that the 50's thing became too cheeky. I wasn't sure if the movie was supposed to be funny or serious. A little of the "swells' and "pops" would have been fine, but, to me, it crossed the line to being too much. One good thing about this movie was the colors; the cinematographer did do a great. The movie could have been great if the writer and director stuck more to providing a good, moving story rather than to making a 50's homage.
Rating:
Summary: Under My Skin
Review: My immediate reaction to this movie was "beautifully shot, beautifully acted gimmick." Todd Haynes does a wonderful job of recreating the style of 50s melodramas, as well as capturing the look and feel of 1950s, when the future was right around the corner. The movie takes a more unblinking view of sexual attitudes and race relations than the movies of that time did (or could, for reasons that are perfectly clear once you see the film), but on first viewing it didn't have much emotional resonance for me. Now it's weeks later, and I can't get it out of my head. The four leads - I include Patricia Clarkson as Julianne Moore's best friend, whose nuanced performance is one of the best on film this year - fling themselves completely into their work. Julianne Moore, always stunning, does an incredible job slowly unveiling layers of a character who does her best to add enough layers to protect herself. Dennis Quaid has the unenviable task of playing a man who has cut himself so far off from his emotional center that his only choices are to work or drink. Dennis Haysbert, third billed as the black gardener, serves as the rational core of the film, as the only character who is self-aware, who chooses to push what is socially acceptable rather than doing it accidentally or by compulsion, and in doing so almost loses everything he holds dear. The movie is very talky, as social commentary often is, but the meat of the movie takes place in the silences. Emotional conversations are cut short and punctuated by half-spoken sentences. A look - or an avoided glance - often says more than all the language of a scene. The actors convey so much in how they hold themselves that words are almost unnecessary. Yet they ramble on, because not to speak leaves such uncomfortable gaps. This movie doesn't tell us anything new about 1950s America. But it shows it to us, in a way that the films of the time couldn't even see. It's this vision of a time, so much still with us (as Trent Lott pointed out), that makes the film resonate for me so long after the fact.
|
