It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

I usually don't review a film which already has this many reviews, but I'm going to make an exception this time because this film is just not right. It's a well-meaning film; I'm convinced of that. But it just is off kilter and unrealistic.First we have the conflict between husband and wife as the husband more or less surrenders to his gay sexuality. Good topic for a film. But the way it's portrayed is "unreal"...and dark (literally)...and does not provide Dennis Quaid with any opportunity to provide any depth to his character. In fact, the way it's handled makes it quite clear that this film belongs to Julianne Moore. Moore gives a good performance here, but again it seems like an unreal portrayal of a housewife, even back then.Second, we have the conflict between 2 people struggling in a time of segregation. This comes off somewhat more realistically...but not much. For example, when Dennis Haysbert takes Moore to the Black bar/restaurant; that didn't fit his sensitive character as portrayed in the film. Again, Haysbert doesn't get a chance to delve into his character more than superficially. Again, Moore's film.I know this film has received lots of kudos. I just don't agree.

Hartford, Connecticut, 1957. Frank and Cathy Whitaker are what people might name "The American Dream come true": he's a successful salesman, she's a devoted housewife in charge of a perfect house in the suburbs and two lovely children, and committed to the social causes of the time. But this will fall apart when Cathy discovers a shocking truth about Frank, and she finds solace in Raymond, the black gardener, which will make her the center of the town's gossips.Todd Haynes has declared himself as a great admirer of the highly stylized melodramas made back in the 50's (especially the ones directed by Douglas Sirk: Imitation of Life and All that heaven allows). His third feature Far from heaven is an open homage to these movies, and it's also a compelling approach for younger audiences to an often forgotten genre. Haynes' splendid screenplays offers a sharp gaze to social troubles that sadly still remain just like in the 50's: sexual preferences treated as a disease and racial discrimination towards black people (let's remember they basically had zero rights at that time). In addition to this, tells a poignant story about forbidden love following the rules of melodrama (a plot that appeals to the heightened emotions of the audience, suffering protagonists (usually heroines) facing tremendous social pressures, threats, repression, fears, etc), escaping its clichés and conventionalities skilfully. As mentioned, in Far from heaven, Haynes' intention is to accomplish a faithful recreation of the old-fashioned period dramas in which production values become another character of the movie (an essential one). Thus, Haynes' creative team is able to put together a visually-striking gem: from Edward Lachman's exquisite cinematography, Sandy Powell's alluring costumes and Elmer Bernstein (in one of his final works) and his evocative music (it's not an accident the fact that Haynes chose him to score the movie, since he worked in several of those period pieces): all of them are perfectly assembled without overshadowing the final result. The third element that makes this movie so powerful and compelling is the acting: Haynes trusts in Julianne Moore's tremendous range and she portraits Cathy's tribulations with an affecting honesty (this is one of her top performances, for which she won the Best Actress Award at the Venice Film festival and received an Oscar nomination, among many other awards). Then there's Dennis Quaid, delivering the best performance of his career: as Frank he embraces his confusion and pain brilliantly, and creates empathy for a man whose "sin" to live a lie and hide his true desires. And behind them, there's a firs-rate supporting cast, including Dennis Haysbert as Raymond, the gardener who will comfort Cathy (even though this might cause him some pain) and Patricia Clarkson and Viola Davis in strong turns. With this movie, Todd Haynes let us know his superb skills as director by taking in a misunderstood genre, infuse it with new life and keeping its essence at the same time.

I found this movie was quite disturbing since it was all to do with problems they had back then in the 1950's - homosexuality and racism. I swear, the way they talk about how disgusting it was, it just was so cruel and horrible!Julianne Moore's character Cathy Whitaker would have been better off with the gardener Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert) because honestly, their chemistry was so uplifting and sweet. I honestly wish they both had a happy ending together because I would be giving this movie another star if that scene ever happened but it didn't, so it lost one star from me! I wish we could look more on the husbands life. I say that would be interesting since it wasn't talked about in the 50's! I have to say folks, the music in the movie is great! So if you need a Sunday night movie, watch this!

Sometimes you just feel that certain movies are just made for award ceremonies. The type of heavy handed dramas, with a melodramatic storyline, that's dealing with sensitive issues, that wants to be politically correct, with a moral in it, that's all set in a specific time period in the past. The type of movie that is always likely to get noticed and nominated for something by some big award shows, regardless of everything, as also was being the case with this movie, which actually got nominated for 4 Oscar's but it eventually won none. And rightfully so! Oh yes, I recognized this movie very well for trying to be like a big '50's melodramatic production but only problem with it was that this movie was being even more shallow and predictable than a real '50's production. Besides, this movie might had been far more relevant if it indeed got done back in the '50's but in today's light I just can't see anyone being able to take something out of this movie while watching it. And really, I think it's always a very annoying thing when movies set in the past take on today's morals and standards. So the main character in this movie is being extremely liberal concerning African Americans and homosexuality, making this movie a very political correct one, without ever explaining why this main character would feel that way, concerning all of the movie its sensitive subjects.And that was a problem all throughout as well; the movie just never handles- or builds its drama up very well. It lets things just happen without ever telling you why or how exactly. Why does the main character fall in love? Why do certain people get mad? Why do people suddenly decide to leave? For me, none of this ever became apparent while watching the movie, making this a very shallow viewing experience.Things weren't improved by the fact that the movie was being a very predictable one, from start to finish. Seriously, nothing surprising ever happened and the movie progressed in the exact same way as I kept anticipating it to do.And while the movie is trying to be very heavy and dramatic with all of its themes; nothing ever feels all that dramatic. So it's really being a melodrama without any true good drama. Perhaps it could had worked out if I cared a bit more for any of its characters but just like its story; its characters don't seem to have enough depth to them and they are not build up very well. The movie mostly relies on stereotypes, which also includes some very stereotypical characters.Another thing that highly annoyed me was the, probably deliberate, extremely melodramatic musical score by Elmer Bernstein. It made walking down a stairs sound dramatic and would often swell at points when there wasn't even all that much happening. It was distracting and annoying and it's hard to believe Bernstein even earned himself an Oscar nomination for this and sad to realize this was actually being his final movie, before his death in 2004. There still was a saving grace in this movie; Julianne Moore. It's not the type of role you normally see her play and she was totally great and convincing in her role, even though the movie itself didn't gave her an awful lot of good or interesting to do.You could also say it's being a good period piece, with its overall look and atmosphere but due to everything else, I just never could fully appreciate it.Too late, too forced and a mostly completely ineffective modern, 'old fashioned', genre movie.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/