What are the chances of "Far From Heaven" topping your 10 best list for this year?
11-28-02, 02:09 AM
#27
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by cooper2000
Matt925, I am curious to know since this is your second favorite, what is your most favorite?
Matt925, I am curious to know since this is your second favorite, what is your most favorite?
I've ranked all the movies I've seen this year in the Rank Them As You See Them thread.
12-18-02, 05:41 PM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
What a stunner! Just saw this today, and was captivated from the opening credits (enough brilliant photography in just the first 3 minutes of this movie to be worthy of an Academy Award!). It captures the past, both in reality and as seen in the Sirk films of the 50's, with performances that ring true every step of the way. You want to see this on the big screen, gang - it will take your breath away!
12-18-02, 07:17 PM
#31
Don't you just love the look of the title "Far From Heaven"? That thick blue script font.
I finally saw this last week, after having to wait for my All That Heaven Allows DVD to arrive (wanted to see that first).
Far From Heaven is currently #2 for me this year.
I finally saw this last week, after having to wait for my All That Heaven Allows DVD to arrive (wanted to see that first).
Far From Heaven is currently #2 for me this year.
12-18-02, 11:37 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to burst any of your bubbles, but I was just not impressed with FAR FROM HEAVEN as the rest of you.
I thought Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid did a great job with their parts, but that was it for me.
FFH looked like an "homage" to Douglas Sirk that could have been done in a 10-minute short, but was expanded to feature length.
When it was over, I asked myself, now what was the point of that film?
I thought Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid did a great job with their parts, but that was it for me.
FFH looked like an "homage" to Douglas Sirk that could have been done in a 10-minute short, but was expanded to feature length.
When it was over, I asked myself, now what was the point of that film?
12-19-02, 10:14 AM
#33
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by dvdirv
I don't want to burst any of your bubbles, but I was just not impressed with FAR FROM HEAVEN as the rest of you.
FFH looked like an "homage" to Douglas Sirk that could have been done in a 10-minute short, but was expanded to feature length.
When it was over, I asked myself, now what was the point of that film?
I don't want to burst any of your bubbles, but I was just not impressed with FAR FROM HEAVEN as the rest of you.
FFH looked like an "homage" to Douglas Sirk that could have been done in a 10-minute short, but was expanded to feature length.
When it was over, I asked myself, now what was the point of that film?
You might want to check out some of the observations made by critics across the country, 92% of whom found the film to be more than a simple homage.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/FarFromHeaven-1117120/
12-19-02, 08:50 PM
#34
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The War Room
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by conscience
I am referring to Julianne Moore always getting overlooked by the big guys. She is such a wonderful actress and probably will never get something as big as an Oscar. I don't care what the skeptics say, the Oscar is big even if you don't believe in the outcome of it.
She deserved it for Boogie Nights and should have been nominated for Magnolia. Safe is another good example.
She was great in The End of the Affair, but you had two other people locking heads for the award
I am referring to Julianne Moore always getting overlooked by the big guys. She is such a wonderful actress and probably will never get something as big as an Oscar. I don't care what the skeptics say, the Oscar is big even if you don't believe in the outcome of it.
She deserved it for Boogie Nights and should have been nominated for Magnolia. Safe is another good example.
She was great in The End of the Affair, but you had two other people locking heads for the award
Julianne is always good. Her consistency, which endears her to me and her other fans, almost works against her. They seem to like to reward once-in-a-lifetime performances (which might lead to Diane Lane winning.)
I'd like to think this is the year, but I'm not very sanguine about it. I truly hope I'm wrong.
12-20-02, 07:29 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marty888 says this film is more than an homage. It is a re-examination of prejudices of the 50's.
Although I could buy that argument, I really didn't learn anything new about 50's prejudices. Just because it was presented in a "glamorous" setting doesn't make it any more important/unimportant.
Although I could buy that argument, I really didn't learn anything new about 50's prejudices. Just because it was presented in a "glamorous" setting doesn't make it any more important/unimportant.
12-20-02, 11:08 AM
#36
DVD Talk Legend
I have a question for those who have seen this film. I went to see it at my local multiplex this past weekend. It was playing in one of the smaller theatres. The volume was SO freaking low, you could hear people eating their popcorn louder than the dialogue. I got up and went two floors down to try and find someone to report this problem to. The problem with this theatre is, the only people around to tell something like this to is either the guys behind the food counter or the ticket taker. And they are always so busy, you just know it'll be a while before they're able to contact the manager or projectionist. And I'm sure they end up forgetting. So I get all the way back up to the theatre and my friends told me the volume was never turned up. In fact, one said they thought is got lower (!!) I sat there and waited. The problem was never fixed. I was too involved in the movie to get up and waste another 5 or so minutes to find someone to get this resolved once and for all. Is the volume for this film just naturally this low? I was pretty furious about this but couldn't find anyone on the way out to complain to. This happens to me all the time at AMC Theatres. Either the volume or focus is messed up from the start. How freakin' hard is it for the projectionist to get this right. Turn on the projector. Make sure it's in focus. Make sure the volume is set. And leave.
12-20-02, 12:45 PM
#37
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Daytripper
...This happens to me all the time at AMC Theatres. Either the volume or focus is messed up from the start. How freakin' hard is it for the projectionist to get this right. Turn on the projector. Make sure it's in focus. Make sure the volume is set. And leave.
...This happens to me all the time at AMC Theatres. Either the volume or focus is messed up from the start. How freakin' hard is it for the projectionist to get this right. Turn on the projector. Make sure it's in focus. Make sure the volume is set. And leave.
12-20-02, 01:03 PM
#38
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by troystiffler
Whoa. That's a really ignorant thing to say. Do you know anything about how a projector functions? There's twenty different things that can go wrong while a film is playing.
Whoa. That's a really ignorant thing to say. Do you know anything about how a projector functions? There's twenty different things that can go wrong while a film is playing.
Now, back to my question, is this film just one of those "quiet" movies anyway?
12-21-02, 06:41 PM
#40
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: A little bit here and a little bit there.
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
Julianne is always good. Her consistency, which endears her to me and her other fans, almost works against her. They seem to like to reward once-in-a-lifetime performances (which might lead to Diane Lane winning.)
Julianne is always good. Her consistency, which endears her to me and her other fans, almost works against her. They seem to like to reward once-in-a-lifetime performances (which might lead to Diane Lane winning.)
She's been great in everything except hannibal. But I cannot blame her for that one. It was a lousy script. And I'm pretty sure she didn't want to step on jodie's toes.
12-21-02, 08:09 PM
#41
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The War Room
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love that performance. I think it's quite underrated, and one of her better ones. I really like that film. It was one of the first two DVDs I ever bought.
I think Julianne's like Martin Sheen and Denzel Washington: she's been in some bad films, but she's never been bad in a film. At least in my opinion.
I think Julianne's like Martin Sheen and Denzel Washington: she's been in some bad films, but she's never been bad in a film. At least in my opinion.
12-24-02, 09:13 PM
#42
DVD Talk Hero
Note: I apologize if I give too much away in this review, so read with caution...
I finally got to see this film. As the title of the film aptly describes, the societal/emotional/physical roller coaster ride of a film is "far from heaven" as it looks at the breakdown of a "normal" family from the late 1950's, and delves into the major taboos of the day: homosexuality and inter-racial relationships It is from the perspective of the 1950's sense of morals where contemporarily speaking, many of us today who accept either "taboo" as simply as people being people, find happiness where you can, but it's quite astonishing that many of the pronouncements made by characters in the film are due simply the film being a cinematic snapshot of the times. "It's just the way things were at that time" before people found the courage to change the minds of others as time marches on.
Upon reflection, it's amazing how much has changed in the expression of either of these taboo subjects, and how these difficult issues barely raise the societal outrage today as they did in the 1950's. But within the 1950's framework, it was not considered politically incorrect to express displeasure at inter-racial relationships or get a handle on a husbands's homosexuality. For the main character, Cathy, it is used to put her so very "far from heaven" and for Frank (Cathy's husband), his gradual acceptance of his homosexuality uproots his perfect family life in the 1950's, also very conceivably "far from heaven" in some respect.
Julianne Moore delivers another very good performance, she anchors the film (because she's in pretty much the entire film, around 90% of the scenes or more) as Cathy. It's very easy to be empathetic with Cathy's plight in the film. The only criticism I would make is that Cathy is almost too progressive in her thinking, what made her so willing to engage into something that could only end with tragic undertones given the societal climate. Was the risk worth the reward?
Dennis Quaid does a lot with the little he's given in the film. He's able to convey the inner turmoil as Frank, the husband struggling with his homosexual tendencies.
Dennis Haysbert is also very good as the kindly gardner Raymond that Cathy strikes up a friendship with, and also tempts fate by bucking the societal norms of the day.
The direction is also very good and so is the production values (it's a visual treat to see such vivid colors of the 1950's where we of today thinking of in black-n-white terms due to the TV programming also in black-n-white).
The film isn't about battles being won or lost (w/r/t the taboos), but it's about picking up the pieces, how we grow from the fallout as people and as a society as time marches on, and people's thinking on such matters change slowly but surely.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
I finally got to see this film. As the title of the film aptly describes, the societal/emotional/physical roller coaster ride of a film is "far from heaven" as it looks at the breakdown of a "normal" family from the late 1950's, and delves into the major taboos of the day: homosexuality and inter-racial relationships It is from the perspective of the 1950's sense of morals where contemporarily speaking, many of us today who accept either "taboo" as simply as people being people, find happiness where you can, but it's quite astonishing that many of the pronouncements made by characters in the film are due simply the film being a cinematic snapshot of the times. "It's just the way things were at that time" before people found the courage to change the minds of others as time marches on.
Upon reflection, it's amazing how much has changed in the expression of either of these taboo subjects, and how these difficult issues barely raise the societal outrage today as they did in the 1950's. But within the 1950's framework, it was not considered politically incorrect to express displeasure at inter-racial relationships or get a handle on a husbands's homosexuality. For the main character, Cathy, it is used to put her so very "far from heaven" and for Frank (Cathy's husband), his gradual acceptance of his homosexuality uproots his perfect family life in the 1950's, also very conceivably "far from heaven" in some respect.
Julianne Moore delivers another very good performance, she anchors the film (because she's in pretty much the entire film, around 90% of the scenes or more) as Cathy. It's very easy to be empathetic with Cathy's plight in the film. The only criticism I would make is that Cathy is almost too progressive in her thinking, what made her so willing to engage into something that could only end with tragic undertones given the societal climate. Was the risk worth the reward?
Dennis Quaid does a lot with the little he's given in the film. He's able to convey the inner turmoil as Frank, the husband struggling with his homosexual tendencies.
Dennis Haysbert is also very good as the kindly gardner Raymond that Cathy strikes up a friendship with, and also tempts fate by bucking the societal norms of the day.
The direction is also very good and so is the production values (it's a visual treat to see such vivid colors of the 1950's where we of today thinking of in black-n-white terms due to the TV programming also in black-n-white).
The film isn't about battles being won or lost (w/r/t the taboos), but it's about picking up the pieces, how we grow from the fallout as people and as a society as time marches on, and people's thinking on such matters change slowly but surely.
I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.
12-25-02, 01:14 AM
#43
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched it yesterday. Julianne Moore's performance was good and the movie did a good job in making it seem like it was the 1950's, but I found the movie to be quite boring and I'll never watch it again. I nearly dozed off in parts of it.
