The Killer Inside Me (2010)

The Killer Inside Me got a lot of press for its gruesome beating scenes. And yes, they were gruesome. And I'd imagine in a brilliant film, those scenes would be enough to turn people off. The problem is, this is not a brilliant film. It's not really even a good film. Our protagonist, the serial killer, is under-characterized and pretty much without motive. He kills because he's crazy. And he's crazy because his mom was sort of crazy. And he's not good at covering things up and the authorities are on him from the beginning. And he doesn't really seem to care much whether he's caught and neither do we. It's just a blah of a movie with two incredibly realistic beating scenes.

I like Casey Affleck a lot. I think he's a terrific actor. But this movie is dull and the shocking bits are nothing except shocking. I'm guessing playing a crazy serial killer would appeal to a lot of actors. It's just too bad a better story wasn't written around the character. (I've not read the novel. I hear it has some dark humor it. I wonder...)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

Opening night. A theatre full of Potter fans. Second to last time we get to do this dance. I'm going to miss it.

I very much enjoyed the movie. It's slow and mournful, beautifully shot and lovely to watch. It is incredibly focused on the three main characters. It was bold to focus so tightly on the trio. But they carried it off wonderfully. And the animation - how gorgeous was that?

Hermione is perfect in this film. I normally don't think she's quite right, but in Deathly Hallows 1, she's spot on. I adored the dance scene. And the Christmas graveyard scene. And poor Dobby. Man. How often to CGI characters make you cry?

I'll have a better grasp of my thoughts upon a second viewing. Check back later!

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (2009)

I think Tom Felton pretty much steals this movie. And, since I haven't given him a ton of credit thus far, Daniel Radcliffe is pretty good in Half Blood Prince as well.

Despite its ending, it's the funniest of the potter films. Between Ron's lovesickness and Harry's drunken ways on Felix Felicis, its got a lot of charm.

I'll also mention that it's the Potter film I've seen the fewest times. So I don't have a TON to say.

Thank God, right?

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Order of the Phoenix is my least favorite of the novels. Lots of people love Harry's angsty teenage ways, but I find this character shift forced. I don't believe Harry, the Harry we've known for four "years" now, would behave the way he does is Order. There's no impetus for such a drastic turn into douchehood.

However, Helena Bonham Carter is brilliant as Bellatrix. She's definitely my favorite villain. And I do think the movie improves on the ministry sequence at the end. They cut out the weirder elements (baby heads? flesh sucking brains?) and make it look pretty damn cool.

I'll also mention that The Weasley Twins are my favorite characters and I'm glad their exit is well represented. The score of this film is also one of my favorites.

I wish there had been more Tonks and more flashbacks, but as I keep being reminded, we can't have everything we wish for. That's what the novels are for.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Goblet of Fire is my favorite. Favorite movie. Favorite book. I want my wedding to look like The Yule Ball. I love almost everything about it. The twins are at the height of their wit, Hermione actually seems to like Harry and Ron again, the champions are all well cast, and the challenge sequences are fun and exciting.

The plot does have the one tiny hiccup of irrelevance. Barty Crouch Jr. could have just shown up as MadEye, thrown Harry a smelly old shoe portkey, and bob's your uncle. No need for the whole Tri-Wizard Tournament thing. Details!

I also love the Quiddich World Cup, the tiff between Harry and Ron, Moaning Myrtle and Neville, Draco as a ferret, and of course the grave yard scene where we get to see Voldemort - full force - for the first time. Harry's parents' appearance at the end gets me every time. And Cedric asking to have his body brought back - sigh.

I could gush forever about Goblet. I have nothing bad to say about it. It's magical.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Prisoner of Azkaban takes the top spot on lots HP lists for both the film and the book. However, I have one major issue with it.

The time travel is wrong. I am a stickler for time travel rules. There's a way in which to do it, and a way in which human's have no choice and paradoxical world ending implications are prevalent. You cant have the things that happen after the characters go back in time happen the first time 'round. That's just wrong. What if they didn't do it the second time? What would happen then? It has to be that when you go back in time, you rewrite the subsequent future. Not just live it from a different perspective.

Whatever. This is a point I've made many times to many people and, for the most part, they don't care. But it's my biggest problem with Prisoner. That, and I think they upped Hermione's snob quotient so high, she's completely unlikeable and nothing like Hermione. "RONALD!"

Sirius is fantastic though - and Gary Oldman is fantastic at making him fantastic. Lupin too. And David Thewlis too. Neither of them get enough play in the later films.

It also has the best ending. And it's the last one that isn't terribly depressing. It's one of the better Harry Potter "films" but it's not one of my personal faves.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Chamber of Secrets. Well, when it came out, I thought it was considerably more exciting than the first. These days, I can take it or leave it.

I enjoy Kenneth Branagh. It's a funny role for a guy who has made a career being pretty much as pretentious as possible. And in retrospect, with an eye toward Horcrux lore, it lays some interesting groundwork. I also like Christian Coulson as Tom Riddle. I wish they would have used him in Half Blood Prince. But my general feelings toward Chamber of Secrets are quite lukewarm.

In fact, I think in the Harry Potter film franchise, this one is weakest. It's a long, winding story and the trio runs into a lot of dead ends. Aragog is a dead end. The Polyjuice Potion is a dead end. Dobby randomly tries to kill or maim Harry a few times but to no real end.

Three is a big step up. Can't wait to talk about that one!

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

I remember how crazily excited I was when Sorcerer's Stone was first coming out. I was sixteen, I guess. I went with my best friend and her entire family. And, if I remember correctly, I was a bit disappointed. Something about the film seemed slow to me. For such a quick read, the movie lagged.

Now, after six years of education related to film production and screenwriting, I can say it was the expositional nature of the film that bothered sixteen year old me.

These days, I enjoy the film. As a matter of fact, I enjoy it a great deal. I think it's mostly a nostalgia thing. I would never argue it's the best made Harry Potter film, or the most exciting. But the kids are so young, the story is so soft and magical, and Richard Harris is there.

I can probably thank ABC Family for this, but the first two movies feel like Halloween to me. The third and fourth feel like Christmas. And five and six are decisively summer. I look forward to attaching seasonal significance to seven when it arrives.

Dead Man Walking (1995)

I had very mixed feelings about Dead Man Walking. Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn were both phenomenal. Had it been the Susan Sarandon/Sean Penn show, I would have been far more into it. As it is, there are too many scenes, mostly early on, that play like a debate.

All films, by their very nature, are manipulative. But when you can feel that manipulation, something is wrong. It's what I hate about Nicholas Sparks stories. I could feel it in Dead Man Walking. I could feel a screenwriter concocting the most polarizing circumstances upon which to put the death penalty up for debate. It felt like an issue movie and that is bad bad bad. When you have such a specific issue being parsed in a film, you've got to almost subvert it. Hide it under the stories of real people.

When it was just Sean Penn and Susan Sarandan, talking, arcing, being, they felt like real people. It felt like reality. But scenes with the parents of the victims, with prison guards, with lawyers and politicians - all that felt like fat. And the score was terribly over the top and dramatic.

I will say - that screen cap up there? That was a neat effect - being able to see her reactions in the reflection of the glass. Pat on the back, Tim Robbins.

Never Let Me Go (2010)

Never Let Me Go was lovely. I don't want to spoil it - more for those who plan to read the novel. The novel keeps you in the dark longer than the film and that mystery is half the fun of the book.

I enjoyed the novel a great deal, and narratively, the movie stayed fairly close to the source material. Thematically, it strayed quite a bit. The film decided to focus entirely on the love triangle between its three central characters. This was a wise decision. Everyone understands the desire to have time with the person you love. It's in the novel but it IS the film and it changes the characters in subtle ways that allows them to be better understood by the audience. 

Keira Knightly and Andrew Garfield were unbelievably good. Carey Mulligan was also quite good, but hers was an understated performance that did not scream to be noticed the way the others did. The visual style was perfect. The subtlety throughout fantastic. I hate to talk in cryptics, but lots of people have an issue with this film. They don't understand why the characters do not run away. I think it is a valid point considering the movie as a stand alone film. This issue is addressed in the novel, and with an eye toward the answer, you can feel it in the film. But I suspect it's only there for the novel readers. Nonetheless, It's a lovely looking film with fantastic performances. I would recommend reading it first, but I believe it's a film worth seeing either way.

The Social Network (2010)

The Social Network was brilliant. Perfect writing, mesmerizing acting, great humor, smart, fast, enjoyable, and above all, entertaining. This was the best film I've seen in the theatre in a long long time. Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg were spot-on. The score was enthralling. See it.

Shutter Island (2010)

I LOVE Shutter Island. If you disagree - you are wrong. It's better than Inception. If you disagree with that - again - you are wrong. This movie is the best movie I've seen in a long long time. I saw it in the theatre when it came out and I was enamored. I've recently purchased the DVD and let me tell you, it's even better the second time around. If you haven't seen it - stop reading. I'm about to go all spoiler on your ass.

The final thirty seconds of Shutter Island elevates it to brilliance. In case you didn't get it - Leonardo DiCaprio's character is sane in the end. He's pretending to be crazy because he'd prefer to be lobotomized than go on living knowing what he did. I'm sorry if I sound patronizing, but I do think it's missable. I know some folk who missed it. It's genius. It's the ending of Inception without douchebaggery. There's a final knife twist in your gut but it doesn't send people to the message boards screaming, "THE TOP WOBBLED!" It's a fantastic ending related to character and I appreciate that.

For my money, it's the best Scorsese film. If you disagree with that, I won't say you're wrong. I think film school can kill movies and it killed Taxi Driver and Mean Streets for me. And people emotionally connect to Goodfellas in a way that I never have. I find The Aviator overrated. And I flat out do not like Gangs of New York, Casino, or The Departed. But that's a topic for another post. Shutter Island benefits from an extremely tight story. Scorsese is allowed to do what he does best - create a mood, create tension, and direct actors. In other films, his plot is often so sprawling I'm rolling my eyes by the end no matter how impressed I was with the direction. Shutter Island does not have that problem.

I'd also like to address a problem a lot of people seem to have with Shutter Island according to the banal IMDb boards. Lots of people say they saw the ending coming. Here's the thing. From the beginning, there are really only two ways it's all going to go. Leo is crazy. Leo is not. Thinking, "Leo is crazy!" at some point during the movie does not mean you saw the ending coming. It means you're watching Shutter Island. The ending is a reveal no matter how you slice it. There is nothing in there that would allow us to determine Leo killed his wife who killed his kids and Mark Ruffalo is really a doctor and everyone is playing along and his name is an anagram and on and on and on. We're meant to question Leo's sanity. Oh you IMDb posters who think you outthought the movie - you're wrong. You were right where they wanted you.

And...because I can't help myself...those of you who think there is a case to be made for Leo actually being sane all along, i.e. Gandhi convinced a sane man he was crazy at the end, You Are Wrong. It is NOT open to interpretation. You Are Wrong and you're pathetic for thinking you're smarter than the film. You Are Wrong.

My rant is over. I'm sorry if it bored you. But I adore Shutter Island and I think it's painfully underrated - especially in the wake of the other Leo's-having-issues-because-his-wife-was-crazy movie. Shutter Island is the only Martin Scorsese movie I'll intentionally watch again and again and if you haven't seen it, fix that. Please. For your own sake.

Body of Lies (2008)

Body of Lies was a movie I could have lived without. It wasn't bad and it wasn't really good. It wasn't boring or too complicated but it also wasn't very interesting or unique. It came and went. I shrugged.

To be fair, this isn't my preferred genre. I often say - and I'm about to say it again - that a good movie is a good movie and people who discount any film based on genre alone are dumb. Or lazy. Or they don't care - which is acceptable. But film people who say it are dumb. Or lazy. However, I can't deny that everyone prefers some genres to others. I'm always going to enjoy a musical more than perhaps its filmic worth would indicate. I would never try to argue that Rent is a good (or well made) film but damned if I don't enjoy it. Okay - so - point. Espionage action, especially set in the Middle East, aint my bag. And this movie isn't good enough to overcome it's genre. So I'll probably never watch it again.

Ebert said, and I agree, "'Body of Lies' is a James Bond plot inserted into today's headlines." That's my other issue with it. It was like they decided to write a movie where us awesome Americans actually get to catch Osama Bin Laden. Without ever actually showing a terrorist attack on American soil. We're catching the guy that bombed Amsterdam who is threatening to bomb us. Whatever.

And the protagonist. He's what should have made us care. But there is almost zero about him as a person. He's getting a divorce. That's all we know. Do we care? Not really. And I'm sorry, but on no planet would Leonardo DiCaprio be able to pretend he's Middle-Eastern. (I wasn't quite sure he was pretending to be Middle-Eastern - but Ebert thinks he was. So we'll go with Ebert). There just isn't enough character. Anywhere. Russell Crowe's role was all but unnecessary and I'm surprised Russell Crowe's people wanted him to do it. It must have just been because of Ridley Scott. His character was an aged version Ari Gold from Entourage, barking orders into his bluetooth while dropping his kids off at school.

Maybe I dislike this movie more than I initially thought. I saw it because Leonardo DiCaprio is a great actor and I'm a loyal fan who will see him in pretty much anything. Now that I can check this movie off my list, I never have to think about it again.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

This movie.

I've heard people rave and rave and rave.

I've read this review at The Playlist where they loathed it. Shredding it in true pretentious Playlist fashion. (Love you, Playlist...)

I'm definitely somewhere in the middle. It's over long and there are some debatably unnecessary character building tangents. But I enjoyed the movie. I was entertained, and the title character was unlike any character I've seen before.

She is a hard core, pierced, motorcycle riding, computer hacker that no one should mess with. She sleeps with men and women and she keeps her thoughts and feelings to herself. She's the movie. She's what's unique about it. The Playlist was not a fan of a sequence in the first half hour or so where she gets revenge against an (overly) evil probation officer. I was on her side with that revenge. And I was shocked. I think this sequence does what it's intended to - it tells us what she's like and if you don't like it (or her), stop watching now.

It's true that all of the characters apart from her are fairly cookie cutter. I would argue that with her character being so different from what we're used to seeing, it's not unreasonable for the author (or screenwriter) to keep the rest of the cast fairly understandable.

The plot is a plot. It's not genius. It's not absurd. Mysteries aren't typically my bag. They tend to be either obvious or so ridiculously complex that no movie goer could play along. I'm never going to be particularly interested in the mystery itself if only because I know the ending will (almost) never live up to the twists of the plot along the way. (Shutter Island is the first movie in a very long time where I found the ending to be as cool as the journey). This movie had Lisbeth, and I was content to watch her be sort of awesome.

This movie gets talked about. For that reason alone, I would recommend it. Nothing drives me crazier than people with strong opinions about movies they haven't seen (or books they haven't read or musicians they haven't heard). It's an entertaining watch. It's got some graphic sex stuff so beware of that. But The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a cool chick and I look forward to seeing the sequel.

Alice In Wonderland (2009)

Nope. Not right. Sorry, but fail.

I had high hopes for Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's collaborative efforts on Alice in Wonderland. One of two problems I have with nearly every adaptation from the beginning of time (or at least since the beginning of cinema) is that they're never dark enough (ahem - Disney Version). I knew that wouldn't be a problem here. And it wasn't. It was dark. Alice has to leap frog across a moat filled with dead bodies to get to The Red Queen's castle. Ick!

However, the other problem I have with all the adaptations is that they aren't funny. The books are funny. There almost black humor, subtly cloaked in the musings of a child. It's brilliant. This version aint so funny. There are a couple of nods toward the absurdist humor like The Red Queen mistaking Alice's name for Um when someone pauses to avoid revealing who she is. But for the most part, this version doesn't inspire laughter.

This version is also muddled in its return to wonderland sequel but not quite blah blah blah. Eventually, they lay it out. Plain and simple. If you're going to go the sequel route - go the sequel route. Make up new stuff. It might be interesting.

Then we get into the 'plot' which is ridiculously simple and too reductive to entertain. She has to slay the Jaberwock. She will. She does. Big surprise.

And Alice. In the bonus features they rave and rant and compliment and pat themselves on the back for choosing her. She blows. She displays the emotional range of a kumquat and I couldn't care less whether she is able to find her muchness. She is entirely blah. And so pale she looks like she belongs in Twilight rather than Wonderland. She has no spark, no wit like Alice should, none of the sharp intelligent logic that Alice uses to poke holes in Wonderland's absurdity. This was also not one of my favorite Johnny Depp performances. He's brave, to be sure, but his lisp through his gap tooth was irritating, his divergence into a creepy scottish accent when he's feeling upset weird. Helena Bottom Carter was fantastic - btw.

The best version, to my mind, remains the Tina Majorino NBC television movie. It suffers from a television movie budget - which is too bad - but tonally, it's closest. I'm on my way to reaching the conclusion that this is a story which simply isn't ever going to translate well. So much of the humor is in the narration that unless some brave soul tries an adaptation in which the story is simply read in voice over, it's never going to shine through. But I'll keep tabs on the various trials and let you know.

Jesus' Son (1999)

There are two chunks of Jesus' Son that I loved. The first is when Billy Crudup's character meets Samantha Morton's character. She's dancing to Sweet Pea by Tommy Roe and she's dancing like a crazy person. It's cute - she's immediately endearing. And it's a way I've never seen Samantha Morton behave before. Five minutes later I was downloading Sweet Pea.

The other is a freaked out comedic sequence. Billy Crudup works at a hospital with Jack Black and a man comes in with a knife through his eye. It's creepy, it's funny, and it's weird. Then, Billy Crudup and Jack Black go for a drive. When Jack Black hits a rabbit with his car, he's going to skin and eat it, but rather delivers its babies - still alive. Billy Crudup's attempt to keep them alive is hilarious. It made me want to jump right into the screen and hug him.

His character is a guy with good intentions who just can't get his stuff together. Things are always going wrong, people are always getting angry at him, he's always screwing something up. You feel for the guy.

The movie is episodic and dances all over the place. It doesn't do so accidentally - it's meant to be a stream of consciousness sort of thing. This tactic will undoubtably work better for some than others. I didn't love the movie but I did enjoy meeting all the characters. It's a odd film.

Mysterious Skin (2004)

Half of Mysterious Skin is very good. The other half I find irritating. I've seen this movie before, and when I think back on it, I always seem to forget about the bits I don't care for. So when I watched it again, I was irritated anew.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a phenomenal actor. One of my absolute favorites. His half of the film I love. His character is unique and twisted, but as a viewer you understand. You sympathize rather than judge. His relationship with Michelle Trachtenberg is compelling and her concern for him palpable. His half of the story I'm deeply invested in.

The other half - not so much. If you're unfamiliar with the story it's essentially about two boys who are sexually abused as children. This drives Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character to become a male prostitute, obsessed with older men. The other boy, played by Brady Corbett, doesn't remember exactly what happened. He comes to the conclusion, perhaps based more on denial than anything else, that he was abducted by aliens. The problem I have with his half of the story is that the audience knows from square one what really happened to him. We know he's just wasting time befriending a woman who believes she too was abducted. (Mary Lynn Rajskub) We know what he'll find out when he finally manages to speak with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. And his character isn't anything new. He's essentially asexual, afraid of physical intimacy. And the acting isn't all that great. So his half of the story labors on to the inevitable ending. The saving grace is when he befriends Eric, the boy left behind by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michelle Trachtenberg. Eric is a good character, if somewhat typical.

I recommend this film to people who aren't easily upset by such subject matter. There are some harsh scenes - nothing is shown but the voice over is fairly specific about what's going on. It's not pleasant. But if you enjoy Joseph Gordon-Levitt (and you should!) this remains one of his best performances.

Peter Pan (2003)

I love this version of Peter Pan. I've been jonesing to watch it lately, I don't really remember why, so I threw it on last night.

The story of Peter Pan is one of my favorites. As a youngster, my family had the taped stage version with Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard on VHS and I LOVED it. I watched it over and over and over until my favorite scenes got those white wibbley lines through them. I never really liked the Disney version - they tend to suck the life out of great literature (I think the same of their Alice In Wonderland) - so when this live action Peter Pan came along, I was delighted.

The novel, based on the stage play, which was based on the character in one of J.M. Barrie's adult novels, is my favorite form of Pan. There's part of me that loves the musical aspect of the Mary Martin version and finds the stage woman-pan somewhat endearing, but there's a bigger part of me that appreciates seeing actual children playing the roles. The casting of the live action version is spot on. Jeremy Sumpter was a perfect Pan, his American accent giving him a nice foreigner feel as compared with the rest of the children. (I wish he was as good on Friday Night Lights). And Jason Issacs is always terrific as the baddy.

The visual representations of Neverland are delightful. Lush colors and a storybook feel, it works wonderfully. Ludivine Sagnier is also a very good Tinkerbell. Her silent comedic acting skills are spot on. And the film manages to walk the line of...what should I call it...puppy love? extremely well. Peter and Wendy are adorable together and, as all Peter Pans ought to, it ends on a note that feels tragic if you think about it too much.

Finally, this movie has a great score. Disney has been using it in their themepark commericals since the film came out.
I appreciate when an adaptation gets it right. They have the feel of the story here, and there's no watering down of the emotion behind it (as Disney did). Peter is a tragic figure - in the novel he has almost zero long term memory - and he's stuck. He forgets Wendy, he presumably gets new Lost Boys, and he just goes on, forever. The story doesn't celebrate never growing up - it laments it - and this version gets that.

The Last Station (2009)

James McAvoy is in The Last Station and that is reason enough for me to recommend it. I find him one of the most enchanting actors to watch and it is a hard and fast rule of mine to see whatever he does. That being said, I was somewhat dissapointed with The Last Station.

I'll start by admitting that I know next to nothing about Tolstoy. My grandma bought me Anna Karenina a few years ago and I've been toting it around ever since, never quite brave enough to actually begin reading it. After seeing The Last Station, I know a bit more, but what of the film was true and what was fiction I cannot be sure (nor do I care to do any research to find out).

That's what The Last Station missed. Most biopics, especially those of artists, writers, poets, or other such people that I feel I ought to know about, inspire me to investigate further. Bright Star sent me flying to my Norton Anthology to reexamine the poems of Keats. Even lackluster biopics tend to have this effect on me - Little Ashes reminded me how much I loved Lorca in college and had me looking up the closest museum with any Dali work.

The Last Station didn't make me want to know more. I don't care about Tolstoy anyore than I ever have (and truthfully, that's not much). Christopher Plummer played him like Santa Clause, all smiles and good natured old guy charm. And while Helen Mirren was very good (and man is she pretty), she contriubted to the overall sense of Britishness that this cast exudes. If you said to me, "Name five things you know about Tolstoy" I might have been tapped out after saying, "He wrote War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and was Russian."

Finally, James McAvoy. His role in this reminded me slightly of his role in The Last King of Scotland. In both films, he is clearly the protagonist, although I would wager that if you asked someone what either film was about, they would neglect his characters entirely in their response.

There's a tendency, and it's one I don't much care for, to examine larger than life figures through the eyes of a bland bystandar. I'd be willing to bet people who did not see The Last King of Scotland haven't the faintest notion that James McAvoy was the lead (or even in it). Why? Why must he take these roles where he he's just a sounding board for men to claim their oscar nominations. I'm indignant on his part. He does a fine job of brining something to these characters - making them more than just the young naeive guy who is in awe of the oscar nominee - but why does his role even exist? The stories aren't about him even though they're about him. It's irritating. It's not a story of a young kid learning his hero isn't all he thought. Or learning his friendly dictator friend isn't so friendly. They're films about the hero and the dictator. I assume the idea is to make these figures accessable through an every man but that's dumb. It's a movie. These figures are accessable through Christopher Plummer and Forest Whitaker. I'd rather follow the people with the interesting lives than be forced to hang around the edges.

All that asside, James McAvoy really is brilliant. He does that thing where his eyes are full of tears but he doesn't actually cry in almost every role he plays. Seriously - look for it. One of these days he'll play the "figure" rather than the bystandar and then maybe he'll get more of the recognition he deserves. Until that day, I will remain his vocal champion.

A Single Man (2009)

A Single Man was very good. Extremely smart and well acted by all, it had an ending that made me feel like I should have seen it coming all along. I appreciate an ending like that because I didn't see it coming all along. I'm going to spoil it soon, so stop reading if you haven't seen the film.

There was a featurette on the DVD in which Tom Ford, writer, director, and famous fashion designer, spoke in great length about the theme. He was very clear that to him, this is a film about living each day as though it were your last. That's not exactly what I got from A Single Man. In fact, I've long thought that the idea of living each day like it's your last is pretty absurd. It's something people like to say about their dead loved ones to make themselves feel better. Because not only is it rediculous in a literal sense, (let's all quit our jobs and hang out with our families in some dream location we've never been able to afford a trip to!) but a person cannot feel that feeling of finality (that makes A Single Man such an interesting film) unless they know it's their last day alive...or at least very seriously believe it to be.

That's the key to A Single Man. What does the world look like when you know you're looking at it for the last time? Can you have that day where you see things in a special way and still, by choice, decide to never see them again? In George's case, the answer is no. But, in a way, his plan to kill himself is a gift. It's what allows him to see beauty and joy on a day that will be his last whether he chooses it or not. Because most times, people live their last day the same way they live any other.

I obviously enjoyed this movie a great deal. I did find the visual indicator of special moments a little overwrought. The way saturated color turns on and off became distracting and I wished a more subtle method of indication had been used.

Oh! And Nicholas Hoult. I can't leave out a mention of him. Truthfully, I didn't find him all that great in this. His American accent sounds studied and forced. Not awful - it didn't sound British - just not natural. Unlike Matthew Goode who was pitch perfect as George's deceased lover. I mention Nicholas Hoult because he's often refered to as "the kid from About A Boy" but he should be refered to as Tony. He will forever be Tony to me. Totally in love with himself, selfish, cruel Tony. From Skins. In case you didn't know :) It's on InstantWatch on Netflix. Go meet Tony. (And Sid! And Maxxie! And Chris!)