On F List of Movie Reviews

(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)


Far and Away (1992)

Rate: 8
Viewed: 10/14

FarA
10/14: What saves Far and Away from being a sappy clunker it might have become is the outstanding cinematography by Mikael Salomon.

It's what carries the film through despite the incredibly long running time. Surprisingly free of profanity, minus a couple of ridiculous scenes, Far and Away makes for a suitable viewing in school for history classes. The ending, depicting the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1893 which was the largest ever, is fascinating. It's something I never knew about, and I had to look it up. Tom Cruise is another reason why it's watchable as all of his films usually are.

Now, let's go to the negatives. I don't like Nicole Kidman. She's full of herself and not worth caring about. That's the case in Far and Away, and she makes it unbearable to watch at times. The scene when she gasped at the sight of her co-star's penis is pathetic. Maybe she should do porn films instead?

Meanwhile, Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise look modern for the late 19th century. Thus, it's hard to believe them when they're too clean and good-looking. Their relationship is poorly developed given the supposed passage of time. On the other hand, Tom Cruise's face sure heals quickly for a boxer with no disfigurement anywhere.

Although the chemistry is there, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman seem to have met each other for the first time in every scene. However, are they really in love? Of course not. It's more like lust. Also, the coincidences and how the characters kept meeting each other so conveniently over time in faraway places are hard to believe. The running length did test me many times; having a false ending was a bad idea. Hence, it needs to be at least half an hour shorter.

All in all, it's safe to label Far and Away a sweeping epic, albeit without depth, making a good substitute for Doctor Zhivago.