---
title: "Far and Away: the reviews"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/far-and-away/reviews"
title_page: "https://film.one/film/far-and-away"
critics_score: 47
critics_reviews: 7
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Far and Away (1992): what the critics said

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

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 — Mark Dinning

Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 

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

[Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/far-away-review/)

## The New York Times — Janet Maslin

Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 22 May 1992. 

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 review](https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/22/movies/review-film-cruise-and-kidman-in-old-fashioned-epic.html)

## Time Out — CM

Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 

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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/far-and-away)

## Radio Times — Sue Heal

Rating 2/5. 

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 review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-e7b3es/far-and-away/)

## Variety — Todd McCarthy

Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 11 May 1992. Festival review. 

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 review](https://variety.com/1992/film/reviews/far-and-away-2-1200429747/)

## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan

Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 22 May 1992. 

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 review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-05-22-ca-51-story.html)

## The Guardian — DM

Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 

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

[Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/movie/90797/far-and-away)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/far-and-away.md