Far and Away
2/4
Starring: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Colm Meaney, Thomas Gibson, Robert Prosky, Barbara Babcock
Rated PG-13 for Some Violence and Sensuality
Watching "Far and Away" brings one big, super obvious question to mind: how can a movie loaded from top to bottom with talent turn out to be such a misfire? And I'm talking big names: 90s supercouple Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as the headlining stars, character actors Robert Prosky and Colm Meaney in supporting roles, director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer, a score by the legendary John Williams, and shot on Super 65mm film (a very expensive stock...it was previously used thirty-two years earlier, and has only been used twice since) by Mikael Salomon. Maybe it's because the screenplay is unbelievably, irredeemably bad. There is precious little in this movie that I could take seriously.
The film takes place around the turn of the century. Joseph Donnelly (Cruise) is hungry for revenge. An attempt to save his land from a tyrannical landlord has led to the death of his father (legendary Irish actor Cyril Cusack in his final role). Joseph goes after the landowner, a man named Christie (Prosky), but his attempt at settling the score in blood backfires, with him ending up in a duel with Christie's future son-in-law, Stephen Chase (Gibson). He is rescued at the last minute by Christie's free-spirited daughter Susannah (Kidman), who is desperate to avoid becoming a perfectly boring "lady" like her mother (Babcock). They flee to America, where the land is up for grabs. Of course, getting it isn't as easy as it sounds, and Susannah's family isn't far behind.
This isn't the pinnacle of originality. But an epic romance/adventure in the vein of "Titanic" isn't out of the question (actually, a better comparison would be "Gangs of New York," a film "Far and Away" never had a chance of coming close to equaling). Unfortunately, Howard uses a screenplay that is so overwritten that not even he can save it. I'll bet that there was a good script here, but all shreds of depth and originality were ironed out to appeal to mass audiences. In so doing, they've left the film with a story that has no direction and characters that are mere props for Howard to move about like chess pieces.
It doesn't help that certain actors aren't able to perform at expected levels. Tom Cruise is fine, but the dialogue defeats him. Nicole Kidman goes over-the-top on a few occasions. The two have chemistry, but it's muted because neither one of them is trying. This was their second of three films they made together (the other two being "Days of Thunder" and "Eyes Wide Shut"). Thomas Gibson is a non-entity (compare him to black-hearted Billy Zane in the James Cameron picture). Colm Meany gives it his all in an underwritten part. And Robert Prosky and Barbara Babcock are only on hand for comic relief, most of which comes across as ill-fitting rather than funny.
Ron Howard isn't blameless either. At nearly 2.5 hours, the film is far too long. For a film that is at times so campy that it borders on satirical, such a length mutes the film's (minimal) strengths. And there are a few of them. While there are some scenes that are so bad they're funny, there are some that do. Such as the big race scene at the end, which while not excellently handled, still captures a feeling of adventure. And the score by John Williams is excellent (no surprises there).
"Far and Away" falls into the trap of too many big budget movies: it works in the departments where a director can get away with just throwing money at it, but comes up short in the parts that stimulate the mind and the heart. Unfortunately, it's the latter that is what a movie depends on.
Starring: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Colm Meaney, Thomas Gibson, Robert Prosky, Barbara Babcock
Rated PG-13 for Some Violence and Sensuality
Watching "Far and Away" brings one big, super obvious question to mind: how can a movie loaded from top to bottom with talent turn out to be such a misfire? And I'm talking big names: 90s supercouple Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as the headlining stars, character actors Robert Prosky and Colm Meaney in supporting roles, director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer, a score by the legendary John Williams, and shot on Super 65mm film (a very expensive stock...it was previously used thirty-two years earlier, and has only been used twice since) by Mikael Salomon. Maybe it's because the screenplay is unbelievably, irredeemably bad. There is precious little in this movie that I could take seriously.
The film takes place around the turn of the century. Joseph Donnelly (Cruise) is hungry for revenge. An attempt to save his land from a tyrannical landlord has led to the death of his father (legendary Irish actor Cyril Cusack in his final role). Joseph goes after the landowner, a man named Christie (Prosky), but his attempt at settling the score in blood backfires, with him ending up in a duel with Christie's future son-in-law, Stephen Chase (Gibson). He is rescued at the last minute by Christie's free-spirited daughter Susannah (Kidman), who is desperate to avoid becoming a perfectly boring "lady" like her mother (Babcock). They flee to America, where the land is up for grabs. Of course, getting it isn't as easy as it sounds, and Susannah's family isn't far behind.
This isn't the pinnacle of originality. But an epic romance/adventure in the vein of "Titanic" isn't out of the question (actually, a better comparison would be "Gangs of New York," a film "Far and Away" never had a chance of coming close to equaling). Unfortunately, Howard uses a screenplay that is so overwritten that not even he can save it. I'll bet that there was a good script here, but all shreds of depth and originality were ironed out to appeal to mass audiences. In so doing, they've left the film with a story that has no direction and characters that are mere props for Howard to move about like chess pieces.
It doesn't help that certain actors aren't able to perform at expected levels. Tom Cruise is fine, but the dialogue defeats him. Nicole Kidman goes over-the-top on a few occasions. The two have chemistry, but it's muted because neither one of them is trying. This was their second of three films they made together (the other two being "Days of Thunder" and "Eyes Wide Shut"). Thomas Gibson is a non-entity (compare him to black-hearted Billy Zane in the James Cameron picture). Colm Meany gives it his all in an underwritten part. And Robert Prosky and Barbara Babcock are only on hand for comic relief, most of which comes across as ill-fitting rather than funny.
Ron Howard isn't blameless either. At nearly 2.5 hours, the film is far too long. For a film that is at times so campy that it borders on satirical, such a length mutes the film's (minimal) strengths. And there are a few of them. While there are some scenes that are so bad they're funny, there are some that do. Such as the big race scene at the end, which while not excellently handled, still captures a feeling of adventure. And the score by John Williams is excellent (no surprises there).
"Far and Away" falls into the trap of too many big budget movies: it works in the departments where a director can get away with just throwing money at it, but comes up short in the parts that stimulate the mind and the heart. Unfortunately, it's the latter that is what a movie depends on.
Comments
Post a Comment