Critics’ reviews

Far and Away (1992)

7 reviews from 7 publications. Critics’ score 47: 0 positive, 3 mixed, 4 negative.

Back to our review of Far and Away

47
Positive
0
Mixed
3
Negative
4

Nobody is enthusiastic. The reviews settle between mixed and poor, and the kindest of them stop at calling the film engaging. Where praise exists it goes to the look of the thing: the panoramic photography and the spectacle of the land rush are singled out more than once, and several critics grant it a pleasing momentum even when they doubt there is much underneath. The sense of an old-fashioned studio epic, done with gloss and some swagger, runs through most of the notices.

The complaints are about everything that is not scenery. The film is called shallow, leisurely and short of dramatic urgency, its dialogue flat, its characters borrowed, its plot overstuffed with familiar material. The spread is narrow: the harshest notice, from the Guardian, dismisses it as cliché piled on cliché, while Empire alone finds the melodrama assured enough to carry the evening. Two of the seven are only partly readable and give no verdict.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Mark Dinning
65*

The review finds the film melodramatic but ultimately assured and engaging. It praises the swagger and solid storyline for maintaining momentum.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
22 May 1992 · Janet Maslin
64*

The blocked page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its headline frames the film as an old-fashioned epic, but the review’s specific praise or complaint is unavailable.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· CM
64*

The available description presents it as an old-fashioned period romance and a change of pace for its stars. The accessible text does not disclose the critic’s verdict or a specific point of praise or complaint.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Sue Heal
40

Heal finds the film entertainingly glossy but ultimately shallow. She singles out its visual panache and pleasing momentum, while criticizing its lack of depth.

Read the full review →
Variety
11 May 1992 · festival review · Todd McCarthy
40*

McCarthy finds the film handsomely mounted and amiable but overly old-fashioned, leisurely, and lacking dramatic urgency. He praises the crisp, luminous cinematography and the spectacle of the land rush.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
22 May 1992 · Kenneth Turan
30*

Turan finds the film an uninspired, often tedious period epic, despite its energetic climax. He praises the panoramic photography and visual richness, but faults the flat dialogue and derivative characters.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
· DM
25*

The critic dismisses the film as overloaded with familiar clichés. The capsule singles out its overstuffed plot as the chief flaw.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate