Customer Reviews

Safe (Widescreen)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Carol White (Julianne Moore), a homemaker, lives a life without doing the daily chores of a housewife as the family maid takes care of household tasks. In essence Carol has only one responsibility: her leisure time. She tries to fill her free time with aerobics, beauty salon visits, and new acquisitions for their safeguarded home. These activities do not provide an outlet for Carol's own identity as she is a mere trophy wife. Eventually Carol's body begins to rebel against herself through nausea, headaches, and nose bleeding. The family doctor examines Carol and he finds nothing wrong as her physical miseries worsen. Carol is sent to a psychiatrist, but her subdued persona does not cooperate. Carol's health continues to deteriorate as she discovers an organization that enlightens people about environmental illness. Environmental illness is an over hypersensitivity to pollution, pesticides, and all other toxins in the environment that exist in foods, perfumes and make-up among other things. This means that Carol must remove herself from civilization and the world in which she lives. Carol departs for a new age health sanctuary, Wrenwood, where she begins her recovery. Initially Carol improves physically, however, as she comes across a closely located highway her health begins to decline again.

Safe has a lingering effect as it slowly moves forward as Haynes purposely displays each scene in order to build a deep understanding of Carol's identity. It becomes an exploration of Julianne Moore's character as Haynes dissects Carol's psychology through meticulous direction of every scene. When the scenes are edited together it leaves the audience with a profound insight of Carol's illness. This insight offers a disturbing experience as Carol's decisions continue to affect her negatively both physically and socially. Julianne Moore's performance enhances the distortion of her character's mind as she performs brilliantly, which leaves the audience with a fascinating cinematic experience.

Julianne Moore does another fabulous job as an LA housewife exposed to the hazards of suburbia. The film is dark and stale adding to the creepiness of its message.

Moore's housewife is lifeless, she exists in LA going from post office to dry cleaners to aerobics class. She sips milk while her Spanish housecleaner does all the actual work of keeping up a home. She does her "wifely duties" with the same boredom with which she lives. Her world is protected and safe but she somehow ends up ill (is it real toxic poisoning or just a cry for attention?) and it all gets chalked up to stress.....what stress could she be having? The creepiness lies in how easily she gets programmed by all the others in her life. With no direction of her own she exists as a mere robotic representation of what she is supposed to be. How many of those do you see in a day?

Moore soon becomes so strangely ill that she can't even perform her meaniless tasks. This eventially lands her in a cultish type retreat where she is supposed to get well. Without her own backbone she flounders around influenced by everything external and open to all sorts of advice except what works. So we learn two messages in one movie, first be your own person and second that our environment may in fact be causing more undiagnosed illness than we imagine. Find your own influences before the Jones' get you down and above all stay SAFE!

Safe - movie, 4 stars

Named by the Village Voice as the Best Film of the 1990s, this resounding social statement a-la-TV-movie-of-the-week is certainly anything but what its title suggests. Director Todd Haynes has the reputation of pushing limits and making audiences strangely uncomfortable, and this film is no exception.

San Fernando Valley, circa 1989. Carol White (Julianne Moore) is living her perfectly stereotypical upper-middle-class life when suddenly she becomes sick. When she has allergic reactions to all sorts of chemicals around her, her husband (Xander Berkeley) and doctor think it's all in her head. However, the hopelessly reserved Carol knows her "environmental illness" is legitimate, uprooting herself and moving into the chemically-sterile community of Wrenwood, New Mexico. There, she is treated for her mysterious illness by self-help guru Peter Dunning (Peter Friedman) and his bright-eyed cohorts; however, her health continues to decline.

The film's statement is quite difficult to detect upon first viewing. Certainly, the plot is extremely reminiscent of many TV-movies of the 80s and 90s, all showcasing a new disease of the week. However, it eventually becomes apparent that the film is not a commentary on environmental illness.

Performances in the film are all at best adequate, with the exception of Moore, who is undeniably brilliant. Her detatched, sad carriage and demeanor arguably echoes more loudly than the film's social statement. Of course, she depends heavily on her subtleties as usual, and when she's onscreen, it's difficult to pay attention to anything else. Her birthday scene, toward the end of the film, is particularly moving.

Haynes's direction is seemingly bland at times-- one may feel as if he's watching a horror movie on Valium. However, Haynes's complexities eventually show through and what we see is a brillantly sincere and deep commentary on a rather provocative question: Is anyone ever really safe?

I should start this review by stating that I'm not a Julianne Moore fan. A few years back a movie came out, called "Nine Months," that permanently turned me off this actress. In that movie, she played a whiny, obnoxious lady in a relationship with Hugh Grant. The whole picture revolved around the hijinks that ensued when Moore's character got pregnant and Grant didn't want kids. "Nine Months" was the most syrupy, sappy piece of fluff I have ever seen in my life. Think a Hallmark movie of the week with the emotional content pumped up on steroids, and you'll have an excellent idea of what "Nine Months" looked like. Oh, just to make it even worse, Tom Arnold and Joan Cusack appeared as these two grotesque superparent friends. Yuck. Despite my misgivings about Moore, I decided to give "Safe" a chance after reading its summary. The movie's premise, about a suburban housewife developing an allergy to modern society, was just too promising to pass up. I'm glad I watched the picture. Director Todd Haynes has scored a big coup with this grim take on American society towards the end of the twentieth century. And what a surprise! Moore actually tugged at my heartstrings in a decidedly non-icky way.

"Safe" is the story of Carol White, an adrift California housewife in the 1980s. Her life should satisfy: she lives with a husband and child she loves, spends her days doing whatever she wants to do, and lives in a huge house with plenty of money to throw around. What more could any American woman ask for? Apparently, quite a lot. In between the trips to the fitness center, the frequent lunches with female friends, and the important dinners with hubby's business pals, Carol begins to erode mentally and physically. If there's a starting point for this slow descent into illness, it seems to come when White throws a fit over a furniture company delivering the wrong couch. She soon cannot sleep, develops a hacking cough, and always feels bad. Her husband does not help matters. At first, he is sympathetic to his wife's plight, insisting she see a doctor (who finds nothing wrong with her) and offering emotional support. His goodwill doesn't last long, however, as he soon complains that Carol isn't fulfilling her duties as a wife and partner. The additional stress at home only compounds White's vague health problems. A trip to a psychologist offers little in the way of help, nor does a stay in the hospital after Carol has a seizure outside a dry cleaning business. This lady has a big problem, one that hauling around a little oxygen tank will not clear up anytime soon.

During the stay in the hospital, Carol finds salvation. An advertisement for a health spa called Wrenwood, located somewhere in New Mexico, promises to help people with unspecified health problems. Convinced this place is the only answer, White implores her husband to take her there. Wrenwood turns out to be both more and less than Carol White had hoped for. The facility is populated with a bunch of people, like White, who cannot seem to function in modern society. Even worse, the chap who runs the place, Peter Dunning, is one of those new age types. Dunning claims contracting the AIDS virus led him to set up the clinic so he can help people suffering from strange maladies. His speeches to his "patients," made in a special room complete with podium, cheesy murals, and musical instruments, convey the sense that this guy's running a cult. He likes to play around with people's minds, too, during intense "therapy" sessions where he tries to convince the patients that they made themselves sick. That may well be true in some of these cases, but the way Dunning goes about trying to heal these people is grotesque. In the end, Carol White is worse off than she was when she arrived at Wrenwood.

"Safe" works due to Haynes's masterful direction and sense of atmosphere. On more than one occasion, his cinematic approach reminded me of Stanley Kubrick. Haynes has that same ability to light and shoot a scene that looks like a giant hand squeezed all the emotion and life out of it. This tendency is especially prevalent in the first half of the film as we watch Carol start her slow decline. There's a great scene where we see White standing in her opulent living room, but Haynes shoots it so it looks like a mausoleum devoid of any feeling or life. If you look closely enough, Carol White appears as just another piece of furniture in the room. Amazing, simply amazing, and probably a good hint at the film's central theme. Our heroine really is just another ornament in this house, and her husband treats her that way. I suspect Carol's illness is related to her awareness that her life is essentially empty of meaning. Perhaps the illness is an attempt to get attention from those around her, or her body's way of rejecting the sterile background of her daily life.

Whatever the case, "Safe" is a deeply unsettling film that raises more questions than answers. Julianne Moore turns in a fabulous performance as the deeply flawed Carol White, as does Xander Berkeley as her distant husband. Peter Friedman threatens to steal the show, however, as the smarmy Peter Dunning. A commentary track on the disc done by Moore and Haynes seems to shoot holes in any attempt to see the film as a serious commentary on modern life. Both actress and director laugh and giggle a lot during the commentary, obviously getting a kick out of poking fun at the new age themes in the film. Still, "Safe" is an observation on our sick society, and fans of cinema will definitely want to check this gem out posthaste.

J. Moore's acting in this movie was quite good.
On behalf of this movie I think it is quite profound and very SAD. It just shows how some people with their needy, selfish, attention starved and easily manipulated personalities, can so delude themselves. I thought the charcter of Carol White was pathetic and I felf very sorry for her husband and son. Her husband should have been stronger and gone to stronger measures to get her the REAL help she required (physchiatric treatment) not just an appointment. I also agree with someone's review , that she was more closed in and prison held, then she ever had been at her home.
This movie was Sad, but some how holds you to keep watching, and waiting for the character to snap out of it.

This is the most unforgetable movie I have ever seen.

Safe (Todd Haynes, 1995)

Julianne Moore has been around Hollywood for quite a while, but no one really sat up and took notice until she found Todd Haynes. Haynes has gained a good deal of underground cred with his feature debut, 1991's Poison, but the wider world didn't notice him until he hooked up with Julianne Moore, either. The two of them got together and, if this were a Hollywood film, would have made box-office magic with Safe.

But this isn't a Hollywood film, and that's not really what happened, though it did get Moore a lot more jobs, and got Haynes wide enough distribution to enable him to make Velvet Goldmine, the film that put him up into, if not the A-list, the top of the B-list. Why didn't Safe make everyone fall to their knees in worship of these two now-recognized giants? Well, simply, because it ain't all that hot.

Julianne Moore stars as Carol White, a suburban housewife (and even when Haynes is making a movie set in the present day--well, okay, this is the only one he's done to date that is--it has an oddly 1950s feel to it) whose marriage (to Greg, played by Xander Berkeley, who's been in so many films you've seen him at least once, you just never knew his name before) is of the stable-but-loveless variety, whose relationships with her neighbors is solid but sterile, whose house looks like a model home that no one lives in... you get the idea. Carol White's whole life is a study in sterility. (Those who have seen Far from Heaven should recognize this conceit.) Except, somehow, it's not sterile enough, because for no reason anyone can discern, she starts to develop what was, at the time, the film was made, known as environmental illness. (Think of today's buzzword, Sick Building Syndrome, but on steroids.) Things that she previously had no problem with start making her sick thanks to the arrival of a new couch (not, it should be noted, in the color she ordered, a point of contention at the beginning of the film that becomes an oddly endearing running joke). Greg is confused, but willing to support his wife as she tries to find a cure for the mess she's in. Doctor after doctor fails her, until she finds a retreat in the New Mexico desert run by a snake-oil salesman named Peter Dunning (Peter Friedman, another of those "you've seen him in lots of stuff in small parts"-type characters).

There is so very much here that Haynes could have worked with that goes unexplored. The main conflict, between Greg and Peter, could have been a whole movie in itself, but Haynes never does more than scratch the surface of the depths of Carol's different reactions to her husband (who is real and honest throughout) and Dunning (who tells her what she wants to hear). The scenes at Wrenwood, Dunning's complex, can be seen as having a kind of existential horror to them, but could have been played better. Things ranging from something as subtle as playing with the lighting to more concerted attempts at mind control (it's obvious from what's here that Dunning has himself a cadre of hardcore believers, but he never really does much with the fringe members) would have spun the last half of the movie in a much more sinister light; as it is, it comes off more Saturday the 14th than Friday the 13th. And, of course, the first scene where Moore shows outward signs of sickness, developing a cough that won't go away while driving a car, is arguably the most unintentionally funny scene of Julianne Moore's incredible career. What on EARTH were Moore and Haynes thinking when they made that scene? It certainly couldn't have been "this is going to be an emotionally powerful sequence that will make the viewer sympathize with Carol," since what is does is annoy the viewer and make him want to throw popcorn at the screen thanks to how badly Moore is overacting. (And really, you have to work at it to make a cough sound that fake.)

Safe ends up being yet another film where there is much unrealized potential, leading to frustration from the viewers. Still, it's worth seeing for a lot of interesting performances from a lot of people you recognize, but don't know, per se. Just hit the fast forward button every time Moore starts coughing, and you'll be fine. **

Yes, Safe is a horror movie. Ostensibly dealing with "environmental illness," the viewer is left to decide whether the heroine is indeed sick or has imagined it all.

Regardless, after seeing all types of traditional and non-traditional doctors, Moore's character ends up on an isolated New Mexico retreat where she still can't escape those nasty environmental toxins. Her only "safe" place is inside of a geodesic dome scarcely bigger than a pup tent. Creepy and unsettling.

Safe moves at an extremely leisurely pace. Julianne Moore turns in a harrowing performance. I recommend this movie.

I think this is one of the best and most significant films of the 90s. It is a very introspective film, so if you require shootouts, steamy sex scenes and explosions to remain interested, this is definitely not the movie for you. Even fans of independent films may find their attention spans challenged by the deliberately slow paced and downbeat style of Safe. It is, however, well worth paying attention to. I've seen this movie three times now, and I notice more with each viewing. The opening frame, which puts brackets around the title [Safe] is a study in itself. Carol White (the name, like many details in this film, is quite significant), played by Julianne Moore, is an affluent suburban housewife who apparently becomes allergic to everything around her. Yet Safe, which might first seem like a made-for-television disease-of-the-week affair, has a far more subtle and thought-provoking theme than illness. From the start, we are oppressed by the white, sterile perfection of Carol's environment. The interiors of her house could have been designed by a feng shui consultant. The colors are all soft; everything is arranged in perfect symmetry. When a furniture store accidentally delivers a black rather than teal couch to the house, Carol panics (black=impurity). Carol at first attributes her illness to stress and her doctor concurs. Yet her life is anything but stressful; we see her float from the health club to the hair salon to lunch with a friend at a restaurant. Her symptoms worsen, and she learns about environmental illness; "Are you allergic to the 20th Century?" a flyer asks. As Carol becomes unable to cope with her life, she enters Wrenwood, a new age retreat center that promises to cleanse the body and spirit of impurities. Wrenwood preaches a self-righteous philosophy of asceticism, withdrawl from society and positive thinking. In Safe, director Todd Haynes has taken a profound look at some disconcerting aspects of modern society. What is perhaps best about the film is its nuanced performances. Carol, though ill and upset, is never completely out of control for long; she always returns to her "I'm fine" persona (which is part of her problem). The new age center and its staff, which could have been a parody of silliness or cultishness, is similarly subtle. If you listen to what they preach and the effects it has on patients (everyone is always on the verge of tears), you can see the flaws and distortions, but it's sophisticated and plausible enough that you can also see how people might fall for it. Safe suggests that the desire to escape all forms of impurity may be one of the most pathological things about our culture.

Never before has a movie provoked such mixed feelings in me. After reading shining reviews for "Safe", and after seeing the DVD case that proclaims "One of the best movies of the decade! - Village Voice", I bought it sight unseen. This was a mistake.

Firstly, I understand the pointlessness of Carol's life, and there are scarce amusing incidents (the couch, for instance). There should have been a better way to *reflect* the futility, rather than mire the audience in it. More clearly, boring stuff is BORING. "Clerks", for instance, showed the everyday dredge of minimum-wage life in a fascinating way. "Safe" shows Julianne Moore, bored at home, bored driving a car, bored at a party, etc.

The most interesting undertone (even though it's spoken aloud several times throughout) is the mystery of Carol's condition. We're supposed to assume that it's psychosomatic on some level, but the ending gives us only another little nudge. It felt extremely unsatisfying... there was no denoument, no real climax. There was just, stuff happening, and more often than not, boring stuff happening.

I also question this movie's target. It seems to be a ridiculing of "civilization". But, it's set in the 80's. So, now we're at a ridiculing of 80's civilization. Wow, that's NEVER been done before, dot dot dot...

Skip "Safe" unless you're one of those people with black-dyed hair and an all-black wardrobe, one of those people who enjoy a fumbling, barely concealed attack on a time and culture that may as well have not existed, like "Safe" itself.