User reviews

Julianne Moore is one of my favorite actresses and that's the reason I decided to watch this one.

This film is labeled as Drama/Thriller. Well, the drama's here, no doubt, as Carol White (Moore) slowly begins to succumb to the multiple effects of all types of pollution that pervade our technocratic consumer societies. There's psychological drama also as her husband, Greg (Xander Berkeley) tries to come to some understanding about Carol and how his marriage seems to be slowly disintegrating. And, there's drama also when Carol reacts violently to various chemicals, such that she is hospitalized and undergoes a battery of tests...

But... Thriller? Not at all, not by a long shot.

This is something better than mere thrills – at one level, it's a modern horror story that we are all living, because we are all part of this petrochemical world that we cannot reasonably escape. At another level, it's also the horror that results when a person decides to dislocate from the polluted world we all live in and construct another world within the mind. The end result of such an act is usually madness... eventually.

Beautifully acted by all the players, so that it seems that they aren't acting; it is, after all, all too real, is it not? The musical background is simply stunning – brooding, dark, menacing, and reminiscent of a David Lynch soundtrack. Visually, for the first half, you are battered with repetitive images of unending lines of traffic, excessive noise, mindless activities, rampant consumerism – all designed to reflect the battered mind and body of Carol as she struggles to determine her future in a world that is increasingly threatening.

How she does that forms the second half. Does she succeed? I could say Yes and No, but I'll leave it up to you to decide when you see it. Enjoy...if you can!

Safe is perhaps a tad too ambiguous for its own good. The film focuses on a suburban housewife (Julianne Moore) who feels sick for no reason. Her doctor suggests psychological treatment, but she finds more comfort in the idea that her sickness is caused by environmental factors, such as car fumes and the like. Haynes never answers the question of what is really affecting Moore. One moment you're sure it's psychological, then physical symptoms displayed by the woman are undeniable. It's not that I really wanted the questions answered, but the constant toying with the audience does become a strain, especially as the film runs for two hours and not much happens. There's also the possibility that the story isn't meant to represent reality, but instead it might be allegorical. This makes it all the more difficult to unravel. I know I sound sort of negative in this review, but I did like it. I don't think it works completely, but I found it fascinating. One reason it does work at all is that Haynes' major goal seems to want to put us inside Moore's head. It shows us what it would be like to suffer and not know why, and how comfortable it might be to, say, join a cult, which is basically what she does in the end. Not entirely satisfying, but definitely well worth a look.

I watched Safe for our coverage of 1980s's health movements and the AIDS virus with a special eye for the conflict between New Age healers and "the medical profession." Safe connects so well with both; although there's no real homosexuality anxieties in the film, AIDS seem the unconquerable illness penetrating the lives of happy suburban people.

First of all, Julianne Moore is absent in the film. Her character, Carol White, is a model, rich California suburban housewife. We notice how absent she is from the moment that sex with her husband produces nothing in her, but she goes through the motions of kissing him and petting him afterwards. She has mechanical conversations with friends, with mother, with cleaning lady in her ultramodern, lush, carpeted, fashionably lit house with gardens surrounding it and police patrol by night. She goes to her workouts, cleaners, and arranges furniture.

This is a really tragic film. It's also brilliantly shot, edited, acted, and its sets are so appropriate. The use of teal and sky blue becomes numbing, anesthetizing in Carol's home, as does the harsh lighting of the doctor's office and the hospital. The Wrenwood Center itself resembles where Deckard would have gone at the end of Blade Runner as the orig. end credits seemed to indicate: mountains and nature as an antidote to the city.

However, it's not URBAN life that seems to be killing Carol- it's SUBURBAN life, it's Northern California, it's fruit diets, mini-malls, 80s music playing in health clubs, housewifes, gardens, pools, teal green couches, endless lines of cars, power lines, and street lights. It's dismal, and her family life is no big help having no real life to it.

At one point, in a really wrenching scene, Carol cries, looks at Greg from the bed and asks "Where am I? Right now?" He responds flatly but tenderly, "You're in Carol and Greg's house." She only cries more.

The question is: what is really wrong with Carol White? Did she succumb to depression and make herself a psychosomatic illness? Is she really sick and dying? Is she just afraid of living? It seems to me the more that Carol is told that she is the only one with the power to cure herself, the less power she seems to have. The final monologue where she stands in front of the group and discusses how far she's come is inarticulate, random, unthought, and not a good sign.

The acting is done well for its purposes, especially by Peter Dunn, the leader. He creates an interesting portrait of a man who is so determined to be a victim that he's created people who are dependent on him. Peter is the only dynamic presence in the film, but even he wants peace, love, and tranquility in our hearts. That doesn't seem to feed Carol.

This film reminded me of Koyaanisqatsi, visions of emptiness and life out of balance. Carol looks out her car window at the highways and powerlines and headlights, and she reminded me of someone watching that film, fearing technology. Yet even retreating from technology is not an ALTERNATIVE: it's a sign of defeat, isn't it?

The film doesn't offer solutions- only one of the most frightening, eerie, and numbing indictments of suburbia and the New Age that I have ever seen. It puts its images, sets, sounds, actors into a collective vision of decay, expressed through the decline of the model suburban housewife. See it, but don't look for answers or happy endings.

I call this an important film because it deals with a very topical social issue in an original and subtle manner. It is also ambiguous (as the previous reviewer pointed out), which is something American audiences and critics often can't handle. Carol, an affluent suburban housewife played by Julianne Moore, is becoming increasingly disturbed and unable to cope with the alleged pollution and impurities in the environment. What could have been a "disease of the week" TV movie, however, is handled with surprising depth by director Todd Haynes. Carol ends up in a new agey community dedicated to healing people like herself. What is fascinating is that Safe, while exploring the pressures and toxicity of modern life, is also a brilliant look at the pathology of fleeing from life and seeking an environment of "purity." For Carol ends up, instead of recovering, more and more alienated and withdrawn. Safe does not provide answers to this dilemma, but it sure makes us look at some difficult questions.

Although it's been almost ten years since filmmaker Todd Haynes (Velvet Goldmine, Far From Heaven) made Safe, the film's only secured cinematic release in Australia in 2004. As Safe quietly satirises the 80s, the delayed release improves it, adding another layer of perspective to a heroine who lives life in a series of bubbles.

It's 1987, and timid California housewife Carol (a young Julianne Moore) is immersed in upper-middle class minutiae – ensuring her couch is the right colour, sleepwalking through a tepid aerobics class, and submitting to her husband (Greg White from 24). But gradually cracks appear in this pristine life, tiredness, unexplained illness…until she is diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity. She then moves to Wrenwood, a healing retreat founded by the charismatic Peter (Peter Friedman) – but will this solve her problem? Or is it just another escape? Safe is a very interesting film about a woman so overwhelmed by her environment that she becomes allergic to it. Writer and director Haynes has combined aspects of the disease film (e.g. Love Story) with the psychological thriller – as Carol doesn't know what triggers her symptoms, the audience never knows when she'll have another attack.

While Haymes criticises the New Age belief that illness is psychologically-based, in Carol's case, it's impossible to separate the psychological and physical aspects of her illness. The cinematography shows her dwarfed by her environment and Haymes offers no easy solutions. ***½/***** stars.

'Safe' is enigmatic, anxious, bewildering and captivating. It will divide viewers, but I argue that this is the hallmark of all true art. You will either love it or hate it, you will either get it or you won't. But it won't leave you indifferent.

Julianne Moore plays Carol White, the film's childlike protagonist with a phenomenal skill. In the hands of a more showy, ostentatious actress, Carol's 'illness' could have appeared trivial, her character, flighty, whiny and irritating. In the hands of Julianne Moore who is, in my opinion, the most intelligent, thoughtful and captivating actress working today, Carol's predicament is moving amd her character endearing. Her performance truly is astonishing. Never does she feel the need to overact, to emphasise Carol's confusion or her fear. She plays her with a childlike acceptance, a surface simplicity and a sing-songy girlish voice, and she is a master of restraint, implication, understatement. I have yet to see a more impressive performance from an actress whose skill lies in making it appear like she is doing very little, when really there is a huge amount going on underneath the surface. The film would be worth it for Julianne Moore alone, but it also has other things to reccommend it.

There's the excellent direction from the genius, Todd Haynes. His mainstream hit, the wonderful homage to Sirk 'Far From Heaven' catapulted Haynes into the mainstream, but I find this work even more affecting. Haynes is a genius at utilising the mise-en-scene for the maximum effect. He uses his camera as a painter would with colour - each shot is masterfully composed, with the director never allowing us to get too close to Julianne Moore's character, making her predicament all the more confusing and alienating. This is a film which demands thought and concentration, and what you take from it will depend upon individual disposition and experience.

The dialogue is generally sparse and quite functional, meaning that emphasis is placed onto the menacing soundtrack (giving the film a horror/thriller feel), the meticulously orchestrated mise-en-scene and, of course, the amazing nuances and depth of Julianne Moore's artistic gifts. In terms of what the film is trying to say, there is a real sense of satire in the second section of the film (When Carol goes to the commune to be 'cured') but there is no insistence upon one single message. This is reflected with a deeply ambiguous ending which leaves one feeling anxious and confused.

Overall, 'Safe' is a masterful piece of work. The team of Julianne Moore and Todd Haynes is (as we have seen with 'Far From Heaven') a match made ... in heaven. I would urge those who appreciate non maintream, thought provoking and unconventional films to give it try, just don't go in with 'Hollywood' expectations as you will be disappointed. Finally, I'd like to end by reiterating what is possibly the film's main strength - the presence of Julianne Moore. This truly is a captivating performance from her, and certainly one of the most astonishing I am likely ever to see. 'Safe' gives us the chance to watch this gifted actress in one of her most underrated, little seen, yet most remarkable roles.

This is my very favorite movie, one of the scariest I've ever seen. The alienation and isolation of the suburbs come across beautifully in this film. Car culture and sprawl definitely contribute to the empty feeling one receives from following this story of a rich suburban housewife's allergic reaction to her vapid life. The mood and statement of the film are epitomized by the scene in which Carol is driving alone on the freeway, going into convulsions from "the fumes", all while the scratchy radio produces mundane religious babble. Ironically, she pulls off the road and is "saved" by the confines of a parking garage. How appropriate based upon the pigheaded tendency for urban planners to say, "Boy, this traffic is horrible, what do we do about it? I know! We'll build more parking garages!" The scratchy babble of religious radio in the scene indicates the hypocritical irrelevance of spirituality when it exists as part of a alienated consumer-driven, environmentally-destructive society. Religion, particularly the new-age movement seems to parallel the suburbs in its pretty blandness and emergence as a way for capitalists to try to redeem their souls/family life after destroying society (eg the inner city). New age and suburbia combine when Carol goes to Wrenwood (a place even more sterile and removed from reality than Carol's suburb), a healing retreat for people with environmental illness. Despite a lot of fluffy, positive talk on behalf of an AIDS victim guru, Carol's physical and spiritual condition only decline at Wrenwood--she becomes more and more like Lester, the faceless guy in the white suit (the perfect new age suburbanite) who is afraid of everything and is expected to die based on that fear.

Safe is a very well made film. It was so well made it had me eating out of it's hand and asking "what's going to happen now?" - nothing was the answer. Julianne Moore plays Carol White, a housewife who doesn't seem to be well at all. Is her illness genuine? Is it in her head? and all such questions are thrown at you and a good amount of suspense is built up and just as you're waiting for the big revelation, or at least a clue as to what's really happening the credits start rolling. Needless to say, this is just my opinion, there are some viewers who would enjoy this sort of end to the film and sit chewing over it for an hour or so after, myself, I wanted some answers. As said before the film is very well made and Haynes' directing and the score are used brilliantly, the film holds an internal intensity that was great to watch, but if you were to watch it, be aware of the ambiguity ahead, otherwise you'll just have the "what, that's it?" feeling that I had, which for me, swept the rug out of most of what I had just enjoyed.

Not for all tastes, but a superb movie, without doubt. The direction is austere and the character is almost too shallow to care about, but the brilliance of the script and the film as a whole is that it doesn't instruct the viewer what to think, but presents plenty of material to think about. The ending is subtly devastating. Also, the movie contains two or three of the most striking, haunting images I've seen in the past half decade in film.

Someone else compared it to "Dead Ringers", and this is apt in many ways, though the subject matter is less perverse. "Safe" shares a similar aesthetic both in the distance the director takes from the narrative and some matters of style.

Recommended for the daring.

(Flash Review)

This is a methodically paced film. Elements in the frame communicate a lot about the state of mind on the protagonist female, Carol, played by Julianne Moore. Carol slowly begins to feel frighteningly ill due to the world around her and all the invisible chemicals immersed in our society. As well as the shallowness of her suburban world and needless stresses. After several doctor appointments and her symptoms getting worse she heads to a purity camp where people there live free from urban toxins. Will leaving her world, home, family and lifestyle cure her and if so, at what ultimate cost? Julianne Moore plays this character splendidly and 90s styles are in full form here! The first half was very intriguing while the second half fell flat and uninteresting for me. Perhaps playing off of the direction her life has taken. Certainly a thoughtful and unique story.

This truly is one of the rarest commodities in the cinema pantheon; a film that conveys multiple plot angles, each as disturbing as the next, yet in a most quiet and understated fashion. Watching the WASPish, vacant, and utterly clueless Carole (played by chameleon beyond compare Julianne Moore) slowly morph from armpiece San Fernando wife to a fragile shell of a person, may not be an experience you will enjoy at first, as a close friend of mine said after viewing "There's no damn way I'd pay eight bucks for that!". Just give it a day or two, for never has there been a film (at least not until The Blair Witch came along) that has a way of seeping into your subconscious as this. That same friend, who so soundly poo-pooed it, later confided to me that the final scenes, which show what Carole had become, were haunting him at work and rest. It is an interesting study in the effectiveness of true psychologically jarring film making, where much is left to the audiences imagination - including the root of this strange affliction, the viability of these help groups, and indeed Carole's perception of all that is happening to and around her.

The soundtrack is perfect - simple eery piano over looming synth. The use of the camera is as economical as it is effective - the less shown the more we think, with broad extreme long shots used primarily in the beginning, showing that Carole doesn't seem to belong in her own home. Yet this film's greatest triumph is, for all that she has been through, and the weak diseased person she became, Carole appears to find happiness and respect for herself. Without a second thought that is the most disturbing possibility I could, or would want to, imagine. Safe may very well be a film that does not lend itself to repeated viewing. But that's fine, because it only takes one dose of this quietly sad and ghostly film to haunt you ever

Having seen the movie and read the viewer comments on IMDb, I think I understand why this film seems to elicit such a broad range of reactions: it is a movie that presents a story from multiple points of view without specifically directing the viewer as to which view takes precedence. Moreover, the multiple points of view are intertwined and, in some cases, at odds with one another. As such, this film demands a lot more from its audience than most are accustomed to. The beauty of the film lies in the deceptively simple, almost transparent manner in which a complex story with no easy answers is presented.

The main theme of the movie is reflected in the title: what is it that constitutes a feeling of "safety" in our lives? What do we require in order to feel safe? What are the conditions and situations that threaten our idea of feeling safe? Is it possible to construct a world of perfect safety around our lives and if it is, what are the consequences and side effects? The answers to all these questions are more often than not subject to the ideas and opinions of each individual rather than being universal in nature. In the case of Carol White, the focus of the movie, these are questions she is forced (or possibly forces herself?) to confront, with the odds of success being 50-50 at best.

"Safe" explores some of the themes Haynes tackled in "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story." (This movie is hard to find, though you might want to check out the illegal-art dot org web site.) There are a number of similarities between the two films: the view-from-a-car shots of bland suburban streets and the power lines to which they are tethered; the consumer-driven lifestyle of most Americans; the depiction of people as mannequins; the focus on one's external life to the detriment of one's inner life. But while "Superstar" takes a more militant stance, "Safe" is far less judgmental, which in turn makes it a far more subversive film.

This film is a remarkable exploration of the subtle yet terrifying ways in which everyday life can consume us. The standout performance from Julianne Moore as Carol White, a housewife who becomes increasingly allergic to her environment, serves as the perfect vessel to capture this eerie and disturbing sense of unease.

Moore's portrayal of Carol is a masterclass in understated acting. Throughout the film, she communicates a deep sense of fear and confusion through subtle physical gestures and inflections of her voice. One scene, in particular, where she breaks down in tears in her car, encapsulates the intensity of her performance.

The horror of the film, however, is not in jump scares or gore, but in the slow burn of Carol's deterioration. As her symptoms worsen, she becomes isolated from her family and friends, unable to find solace in her own home or the outside world. The mundanity of her suburban life becomes a metaphor for the very thing that's slowly destroying her.

The film's conclusion is ambiguous, leaving us uncertain as to whether Carol can ever truly escape from the grip of her isolation and illness. This open-endedness adds to the overall sense of unease, reinforcing the idea that we're constantly under threat from the everyday world around us.

Safe is a haunting film that terrifies through its quiet and understated approach. Julianne Moore's exceptional performance is central to this, but the masterful direction and cinematography make it a complete work of art. It's a must-see for anyone interested in exploring the ways in which modern life can corrode our mental and physical health.

You'd think "safe" was headed towards a message of environmental responsibility, but then it takes a turn at the end that seems to blame cult-like groups for preying on weak people. Moore is good...and young.

For some inexplicable and troubling reason I with furrowed brow and mild anxiety loved this film.

I believed every moment. I approved of every shot and camera angle. It's rare for the writer/director combination in one so young as Tod Haynes not to lead to at least some degree of self indulgence. Not here.

I could write more but instead I'll rewind and watch again.

Sincere to the point of absurdity, Andor Ventorpent

I found this insufferable. Perhaps I am missing something and unable to appreciate it for some reason, but depressing movies about the weakness of human nature - fragile, miserable characters who are flailing and failing - never do it for me.

The worst aspect was the pace - slow as s-l-o-w can be, with great expanses of whiteness when I found myself urging something - anything - to happen. It has a disquietingly insipid tone. In the end I set my DVD player to 2x speed...but I STILL found myself perpetually 'waiting'.

I don't like misery movies any more than I like being scared by horror, jarred by violence or brought down by exaltations of mediocrity. If you, like me, prefer substance and inspiration in your movies, you are very unlikely to enjoy this one.

I was surprised to find that this movie was related to AIDS in most peoples' perspective. I saw this movie just this year (2006) and even though my stepfather died of AIDS I did not see a connection, although it is obvious now.

I saw this movie as being more related to pollution, electronic and technological dependence, and the degradation of mans relationship with earth.

I think it's an insightful and beautiful film, and the variation of our responses to the film show how deeply it appeals to us on an individual level.

Also, I thought Julianne Moore was marvelous in this film, she's an extremely beautiful and talented actress.

Although Juilanne Moore was superb and the film dealt with an interesting theme, it was extremely slow moving and too long. It got painful to continue watching and I was hoping it would end.