Metascore
49

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 19
  2. Negative: 3 out of 19
  1. 63
    Even at its hokiest, Far and Away is never less than heartfelt.
  2. 50
    Far and Away is a movie that joins astonishing visual splendor with a story so simple-minded it seems intended for adolescents.
  3. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    50
    Far and Away plays like a theme park attraction: viscerally exciting but detached, impersonal and dull.
  4. Reviewed by: Kathleen Maher
    40
    There is a richness to Far and Away that seems wasted on its simple love story straight out of "It Happened One Night."
  5. Far and Away looks like an epic, but it lacks flavor and texture. It's so predigested there's nothing left to chew on.
  6. Reviewed by: Richard Schickel
    70
    Somehow it works, in part because of the way director Howard keeps his crowded frames abustle with activity, in part because of the sheer indomitability with which his leading characters are endowed by the actors and by writer Dolman, but mostly because the movie takes enlivening chances with its material.
  7. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    70
    Handsomely mounted and amiably performed but leisurely and without much dramatic urgency.
  8. Sometimes it's hard to tell what's mere overreaching and what's nostalgia for Hollywood's former grandiloquence.
  9. Reviewed by: John F. Kelly
    20
    Far and Away, the new feel-good epic from director Ron Howard, isn't a movie, it's a cartoon.
  10. 10
    Far and Away is such a doddering, bloated bit of corn, and its characters and situations so obviously hackneyed, that we can't give in to the story and allow ourselves to be swept away.
  11. 75
    Far and Away, a mildly old-fashioned romantic melodrama that has as many charming moments as embarrassing ones. Much of the charm is supplied by the earnest performances of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. [22 May 1992]
  12. Something kicks in about two thirds in, and Far and Away becomes exhilarating. [22 May 1992]
  13. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    63
    The old seems old - but the result isn't unpleasant, and moviegoers just might go for it. [22 May 1992]
  14. Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    50
    Far and Away is a throwback to the handsome but stodgy historical romances Hollywood used to make, and it can at least be said that it's more ambitious than most of what we'll see this summer. [22 May 1992]
  15. It's just a shrunken case of large-screen aspirations wedded to a small-screen mentality. [22 May 1992]
  16. It is entertaining and eye-filling enough to appeal to a mainstream male audience. [22 May 1992]
  17. Reviewed by: Stephen Hunter
    58
    A somewhat simple-minded, overwrought mock epic. [22 May 1992]
  18. Odd as it seems for a film built on such a grand scale, sweet is the operative word here, and that's not meant as an insult. [29 May 1992]
  19. It's strong as can be in terms of production values and panoramic photography (as befits its $70-million budget) and weak as watery tea when it comes to little things like dialogue and character development. [22 May 1992]
User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 17 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 3
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 3
  3. Negative: 0 out of 3
  1. Jan 11, 2013
    10
    This movie is a extremely underrated movie and i am stunned to see all of the bad coments. This film has great ballance of comedy action and romance. This movie is a personal favorite of mine. Full Review »
  2. KaseyS.
    Feb 15, 2010
    7
    Though it could have used tome editing, this was a solid effort for Ron Howard and Tom and Nicole. The thill of the ending makes up for some parts that dragged a little. This movie is still remembered and will continue to be remembered. Full Review »
  3. JohnB.
    Nov 17, 2007
    8
    historically good & well-acted. You identify w/the actors very easily!