#1  
Old 04-05-2003, 01:31 AM
FAR FROM HEAVEN (Julianne Moore)



FAR FROM HEAVEN (2002)


The title is pretty ironic considering how close to heaven "Far From Heaven" is. It left me in absolute awe and amazement. This is a simply beautiful film from beginning to end. The cinematography is simply wonderful and some of the very best of the year. I was really engrossed in this film and loved the 50's movie feel it had. I think this is the first film I've ever watched that took place in another decade and "truly" felt like it.

The performances were great all around, especially by Julianne Moore. From the clips I had seen I wasn't thinking her performance looked like it would be that great. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love her and think she's extremely talented, but from what I saw it didn't look like her character was going to have much depth. Boy how wrong I was. She really blew me away in this film and carried the whole thing. I never thought this would happen, but she's taken over Diane Lane's place on my list as best female performance of the year. After seeing Julianne's performance I am in absolute shock that she didn't win the Oscar for "Best Actress." She truly deserved it. I also think that Dennis Haysbert was snubbed for a "Best Supporting Actor" nomination. Dennis Quaid was good but not as great as I had heard, and after seeing his performance I'm not surprised that he didn't get any Oscar nominations for "Best Actor." Besides, I don't think he was even in the movie enough to be considered for "Best Actor," if anything at all I think "Best Supporting Actor" would have been more accurate. But I wasn't impressed enough with his performance to even care that he didn't get nominated.

There's so many great things to say about this film. The cinematography, music, writing, acting, editing, etc... was all perfect. How this didn't get a "Best Picture" nomination is beyond me. This is definitely a "must buy" right away for me. Far From Heaven is simply one of the very best films of the year.

Grade: 9/10 (A-)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-05-2003, 07:49 AM
I saw this on Tuesday 9/10 amd loved it! It was a blind buy and I am glad that I bought it becuase it was the last copy of it, and they weren't get another shipping in till next Tuesday.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-05-2003, 04:11 PM
7/10. Good cinematography. Okay acting. Mediocre writing. So-So movie.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-05-2003, 10:21 PM
OK acting? dh, are you on DRUGS? JULIANNE FRICKIN' MOORE MAN! She was incredible!

Well I didn't like the movie as much as you Mike, for me the movie was good, and made much better by Julianne's performance.

8/10
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-06-2003, 01:43 AM

I'm absolutely in love with this movie. I ordered the DVD last night shortly after I watched it and typed up my comments here. I just had to own it. I watched half of it again tonight and I'm going to finish the rest tomorrow. What a great and beautiful film. Julianne Moore is terrific and the cinematography just blows my mind. It's a great throwback to 50's films and feels very authentic.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-06-2003, 05:38 PM
good movie. julianne moore definitely deserved her oscar nom. 8/10.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2003, 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by urbanlegend23
OK acting? dh, are you on DRUGS? JULIANNE FRICKIN' MOORE MAN! She was incredible!
WOW! I thought there were other actors in this film besides Julianne Moore. Like Patricia Clarkson and Quaid, who are okay. And even Moore's performance has problems, like her crying scenes that are completely fakey.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-06-2003, 09:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dh1989
WOW! I thought there were other actors in this film besides Julianne Moore. Like Patricia Clarkson and Quaid, who are okay.
Yeah, but they didn't come anywhere close to being as GREAT as Moore was...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-06-2003, 09:35 PM
DH, did you notice that their acting was APART of the "recreation of a 50's drama". If you notice, the acting style is more dramatic just like in films from the 50's, versus the realistic acting we have all come to know and love in films today. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was Haynes' intention.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-06-2003, 09:50 PM
I actually thought Dennis Quaid was better in this movie then Mrs. Moore. Yes, she was good but still she was a 50's house wife and sounded like Florence Henderson from The Brady Bunch. Overall though a great flick

8/10
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-06-2003, 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Fergus
DH, did you notice that their acting was APART of the "recreation of a 50's drama". If you notice, the acting style is more dramatic just like in films from the 50's, versus the realistic acting we have all come to know and love in films today. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was Haynes' intention.
Yes, I believe that was Hayne's intent (his favorite movie is All That Heaven Allows), but it is still bugs me. Like Adaptation, they were trying to be clever with the final half hour spoofing mainstream movies in a way, but that does not change the fact that it is lackluster compared to the rest of the film. Even if he wanted to do 50's style acting in his film, it still annoyed me.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-06-2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fergus
DH, did you notice that their acting was APART of the "recreation of a 50's drama". If you notice, the acting style is more dramatic just like in films from the 50's, versus the realistic acting we have all come to know and love in films today. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was Haynes' intention.
Exactly Fergus! That was the intention of Haynes. The acting was just like a 50's movie, which is one reason I found it so fascinating. I don't usually get so fascinated and engrossed by acting in movies, but in FAR FROM HEAVEN I was incredibly interested in the performances, mainly Julianne Moore's performance, which I found "very" interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-06-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RickySlade
Yes, she was good but still she was a 50's house wife and sounded like Florence Henderson from The Brady Bunch.
Actually, that was the intention. She was supposed to act like a prim and proper 50's housewife. She was like a June Clever, and was absolutely wonderful. That's what a lot of people don't understand about this movie, it's SUPPOSED to be the way it is. It may seem cheesy compared to todays movies, but it's supposed to be like a 50's melodrama, and I don't think it could have done a better job of pulling it off.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-06-2003, 10:18 PM
But if it was supposed to be a 50's melodrama, and Julliane Moore portrayed Mrs. Cleaver why was Quaids performance so un-fifties-like. You know, he was intense. Seeing from sitcoms and old movies from the 50's the husband was always conserved and gentlemen like. But I guess, Quaid wasn't the ordinary 50's husband.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-07-2003, 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
Actually, that was the intention. She was supposed to act like a prim and proper 50's housewife. She was like a June Clever, and was absolutely wonderful. That's what a lot of people don't understand about this movie, it's SUPPOSED to be the way it is. It may seem cheesy compared to todays movies, but it's supposed to be like a 50's melodrama, and I don't think it could have done a better job of pulling it off.
Exactly. This is the type of cheesy movie that isn't cheesy. I really loved the style it was done, and I agree - it REALLY felt like the 50's. Haynes did a great job.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-07-2003, 01:44 PM
I loved Far From Heaven (10/10)! It may not be a Kissing Jessica Stein double ( ) but it wasn't half bad! The acting was of a high standard and I can say without the least bit doubt that Julianne Moore deserved the oscar more than Nicole Kidman! Why Dennis Quaid was snubbed is anyone's guess! The best film so far this year.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-11-2003, 01:20 AM
sure to be a classic

I was mesmerized my the performances all around in this beautiful film. I really hope to see more of Todd Haynes future work. And why this didn't get nominated for cinematography is beyond me. Julianne carried this film and the supporting characters were great as well. I thought Dennis Haysbert had the role of his career, and kinda of wish they introduced him earlier in the film. Overall it will be one of those films that pretty much everyone will have seen in the next ten years. Kinda of like Princess Bride, I only know a couple people who haven't seen that one.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-11-2003, 11:34 AM
Re: sure to be a classic

Quote:
Originally posted by shelman2392
And why this didn't get nominated for cinematography is beyond me.
Actually it did, cinematography was one of the 4 noms it had (and it deserved to win all of them, imo). It was robbed of nominations for costumes and art direction (as well as director, supporting actor and picture).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-11-2003, 08:31 PM
This movie is amazing in every way.Julianne Moore deserved the Oscar.I canīt belive it didnīt get a nomination for:
-BEST MOVIE
-BEST DIRECTOR Todd Haynes
-BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR Dennis Quaid/Haysbert
-BEST COSTUME DESIGN
-BEST ART DIRECTION

8/10-One of my top 5 favourite movies of 2002.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-11-2003, 11:42 PM
thanks Trinity

Yeah i guess i wasn't paying enough attention about the Oscar nods. Thanks for straightening me out. It should have won, i thought overall this was one of the weakest years for good movies in a long time.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-12-2003, 07:38 AM
Far From Heaven

The first time Julianne Moore and Todd Haynes worked together the result was the remarkable [safe], a great film that really put both of them on the map. It has been a long wait, almost a decade in fact, for them to work together again. Far From Heaven was worth waiting for.

This film was inspired by the work of 50's director Douglas Sirk (whose films, which include All That Heaven Allows, I've not seen) and it seems that Haynes is using the fact that he can be more explicit than Sirk to say and do things that could only be implied (and mildly implied at that, do some research on the Hays code) in the 50's.

Some viewers may have trouble getting into Far From Heaven, and it will take everyone a little while to settle into the style of the film. The dialogue is more formal in its structure and delivery than modern audiences are used to and the way Haynes uses colour is so striking as to risk being distancing for some audiences. Once you accept that this is how the film is going to be (it took me about 10 minutes) you will stop thinking about it and just be drawn in by the film.

At the very centre of this film, as with [safe], is Julianne Moore. Her performance as Cathy Whittaker ranks as one of her very best. It was she who really deserved the Best Actress Oscar this year, good as Nicole Kidman was. It's a quiet, introspective, performance, the best moments of which are some of the most subtle, like the way she adjusts her hair when a friend sees where Frank has hit her. In her performance we can see the many moments when Cathy, wanting to remain 'proper' is holding in what she really wants to say. She's wonderfully effective in every scene, but particularly opposite Dennis Haysbert.

Haysbert plays Raymond as a good man but he never allows us to forget that he is holding some resentment about how he is looked down on for the colour of his skin, even, to some degree, by Cathy. This comes out in a wonderful scene where he turns the tables on Cathy and takes her to a bar where she is the only white face and suddenly a victim of racism.

Colour is important in this film, Haynes not only has a lot to say about the issue of colour (and he makes his point very well, Far From Heaven is clearly an anti-racist film) but he uses it in a bold and visually exciting way. There are moments when the mood of the film will take a sudden, dramatic, shift and the colour will change to match the emotional shift. This does distance some people from the film, its not a subtle device by any means, nor is it one modern audiences are really used to, but its incredibly effective. One sequence really stands out; when Cathy and Raymond spend an afternoon together walking, the colours are stunning, leaping off the screen. Ed Lachman should have won an Oscar for his cinematography.

Dennis Quaid puts in the performance of his life as Frank (he said that he drew on the fact he hid a cocaine habit for many years in order to identify with how Frank hides his homosexuality) and gets to deliver perhaps the most shocking and effective use of the word "fuck" in a good few years. Many have said it was unjust that Quaid wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor at this years Oscars, I agree but in this film Dennis Haysbert is even more deserving.

Far From Heaven is a stunningly good film and one, I think, which will prove even more interesting when I've seen a few Douglas Sirk films. This is not really a film to go into for pure escapism, there is so much in it that you really will need to give your full attention to it in order to find it as rewarding an experience as I did.

5/5 (the only 2003 release to get my top grade so far)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-12-2003, 11:29 AM
Re: thanks Trinity

Quote:
Originally posted by shelman2392
i thought overall this was one of the weakest years for good movies in a long time.

I'd have to disagree! I thought it was a great year and I gave out a lot of 9/10 ratings, definitely the most I've given out in quite some time... It's your opinion though, but I was very happy with this year .
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-12-2003, 12:06 PM
Re: Re: thanks Trinity

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
I'd have to disagree! I thought it was a great year and I gave out a lot of 9/10 ratings, definitely the most I've given out in quite some time... It's your opinion though, but I was very happy with this year .
I agree, I was very happy with what last year had to offer. I didn't give any movie a perfect 10, but I gave a 9/10 to four(Chicago, Kissing jessica Stein, The Hours & Far from Heaven) which is a VERY high rating for me.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-12-2003, 10:06 PM
Re: Re: Re: thanks Trinity

Quote:
Originally posted by Trinity
I agree, I was very happy with what last year had to offer. I didn't give any movie a perfect 10, but I gave a 9/10 to four(Chicago, Kissing jessica Stein, The Hours & Far from Heaven) which is a VERY high rating for me.
Yeah, KISSING JESSICA STEIN was great! I originally gave it a 9/10 (A-), but I think I might be giving it a 10/10 (A+). I just can't decide. I absolutely love the movie and it's one of my favorites of all time. Along with When Harry Met Sally (10/10 or A+), it's one of the very best romantic comedies ever.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-16-2003, 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shelman2392
i thought overall this was one of the weakest years for good movies in a long time.
I have to disagree. I personally think this has been one of the better years. Tied with 1999 probably. This year I gave 5 10/10's. Which is a lot (obviously). A LOT of 9/10's and 8/10's. I really loved 2002. Superb year for film.





Tod Haynes' -- FAR FROM HEAVEN


A lot happens during Far from Heaven. There are at least three issues tackled during this film. You may have not even known it either. It is such a beautiful film to watch that it is easy to miss the messages within the film. But I don't blame you. It is a beautiful film to look at, watch, and it's just a pleasure to see it. Tod Haynes created an atmosphere, and mood that makes you very happy. But at times, sad. It's just what this film does.

FFH is some-what similar to American Beauty. American Beauty took a look into the average American home. Cozy and loving on the outside, but looks of darker happenings on the inside. This is what FFH is. But based in the 50's.

What did I think of it?

I loved it.

As I said before the film is simply beautiful to look at. A throw back to classic 50's movies. With some excellent acting, and some very good filmmaking all around.

Julianne Moore stands above all the actors in this film. Her performance was so powerful, she deserved the Oscar. If the Oscars had any justice, she would have won. Not since Magnolia has Moore just gone all out and act so beautifully. She is quickly closing on, "Favourite Actress of all time." Ever film she never seizes to amaze me. But she was standout in this film. She seemed like she was Cathy Whittaker. It was her part, and she should have won Best actress.

Dennis Quaid, brilliant. I never really like Quaid in any of the films he was in. IMO, not the greatest actor. But in FFH, he proved to I that he COULD act- and very well at that. Personally, he should have been nominated for, "Best Supporting Actor." He went very risque doing this film. The subject matter is heavy. But he pulled of a very brilliant performance, IMO.

My (Toronto Maples Leafs) hat goes off to Tod Haynes. The man deserves a round of applause. He created such a beautiful and brilliant film. It is obvious that this film is close to him. I think he wanted to get some new style going into the cinema (or living room). Also, to tackles some issues. The man should have been nominated for, "Best Director."

Now, flaws. There isn't very many. Actually, only one. I understood how Haynes was trying to bring the 50s style to life, but at times, it didn't work for me. I think that Haynes tried TOO hard. But, this wasn't all the time.

FFH is a brilliant movie. It has really grown on me. But none the less, I still love it. I will be picking this one up during the weekend.

9/10 or ****1/2 (out of 5) or A-
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-11-2003, 06:26 AM
Re: Re: thanks Trinity

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike
I'd have to disagree! I thought it was a great year and I gave out a lot of 9/10 ratings, definitely the most I've given out in quite some time... It's your opinion though, but I was very happy with this year .
There were only a few "great" movies this year IMO.One of those was obviousley Far From Heaven.Iīve only given two 9/10(The Hours, Bowling For Columbine).There are a few 8/10, but most of the movies are just 7/10 and 6/10. A disapointing year overall. Not bad, just disapointing.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-15-2003, 02:17 PM
Far From Heaven

I wouldn't say this is 'definately' my favorite movie of 2002....but more than likely it is....After seeing so many they are all beginning to clash together....and i find myself rarely giving out 8's anymore. Maybe it's just me, or maybe 2002 was a bad year ...although i did find Far From Heaven, Chicago, 13 Conversations About One Thing, The Rules of Attraction and The Hours to be very good movies!! The 50's-style acting really didn't get on my nerves until about the 3rd time upon viewing. I definately agree that Ms. Moore should have won the oscar this year and the film got snubbed from many awards, including Best Picture. This film was truly a delight, although I still feel like I want a bit more out of it. It's rather hard to explain. I just want.....there to be more of something. I really enjoyed this film though...and I'd have to say it prob. is my #1 of 2002...not by much...like most years (i.e. 2000 Dancer in the Dark, by far) but....still a great film.

9/10
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-25-2003, 03:06 AM
I loved this film. It had great themes, lots of conflict, and great acting. The film also had a great look to it as well. The only thing I had a problem with was:

**spoilers**
when Dennis Quaid so easily fell in love for the person at the resort. A simple glance was enough to spark an advance. That was way beyond contrived.

But I also realize that the plot twist does not affect the affect the hardcore themes of the film. Because of the heavy themes and the powerful delivery, I still appreciated its effort. Unfortunately, little details such as the one that I mentioned were enough to dissuade me from purchasing it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump