Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) – Review

Review: Guardians of the Galaxy is simply an extremely fun and entertaining sci-fi adventure film.

The film is about Peter Quill. His mother died when he was still a young boy and he was kidnapped by space marauders, taken from Earth to a far-off galaxy, growing up among them. Now, as an adult, Quill is himself an outlaw bandit. His latest score is a mysterious orb. Finding the orb, Quill quickly discovers that dangerous people are after its contents, including an assassin named Gamora. She is working for Ronan the Accuser, a powerful being who wants to rain genocide upon the peaceful Xandarians. As Gamora and Quill fight over the Orb, bounty hunters Rocket and Groot also join the mix, as they are after Quill to collect a bounty out on him. All four are captured by the Xandarian police and put in prison. There they meet Drax the Destroyer, a man who only seeks revenge for the murder of his family by Ronan. In prison, an unlikely friendship forms between the five as they plot their escape and agree that the orb must not fall into Ronan’s hands (Gamora, secretly planning on betraying him the whole time).

Marvel started its cinematic universe with a few decent superhero films (most notably Iron Man) but nothing on par with the genre’s best; however, that has all changed. Phase II has been fantastic – even the weakest film of Phase II (Thor: The Dark World) is funny, action-packed, and very entertaining. Since the sheer joyful gallivanting of The Avengers and with its writer-director Joss Whedon at their creative center, Marvel Studios has found a formula that fits their brand perfectly – and they have been able to get the right people (mostly) to work on their projects. These films are incredibly fun, but also feature strong, likable characters and some emotional depth (to varying degrees). Guardians of the Galaxy might be their best standalone adventure yet (though, I could easily also say the same thing about Iron Man 3 or Captain America: The Winter Soldier too, which speaks to the quality of Phase II).

There are a ton of things to really like about Guardians of the Galaxy. It is in many ways a grand space adventure in the vein of Star Wars, mixing great characters with action and adventure in a visually spectacular/engrossing sci-fi setting; but, Guardians of the Galaxy has one additional key element: it is wonderfully funny and features superb witty dialog (making a comparison to Serenity maybe a more accurate one – not that Star Wars does not also have its comedy moments). The film’s sense of humor is juvenile to some extent, but also smart and poignant (it is not crude and lazy like say Transformers). Writer-director James Gunn does a fabulous job putting everything together, creating the perfect tone.

Gunn embraces the weird, allowing characters like Rocket and Groot to not only feel real but succeed as fan favorites. All five of the Guardians feel developed with stories, wants, needs, and emotions that the audience can recognize, take stock in, and care about. If nothing else, Gunn introduces five new Marvel characters for the audience to love, each with their own unique voice and persona (not simply just turning out generic caricatures of classic sci-fi troupes). All five are great, which allows the film in many ways to play like The Avengers (or the anti-Avengers) – a group of individuals who come together as a team. These characters are not heroes, however. They are not gods, super geniuses or morally incorruptible. They are outcasts – a ragtag group of misfits, which in many ways makes them more relatable. They do not set out to save the galaxy initially; they are in it for personal gain, but they discover a special courage inside themselves – a morality – and become heroes. It is a classic tale that we all know, like and want to get behind. Gunn understands this, setting up the film to take full advantage of its strongest assets.

Peter Quill is similar to Han Solo in some ways and Luke Skywalker in other ways (much like Malcolm Reynolds). He is an outlaw at heart, but there is something inside him that aspires to greatness. Rocket and Groot are also similar to Han Solo and Chewbacca (though, much more mischievous and rambunctious). Gamora, however, more resembles Black Widow than any Star Wars characters. She is an assassin who betrays her past to become a heroine. Drax is the muscle, but with a good heart and extremely loyal. In these characters there is something for everyone – classic sci-fi/western heroes, a strong female character, and characters who generate tons of great comedic material.

Conversely, though, I would say that Guardians of the Galaxy is a bit weak in terms of its villains, keeping it from being truly great (or it is one of the things that holds it back – I will get to the other main one later). Ronan the Accuser is a fairly bland genocidal maniac. He has some flair, but he is mostly uninteresting. Far more interesting is his chief assassin Nebula (have a similar background to Gamora, but choosing a different path), but it seems as though she is being saved for a later film to explore in a more meaningful way – here, she is just a badass but not much more is revealed. The same goes for Thanos; he is being saved for another film (Guardians of the Galaxy 2 or The Avengers 3). Guardians of the Galaxy is made to focus its attention on introducing the Guardians, that is its primary goal and concern, and in this regard it does its job wonderfully, but again the villains are a casualty of there being only so much screen time. There are a few good side characters, however, most notably Yondu – Quill’s sort of adoptive father figure and chief marauder.

What is maybe the film’s best asset, in addition to its main characters, is its tone and pacing. Gunn has created a film that is just plain entertaining and smile inducing. It is a pleasure to watch, blending laughs with great action to a very satisfying degree. The film is very tightly structured, always moving forward (which I think is an important attribute of successful lighter-toned blockbusters). Gunn devises all his scenes to support the tone – one of humor, adventure and sci-fi aesthetics. The weak villains do not really matter in the end because Gunn already has five other great characters and he keeps the plot moving and the film very funny and entertaining (or at least, they do not seem to matter as much, because the viewer is just having some much fun experiencing the film).

All that said, however, I think that Guardians of the Galaxy does lack emotional depth. Gunn does a fantastic job with almost every aspect of the film, but nothing really resonates on a deeper emotional level. There are big emotions and tragedy in the lives of all the Guardians, but it all feels a bit superficial because the tone is incredibly fun and energetic. Even seeing Quill’s mother die in the opening scene does not seem to have its full intended impact – probably because he seems to have completely moved on emotionally the next time we see him. The loss of his mother does not feel like a defining character trait, even though it probably should be or was intended to be. We want to see the Guardians win the day, not because we care about them on an emotional level, but because we like them and they are a lot of fun, which is again much more superficial. The great films connect with their audiences on an emotional level. The death of Luke Skywalker’s family (his aunt and uncle and earlier his father) at the hands of the Empire (and Darth Vader) has a real palpable impact both on him and the audience. There is nothing that meaningful in this film, leaving it as something that plays more as pure entertainment than as a full cinematic experience, engaging its audience on many levels. Marvel has their formula down for making fantastically entertaining films, but they still struggle with deeper emotional resonance (though, I would argue there are moments that work well in The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, engaging their audience in a more impactful manner). As fun as Guardians of the Galaxy is, it is still not quite on the same level as the uppermost films in the genre (both superhero and entertainment-oriented sci-fi). I say this having thoroughly enjoyed the film.

Yes, Guardians of the Galaxy may have been a seemingly huge risk for Marvel because it is a bit weirder than their past films and deals in unlikely heroes; but due to James Gunn’s clear love of and vision for the characters and world, the film is marvelously entertaining and incredibly fun. I am not sure if it is the best Marvel Studios film so far – it very well might be – but it certainly solidifies that with Phase II Marvel Studios is on top of the superhero genre right now, churning out great stories and characters that are very funny, thrilling, and adventurous. I, for one, cannot wait to see what is next (Avengers: Age of Ultron looks like it is going to be amazing).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: James Gunn deals in superb and dark comedy, writing and directing films like Slither and Super, but Guardians of the Galaxy is by far his best effort to date. It exemplifies his great subversive wit (but it is not nearly as dark as his past work). I am even more interested to see what he will do with Guardians of the Galaxy 2, now that the cumbersome origin story is over with (unlike with most cinema, superhero sequels are often better as they allow filmmakers to tell more complete stories with already established characters).

In the review portion of this, I completely skipped over just how great the film looks aesthetically. Cinematographer Ben Davis and production designer Charles Wood (who are both working on Age of Ultron by the way) do excellent work creating a world that is gritty and realistic yet grand and full of brilliant sci-fi awesomeness (much like The Collector’s showroom). Davis lights the film to be appropriately dark and ominous in moments/places and bright and clean in others, giving the visuals a nice dichotomy, juxtaposing the villainy of Ronan against the innocence/morality of Xandar. Wood’s sets and design are rich with detail and depth. Ronan’s ship, The Collector’s showroom (again), the Xandarian prison, and especially the interior of Quill’s ship (the Milano) are fantastic. Tyler Bates provides a good score that matches the tone well, but it is the film’s soundtrack that takes center stage musically. The mix of great 1970s pop songs seems to perfectly capture the spirit of the film and its characters.

The cast is tremendous and perfectly suited to their roles and the overall tone. Peter Serafinowicz, Benicio Del Toro, John C. Reilly, and Djimon Hounsou are all great in small supporting roles. Karen Gillan is fantastic as Nebula with almost a frolicsomely evil menace (I hope there is much more of her in the future). Michael Rooker is one of the James Gunn troupe who make appearances in the film (others include Sean Gunn, Greg Henry, and Nathan Fillion). Rooker is great as space pirate Yondu, a role that is right in his wheelhouse. Lee Pace brings a lot of Shakespearian energy to Ronan, always gravely monologing; it works well. Bradley Cooper voices Rocket (who was played live for the actors during filming by Sean Gunn), the character who might just steal the film. Cooper has a manic energy – jubilantly rude and playful, yet with a heart (in there somewhere). Vin Diesel voices Groot, who may very well be the film’s best character. (Like with his voice role in The Iron Giant) Diesel does a lot with very little, displaying a vicious loyalty to his friends. Dave Bautista is good as Drax, definitely displaying the physicality, but also Bautista shows a knack for comedy too, playing a warrior who takes everything literally. Zoe Saldana does everything well in this. She certainly has the physicality to make a convincing assassin as Gamora, but she also displays a sympathetic heart, allowing the audience to believe that she would fight to save the galaxy despite her past allegiances. It is also nice to see that she is not just relegated to ‘romantic interest’. Chris Pratt was always going to make a great Han Solo type as Peter Quill. He has brilliant comedic timing and delivery, but also the confidence and swagger that typify the archetype.

Summary & score: Guardians of the Galaxy is the sci-fi saga general moviegoers have been waiting for since Star Wars’ original trilogy ended in 1983 (or for those who found Firefly/Serenity: it is the sci-fi saga fans have been waiting for since Fox cancelled Firefly). It is spectacularly fun. 8/10

Lincoln (2012) – Review

Review: Lincoln is a historical political drama built on wonderful performances and historical significance that still resonates today. The film is about President Abraham Lincoln’s battle within the House of Representatives to pass the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution (essentially making it illegal to own slaves, among other things) before the end of the Civil War (which, in its fourth year, saw the South beginning to wane considerably), as with the war ended it would be much more difficult (negotiating the peace with the South).

Director Steven Spielberg has structured the film to be essentially a political drama centered around the struggle to pass a piece of legislation – a historic piece of legislation but one nonetheless – and thus the connection to the main narrative journey for the audience comes from whether or not they care about the consequences if the legislation does not pass. Spielberg faces a difficult challenge from the start, as this being famous (in at least that everyone knows that Lincoln freed the slaves, in simple terms) informs the audience of the outcome before the film even starts. Thus, the audience must be drawn into the story by more than just the outcome of the narrative. Spielberg accomplishes this by also making the film a character piece focusing on Lincoln (not so much biographically looking at his career, but more about the man himself, his personality).

Looking first at how the film works as a political drama, excusing the fact that the audience already knows how it ends, the film achieves its narrative goals but lacks a powerful deeper dramatic impact. Its main flaw comes from how Spielberg manages the tone of the film. For the most part, the film is presented as a very serious drama with grave consequences to the actions of the characters, matching the backdrop of the very bloody and devastating Civil War ravishing the country – the stakes could not be higher. Plus, the importance of passing the amendment in the House quickly (as it had already been passed in the Senate), a main narrative point that sets the plot and characters in motion, stems from Lincoln’s understanding that the North mostly agrees that making slavery illegal will help end the war, but if the South is going to surrender in short order then the amendment is not necessarily essential (as Democrats and conservative Republicans do not support it as adamantly as liberal Republicans). Thus if the amendment is going to pass at all, it needs to happen before the South begins its surrender (and thus the urgency). Spielberg is able to convey how critical the urgency is, but Washington D.C. in the film seems unaffected by the war. Yes, there are graphic images of the war, but for the most part it feels very removed from the drama in the film. Spielberg uses an almost playful tone in many of the political scenes (especially those featuring Bilbo, Latham and Schell and their mission to buy votes – though, these are among the most fun moments in the film, but should we be talking about fun moments in a serious political drama?), which undermines the tension that he is otherwise building. The House is also comprised of laughable caricatures, with many of the representatives (particularly the Democrats) portrayed as exaggerated buffoons (again, how can the audience take the film seriously with characters such as these). The film at moments feels like a political farce, like In the Loop, and yet, again, the stakes could not be higher (is Spielberg really making a satire addressing today’s political climate?). It is as if Spielberg is worried that the film will be overly dramatically weighty and wants to infuse light moments into the narrative to allow the audience to breath (especially given the film’s long runtime). However, this is ultimately problematic because the audience no longer feels just how important the passing of the amendment is (even if they intellectually understand it) nor do they feel the grave pressure that the war is putting on all of the characters, as the whole political drama is presented to them as a satire of sorts tonally. The saving grace of the drama however comes in the form of a few serious characters that convey the full weight of what is going on (namely Thaddeus Stevens), but it is not quite enough.

 To compliment the political drama structure of the film, Spielberg lays a character study of Lincoln on top, giving the audience a look into the man. The tone of the character work juxtaposed to the political drama (satire) does not always mesh well (as the character stuff is seldom light), often leaving these moments of the film feeling overly tedious and slow (especially those involving Mary Todd Lincoln). Spielberg wants to give the audience a full understanding of Lincoln, not just his role in politics but also his personal life (reminding me of the HBO miniseries John Adams in this way). However, despite how good the performances are, the film is first structured as a political drama and thus the character moments should play into the narrative of getting the amendment passed (and for the most part they do), everything else is not needed. Lincoln’s interactions with his family, which Spielberg uses to develop the character, add very little to the film, even detracting from it greatly as they drag down the pacing, because they do not inform Lincoln’s decision-making process in regards to the main narrative, they are merely present as fluff (and thus unnecessary). It is as if Spielberg presents Lincoln as a great man accomplishing great things in spite of his personal family drama, even going so far as to have Mary say as much. Yet, Lincoln seems unaffected by his personal life when it comes to his handling of the affairs of state, which again makes these moments narratively and dramatically unneeded. The audience never feels the toll that his personal life has on him (because it seems to have none). Spielberg does have some great character moments as well, however, specifically those featuring one of Lincoln’s many stories (wonderfully illustrating both the man and his thoughts on particular matters). The stories reveal much more emotional character detail about Lincoln that resonates with the audience in relation to the film’s main narrative. If Spielberg wanted to dive deeper into the character, the film should have been structured as a character piece primarily, not centering all the dramatic tension and action on the passing of the amendment, or sought out a longer format to tell a more in-depth story (like a miniseries).

These two main faults do hold Lincoln back from being great, as despite its grand scale, social relevance and overall strong filmmaking (though, I would argue that the finale image in the film is very sloppy, including the awkward dissolve) it is far too tedious, infuriatingly so. The film is filled with beautiful, powerful and electric images and scenes, but is constantly undermined and compromised emotionally by slow pacing (resulting from a flabby secondary narrative) and an uneven tone.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Steven Spielberg is a master of Hollywood filmmaking. What that means is that he is the master of making grand event films that are both highly entertaining and dramatically impactful (regardless of the genre, be them blockbusters or serious dramas). With Lincoln, Spielberg certainly tries to achieve this balance, which probably accounts for the lighter tone and caricature-like characters in a number of the scenes juxtaposed to the serious social and political importance of the narrative – i.e. he is trying to make a blockbuster serious drama. However, the film is quite flawed, and thus should not be counted among his best Hollywood dramas (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich), and yet it is still impressive.

John Williams’s score gives Lincoln an added emotional depth. It has a weight to it, which coveys to the audience the significance of the characters and events taking place. Williams also gives Lincoln a classic theme (maybe not among his best, but a fitting one nonetheless). Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski’s lighting gives the film an overall an almost cheerless feel, matching the season in which it is set (being the dead of winter) and general mood surrounding the country (that of devastating war). However, it does clash a bit with the tone at times. In terms of shot composition, Kaminski’s photography is fantastic. Lincoln is often cast in shadow or in silhouette, playing off his famous features. Rick Carter’s production design compliments the cinematography adding a very realistic grit and grim to the images. The world of 1865 was a very dirty place, and Spielberg, Carter and Kaminski are not afraid to present a more realistic look for the period (instead of the usual gloss that Hollywood films have) with faded colors, dirt and incessant shadows clouding everything in darkness and gloom. Overall, the film is very strong aesthetically.

The acting throughout Lincoln is very good (even if some of the performances tend towards the side of caricature). It has a massive supporting cast with many great and well-known actors. However, James Spader (sorting of playing an 1865 version of his The Office character Robert California) steals almost all his scenes and is very entertaining (the montage retellings of his Bilbo et al. acquiring votes is hilarious and completely engaging). Lee Pace (playing the vocally opposing Democrat Fernando Wood) is also fantastic and highly entertaining. David Strathairn (playing Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, who was also targeted for assassination on April 14^th, 1865 but his assailant failed) has the difficult role of being the audience’s in to what is going on, being forced to mainly convey exposition and context. However, Strathairn is still very good often playing devil’s advocate to Lincoln. Sally Field has a thankless (and grating) role playing Mary Todd Lincoln, left to be an irritation (both for the audience and) in her husband’s life. She does accomplish being annoying (so I guess she played her role well?). Tommy Lee Jones is brilliant in the film, playing a man (Thaddeus Stevens) that must comprise his beliefs to ultimately take the first step forward. He is able to exist both in the exaggerated silliness of the House arguments and still maintain an emotional connection with the audience (it is quietly the best performance in the film). As always, Daniel Day-Lewis completely embodies his character (in this case Abraham Lincoln). Every line of dialog or movement feels organic. It is a tough task to take on such an iconic historical figure, but Day-Lewis brings so much humanity to Lincoln that the audience leaves the film feeling like they really got a sense of the man.

Summary & score: Lincoln in many ways is a triumph and a disappointment. 7/10

TV Series of the Month – Wonderfalls

This month’s TV series is Wonderfalls (2004).

The show is about Jane Tyler, a highly educated but utterly disinterested and procrastinating girl who works at a souvenir store in Niagara. Then one day something magical happens to her, inanimate objects start talking to her, giving her instructions that she must carryout in order to help people. The series was created by Todd Holland and Bryan Fuller (one of the best and most creative writers  in TV – also created Pushing Daisies and Dead Like Me, and was a principal writer of season one of Heroes), and executively produced by Tim Minear (coming off Firefly and Angel). The cast is brilliant with Caroline Dhavernas (who is fantastic on the show and should be a TV star), Katie Finneran, Tyron Leitso, William Sadler, Diana Scarwid, Lee Pace, Tracie Thoms, and Jewel Straite (who featured in a small arc after Firefly was cancelled). Despite the show being completely original and loved by critics, it was way too quirky for network TV and Fox (of course) canceled it during its first season. Not only is it considered one of the best shows cancelled too soon, but also one of the best shows of the decade. While this is an odd series and probably not for everyone, it has such charm, creativeness and interesting characters that it is something well worth checking out. It is just different than anything else on TV. It is a must for fans of Bryan Fuller’s work. Check out the episode one.

Available on DVD

A Single Man (2009) – Review

A Single Man is a very stylized, if not personal, film encompassing both beauty and tragedy (a bit like American Beauty, tonally, in its fixation with certain elements) for director Tom Ford. Taking place in the 1960s, the film is shot on a very grainy stock to look like it was made during the period in which it takes place. This stylistic choice makes the film feel grittier seemingly emphasizing the drama on the screen in sort of a subconscious way, while fully immersing the viewer in the time period (which may not be critical to the story, but certainly projects, along with the production design, an intended swagger of both director and Colin Firth’s character (George) on screen). There are a number of almost avant-garde moments in the film that recur throughout: 1) the fascination with the eye, shown mostly in an extreme close-up, 2) an enchantment with youth, shown notably in slow motion tracking shots profiling a neighbor’s young daughter, and 3) the varying degree of color saturation reflecting the mood of the main character. The film as a whole seems to be a deliberation on whether the past, present or future determines the current state of a person. George and Julianne Moore’s character (Charley) linger on the past as their source of happiness – or being that their happiness existed solely in the past, their present is barely tolerable, if even bearable at all. George is so convinced that his life is meaningless in the present that the future is not worth seeing. The film takes place over the stretch of a day; flashbacks intercut the present to tell the full narrative – why the past was so much better. As the day goes on, George seems to be looking for happiness or beauty in the world, something to keep him in the present. When the potential for beauty or happiness or whatever he is looking for comes over him, the film becomes bright and full of color and George or director Ford focuses in on the subject of that beauty (as shown by the close ups of the eye), maybe looking for the source or a connection – eyes are the window to the souls (or so we are told) and they are the main source of human connection and George is so desperate for a connection in the present that he looks intently for it, blocking out everything else and then it is gone, the film becomes desaturated and the color fades away and he continues on with his day. And in this way the film also feels a bit like a Jim Jarmusch film – George going from one encounter to the next, each building upon the last. The fixation George has on the past also extends to youth and innocence. He seems to also linger (as seen in the tracking shots of the neighbor girl) on the element of innocence, something not yet corrupted in the world. A world in which he feels detached from both do to his overall sadness at the death of his partner (for lack of a better word) and the alienation of being a gay man in the era that the film takes place in. He seems to only be saved by the combination of innocence and beauty – as Nicholas Hoult’s Kenny appears to him as something almost pure. Kenny is not afraid in a world in which fear is barring down (think of 1960s cold war America) and looks not to the future or the past, but to the present for happiness, which has a literal and figuratively cleansing effect on George, allowing him to once again feel happiness. The film also has a lot of charm and sharp wit (great joke with Lee Pace) – mostly stemming from George, as his character almost oozes style and allure, which is a great feat being that the character is completely engulfed in debilitating sadness. Tom Ford has emerged with his debut as a fantastically visual and stylistic director. His work here is wonderful to behold as each frame, from the film stock and lighting/post-production work (DP Eduardo Grau’s work also deserves the credit here) to the production design and wardrobe, is meticulously arranged, like a painter filling his canvas, to stimA Single Man is a very stylized, if not personal, film encompassing both beauty and tragedy (a bit like American Beauty, tonally, in its fixation with certain elements) for director Tom Ford. Taking place in the 1960s, the film is shot on a very grainy stock to look like it was made during the period in which it takes place. This stylistic choice makes the film feel grittier seemingly emphasizing the drama on the screen in sort of a subconscious way, while fully immersing the viewer in the time period (which may not be critical to the story, but certainly projects, along with the production design, an intended swagger of both director and Colin Firth’s character (George) on screen). There are a number of almost avant-garde moments in the film that recur throughout: 1) the fascination with the eye, shown mostly in an extreme close-up, 2) an enchantment with youth, shown notably in slow motion tracking shots profiling a neighbor’s young daughter, and 3) the varying degree of color saturation reflecting the mood of the main character. The film as a whole seems to be a deliberation on whether the past, present or future determines the current state of a person. George and Julianne Moore’s character (Charley) linger on the past as their source of happiness – or being that their happiness existed solely in the past, their present is barely tolerable, if even bearable at all. George is so convinced that his life is meaningless in the present that the future is not worth seeing. The film takes place over the stretch of a day; flashbacks intercut the present to tell the full narrative – why the past was so much better. As the day goes on, George seems to be looking for happiness or beauty in the world, something to keep him in the present. When the potential for beauty or happiness or whatever he is looking for comes over him, the film becomes bright and full of color and George or director Ford focuses in on the subject of that beauty (as shown by the close ups of the eye), maybe looking for the source or a connection – eyes are the window to the souls (or so we are told) and they are the main source of human connection and George is so desperate for a connection in the present that he looks intently for it, blocking out everything else and then it is gone, the film becomes desaturated and the color fades away and he continues on with his day. And in this way the film also feels a bit like a Jim Jarmusch film – George going from one encounter to the next, each building upon the last. The fixation George has on the past also extends to youth and innocence. He seems to also linger (as seen in the tracking shots of the neighbor girl) on the element of innocence, something not yet corrupted in the world. A world in which he feels detached from both do to his overall sadness at the death of his partner (for lack of a better word) and the alienation of being a gay man in the era that the film takes place in. He seems to only be saved by the combination of innocence and beauty – as Nicholas Hoult’s Kenny appears to him as something almost pure. Kenny is not afraid in a world in which fear is barring down (think of 1960s cold war America) and looks not to the future or the past, but to the present for happiness, which has a literal and figuratively cleansing effect on George, allowing him to once again feel happiness. The film also has a lot of charm and sharp wit (great joke with Lee Pace) – mostly stemming from George, as his character almost oozes style and allure, which is a great feat being that the character is completely engulfed in debilitating sadness. Tom Ford has emerged with his debut as a fantastically visual and stylistic director. His work here is wonderful to behold as each frame, from the film stock and lighting/post-production work (DP Eduardo Grau’s work also deserves the credit here) to the production design and wardrobe, is meticulously arranged, like a painter filling his canvas, to stimulate and evoke specific emotion from the viewer. He has also succeeded here with his narrative storytelling and garnering fine performances for his actors. The film flows well, and while at times gets hung up on the stylistic, sort of whimsical aspects of the film, it still play fluidly, and certainly captivates the viewer. The cast as a whole is quite good, most actors having limited work to do, but even in their smaller bits they do fine work. Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult are strong in their supporting roles, but the film belongs to Colin Firth. He is simply magnificent. A Single Man is overall visually stunning, and dramatically engrossing. 8/10ulate and evoke specific emotion from the viewer. He has also succeeded here with his narrative storytelling and garnering fine performances for his actors. The film flows well, and while at times gets hung up on the stylistic, sort of whimsical aspects of the film, it still play fluidly, and certainly captivates the viewer. The cast as a whole is quite good, most actors having limited work to do, but even in their smaller bits they do fine work. Julianne Moore and Nicholas Hoult are strong in their supporting roles, but the film belongs to Colin Firth. He is simply magnificent. A Single Man is overall visually stunning, and dramatically engrossing. 8/10