FAR FROM HEAVEN - Thoughts & Reviews

[FeverDog420]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JLQF.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

The good people at New York magazine have generously given me passes to an advanced screening on Wednesday, November 6 for Todd Haynes' latest left-of-center effort. (The movie opens November 8 with a limited release in New York and Los Angeles.) Entertainment Weekly has already awarded it with an "A" rating, and the movie is enjoying an 86% approval rating over at Rotten Tomatoes.

The premise: Julianne Moore reunites with the director of Safe as a '50s New England housewife who realizes that her husband (Dennis Quaid) has been cheating on her with another man while her relationship with her black gardener (Dennis Haysbert) grows stronger.

All indications point to a critical hit and Oscar hopeful, but: a PG-13 drama from the director of Poison and Velvet Goldmine?

[Mike]

I read an article about it and I really want to see it. I'd love to check it out in theaters but I'm not sure if it will ever go wide enough for me to be able to. If it does come near me I plan on seeing it. I'm hoping it will be a sleeper and get some Oscar nominations...

[dh1989]

Julianne Moore is probably one of my favorite performers and the film has receieved glowing early reviews. I will see this as soon as it widens or on DVD. I also am dying to see THE HOURS.

[idealdiscountdude]

Far From Heaven is THE film that I am dying to see more than any other (yes, even more than Harry Potter).

The last time that Todd Haynes and Ms.Julianne Moore worked together was on the brilliant Safe, and I loved that film.

I have done alot of reading about this film and I keep on wanting to see it more and more.

The reviews are great, the cast is awesome and the director is a great and underrated one.

Hopefully Far From Heaven will kick ass in Limited Release and then get a National release, or a wide one so my ass can see it ASAP.

[idealdiscountdude]

Here is Owen Gleiberman's glowing review of Far From Heaven from www.ew.com :


Kitschy, impassioned, tender, and delirious, the wildly overripe Hollywood soap operas made by director Douglas Sirk during the 1950s have long enjoyed a cult following among film buffs. You hardly have to be part of the cult, though, to respond to the rapturous moviemaking magic of Far From Heaven, the bold and brilliant new film by the maverick writer-director Todd Haynes (''Velvet Goldmine,'' ''Safe''). From its lovely, too-pristine-to-be-real opening image, a slow, arcing crane shot of a train station viewed under autumn leaves, through its tumultuous tale of a Hartford, Conn., couple whose lives are ripped apart by desires they can scarcely acknowledge, the entire movie is a picture-perfect, nearly fetishistic re-creation of the four-hankie, Technicolor melodramatic style that Sirk made famous in such popular weepers as ''All That Heaven Allows,'' ''Imitation of Life,'' and ''Written on the Wind.''

Even those who've never experienced a frame of Sirk will recognize that they're in the synthetic hothouse world of '50s studio-system moviemaking. At first, as Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore), an idealized wife and mother, moons over carpet samples with her chatty best friend, Eleanor (Patricia Clarkson), the brazen artificiality of it all looks like some sort of postmodern joke. Yet it takes almost no time for ''Far From Heaven'' to immerse us in its spell, in part because the details are really no more odd, remote, or campy than they would be in any actual old movie.

Haynes gets it all down: the pretty yet matronly suburban women who dress like bouffant-haired prom queens; the stately, exposed-brick colonial homes dotted with just enough Atomic Age touches to have come out of a Life magazine photo spread on postwar design; the ''women's-picture'' dialogue that's so sincere yet brimming with polite decorum that it sounds as if it had been written by Edith Wharton channeling Emily Post; the extravagantly moody, setting-sun photography that can suddenly turn a Norman Rockwell tableau into a martini-hour film noir, with each room lit by a different burst of hot color, the characters silhouetted by the darkness of their hidden selves.

The year is 1957, and it's clear that trouble is brewing in the ''perfect'' marriage of Cathy, a happy homemaker as oblivious as she is chipper, and Frank (Dennis Quaid), her sales-executive husband, who starts each day at the Magnatech office by pouring a shot of booze into his coffee. Soon enough, we learn what Frank is trying to numb: his homosexuality, which has no place in either '50s culture or a '50s movie. The fact that Haynes puts it in his '50s movie doesn't alter the poignant reality of Frank's torment, which is only heightened since he lacks any vocabulary to understand, let alone describe, his feelings. Quaid, in a performance that's the definition of fearless, shows us layers of shame, rage, and desperate lust that will speak to anyone who ever tried to bury a painful secret until it didn't exist.

Cathy, seeking refuge from her troubled spouse, soon develops a secret of her own, drawn by the soft-spoken magnetism of her black gardener, Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert) -- a friendship tinged with an erotic danger that everyone in town, notably its racist gossips, can see but her. Moore acts with a shimmering naïveté that only grows more luminous as her illusions fall away, one by one, like dying flower petals. Poised against beautiful fake-woods settings that the movie treats as a backlot Eden, or, in one moment of stunning lyricism, in front of a Miró painting, Moore and Haysbert turn their deceptively innocent dialogue into pure poetry, a conduit for feelings too forbidden to be expressed.

It's one thing to duplicate the look of an earlier age, as the Coen brothers did in ''The Man Who Wasn't There'' or Gus Van Sant in his shot-by-shot remake of ''Psycho.'' Haynes gets at something more elusive: the mood, and mystery, of the past. Nudging his story into areas of sexuality and race that would have been taboo at the time, he at once preserves and pokes through the repressed spirit of the '50s, fashioning the era into an eerie echo of our own. This tale of people whose inner lives tear away at their surface ''normalcy'' speaks to the current glitzy era of surface obsession, which is less removed from the '50s than we'd like to think.

''Far From Heaven'' is a dazzling conceptual feat, but more than that, it's a work of enthralling drama -- a deconstruction of Hollywood soap opera that is also a full-fledged, utterly unironic masterpiece of the form. It may have taken a mad film buff to dream this movie up, let alone to bring it off, but only a true artist could have suffused it with such searching purity of emotion. The dizzying twin sensations the film evokes -- the feeling that you've never seen anything like it, and that we've all seen something very much like it -- don't fight each other. They merge, making the experience exist not in two dimensions but four. Who could have guessed that our cornball Hollywood past, newly reassembled with nearly all of its restrictions intact, would turn out to be a more expressive landscape than virtually anything in the let-it-all-hang-out, we-will-rock-you pop culture of today? Haynes hasn't just embraced old Hollywood. He has brought its soul back to life, showing us a path to what Hollywood could still be.

EW Grade: A

[idealdiscountdude]

Here is Peter Travers **** Review of Far From Heaven from www.rollingstone.com :

THE ROLLING STONE REVIEW

Why bother with a movie about a girly-swirly Connecticut housewife, circa 1957? Because Far From Heaven is a classic of its kind. Because Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid give the performances of their careers. And because writer-director Todd Haynes, the indie rebel who guided Moore through the stunning 1995 AIDS parable Safe, raises the chick flick to the level of art. I should mention that Far From Heaven is also riveting, rapturous fun. Talk about movie heaven -- this is it.
Haynes treats the 1950s, as he should, like an exotic parallel universe. Moore's Cathy Whitaker, coiffed and costumed like a lacquered doll, is the perfect wife to Magnatech TV exec Frank (Quaid) and the perfect mom to their two kids. Wait till you see her in apron and high heels, then giggling with the girls over daiquiris about husbands who want sex more than once a week and being gushed over in the local rag as "a woman as devoted to her family as she is kind to Negroes." Laugh? How can you not?

But Haynes isn't aiming for a campfest. As shadows fall over Cathy's ideal life, the laughs stick in your throat. Frank starts cruising men. When Cathy catches him, fly unzipped, kissing a guy at the office, Frank goes to a shrink for a "cure" that doesn't take. Cathy is afraid to tell even her best friend, Eleanor (a deliciously funny Patricia Clarkson). Only Raymond (Dennis Haysbert), the handsome gardener, gets Cathy to let down her guard. And since he is black, more scandal thunders into her life.

Now a social outcast, Cathy is rocked from complacency into a rude awareness of her lack of choices as a woman. Get out an Oscar for Moore. She digs so deep into this role that actress and character breathe as one. Quaid, far from the heroics of The Rookie, is a revelation, finding the heat in Frank's long-buried identity and the casual cruelty that lays waste to his wife.

It's Raymond, deftly underplayed by Haysbert (the prez on 24), who boldly takes Cathy for a drink and a dance at a "colored" restaurant. His tenderness floors her. But neither is welcome in the other's world. Cathy had always been polite but distant to her black maid, Sybil (Viola Davis). Realizing her own bias sets Cathy adrift, like the lilac chiffon scarf that sails off her head in the wind. Raymond finds it. "I had a feeling it might be yours," he says. "The color. Just seemed right."

Haynes places great significance on color and on the codes and symbols that help define character. In that way, he is a true disciple of the great German director Douglas Sirk, who made his mark in Hollywood with a popular series of 1950s women's pictures (Magnificent Obsession, Written on the Wind, Imitation of Life) that subversively attacked middle-class conformity. Sirk worked with subtext and a flamboyant visual style of color, light and shadow to articulate forbidden feelings in ways dialogue could not.

Haynes borrows most from Sirk's 1955 weepie All That Heaven Allows, starring Jane Wyman as a widow who is frozen out socially when she falls for a young gardener (Rock Hudson). In Far From Heaven, Ed Lachman -- in a glorious demonstration of all that cinematography can be -- floods the screen with color. The hyper-reality extends to the score, by eighty-year-old Elmer Bernstein, which sweeps the film up on waves of ravishing romance.

If Haynes had stopped there, Far From Heaven would merely be a copycat triumph. Instead, he reinvents the genre, letting the passions that lay buried in Sirk's films explode onscreen. Haynes and producer Christine Vachon (cheered by The New York Times as "godmother to the politically committed film") aren't into nostagia. Their imitation of life from half a century ago holds up a cracked mirror to the here and now. Fears about race, sexuality, feminism -- craftily coded in packaging that sells religion, flag and family -- are hardly alien to George W.'s America. Haynes makes you drunk on movies again, on raw emotion delivered without the cushion of irony. There are bigger, splashier films this year, but none cuts a straighter path to the heart.

PETER TRAVERS

[Mike]

Regardless of its subject matter, I see "FAR FROM HEAVEN" having a very successful limited release and should eventually go wide. The early reviews have been absolutely glowing and there's no doubt this will be getting some Oscar nominations, I'm actually almost certain it will get a Best Picture nomination. Could this be this years A Beautiful Mind? Could this be a sleeper hit? I'm not sure but I have a very good feeling about this one and I want to see it really bad. I'd be going next weekend if it wasn't opening in so few theaters, I can't wait for this one to go wider.

[FeverDog420]

How can I accurately describe my feelings about Far From Heaven? This undertaking approaches impossibility. On the surface, the movie appears to be either a melodramatic campfest or a straightforward remake of a Atomic Age women's picture. But looking deeper reveals that it's neither. And both.

Far From Heaven feels so familiar, yet I've never seen anything like it. Imagine Happiness without the irony, or Blue Velvet with characters of unquestioned morality, and you'll begin to sense the tone I'm trying to convey.

Director Todd Haynes recreates the suburban Eisenhower era with such fetishistic detail that it's hilarious. The June Cleaver pearls-and-high-heels wardrobes, the crisply-designed furniture and the glorious autumnal foliage contrast the soap opera-caliber story, which is superficially serious but unabashedly funny as a satire of outward domestic complacency circa 1957.

Yes, there's a lot of humor in Far From Heaven, but it's not a comedy. Well, maybe it is, but not in the same way your average Adam Sandler movie tries to be. The plot itself is played straight, but the dialogue is so sincere and delivered with such formal cadence that you can't help but guffaw at the complete lack of irony or cynicism.

Still, the movie successfully balances the humor with the serious stuff. Haynes accurately recreates race relations in New England at a time having lunch with someone of a different skin gets tongues wagging. And the subject of homosexuality is portrayed as something that's not understood, much less accepted in the pre-Stonewall era.

But although Haynes makes his points about the mores and attitudes of the 1950s, his ultimate goal is to channel the look and feel of the era. Did the "Leave it to Beaver" ideal ever exist, or was it falsely created as an artificial, deceptive fantasy world of obedient children, immaculate homes and faithful spouses? I'm too young to know for sure, but Far From Heaven suggests that perhaps this world was real. Or not.

8/10

[Buck Turgidson]

Rex Reed's review.

http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/onthetown.asp

Between this and his hilariously iconoclastic swipe at P.T. Anderson, it's made me realize again that, for all his easily-mocked artifice, Rex Reed is a thoughtful and incisive critic.

[idealdiscountdude]

In its debut weekend in Limited Release, Far From Heaven saw some might box office returns.

On just 6 screens the film grossed a superb $207 100 dollars (According to estimates) for a scorching per screen average pf $34 516 smackeroos!

Hot damn!

Its release seems right on par with Frida's 4 weeks ago.

[Mike]

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude
In its debut weekend in Limited Release, Far From Heaven saw some might box office returns.

On just 6 screens the film grossed a superb $207 100 dollars (According to estimates) for a scorching per screen average pf $34 516 smackeroos!

Hot damn!

Its release seems right on par with Frida's 4 weeks ago.

I know, it did GREAT... This is from www.hollywood.com :


This weekend also saw the arrival of Focus Features' PG-13 rated drama Far From Heaven to a very promising ESTIMATED $0.21 million at 6 theaters ($34,500 per theater).

Directed by Todd Haynes, it stars Julianne Moore, Dennis Quaid and Dennis Haysbert. "It's really huge," Focus distribution president Jack Foley said Sunday morning. "I've (looked at) the biggest (limited release) openings that have happened since August -- Punch-Drunk Love, One Hour Photo, Frida, The Good Girl, Igby Goes Down, Bowling For Columbine-- and it ranks number five among them. Those have been big openings. Punch-Drunk Love, had a $76,000 print average. One Hour Photo, was $45,000. Frida was $41,000. Good Girl was $37,000. We're sitting with a $34,500 print average. Based on how sophisticated this film is, it'd be wonderful if we can do the same business as these other films. I don't put it in the same category as Punch-Drunk Love or One Hour because (they had superstars like Adam Sandler and Robin Williams), but my God this is huge!"

Asked about expansion plans, Foley said, "We're going to be going into 13 markets next weekend. They'll be the top markets (like) Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. The runs will be varying from limited multiples -- for instance, in San Francisco we'll be in about six theaters, where the film should be explosive -- to exclusive runs, for instance, in Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix and Portland. We should be on 37 or 38 screens next weekend. The reviews have been perfect because they've really delved into how wonderful a film it is and how well it's (been) made, as well as the entertainment value.

"It uses the language of film in an exciting and a sort of revitalized way. You've never seen anything like this before. It's so amazing. It's such a sophisticated movie."

Eventually it will probably play near me so I should get to see it in theaters, I just have this feeling that it will be this years "American Beauty" or "A Beautiful Mind."

[Buck Turgidson]

For anyone interested in the Douglas Sirk films Haynes pays homage to...

www.imagesjournal.com/issue10/reviews/sirk/text.htm

http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/person/details/0,7621,BIO-P111684,00.html

http://weeklywire.com/ww/05-15-00/austin_screens_feature.html

[idealdiscountdude]

The lovely Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0297884/far_from_heaven_6.jpg

[Goosey]

I had not even heard of Far From Heaven until a couple weeks ago, but it has quickly become one of the pictures that I am most looking forward to this year. The word of mouth on this has been outstanding, and I just caught Safe on tv a little while back, and thought it was fantastic.Does anyone know when it'll go into wide release???

[Mike]

It was supposed to be going into around 250 theaters Thanksgiving weekend but since it's doing so well in limited release it will be going into 250 theaters this Friday. I imagine quite a few more will be added for Thanksgiving weekend.

This is great, it looks like I should be able to see it in theaters...

[idealdiscountdude]

It opens here in Halifax on Friday. I hope to check it out sometime next week! I'm really excited to see it.

Anywho, here is another pic:

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0297884/far_from_heaven_2.jpg

[Fergus]

Originally posted by FeverDog420
Did the "Leave it to Beaver" ideal ever exist, or was it falsely created as an artificial, deceptive fantasy world of obedient children, immaculate homes and faithful spouses? I'm too young to know for sure, but Far From Heaven suggests that perhaps this world was real. Or not.

Exactly what this film is all about.

Watching this film was....dare I say again for the fourth time this year....refreshing. I went and saw this, built up excitement, and anticipation.....on word of mouth. I never saw a trailer or anything like that. When I saw the words "Far from Heaven" appear on the screen, in that RIDICULOUS font, well, that was the start. The sensibilities, the acting, scenery, even the plot is downright reminiscient of the fifties films of the past, and television series, only conveyed in a much darker, more honest tone. The imagery Haynes' gives us is beautiful, not a frame goes untouched by lighting or scenery. This is the best looking film set in the fifties that I've ever seen.

I really don't want to give away any plot since barely anyone has seen the film. The moral dilemma's the three important character's are faced with are handled perfectly....I don't know what else to say other than the film left me speechless, and the end credits were HILARIOUS....you'll know why if and when you see them. These aren't very good reasons, I know, but those are my attempts to explain why this is my first 10/10 film I have seen all year, and I haven't given the rating to any other film since I saw "Almost Famous". Todd Haynes deserves the Best Director oscar at the moment.

[FeverDog420]

I was beginning to think that I was the only Schmoe who's seen Far From Heaven. How many screens is it playing on now? Is is still just in the major urban markets? I think it's outgrossing Harry Potter here in NYC. Good. Enough of that bloody wanker and his wimp friends... :D

Originally posted by Fergus
...in that RIDICULOUS font, well, that was the start.

Yes! The opening credits perfectly capture the oddly square but subversive tone of this movie.

Fergus, you're the Man of the Moment. I LOVED Almost Famous too (note screen name), and I hope Far From Heaven isn't pushed aside at Oscar time like Mr. Crowe's Opus was in favor of the Miramax marketing machine (who on Earth feels that Chocolat was more worthy of a Best Pic nom than Almost Famous?)

Anyway, I'm not gonna hype Far From Heaven any more here. Too many accolades produce the dreaded "overrated" moniker (ask those who didn't see The Blair Witch Project until it landed on 3000 screens about the detrimental effects of ubiquitous hype). Enough. I'm done. See Far From Heaven for yourselves.

[Buck Turgidson]

Does anybody have any firm release info about this? I just watched Anatomy of a Scene on Sundance Channel and now I want to see this so fucking much, I'm almost climbing the walls.

[flowrchild]

I caught this movie last night, and it now takes the cake for the "Most boring movie I've struggled through this past year". It has a great look to it, but there is absolutely NOTHING going on. The characters are completely dull and uninteresting, except for the part of the black gardener. This movie got rave reviews so I went in expecting an amazing movie, but I sure didn't get one. Everyone walked out of the theater with a disappointed look on their face, and one old guy even yelled "What a stinker THAT was!" as he was exiting. Enough said, old guy.

[Mike]

Originally posted by flowrchild
I caught this movie last night, and it now takes the cake for the "Most boring movie I've struggled through this past year". It has a great look to it, but there is absolutely NOTHING going on. The characters are completely dull and uninteresting, except for the part of the black gardener. This movie got rave reviews so I went in expecting an amazing movie, but I sure didn't get one. Everyone walked out of the theater with a disappointed look on their face, and one old guy even yelled "What a stinker THAT was!" as he was exiting. Enough said, old guy.

Ooh, that sucks! I'm sorry you didn't like it... I still want to check it out though, it looks great and so far you are the only person that I've seen not like it. I really hope I like it or I'll be pretty disappointed.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by Mike
Ooh, that sucks! I'm sorry you didn't like it... I still want to check it out though, it looks great and so far you are the only person that I've seen not like it. I really hope I like it or I'll be pretty disappointed.

I hope you like it :) There is a big chance you will. I am more critical of movies than most people. But it just makes it all the more special when I do love a film, because that makes all the junk I sit through worthwhile.

[Fergus]

Originally posted by FeverDog420
I was beginning to think that I was the only Schmoe who's seen Far From Heaven. How many screens is it playing on now? Is is still just in the major urban markets? I think it's outgrossing Harry Potter here in NYC. Good. Enough of that bloody wanker and his wimp friends... :D

Not as nice as NYC, but, well, I work at a 25 theater megaplex, not that many screens, but the second largest theater in Arizona. FFH is only playing on one screen, in an 80 seat theater (the smallest type). Our largest is 476 seats. I still think that's pretty good from an independent film that opened on one screen the previous week in the whole state, and expanded to six theaters in the fifty mile radius--that is our whole urban area (I'm trying not to get too specific here). The most theaters any movie has been in "the valley"(as we like to call it), is 27 theaters. So compare 6 to 27, and that's as accurate a comparison as I can give. And we RARELY ever get an independents, just because they never do so well, but Frida opened on Friday as well, so I wonder if they're just getting generous for this time of year, to not have me drive 25 miles to go see an independent film.


Originally posted by FeverDog420
Fergus, you're the Man of the Moment. I LOVED Almost Famous too (note screen name), and I hope Far From Heaven isn't pushed aside at Oscar time like Mr. Crowe's Opus was in favor of the Miramax marketing machine (who on Earth feels that Chocolat was more worthy of a Best Pic nom than Almost Famous?)


This one's for you---> :) .......and that was the night I lost interest in "Oscar" altogether, or should I say "faith".


Originally posted by FeverDog420
Anyway, I'm not gonna hype Far From Heaven any more here. Too many accolades produce the dreaded "overrated" moniker (ask those who didn't see The Blair Witch Project until it landed on 3000 screens about the detrimental effects of ubiquitous hype). Enough. I'm done. See Far From Heaven for yourselves.

Yeah, yah, yeah, we don't want to indirectly start the "I hate 'Far From Heaven'" group. OWP!!! I spoke too soon.

Flowrchild, didn't you like the tribute to those melodramatic 50's films of the past? I just don't understand. I think I'll have to see "Secretary" to figure that one out.

[flowrchild]

Originally posted by Fergus
Flowrchild, didn't you like the tribute to those melodramatic 50's films of the past? I just don't understand. I think I'll have to see "Secretary" to figure that one out.

Ooh, I sense a jab ;) Yes I did like the tribute and like I said, the look was fabulous. But it had an empty vacant plot and not a character in sight that I cared about, other than the gardener. And it plodded about at an unbearably slow pace. Clearly I was not the only person who didn't like, considering my mom and half the theater fell asleep and/or walked out whining.

And "Secretary" is a stupid little movie which I enjoyed watching. It was not trying to be a big Oscar bait film like "Far from heaven." If a movie is not trying to be anything deep and moving and ends up being fairly forgettable, then it's not as bad to me as a movie trying to be both of these things and not succeeding at either.

It's just an opinion, and I'm sticking by it.

[Fergus]

Not a painful jab, more or less a humorous one, but I still haven't seen Secretary, so you got me there, it was just worth referencing at the moment. And YES, it is your opinion, and YES I don't agree with you, and YES the old guy who talked to you must've been on something, and YES the walkouts only left the theater on account of their bulging bladders thanks to the pushy concession stand worker they bought their soda from.....okay.

I'm critical too, but I found so much to love while watching this movie. I found "FRIDA" to be slower and more of a bore than Haynes' film. BUT, your opinion, and I say that with a :)

[flowrchild]

I haven't seen "Frida", and chances are I will catch it on video. Must...see...any...Norton....movie.

Chances are, "Far from Heaven" is mainly a love/hate movie. Although I didn't hate it, I just didn't care for it. It won't be on my "worst of the year" list the same way that "Secretary" (a hem) won't be on my "best of" list.

And for the record, "Almost Famous" is one of my favorite movies too, so don't be too anxious to question my taste :)

[idealdiscountdude]

I saw Far From Heaven today and I must say that it is a triumph in every way shape and form.


It is the most beautifully directed, acted, and scored film of the year (thus far). It is truly the year's first full-fledged Oscar contender.

I'm too tired right now to write a full review, however I will have one up by the end of the weekend.

Anyways, Far From Heaven is a near perfect film and I proudly give it an A!

[HollyGoKimsy]

I must say that I agree with all the good press and word of mouth that this film is currently getting. I saw it today (had to drive an hour to get there) and it was worth every minute of the drive. Hopefully, Oscar nods to Julianne Moore, Dennis Quaid, Todd Haynes and <crossing fingers> Best Picture.

I'm also keeping my fingers crossed that this film goes a bit wider than it currently is. It's only playing in two theaters in Maryland. Perhaps the powers that be will realize that there is an audience out there for this type of film.

I kept looking for some small detail that they may have missed - some color in the background, some detail in the surroundings, some word of dialogue that was misplaced. I didn't find any.

I concur with all the "A" ratings this film has received. It's definately in my top five films for the year - and is the best film I've seen this year to date.

[Puck Bond]

Far from Heaven is a beautifully crafted film full of color and character in an updated style and culture of the 1950's and is reminiscent of the films of Douglas Sirk. Julianne Moore gives an outstanding Oscar worthy performance as Cathy Whitaker, who on the outside appears to be the perfect, wonderful, loving wife and mother living in an idealic Connecticut suburb. The sort of woman who's hair could be on fire and could say with a smile "Gee whiz...would you like some more coffee?" Dennis Quaid plays Frank Whitaker Cathy's hard-working and stern husband, but he has a dark secret-a fascination with men. Now at this time this sort of thing just wasn't done, admitting you were a homosexual on top of being married and a well respected figure of the community would be devastating. He actively seeks counseling to rid him of this "disease" he has...a notion that would seem completely farfetched today. As this dark turn of events become known to Cathy she still tries to put on a good face, but she rightly becomes alienated and distant and soon finds comfort with her black gardener Raymond Deagan played by Dennis Haysbert. Like her husband's problems...the very thought of a white woman fraternizing with a black man would be catastrophic, gossip for the local society women who shun and show disgust for her. It also is a problem for Deagan...the black community doesn't want him on the other side of the fence either. The main difference betwen the two relationships is that hers and the black man's relationship is made public and seen through the eyes of the community. To Cathy and Raymond it is perfectly innocent flirtation at the worst...but they're two lonely and desperate souls who have found each other. Frank Whitaker's transgressions happen behind closed doors...there are no consequences for his actions at least not to the extent of his wife's and she woud never publicly "out" him because that is a reflection on her and would be an embarassment. Overall, Far from Heaven is a very good film with 1950's nostalgia about people who on the outside appear to live in paradise but in fact are far from it...and features a great Oscar calibur performance by Julianne Moore.

[persona]

I urge any fim lover to go and see this film. it has all the great qualities that a film should have. a great plot, unbeliavable actors, cinematography that jumps out of the screen, and costumes that make this period piece as realistic as possible. Todd Haynes has put together an enssemble that diserves awards from every festival out there. I don't want to spoil this masterpiece. you have to watch it, alone if possible. it's too beautifull of a film to share it with anyone.

[idealdiscountdude]

Bump

[bskutle]

There's a lot of Oscar talk when it comes to this throwback to the '50s melodrama of director Douglas Sirk, which stars Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid as a happily married couple in the '50s until their lives are turned upside down when Quaid starts to indulge his buried homosexuality, and Moore becomes friends with her black gardener (Dennis Haysbert). What takes place is reminiscent of Gary Ross' visionary "Pleasantville" and- believe it- David Lynch's brilliant "Blue Velvet"- the slow peeling away of the facade of classic Americana to reveal the hidden depths of prejudice and unhappiness of the time. On this level- "Far From Heaven" is on par- and almost superior- to Ross' and Lynch's films. But the film goes beyond those emotionally thanks to a beautifully-crafted script by writer-director Todd Haynes, the beautiful acting by Moore (she's Oscar worthy), Quaid (so is he, though he was better in "The Rookie" earlier this year), and Haysbert (he's Oscar-worthy too; will the love towards great African-American performances continue?), a rich visual pallete that pays homage to the Technicolor glow of Sirk's films, and a brilliant old-fashioned score by the legendary Elmer Bernstein. An artful and provocative deconstruction of a by-gone era, "Far From Heaven" is a film to make you talk afterwards...and think during.

[Tommy Doyle]

Was it just me, or did anyone else feel that Julianne Moore's character got stuck in a rut that she never got out of? I mean, okay, here's this woman who basically (as the film pushed on us) accepted the fact that she was nothing more than a simple housewife who should never deal with anything too upsetting right? Then her world comes crashing down around her feet, and yet she stayed the simple housewife that should never have to deal with anything too upsetting. Okay, she had like, two crying scenes, but if your entire life had been ripped apart at the seams, would you cry twice and then revert back to your old ways? I don't think so. I felt that at some point during the movie, she should have picked up a chair and thrown in through a window screaming "F**K THIS!!!!!" at the top of her lungs. Instead she continued on her life as normal, the smiling, content, prim and proper little lady that 50's housewives were apparently supposed to be. She never evolved.

As I said in the "What did you think" forum, I feel this is actually a script problem more than a performance problem, but to me, it's a problem none the less. To go through all of what she went through, and to come out on the other end unchanged in anyway, I felt was a rip off.

I guess that's really the only problem I had with the film, yet I can't seem to move past it. The bonuses are Moore's performace (even though her character never really evolved, she played it to a perfect tee no doubt), Quaid's performance (he got the screaming scene that Moore should have had at one point), the cast of supporting characters, the beautiful cinematography, and the flawless direction. Haynes was able to take us back in time fifty something years, to make us actually feel like we were watching a movie filmed during the 50's, and yet he blended it perfectly with the more in your face films of today... that takes some awesome friggin' direction. Major bonuses.

I really like Moore, and I hope I hear her name called out on Oscar night for either one of her great performances this year (I liked her in The Hours better as I felt her character really developed by the end. She questioned what she had been forced into, and she stood against it. She didn't lay back and accept it), but, if Kidman's name is called out for Best Actress, I won't be pissed off. I won't be ecstatic like I would be if Moore's name was called, but by no means would I be disappointed.

So with that major flaw that I saw in the film, I can't bring myself to give the film any higher of a rating than 7/10. I was really hoping for a 9 or something... oh well. Maybe on repeated viewings. (I'm going to be seeing it again with a friend by weeks end)