Rating: 
Summary: Nice film, good acting, great images
Review: I enjoyed this film on many levels. The images of the 50's are excellant and the acting was inspired. The script was good and the story was believable. In a nutshell this was a good film and it did draw you in, make you think and feel the tention. It is heavy and not a feel good film. It's dark and reminds us of the cost paid by those who tried to play the game and failed. A good film worthy of a look.
Rating: 
Summary: Far from Heaven; closer to Camp
Review: Remember Rich Little? He did dead-on impressions of Jack Benny and Johnny Carson, but when he ad-libbed as "himself", he was dull and uninspired. Director Todd Haynes suffers a similar syndrome. He is quite skilled at aping other directors; I thought his "Safe" was the best Stanley Kubrick film that Kubrick never made. Haynes' "Far From Heaven" is a brilliant visual "impression" of a technicolor 50's "social drama" a la Douglas Sirk or Nicholas Ray, but its "message" regarding sexual confusion and racial prejudice has all the punch of an Afterschool Special. Personally, I've found much-heralded 50's fare like "Rebel Without A Cause" to be overwrought, over-acted and over-praised. Why deliberately choose this style now, unless you are going for camp appeal ("Down With Love") or irony ("Hairspray")? "Far From Heaven" wants to be taken seriously as a drama, and that's a tough sell these days. Julianne Moore is luminous and compelling as always, despite the very mannered veneer that was obviously demanded by the script. A somewhat miscast Dennis Quaid seems uncomfortable in his role as the "closeted" husband. Dennis Haysbert is very good, but he is virtually reprising his character from 1992's "Love Field" (a film with an almost identical theme and a much more convincing story). Film buffs probably owe themselves at least one viewing, but I wouldn't rate this one a "keeper".
Rating: 
Summary: Far From Heaven
Review: BORING, exaggerated, pointless, and predictable. Or maybe the point was to make people believe that all those that defined the fifties were confused and shallow, when in fact the fifties were a time of justified optimism and prosperity. Enough of the fifties bashing.... it is so 1990s. Most people in the fifties had a good ol' time. Much more so than today. Today, most are not "so" happy, they just want to tell people 45 years in the past how to live.The music, wardrobe, cinematography, and cars earn "Far From Heaven" a one star rating, while the unrealistic story, preaching, and condescending acting earn it a minus 5. I think we all know about homosexuality and interracial interaction. Heartland Americans were just more discrete about expressing their sexuality in the fifties. Who cares about sexuality. Life is far more interesting outside the realm of sex so why does Hollywood have to make inane statements about a very private issue? It would be nice if "some" Americans were not so in our faces about their sexuality.
Rating:
Summary: Hairspray with No Wit and an Unhappy Ending
Review: Imagine Jon Waters' "Hairspray" if it had no wit and an unhappy ending. That is "Far From Heaven" -- a weighty, tendentious, preachy bore. For Todd Haynes, it's all about condescendingly squeezing an Eisenhower era social elite into a Procrustean Bed of 21st century left-wing mores and thought. Because Howard Johnson's motels and restaurants are a symbol of the 50s and because they featured a tangerine and teal decor, to Haynes it stands to reason that a well-bred, wealthy young Connecticut couple would duplicate this for their home. Because the stereotype exists that all Southern white children stoned Black children in the 50s, we get to witness the bizarre spectacle of 11 year old upper class white children chasing a black child, and stoning her, all the while hurling the jarring epithet "Daddy's girl" (an epithet whose familiarity must be limited to Haynes!). This further presumes that upper crust Northern parents of the 1950's considered miscegenation to be an appropriate topic of conversation to have with their 11 year old sons. I could only be amused at the spectacle of NAACP representatives going door to door to get "their message out" (Haynes thinks because Jehovah's Witnesses did this in the '50s -- and do today -- and since some Jehovah's Witnesses are ethnic minorities, it is not too much of a stretch to attribute this to the NAACP) to what had heretofore been presented as a neighborhood of patrician Ku Klux Klanners. And then the most amazing juxtaposition of 21st century politics and the Eisenhower era. A closeted gay executive (working for a firm whose name improbably -- for the '50s -- ends with "Tech"), chooses to leave his beautiful wife, children and suburban lifestyle because his lover wants them to live together. That may be a valid choice for a soon-to-leave the closet gay man in contemporary times, who in many areas can sue landlords and employers if he's denied an apartment or fired from his job, but this was hardly an option for the upwardly mobile gay man of the 50s who could not afford to live too far from the golf course. And the way the wife discovers the husband's secret is par for the course -- the husband picks up a guy in a gay bar and brings him to his office. As with all secretive trysts in after-hours offices, the first thing they do is turn on the light (and keep it on).
Finally, watch a Douglas Sirk movie and imagine Lana Turner or Lauren Bacall in an outfit designed to make her look dowdy. That Todd Haynes can make the wraith-like Julianne Moore look fat in boxy pleated suits is perhaps his only achievement in an otherwise duplicitous, disrespectful and dishonest effort.
Rating:
Summary: This Was A Stitch!
Review: This movie evokes memories of the grand melodramams that Lana Turner, Susan Hayward, Bette Davis, Anne Baxter (to name a few) generally had a field day with in the 50s. Reduced to the sexist and unfair misnomer of "women's movies" they are classic tear-jerker fare. The appeal of this movie lies in its presentation of two issues that remain quite powerful today: racism and sexual repression. This gives one a glimpse of how these two subjects may have been handled together via this genre in the 50s. There is absolutely no question about the performances. Julianne Moore is simply exquisite as the tortured Cathy whose whole world eventually crumbles before her eyes. Dennis Quaid does a wonderful job but I suspect this is probably his bravest role as opposed to his strongest performance. Dennis Haysbert is, as usual, quite good. His performance is perfectly nuanced and perfectly predictable. This movie however, cries out for a spoof from Carol Burnett. She could have a field day spoofing the conflicted soul of the quintessenital white woman whose life is crumbling around her. Actually, I think the movie is just hysterical. There was one scene where Cathy spies an unknown black man (Dennis Haysbert, the gardener)walking in her garden. She is about to be interviewed for the society page and the interviewer sees him too and both women look as if they have seen Bigfoot or something. And for those of you who think that it was rare for a college-educated black man in the 50s to be working as a gardener, you need to get a grip. That was infinitely more common that you would care to think. Kudos to the production/costume designers - this movie totally captures the texture and mood of the times. This movie stays true to the formula of the 50s melodarams with the traditional wordless goodbyes complete with white gloves, tears, loaded looks, and smashing cymbals in the background for maximum effect all inteneded to give you the distinct impression that while no clear solutions are available, at least we are making steps to change society as a whole. (AND we're gonna look good while we're doing it too!!!!) However, when you fast forward to 2003, it could be a real shock to see that we haven't come nearly as far as we would like to believe.
Rating:
Summary: Homage to 1950s melodrama.
Review: This movie has some of the most beautiful cinematography ever! Both the staged sequences and outdoor filming take on a majesty of brilliant color and tone. Julianne Moore could very well have won the Oscar for her sublime performance, and Dennis Quaid was oddly overlooked as an Oscar nominee. Overall, this is a good film with a lot of technical virtuosity and solid acting. Later.
Rating: 
Summary: Far From Heaven is Far From Worth Seeing
Review: The top-notch actors were the only thing that made this movie tolerable. I enjoy seeing actors giving good performances. But the story is nothing like the movie is advertised. Several times, I almost quit watching it long before the end. What I expected - due to the exceptional cast - was an interesting story with some human interest and societal issues. What I got was bored and disgusted. Dennis Quaid has always been a favorite of mine. But his part is a sexually confused wimp who comes home & tells his wife he's having an affair with another man. Then swears to end it but doesn't. He fades from the picture pretty much after a couple confrontations with his wife over his sexual confusion. Julianne Moore's character is living behind a facade that presents a perfect wife and she tries to actually be that perfect wife. But her marital deficiencies lead her toward falling in love with a black man. This is major taboo for that era, so much so, his daughter is beated when the community notices that they're even talking "too much". Their relationship stays respectful and at a distance until he takes his daughter and moves away. The practically non-existent ending has Julianne Moore's character giving instructions to her maid on some shopping items and then she stares distantly - which I guess is supposed to be meaningful - the end. Not only was I not entertained during the movie, I watched all that boring stuff and there wasn't even a conclusive end. The part or parts of this moving that won the great reviews must have happened during one of the times when I blinked, because the parts I saw weren't worth raving over. I recommend people skip this movie unless they want to be bored for about 90 minutes.ncr
Rating:
Summary: BEAUTY IS BUT SKIN DEEP, AND SPEAKING OF SKIN...
Review: ..this movie is a 'color'ful blast from a racist past. Julianne Moore is devastatingly stunning, the costume and set designs are marvellous and the flow of the movie is impeccable. All round excellent production. Yet, something is amiss. Perhaps that atavistic thrill that comes from not being able to predict the next scene in a movie, which sadly is not a luxury "Far from Heaven" affords. All its warm but predictable moments lead to a denouement that may be a bit of a let down to many of you. In any case, the characters are developed with picture-perfect tenacity and you're bound to end up feeling the desparation of all of them. The movie touchingly conveys a sense of community and hidden depths of human kindnesses and hypocrisies. Thus, despite its lack of delightful charm, I'd say it is worth a watch if only for its stunning authenticity and drama.
Rating: 
Summary: A haunting tale about what it means to be happy.
Review: Frank and Kathy Whittaker should be happy. They have a seemingly perfect life with the right house, the right car, and perfect kids. They have everything everyone living in the 1950's needs to be happy. But they are not. The perfect life is only a facade hiding the very real pain of these two people. Although he appears to be the perfect husband, Frank is anything but. He is gay and is living in a culture where being gay is unacceptable. In a sense, he is trapped by his perfect life. When Kathy learns of her husband's sexuality, she is devistated and finds refuge in the form of her black garderner. Because it is the 1950's, this is also not allowed, so Kathy is isolated with no one turn to. Far From Heaven is about looking past the pretty facades that people paint and seeing the real pain that exists underneath. A perfect world is anything but.
Rating:
Summary: DOUGLAS SIRK TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE!
Review: Okay! I know I'm going to catch flack for this one, but the 'genius' of 50's melodrama film director, Douglas Sirk, has always escaped me. There, I said it. "Far From Heaven" is director, Todd Haynes attempt at emulating the 'master'. In that respect, "Far From Heaven" succeeds. It is riddled with lush photography and set in the 1950's - which helps. But as a film of today, it miserably flops. Like Sirk's "Written on the Wind", "Far From Heaven" concerns a dutiful wife who discovers that her husband is not all that he appears to be. And like Sirk's "Imitation of Life" there is a hint of racial tension and interracial romance that sneaks into the proceedings. But if anything, "Far from Heaven" proves that you can't go back to the well - as it were - and relive the past without hopelessly being dooming to be compared and judged inferior to it. Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid aren't very engaging as a couple. Haynes' photography is too lush, at times appearing almost cartoonish - something that Sirk was never guilty of - and the plot, such as it is, seems better suited for a segment on "General Hospital" than mainstream Hollywood film-making. Ironically, it was Sirk's influence through films like "Written on the Wind" that paved the way for television to take its cue and cultivate the soap opera on the small screen. In retrospect, that premise works. The other way around - its an embarrassment. Besides, "Far from Heaven" plays it safe at every turn, eschewing the racial bias and tension and ending on a postmoderist unhappy note that Sirk would never have approved of.
TRANSFER: Perfectly captures Haynes' intent. Colors are rich, vibrant and nicely balanced. The black and contrast levels are accurately rendered. There is a considerable amount of edge enhancement and some shimmering of fine details. No pixelization though. The soundtrack is 5.1 and adequately rendered.
EXTRAS: A featurette in which Hayne's tells you that he is trying to do Douglas Sirk one better. Like Attenborough's remake of "Miracle on 34th Street" or Van Sant's shot for shot remake of "Psycho" - it simply can't be done! I wish Hollywood would realize this.
BOTTOM LINE: Not really worth much one way or the other, the film is adequately remastered on DVD. I'm not sure that's much of a help, though I am at a loss to explain why this film received four Oscar nominations. Then again, I'm at a loss to explain "Chicago" as Best Picture!
| 
