Far and Away (1992) User Reviews

Tom and Nicole showcase their newfound love

[cardsrock · 7/10 · 23 July 2020]

I must say that this was a lot more enjoyable than I expected. I read the synopsis and did not have high hopes for a Grapes of Wrath style melodrama. While there is plenty of melodrama, there is a lot more entertainment here than I would've guessed. The Boston fight scenes in particular were fun to watch. Cruise and Kidman bring some bona fide star power and keep you interested against the beautiful landscapes.. The land rush was another terrific sequence that gave the old-fashioned epic its worthwhile climax.

Not too original, but Tom and Nicole heat up the scenes

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 8/10 · 28 November 2003]

While the whole rich girl falls in love with the poor boy routine is a little over done, Far and Away is actually a very romantic and wonderful movie starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. I think because they had such great chemistry, they made this movie into a tear jerker. Not to mention how great the story was, a part of our history that has always been ignored, the Irish immigrants coming over to America to have land and settle down. At a time when America was the new world and very exciting, where anyone could be free, Joesph and Shannon were two very lovable characters and you just keep hoping that their dreams come true.

Shannon is a very upper class lady in Ireland with her controlling mother who wishes her to marry a snobbish land owner, Stephen. Joesph is a farm boy who has just lost his father and his home has been burned by Stephen, Shannon's father owns the land, so Joesph goes to kill him, but fails. His punishment is a duel, but he and Shannon see each other and have an instant connection but won't admit it of course, but Shannon offers for him to come with her to America to claim some land with her. He accepts her offer and goes with her. They claim to be brother and sister to survive, but soon they can no longer resist each other's love, but their family may be too strong to let them be together when Shannon's family comes to get her in America.

Far and Away is a very charming film that I'm sure you will be impressed with. It's just a very romantic film, has fun comedy to it, good drama, and has terrific pictures and sights. Ron Howard is just a fine director, he got the whole feel of the old days and that race for land at the end was just shot so beautifully. Tom and Nicole did a great job, they were so beautiful to watch and made this into a great film. I highly recommend this movie, I think you'll love it.

8/10

Who will deny Ron Howard his due?

[kyle_793 · 7/10 · 3 January 2002]

Tom Cruise may have the "worst-looking" Irish accent on the face of the planet, but it is undeniable that he and Nicole Kidman are sizzling on the silver screen together. Their intensity shines as well as their artistic ability to envelop a character and relate their thoughts to a viewer. Besides their very well done performance, the film is absolutely beautiful. Kudos to the set and costume designers that spent long hours on Far and Away. But he real story in this film is Ron Howard. It is simply a asthetic masterpiece. I spent most of my time wishing that he had just set his camera up on the prairie and filmed the grass growing. It was truly beautiful. Incidentally, sometimes one scene just makes a film. Brings it up from a good film into near 'masterpiece' status. This is one of those films. The music (the best soundtrack of the year thanks to Horner) combined with Ron Howard's vision made the "land race" scene of Far and Away and classic within itself. Put this scene up there with the chariot race in Ben Hur and the parting of the Red Sea in The Ten Commmandments, it is just that good. This is, far and away, one of the best films of the year.

Cruise Is Miscast, But Can't Be Faulted For His Effort.

[slightlymad22 · 6/10 · 27 September 2017]

Continuing my plan to watch every Tom Cruise movie in order, I come to Far & Away (1992)

Plot In A Paragraph: A young Irish couple (Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman) flee to the States, but subsequently struggle to obtain land and prosper freely.

Cruise teamed up with director Ron Howard for what should be a slam dunk for the the pair of them, but it ends up being a total misfire. It's not all bad, it was a personal project for Howard and nobody can fault Cruise for trying something different, it does look visually impressive, but the story is not that good of believable (so much comes down to chance and coincidence) and the dialogue is poor, as are the accents on display.

It takes awhile to get used to the Irish accent coming from Cruise's mouth, who is totally miscast, he was far too old for the role at 30 (he is repeatedly called "boy") but at least he is understandable, which is more than can be for some of the other cast early on.

Nicole Kidman (in her second and last movie with her now husband) once again doesn't offer much to her role and Robert Prosky is such a cliché, it's awful to see such a good actor wasted in such a role. In fact the cast may not be the movies biggest problem. Whilst the idea is certainly a decent one, the script is weak and the dialogue is often ridiculous.

It does have some things going for it!! As I said earlier it's visually impressive. The Oklahoma land rush is beautifully shot and looks great and has John Williams ever produced a bad score.

I had not seen it in 25 years, and I remember a different ending. I won't go in to spoilers, despite the movies age.

Far & Away grossed $58 million at the domestic box office, to end the year the 21st highest grossing movie of 1992. His worst performing movie for quite some time. Luckily he didn't have too long to dwell on two under performing movies in a row.

'Tis All About Tom And Nicole, 'Tis

[jhclues · 7/10 · 17 September 2000]

**Possible Spoilers** In 1892 Ireland, the son of a poor farmer forms an unlikely alliance with the daughter of a wealthy landowner, in `Far and Away,' a romantic adventure directed by Ron Howard, and starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. When his father dies, and an agent of the landlord to whom back rent is owed burns their modest home to the ground, Joseph Donnelly (Cruise) vows revenge. Armed with an ancient, rusty rifle, he travels to the estate of the landowner, Daniel Christie (Robert Prosky), intending to shoot him. But his plans to settle the score quickly go awry; as he draws a bead on Christie and pulls the trigger, the rifle explodes in his face. Christie takes him into his home to treat his wounds, and there Joseph catches the eye of Christie's daughter, Shannon (Kidman). The lad, she notes, has pluck, and he's obviously a scrapper; and she immediately sees him as the means by which she can effect her dream of running away to America, where they are giving land away for free (or so says the ad she has ripped from a newspaper). She realizes that such an undertaking would be impossible for a woman traveling alone, but with a man such as Joseph along to tend to her needs and offer protection, it could be done. Circumstances prevail in her favor, and soon the two of them are off, covertly, with the plan being to land in Boston, then head west to the Oklahoma Territory, where Shannon will be able to claim her land. Of course, Joseph sees land in it for himself, as well. They hit a snag, however, upon landing in Boston; Shannon's silver spoons, stolen from her mother, and with which the trek west was to be financed, are stolen from her, leaving them without means. With some help, they manage to find affordable accommodations (a room at a local bordello), and Shannon finds work in a factory. Meanwhile, Joseph finds he can make some money by prizefighting at one of the local pubs, under sponsorship of a man named Kelly (Colm Meaney), the `connected' Irishman of the town. It's enough to keep them going, temporarily, but the question is, can they make it to Oklahoma in time for the `land rush' of 1893? Cruise gives a credible performance here as Joseph, complete with a passable Irish accent, and he has a natural, charismatic persona that comes across so well on film. Kidman, too, fares well with her portrayal of Shannon; her accent is good, and the camera likes her. And, of course, there's a real chemistry between them. Howard has crafted a visually handsome movie, with a good story told in a predominately straight forward manner. There's not a lot of surprises, and much of it is predictable, beyond mere foreshadowing, but the pace is brisk and the characters are alive, which keeps it all interesting. Also, there's a touch of humor thrown in at appropriate junctures, which helps to offset the dramatics, maintain a positive atmosphere, and keep it all from becoming too sullen. The cinematography is especially notable, particularly early on, when capturing some of the lush vistas of Ireland, and later during the `land rush' sequence. The performances are good all around, and the excellent supporting cast includes Thomas Gibson (Steven), Barbara Babcock (Nora Christie), Cyril Cusack (Danty Duff) and Michelle Johnson (Grace). `Far and Away' is well made and delivered, and, most importantly, it's an entertaining movie; perhaps not one of the most memorable Howard has made, but it's an enjoyable film, and well worth seeing. All in all, it makes for a pleasant night at the movies. I rate this one 7/10.

Good but the accents.....

[aoifecxx · 7/10 · 4 March 2012]

I am from Ireland and I can PROMISE those who have watched it that we do not speak like that. Secondly the names 'Joseph' and 'Shannon' are only recent names and were not the names of near 100 years ago! The film really is about when the British owned most of the land and the Irish had to pay high tax's so most went off the America. The plot was good only the boxing dragged on a bit and they were earning money but still never left to go and get land or to even get better accommodation other then staying in a brothel. It is a good movie to watch if there is nothing else but please do not judge the Irish by the accents of Tom and Nicole.

The Adventures of Joseph and Shannon.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 28 March 2009]

Not a fairy tale. Not like "The Quiet Man" anyway. It's the straightforward tale of two Irish folks -- Joseph Donnelly (Tom Cruise) and Shannon Christie (Nicole Kidman). There are three dramatic episodes: the miseries in the Ireland of 1898 where everyone is subject to the English landlord's whim, a spell in the poor Irish ghetto of Boston where Tom and Nicole share a sex-free room and Tom makes some money fist fighting for the ward boss, and finally the excitement of the Oklahoma land rush when Tom and Nicole, having earlier gone their separate ways, are united and in possession of "the land".

The Irish, they are a funny race. No, really. They have a quaint, almost fey, way with words and language in general. It's not elegant, but sometimes it amounts almost to folk poetry. A couple of examples that come to mind: (1) If a stranger enters a saloon and asks if Michael Murphy comes here, the barkeep is liable to respond, "That name has a lot of usage in Ireland." ("Shake Hands With the Devil.") (2) Of a departed friend, "He was a grand man entirely." ("The Last Hurrah.") (3) Of a poor little boy, "He hasn't a shoe to his foot." ("Angela's Ashes.") (4) If an angry crowd waits outside for a man, he's liable to say, "I'll leave later by the back, pendin' the coolin' of their ardor." ("Up the Rebels".) (5) Of a drunken failure, "He has a great future behind him." (Joyce's "Ulysses".) No wonder that underpopulated little island has produced so many poets and novelists of note.

Let me get back on track, though, this comment not being a doctoral dissertation. Where was I? Yes, Cruise and Kidman on the prowl. They're okay. And the dramatic episodes aren't too disturbing because we know that the lovers will wind up together and still living. This is a Ron Howard movie after all, and he's as dependable in this regard as Rob Reiner.

Even the fist fights that Cruise is so well paid for in Boston are almost reassuring in their own quiet way. Cruise gets to show off his definition. Many of the punches land in slow motion so we can see the blood dripping like heavy oil from Cruise's lips, just as in "Raging Bull." And Cruise walks away from all these bare-knuckled fights with his nose intact and nary a scratch, whereas in real life he'd be toothless and his features would resemble a relief map of Waziristan.

Nobody gets seriously hurt for that matter. The three Donnelly brothers have a hell of a good time punching each other full force in the kisser and engaging in unbuttoned laughter at the same time. I don't think Ron Howard or his writer could ever have been in a fist fight in the schoolyard or they'd know one blow can start a cascade of gore.

The movie begins with a score led by a pennywhistle that is sentimental and nostalgic for the Auld Sod. During the climactic land rush, it switches to generic "epic adventure." Under the end credits we hear an up-beat tune by somebody like Enya, full of echoing chorus and percussion. That last bit is emblematic of the entire movie, both hauntingly pretty and mood stirring -- easy listening.

Involving, Old-Fashioned Epic

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 14 January 2007]

This is a fairly long movie but one that keeps your interest - at least it did mine - all the way with an epic-type adventure tale of Irish immigrants back in the 1880s in the U.S.

This movie is broken down into three distinct parts: 1 - Ireland (40 minutes, featuring some stunning scenery and good Irish music); 2 - Boston (one hour, featuring many brutal scenes of tough Irish immigrants and bare-knuckle fights); 3 - Oklahoma (the days on mining and the famous "land rush.")

The story is very intense and involving. One well-known critic called it "old-fashioned" and meant it as an insult. Well, I think the opposite. I agree that it's old-fashioned, in that it's epic storytelling and that's a good thing. It features solid acting by Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and all the others, and Kidman isn't the only attractive thing in there. The photography is magnificent. I only wish the sound was better as there is almost nothing from the rear speakers.

Cruise is very convincing as a good man, so much so I hated to see some of those beatings he took in the Boston segment. Then again, I'm old-fashioned: I don't like to see the bad guys win over the good guys.

Overall, a memorable movie and one that you truly will care about the characters and the final outcome.

Tha land iz moine!

[Bevan - #4 · 6/10 · 11 April 2005]

Alright, I couldn't resist.

But really, that somewhat egregious quote (splattered over all of the trailers to boot) is part of what was wrong with the movie. That Cruise's outrageously exaggerated Irish accent is claimed to be authentic may be the case -- however much I'm an Irish-Catholic Bostonian, I don't pretend to having heard many 19th century Irishmen speak. But as one exasperated science fiction author stated, defending his use of metres and feet as measurements, he knows full well that a thousand years in the future people will have whacky units of measurement, but he's writing stories for 21st century English-speaking readers.

In like fashion, Ron Howard was making a movie for 20th century viewers, and a bit less of a laughable accent would have made for a better movie. Then again, this reasonably nice flick would have been a lot better if it hadn't borne quite the weight of expectation: Cruise! Kidman! Howard! Done with less of a notion of creating a blockbuster with A-list actors, I would have been happier with it.

6/10.

Imbalanced movie with good acting but terrible writing

[marc5477 · 5/10 · 12 September 2018]

There is not much any actor can do when the story itself is half baked and mind you I am no fan of Mr Cruise. In fact, I think he is the most overrated actor in the business who can only play one role and that is a brain dead hero. He plays that roll well here but Kidman does a great job playing the lusty spoiled brat turned humbled hard working woman. All the other actors were great too. So why a 5/10? The story is trash. Basically, Cruise is Superman and Kidman is the damsel in distress who can do nothing right. The situations that transpire are eye rolling. For example, Cruise is a boxing champion but gets distracted when Kidman is asked to entertain one of the bosses during, you guessed it, the big championship fight. Stuff like that made no sense. 1st the bosses knew she was his sister (or girlfriend) and for people who had so much riding on the match, it seems a bit silly that they would even be thinking about women while men are running running around bloody and topless. Can you imagine getting horny while watching a boxing match? Simply not realistic and pure bathroom break quality writing. The entire movie is like that and its hard to hold back the palm in face reflex.

Underrated storybook of a movie that embraces its cliches

[DeathByTelevision · 10/10 · 27 December 2003]

If you pay too much attention to the cliches and unlikely situations the characters are placed, you really miss the charm of this movie. I can see how people would be put off if they were expecting a serious historical reenactment. Still, I believe that Ron Howard fully meant for this to be a fully romanticized account of the time. This movie works in many of the ways Titanic does, and I think it does it more effectively. Still, with Titanic, most people seemed more than willing to overlook the absurdities. With Far and Away, I don't think Ron Howard was trying to trick us or dumb us down. I don't think he was ever trying to underestimate the intelligence of his viewers. I think he was asking us to follow him and trust him as he told a story. I enjoyed it. Kidman and Cruise were both fun to watch. The supporting cast, although they did seem like they came from a comic book, were entertaining. I hope this movie has life on cable and DVD.

A great love-story

[Cress · 7/10 · 12 December 1998]

When this first came out I knew I had to see it, bad film or not, (I think it's good) because I'm half Irish and my ancestors basically did the same thing as Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise. They immigrated from Ireland over to New York during the potato famine. I think this is a truly beautiful film. When you have love stories such as this one, I think it works so much better when the two "lovers" slowly build up their relationship throughout the film, so you're constantly thinking will they or won't they? I don't really like Tom Cruise as a rule but I do think he plays his character well. I do think Nicole Kidman is a superb actress and she shines in this movie, I think much more then her husband. I love the way Ron Howard shows the different locations in such a beautful way. From the misty cliffs of Ireland, (God that sounds tacky!!) to the dirty glamour of New York, to the lush outdoor wilderness of Oklahoma. All in all this is a great film with John Williams genius score making it all bthe much better

Watchable, but it could have been "great."

[MovieAddict2016 · 5/10 · 27 September 2005]

The year is 1892 and Irish immigrants Joseph Donnelly (Tom Cruise) and Shannon (Nicole Kidman) have arrived at a shipping port in Boston, greeted by enticing faces who offer them jobs and safety...for a price.

Joseph has used Shannon to help cross the Atlantic; there's a long prologue in which their characters are set up. Essentially they become a romantic couple as time progresses, even though they're very different from each other - Joseph being from a poor upbringing and Shannon from a prosperous one.

Joseph gets a job as a boxer for the local Irish ghetto warden boss, while Shannon becomes a dancer/stripper at one of the warden's bars.

The movie was directed by Ron Howard and was one of those post-marriage Cruise/Kidman movies. It got some hype when it came out, and then it died.

Props must be given - direction is good and the sets are realistic. It really evokes the late 19th century and most of the stuff seems genuine (reminded me a bit of "Gangs of New York" to be honest).

However, the acting is atrocious. Cruise can't sport a consistent Irish accent for the life of him. Kidman is okay but I've seen her give far more convincing performances.

Overall this love story set in immigration America had potential and is pretty to look at, but the tale is a bit alienating due to the poor performances from the lead actors.

Another Slap

[tedg · 20 May 2003]

Spoilers herein.

Here is another film in the tradition of `The Quiet Man:' Irish as hard drinkin hard fightin dopes downyou luvem. Once again, the hero is a fighter with a pure heart whom the fight-addicted crowds love. Once again, the fiery redhead needs to be won with land as a matter of her dowry. Once again, there is villainy in the moneyed. And once again, we have grand, lovely photos as thin spirituality.

One wouldn't have an inkling from this that the Irish invented most of the complexities and subtleties of modern storytelling. Nor would one get a clue from any element of this that Misters Howard and Cruise know anything about any of those complexities and subtleties. I suppose there is a market for this sort of pandering (to judge from Speilberg's success), but it lessens us as much as the ward boss's rules do in act two.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Not as bad as some would make out

[David198 · 7/10 · 17 May 2004]

This movie has been almost universally panned, and it certainly has major flaws.

For one, it's too long without being 'epic' enough to sustain the length. Also Tom Cruise's occasional attempts at being funny and Irish just don't come off. And cliche is piled upon cliche and coincidence upon coincidence, just to make the story work.

But some of the criticisms seem unfounded to me. OK, Cruise and Kidman don't really control their destinies - but who does? Yes, they're pushed from one situation to another - but who isn't? And they do, on certain occasions, make significant decisions which change their future.

One fault of the DVD and video is not the film's: it does really need to be seen on a huge screen to help it work, particularly the final land-race sequences. And Nicole Kidman is as always excellent, with just the right amount of feistiness and yet also vulnerability.

All in all, a good piece of entertainment, but some tweaking of the storyline would have helped.

Cheerful, corny Hollywood entertainment

[kneiss1 · 7/10 · 28 August 2010]

Despite all cheesiness, a lot of psychologically weird acting characters and some odd conversations, I had a lot of fun watching. The movie had a quite nice story, great actors, amazing atmosphere, good music and a great set.

I really hate psychologically unconvincing acting characters and corniness in movies – the same goes for unfitting endings. If all this wouldn't have been part of the movie, I might have rated the movie with 9 points. As it is, I am not sure if I want to give this film 6 or 7 points. If I could, I'd give it 6.5 points... - I decided 7 points because of my love for Nicole Kidman and all the great fun I had watching this.

"Down from the north of here, are you? East of here, maybe? West? South?"

[The_Movie_Cat · 6/10 · 12 August 2000]

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME MAJOR SPOILERS - DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM

The first time I saw Far and Away I caught it about half-way through, and couldn't stop laughing at the brilliantly fake Irish "accents". Cruise in particular is a real leprechaun, so he is, begorrah, and the OTT "floating death scene" is risible.

I tuned in a second time for a laughterfest of colossal proportions, only to find I actually quite enjoyed it. It's not subtle, of course. Shannon (the very pretty Kidman) and Joseph (Cruise) are runaways from the horrors of Ireland, intent on making a new life in America. Opposites, their inevitable attraction begins when Shannon looks at Joseph's genitals from underneath a mixing bowl. This level of gentle symbolism continues with a scene where they secretly admire each other's arse, and concludes with Kidman asking "Joseph, am I beautiful at all?" In fact, their romance never seems to be based against anything other than their libidos, Kidman's character being a spoilt rich brat who merely likes a bit of rough.

The turn of the 19th century setting (1892-93 to be exact) is nicely evoked, though perhaps in all honestly the sets and clothes always carry an artificial air. There's some scenes of truly sickening violence as the film tackles the unusual subject – for Hollywood particularly – of bare knuckle fist-fighting. Colm Meaney plays a real meanie (sorry) who acts as Joseph's boxing manager. When Joseph loses a bout, Meaney takes the only option available to him – gets Joseph beaten up, slaps Shannon around and steals all their money before throwing them out onto the street. The major villain though, is, predictably, English, with Nicole's estranged fiance (Thomas Gibson) following them to the US in hot pursuit.

Direction, while not bad for Richie Cunningham, is never revolutionary, but then the constraints of the story temper it with difficulties. Wherever the two go they always seem to be robbed, beaten or shot – even Tom's horse drops dead the day he buys it. These two are so unlucky they'd get run over fifty times just on a trip to the chemist's. Why, maybe they shoulda tried kissing the wee Blarney stone for o' bit o' Irish luck, to be sure. Sorry, Tom Cruiseitis came over me there.

"All the land in the world means nothing to me without you", he says in one of the more nauseating lines. And when you see Tom die and yet miraculously come back to life because Nicole tells him she loves him, you'll realise that this film is a complete load of rubbish. Yet somehow, inexplicably, it's a very entertaining complete load of rubbish. 6/10.

OK movie, even would be better without Hollywooding

[janberk-04706 · 7/10 · 25 September 2019]

I really don't care about the storyline in this movie. If the script and acting could be stripped off Hollywoodisation, it could be a great movie. Nevertheless, if you can stand "now turn back here to the camera and look handsome" Tom Cruise, it is possible to enjoy it. As a history buff, I did. At the end of 1800s, two young people take the courage to go to the US from Ireland, for whatever silly reason. After a long journey (which took like 6 hour plane trip in the movie), they end up in Boston, broke. They try to meet ends among the working class of America, with the help of country ties. Finally they manage to join to the land rush in the west. I mean it is exciting to see these historical events in a movie, represented fairly okay in terms of costume, decor and extras. Just disregard Zoro-like horse riding or Rocky-style boxing shoots.

Good, Underrated Movie

[LynnK54 · 9/10 · 19 December 2005]

I thought this movie was very well done. It is an overlooked treasure. Ron Howard is a great film maker and he deserves more credit for this film. I'm a huge Ron Howard fan and I felt that this film was no better than any of his work done thus far. The dialog was a bit hard to understand, but the plot, acting and directing are what make the movie so great. Nicole Kidman is so beautiful in the movie and she really carries the movie with her charisma. Tom Cruise plays his part very well. The scenery in the movie is some of the best I've ever seen. It is easy to lose yourself in this movie. I would recommend this movie to anyone I know.

If "Gangs of New York" were a romantic comedy

[sowma · 7/10 · 6 March 2003]

okay, so it's not on the same level as 'Gangs of New York", but i still love this movie. it's better than 90 % of most recent 'romantic comedies' and has more substance. compare this movie to 'maid in manhattan' or 'just married' or 'road trip'. 'far and away' IS far and away a better movie, and dare i say it? it's almost cinema! anyway, attention to detail, and pretty darn good writing and direction make it a good pick if you're at blockbuster and can't find something descent. Definately check it out for the romantic and comedic version of 'Gangs of New York'!

Stereotypes, Clichés and Smaltz

[flapdoodle64 · 1/10 · 23 April 2010]

Hollywood usually loves the Irish and usually loves Westerns. This is a movie that could cause a viewer to hate the Irish, hate Westerns, and hate Hollywood.

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidmann affect the all-time worst Irish accents ever. Mr. Cruise was at the height of his career when this was made, and the audience is treated to virtual tour de force of Tom Cruise Movie Clichés, his rippling muscles, his abilities to outfight any physical superior and instantly master any required skill, and the volatile-but-misunderstood protagonist. In short, he is a living cartoon character. Particularly egregious is the sequence wherein our hero, never having ridden a horse prior, is able to suddenly master the meanest, most buckingest bronco EVER, within the context of an unfolding Land Rush and to overtake thousands of other more competent riders with trained steeds.

This cloying and sophomoric script is overladen with schmaltz and sentimentality. Cruise and Kidmann are unlikable from the start and grow more so throughout the film. There are no characters anywhere of sufficient plausibility upon which the viewer may anchor his suspension of belief.

This film contains every type of flaw characteristic of the early Ron Howard films, amplified and exaggerated, with none of the redeeming traits. (In fairness to Opie, I must say that later films such as Apollo 13 and Cinderella Man I found to be very well made and recommend them to my friends.) This film is almost a perfect parody of bad 1990's film. It would probably be a good double feature with 'Mr. Holland's Opus.' I saw this film in the theater back in 1992 when it was new and for many years it held the title as the all-time worst film I had ever seen (that title is now held by 'Hancock'; see that review for details). This is not the fun kind of bad film, such as an Ed Wood film. Rather, this film is unpleasant in the way that an evangelist sitting next to you on a transatlantic flight is unpleasant. The only sane reason to see this film would be if one needed to re-stoke the fires of one's dislike for Tom Cruise, and for that purpose, it would work well.

Irish immigrants caught in a cross-class romance set amidst late 19th century Boston and the Oklahoma Land Rush.

[txobri · 10/10 · 3 August 1998]

A truly brilliant film, this is Ron Howard's masterpiece. I never tire of viewing Far and Away, and enjoy every moment each time I see it. This film is admirable in several respects: 1)it shows how a romance can develop over time, without the typical Hollywood touches of "whirlwind" happenings and people hopping in the sack after only a couple of days (a la "Titanic"), 2)Ron Howard captured the beauty of Ireland, the filth of a large city, and the expanse of the open prairie by resurrecting 70mm film - the colors in this film are absolutely incredible, 3)a simple, character-driven story is enhanced by the historical backdrop. In fact, there are many similarities between the romance in "Titanic" and in "Far and Away." I feel that the depiction in this film works much better than the other, mainly because of the plausibility factor (how many times would you run into the same person on a huge ship?). We understand why Shannon would want to take Joseph along with her. This is the opportunity she's been waiting for. Along the way, and through helping each other through tough circumstances, they fall for each other. This is not some momentary crush that will pass when the next good looking person walks by, we know that these two truly care for each other, and admire each other. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are perfect - one would think that they're both Irish natives. If their marriage is anything like their relationship here, it is bound to last for some time. This is, hands down, Tom Cruise's best movie ever. Here we don't see the typical cocky young man, but instead, a man driven by passion and destiny to do what needs to be done. This is probably much closer to the real Tom Cruise: Proud, without being arrogant. This film remains on my list of all-time favorites, and I look forward to seeing it on the large screen one day.

Review

[laynknig · 7/10 · 23 October 2018]

I liked the movie for the most part. I was absent the day we watched the ending but I liked how the story line went. It was interesting to see how they reacted to different situations. How we went and did bar fights just to raise money and once Shannon saw the other women in there and got jealous so she went and did the same. Also how they just completely fled to America.

More Holes than a Colander

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 7 March 2016]

"Far and Away" is an American attempt to combine British-style "heritage cinema" with a traditional Western. The film opens in 1890s Ireland. On the day of his father's funeral, young farmer Joseph Donnelly is evicted from his land because of unpaid rent and home is burned down by his landlord's men. Joseph vows revenge, and makes an attempt to kill his landlord Daniel Christie. He fails, but his attempt sets in motion a chain of events which lead to Joseph running off to America with Christie's daughter Shannon. On arrival, he works for a time as a prize- fighter in Boston, and eventually they take part in the Oklahoma Land Run of 1893 (an event which has also featured in other films such as the two versions of "Cimarron").

The film's main problem is that the story is full of plot-holes and most of these derive from two incidents, the burning of Joseph's house and his attempt to kill Christie. It is never explained why Christie's men would have wanted to burn the house, which after Joseph's eviction could have been let to another tenant. Christie later protests that the burning was done, without his knowledge or consent, by his land agent Stephen Chase, but does not explain why he has not only kept in his employment a man guilty of arson against his employer's property but also continues to regard that man as a desirable suitor for his daughter's hand in marriage. (Chase, possibly based upon the notorious Captain Charles Boycott, is the real villain of the film).

Joseph's attempt to kill Christie is not in itself improbable as Joseph had plenty of reason to hate him. It does, however, raise the difficult questions of why Christie should seemingly bear Joseph no animosity during their subsequent meetings and of why Shannon should first have run off with, and later have fallen in love with, a man who had tried to murder her father. Why did Chase challenge Joseph to a duel? By the 1890s duelling was going out of favour in the British Isles, but even when it was in favour no gentleman would have challenged a social inferior to a duel. (Chase would undoubtedly have regarded an illiterate peasant-farmer like Joseph as his inferior). Why would an obviously wealthy man like Christie, who after emigrating to America has enough money to live in luxury as a rich Boston gentleman, have wanted to abandon that life in favour of becoming an Oklahoma farmer? And why would an intelligent and well-educated woman like Shannon have been unaware that the Land Run was being held in Oklahoma? (She seems to imagine that she only has to step off the ship in Boston to be offered free land).

The stars are Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, the cinema's official Golden Couple of the nineties, in their second film together. It would be true to say that in neither case is this their best film, but then in neither case is it their worst either. If Cruise does not quite reach the heights he scaled in some of his films from this period, such as "Rain Man", "Born on the First of July" or "A Few Good Men", at least he does not slip back into the brattish, cocky screen persona which had been his stock-in-trade for much of the eighties, and Joseph comes across as surprisingly sympathetic for a would-be assassin. I will leave comment on his accent and Kidman's to those more familiar with Irish dialects than I am. I was not, however, impressed with some of the supporting cast, especially Robert Prosky who seemed unable to decide if he should play Christie as a lovable old rogue or an outright villain.

Visually, the film is an attractive one with some striking shots of the Irish landscape, and Ron Howard does a good job as director; the scenes of the Land Run itself are particularly well put together to make a stirring climax. A favourite trick of his is to film the action from above, as if seen by Joseph's father looking down from Heaven. (Joseph often refers to his belief that his father is watching over him). Little expense seems to have been spared in recreating the Ireland and the America of the 1890s and, unlike many period dramas, this one is not littered with historical inaccuracies; about the only goof I spotted was that old chestnut, too many stars on the American flag for the date at which the action takes place.

Roger Ebert said of "Far and Away" that it is "a movie that joins astonishing visual splendour with a story so simple-minded it seems intended for adolescents", a sentiment with which I would concur. When so much attention has been paid to other aspects of the film, it is a shame that so little was apparently paid to the script. The plot has more holes than a colander. With a better storyline my mark would have been considerably higher. 5/10