Rating: 
Summary: A Heavenly Treat!!!
Review: Julianne Moore is an actress that makes interesting choices in her career. Whether it be a drug addicted porn star in "Boogie Nights", stepping into the shoes of Clarice Starling in place of Jodie Foster for the film "Hannibal" or as the perfect 1950s wife and socialite in this film, she always seems to be right on target. Cathy, a dedicated wife and mother (imagine the combination of TV mom, June Cleaver and Melanie Wilkes of "Gone With the Wind"), seems to lead a life that anyone would clamor for. She is kind to everyone, well respected and a role model for the women in her community. As the film progresses, however, we see how her world slowly begins to unravel. Her husband, played very nicely by Dennis Quaid, is a man tormented by the fact that he can no longer control his homosexual urges. The fact that he is uncomfortable with his repressed sexual orientation causes him to lash out at his wife and turn to alcohol. The one person Cathy turns to for consulation is the family's new gardener, an African American man (Dennis Haysbert of Fox's drama "24"). A friendship grows between the two, who see the beauty in each other but both the period of time and Cathy's social circle frown upon such a friendship and most definitely a relationship. The story is a very emotional ride and well worth the admission for this film. Diretor Todd Haynes does a great job of mixing beautiful scenery and the slow building of tension among the story's main protaganists to make a deeply engrossing film. Patricia Clarkson is good as well protraying Cathy's best friend, a woman in her social circle who shows her true colors at Cathy's time of need. This is an excellent film that I hope lots of people go to see. OVERLOOK the naysayers and negative reviewers here. Treat yourself to one of the best films of the year so far. It will definitely find a spot on my shelf once it is released on dvd.
Rating: 
Summary: Nicely done.
Review: "Far From Heaven" is set in upper-crust 1950s New England and depicts the unraveling of the perfect marriage when the husband is unable to cure himself of same sex desires. A parallel story line explores a budding, sinfully sensuous relationship between wife and black gardener. The movie juxtaposes the two forbidden desires in an attempt to sort out the greater of two evils. The movie is wonderfully filmed with all the accoutrements of 1950s motif. Dress, language, style, dénouement . . . all accurately reflects the period. Although I did find many of the interactions between the wife and her taboo desire unrealistic for the era, I was able to take the movie fantasy plunge and stay engaged with the story line. The film moves slowly at times however, excellent acting by the cast help keep the slow periods from being out right boring. Overall a enjoyable flick. There's lots of nostalgia, desire, and temptation. A worthwhile outing.
Rating: 
Summary: Far from heaven is far from good
Review: To me, the best thing about this movie was the opening scenes of the beautiful autumn leaves; I may be the only person who did not like the movie; I tolerated 45 minutes or so and had to leave. I love movies and this is only the second movie I ever walked out on. Just could not stand the saccharin sweetness of Julianne Moore (loved her in The End of the Affair) nor the doofus-ness of that portrayal of the era. I was a wife/mother at that time and never saw anything even vaguely similar to what this movie depicts. What a disappointment; I really wanted to see a good movie that day, not a grade B melodrama. Actually, I did see a good movie that day. After my personal bad choice and disappointment in Far from Heaven, I bought a ticket to Bowling for Columbine; a powerful movie.
Rating:
Summary: I'm grasping at reasons to like this movie...
Review: I really really really wanted to like this movie. As a old movie buff, i totally enjoyed the sets, costumes, music, opening and end titles, but something just wasn't there. The story of apperance vs. reality really showed how far we have come in terms of acceptance, and the acting, especially by Julianne Moore, was great, but the story was lacking. I found some of the scenes unmotivated, and the ending seemed to be lacking a punch. I think one of the problems was that there was just to many issues trying to be worked through. I believe that a movie about a woman in the 50's finding that her husband was homosexual would have been wonderful, but you throw in racism, woman's repressed sexual issues, children being neglected to keep up apperences, etc, etc...and you have too much going on.
Rating:
Summary: Unwatchable
Review: I'm sorry. I've walked out of two movies my whole life, this being the second. (I don't remember what the first one was, it was that forgetable). Ignore all you've heard about this movie being emotional and stylish. It was neither. There was absolutely no chemistry between any of the characters, and Julianne Moore, whom I normally like, just 'acted' her way through the part. It had no sense of reality within the time period, and I found it unwatchable. I gave it more than an hour to improve, but in the end, had to leave. The story also seemed unworthy of the millions of dollars wasted to make this film. If you're going to spend that much money to make a movie, at least make it worth your while, and ours.
Rating: 
Summary: "Already Stale Postmodernism"
Review: The natural audience for a skillfully photographed indulgence of this sort is most likely persons who've spent too many years in film schools, since it's probable only they, if anybody, would be willing to ignore the disabling degree to which this film smells of the shop. It's at heart a pastiche of precisely that sort of outdated stuff still taught at places within the academy as "cutting edge," its aesthetic straight out of now conformist 60's Cahiers du Cinema dogmatism - a film, according to which, should bear its director's mark; matters of style are all, and the story, even if campily inconsequential, is no detraction from what's really valuable to the with-it cineaste. From this viewpoint a genius like William Wyler comes to be denigrated since none of his films, as he proudly pointed out, shows a repetitive stylistic hand, whereas a mediocrity such as Douglas Sirk may be lauded to the skies since overly lush photography and cryptic, if inconsequential, visual metaphors for decoding are rife in all his works. Todd Haynes adds insult to injury in "Far From Heaven", an unnecessary homage to the laughably overrated Sirk. The lush photography and lavish musical scores of 50's melodrama Haynes reproduces with an obsequious fidelity, though he is original in adding one unfortunate element - the invitation to a contemporary audience to congratulate itself of how far its come from supposed 50's benightedness in matters of race and sex.
If the film has any saving grace, it's in the lead performances. Both Moore and Quaid do commendable work, though it should be noted that their roles are so limited in depth that not very much is demanded of either. Despite the ravings of so many critics, it's worthwhile to remember that Moore, for instance, is not acting Hedda Gabler here, much less Phaedra. What she's playing is just a precursor of a Jane Fonda conversion heroine. She has an initial inkling that racism is bad, and with experience she finds it indeed to be so! Moreover, Norma Desmond's famous complaint that actors nowadays lack faces for the screen could with perfect justice fit Moore in this role. She is photographed either in a full Betty Crocker rictus or with her shadowy face averted from the camera.
In no case is hers one of the great performances in screen history, though I would not be surprised if the bandwagon effect leads to her winning all of the increasing number of awards film actors are on the receiving end of these days.
Rating:
Summary: Slow, obvious and boring
Review: While technically impressive, this film is basically a bore, with all the points being made about the 50's lifestyle and bigotry so obvious as to be insulting to the intelligence of the audience. While technically impressive, I could not recommend it to anyone who is in need of sleep because you would nod off within the first five minutes.
Rating: 
Summary: Highly stylized, visually lush and superbly acted drama!
Review: This is one of the most aesthetically beautiful films I've seen in years. Yes, it seems too perfect when the vividly colorful fall leaves on the trees match what everyone is wearing, but that's part of the deal here--it's a *picture* of perfection that exists only as an image (pay close attention to the opening and closing scenes). The more perfect the image, the larger the gap between the image and the reality, and the more dramatic the impact when the perfect image begins to crumble. At the start of the film, I had a hard time adapting to the "too perfect" language--all the gee golly goodness of the 1950s is really taken to the hilt. It came THIS close to being laughable. Before long, though, I found myself not watching a movie about the 50s but living a story in the 50s. Haynes makes it real--from the clothes and cars to the language and social mores of the day. It was a time when homosexuality was a psychiatric condition to be "cured" and when an inter-racial couple faced open hatred or at least villification from both communities. It was a hard time to be anything other than what society expected you to be and that, to me, is at the heart of this story. Highly recommended...a film that will have you thinking after you leave the theatre...a wonderful gift to any movie lover!
Rating:
Summary: unsatisfying drama
Review: I wanted to like Far from Heaven. The opening shot is exquisite and I couldn't wait to see what would follow. Unfortunately not much or not enough. What is drawing so much praise here, Todd Haynes decision to recreate a long gone genre was an interesting experiment. But ultimately it got in the way. The scenes didn't breathe, the actors didn't connect. While I thought the style was cool; the music, the credits, the whole thing-- in the end the it all seem contrived and overdirected. Too much from the head. Not enough from the heart. The only actress that seemed alive was Juliane Moore's best friend. Everyone else seemed to be in a daze.
Rating:
Summary: Classic
Review: FAR FROM HEAVEN is a revelation. It's easy to dismiss this film as a sweeping look at the '50s Americana but the more I think about it, the more depth I find - the film is about a certain part of America - the suburbia - where the parents neglect their kids and thrive on the artificiality. Think Anne Sexton and John Cheever (two great American writers). In the past few years, we see a handful of remarkable films about the nightmare of living in the American surburbia (American Beauty, The Ice Storm, Happiness) and do we need another film dealing with that same topic? Yes we do because I think FAR FROM HEAVEN is the most powerful and emotional of them all. FAR FROM HEAVEN may appear dated with its glorious technicolor looks but it's brilliantly refreshing and ageless. It even feels so "today". Todd Haynes the director added his touches and trademarks to his best work - one of them is the "zombie" look. In some scenes, Cathy appears very "zombie" like, especially with the eerie orange/blue glow on her face. To me, it's very significant since it reflects her in that state of mind and mood. The film is drenched in darkness with colors fighting to sparkle through. There is no word to justify Julianne Moore's most haunting performance ... when you exit the cinema as the final credits roll, the film will follow you ... you will be thinking about it and I know
that the film will be remembered for years. The lilac scarf is a magnificent metaphor ... make sure to think about it when you get home. FAR FROM HEAVEN is the best film I've seen in years and it's certainly on my list of favorite films of all time.
|
