Colin firth in A Single Man

[Kristie-K2]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:06pm

I just watched him in this movie...Say what you want about this movie, I think Colin Firth was BRILLIANT. I think in a different year he would have won the Oscar. Anyone agree?

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:10pm

I think the majority felt he was brilliant. I don't think you'll get much opposition. He deserved the Oscar.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:10pm

I agree he was absolutely brilliant, he should have won this year, I certainly don't think Jeff Bridges was better by any means, he was just an overdue American actor who won over the first time nominee British actor who was playing a gay guy. The BAFTAs got it right, his work was simply stunning in this beautiful, haunting little film. I also think Julianne Moore was unfairly snubbed for the bland Maggie Gyllenhaal in her by-the-books performance in CRAZY HEART.

[Q]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:11pm

I really liked his performance, but the movie as a whole didn't hold together as well for me as it did for other people. And I HATED the ending.

But yes, I thought he was spot on.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:22pm

This movie took one of the seminal pieces of gay literature and turned it into a shiny fashion show about how frowny one gets when one loses their Abercrombie-boy lover.

Bridges deserved the Oscar and after that Jeremy Renner.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:29pm

I thought Colin Firth was excellent and the movie was...okay.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:37pm

Colin Firth gave the typical "I'm playing GAY...admire my RANGE!" performance.

The movie was a two-hour couture nap.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:45pm

Colin Firth gave the typical "I'm playing GAY...admire my RANGE!" performance.

How so? And by that I mean, how is it "typical"? Typical for Firth or just typical for all hetero actors playing gay characters?

I didn't notice anything so overt in his performance. Is this the reverse he-can't-play-straight-because-we-know-he's-gay argument? To me, he was convincing as the character. It's not like he was playing it he same as he did in Mamma Mia or anything.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 4:52pm

I thought Firth was terrific, but I didn't care for the movie.

Then I read the book...and then I REALLY didn't care for the movie. I honestly don't know what one has to do with the other.

[Kristie-K2]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 6:06pm

For anyone who has enjoyed this film as much as I did, you must watch the Commentary by the Director Tom Ford...Fascinating

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 6:30pm

I think to write this off as a couture nap and to infer that Colin is asking folks to admire his range is a bit off base IMO. I mean, its not a showy part by any means. However, it broke my heart. It reminded me of several of my uncles and other nameless men who during that time went to work everyday and hid their identity, assimilated, and created quiet lives for themselves.

The austere, clinical, and pristine nature of the film and its locations, sets, and costumes were deliberate choices by Ford. It wasn't a vanity piece. It was all subtext which I loved.

I think the clinical nature of the film put people off, but to me, it spoke to a parallel process for the viewer of observing someone in emotional pain who was completely unengaged and focused on appearances.

I thought it was brilliant. I'm sorry some you seem to just be reacting to Tom Ford rather than the film.

[Piper3500]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 6:45pm

He is brilliant. I personally have a crush on him but have always appreciated his acting. He deserved his nomination and the Oscar.

He will always be my Mark Darcy.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 6:45pm

Well, I'm glad that you liked the film. To me, the entire thing was as surface-level as it comes, and as per Firth's non-show part, I found it to me a case of overplaying by underplaying.

The austere, clinical, and pristine nature of the film and its locations, sets, and costumes were deliberate choices by Ford.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make them good choices though.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 8:14pm

"I'm sorry some you seem to just be reacting to Tom Ford rather than the film."

I honestly have no problem with Tom Ford directing a movie. If he did a good job, he did a good job. Unfortunately, he didn't...he didn't seem to have the slightest idea what Isherwood was about. And mind you I am reacting as a fan of the novel, and this goes beyond the usual "it was not as good as the book" complaints. The fact that every square inch of every shot seemed to be buffed, polished, and impeccably lit for the most effect just seemed to add insult to injury.

The crossover, possibly dilletante, first-time director honors goes to Madonna for her FILTH & WISDOM which, if not totally successful, was at least interesting and unique.

For

[Craww]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 11:33pm

Colin Firth was very good. I still have a strong bias for Jeff Bridges winning, just because my mom was so invested. Kind of like I'm invested in the NY Giants winning because my dad is so invested in that.

The fact that every square inch of every shot seemed to be buffed, polished, and impeccably lit for the most effect just seemed to add insult to injury.

And I found the hyper loveliness to be highly ~evocative~. To each their own.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 11:36pm

Borstal, I've never read the book, so I take your criticism very seriously. I wonder if I read the book, I may have been disappointed as well.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/8/10 at 11:48pm

I can understand wanting a balance in story and aesthetic, especially when the latter is truly overmatching the former. A strong story will always be applauded no matter the look. That was my problem with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Seamless visual effects and look but what point of the story other than a reversing aging man from a F. Scott Fitzgerald story saturated to look like a hybrid of Big Fish & Forrest Gump?

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/9/10 at 8:54am

Colin Firth did as well as anyone could in that film, managing one splendid scene, that phone call where he gets the Bad News. Unfortunately, even Firth couldn't escape the all-out suffocation of Tom Ford's STYLE, as close-up after close-up of Colin Firth displaying SUBTLE EMOTIONS (Look Ma! I'm Under-Playing!) got to be as cloying and artificial as the rest of the film.

I completely agree with Borstal. Isherwood is rolling in his grave, or laughing very hard, at what has been done to his novel, a very funny and very moving little novel that bears little resemblance to this bloated GQ fashion layout masquerading as an adaptation.
My Review of the Film

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 7/9/10 at 5:39pm

I saw this a few days ago. He do agree that it was a very good performance which under-playing many scenes and one good scene with "Charlie" (Julianne Moore..who looked AMAZING with the 1960's look!)!

Tell me if I got the ending right...just when he thought he was able to get over the loss of the lover and start again, he dies?

Towards the end, I was zoning out a bit.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/9/10 at 5:57pm

Yes, MTV, that's Tom Ford's version of what happens. The novel's ending is far more interesting, and I'm sure it went right over Tom Ford's carefully groomed fat head.

[DMsquared2]

Posted: 7/13/10 at 10:37pm

I read the book before I saw the movie and I really enjoyed the movie. It's one of my new favorites. Colin Firth was AMAZING. I haven't seen "Crazy Heart" but Colin Firth definitely deserved his nomination.

[Luscious]

Posted: 7/14/10 at 6:33am

Loved the movie and Firth's performace. I haven't read the book, so I can't compare. How did the ending of the book differ from the film?

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/14/10 at 11:21am

It's not just the ending that was different.

I saw the film and was kind of annoyed by it. I figured I would be annoyed by the book, since I assumed it would be very similar. I ended up reading the book, and was profoundly moved. There was a seething resentment that was just under the surface of the book. A profound gay liberation vibe that took me by surprise. It was also not about a man who wanted to kill himself, but a man who was trying to make sense of his life.

Though the movie was populated with excellent actors, all doing good work, it actually seemed utterly miscast. Where we have Colin Firth, the book calls for John Hurt or Iam McKellan. Emma Staunton would have been the perfect Charlie. And someone along the lines of John Krasinski (though perhaps too old) would have fit the mold of the student better.

It's not just about style. It's about the very themes of the book being subverted to something entirely different. If I felt the changes worked in some way, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I think they distorted the original story so much that I have a hard time understanding why they still called it A SINGLE MAN.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 7/14/10 at 11:59am

Wait, Tom Ford the designer? Directed the movie?

[Q]

Posted: 7/14/10 at 12:05pm

Stock - yes.