Review | The Movie Rat

Rewind Review: Step Up 3

Posted on December 20, 2015 by bernardovillela

Step Up 3, or 3D, depending on which version you are seeing is likely to go down as the worst film of the year. Firstly, to comment I did not view the film in 3D, however, it doesn’t seem as if much of the film would’ve benefitted greatly from it just a few scenes here and there but it really isn’t worth the surcharge.

What needs to be said up front is that this film does have one true redeeming quality and that can only be conveyed by backhanded complement, so that should give you some sense of just how good it is. The film manages to be rather entertaining and close to magical when dance routines are being done, however, there is not nearly enough screen time dedicated to dancing throughout.

There are, however, plot complications that are unnecessary, contrivances which are laughable and all of which are cliché and bring next to nothing original to the table. It is the first film since Gamer, last year, which made me think that perhaps a bright thirteen-year-old wrote it. If that were true the writing would be pretty good as it stands it was not written by a thirteen-year-old and it is abysmal. There are too many disparate elements thrown together seemingly only behind the strength of the notion that “That would be cool.”

There is a dance contest which The Pirates, the troupe we are “rooting” for due to the protagonists, is about bragging rights but it’s also about the cash prize. Why do they want the money? To avoid foreclosure on their dance home, of course. This place is like a dancer’s equivalent to the Batcave and yet all 100 (give or take) people who are in there somehow can’t afford the rent but the editing bay, foam pit, soundproofing, boom box room, etc, they’re all manageable.

This rivalry between troupes is also rather hilarious because sometimes you can’t tell if it’s going to break out into West Side Story or a Kung Fu movie. Neither of which are really fitting here but get squeezed in anyway.

There is not only a very scripted-sounding documentary opening but a film within the film as one of the protagonists, Luke (Rick Malambri) is a budding documentarian. Yes, he’s the next Baryshnikov and Errol Morris rolled into one. But wait, there’s more, there’s a whole other plot which shares equal time for the first half of the film, vanishes and comes back; Moose (Adam Sevani) and his two lives, dance and Engineering, at NYU. As if that wasn’t enough Luke’s love interest, Natalie (Sharni Vinson) joins the troupe as a spy turns out to be Luke’s archrival’s sister and no one was ever the wiser.

I actually could go on. The contest to pay for a space is clichéd enough without adding the twin betrayal-reconciliation love plots and passion versus reason plots into the mix.

I could continue but dead horses need not be beaten. So what could make myriad bad plot devices worse? Bad acting, of course, come on down. Granted take this comment with a grain of salt as most involved in this film are primarily dancers but still too much of it was flat and ineffectual. The chemistry between both couples most of the times seems forced and the only one who gives their all and is somewhat winning is Adam Sevani. What’s more infuriating is that this film had another wonderful thing going and ruined it by cramming too many recycled storylines into. Had the film been simpler and had more dance numbers it could’ve been good. This was a musical, to an extant, that actually addressed a musical phenomenon of people breaking into song and dance in the streets realistically by having onlookers react to it. Being that it was in New York for the most part that allowed for some funny lines which at times distracted you from more “schmacting” by the bit players, but there was not nearly enough of that to save the film.

But that’s not all, the last thing that bears mentioning is the brief but comedically bad use of CG. It involves Icees, a grate, wind and unrealistic movement of said Icees when blown out a straw into the wind. It seems like it could not possibly be serious and it made me wonder if Woody Allen is missing an early draft of Everyone Says I Love You.

I suppose one other redeeming quality is that despite this being a very bad film it is not a painfully bad but is actually enjoyably bad in the tradition of Troll 2 but nowhere near as good/bad. The few things that were infuriating were listed above and they over-complicated what in a simpler state may have been a passable film. In the end it was an unmitigated disaster.

2/10

Rewind Review: RED

Posted on December 19, 2015 by bernardovillela

What is it one can really say about the film Red? It does happen to get off to a good ambling start but somewhere along the way the novelty wears off. One of the highlights of the film is the siege upon Frank Moses’ (Bruce Willis) house. That is very early on.

While the film never takes a narrative jump too big it does progressively grow its web of conspiracy to a very high level. It was much more enjoyable and relatable when it was on a more personally based. The more entanglements of politics and the military-industrial complex that get mixed into it the less effective it becomes.

This is also a film with a rather interesting albeit not always overly-successful tonality to it. It’s part comedy, part action and part drama. The comedic never takes things too far out of the realm of believability and is always well-placed. It’s the action sequences that make you think a bit too much about what the real ramifications of these events would be.

Where it does succeed, however, is that almost all the drama flows out of the characters as opposed to the situation which is why we remain involved in this particular tale.

The cast of this film is another thing that keeps a rather thin premise barely above water. Deserving first mention is a most welcome turn from Academy-Award winner Ernest Borgnine. It’s always good to see screen legends of a previous age getting legitimate work in today’s Hollywood. Bruce Willis is his usual action-star self in this vehicle and unlike some members of The Expendables doesn’t look out of place still playing an action lead.

Perhaps what’s best about these performances is that they did serve the story and weren’t merely used as adornment. John Malkovich’s character is a prime example. He brings forth most of the comedy in this title and it is due in large part to his paranoia. We find out through the course of the story that his paranoia is, in fact, perfect and he ends up being a great asset to the team and not a detriment.

Another way in which this film falls a little short is being too cute when you don’t have to. Without giving too much away there is a twist regarding the whereabouts of Morgan Freeman’s character. It is so blatantly obvious that they later waste a cut to reveal the “trick.” I highly doubt a high percentage of the audience was that fooled such that it was necessary and it really wasn’t needed to better convey the tale.

Red is a funny and entertaining film but ultimately the promise it shows early on is never followed through and it ends up being a rather forgettable experience when the opposite was promised.

6/10

Rewind Review: The Merry Gentleman

Posted on December 18, 2015 by bernardovillela

What one might think of when they initially hear that an actor is making his directorial debut is that the film will tend to be safe, unassuming and cinematically unappealing. When one learns in addition to the fact that said actor is not only directing but starring in the film nasty thoughts of vanity project, showcase and self-indulgence might come to mind. Wipe all those notions out of your head when it comes to Michael Keaton’s first feature length film The Merry Gentleman.

Immediately, upon the beginning of the picture so many things make themselves very clear – the very first thing we hear over the title card is a church bell ringing; a lot of the subtext of the film deals with religion. Initially Michael Keaton’s character (Frank) walks right past a church but later fixes a statue, watches a Christmas decoration be callously tossed aside on Boxing Day. He is struggling with his faith, guilt and remorse but all of it is unspoken. The second thing that establishes itself are the visuals. There is no dialogue for a couple of minutes to start, unlike a typical opening title sequence though a lot is happening and it must be paid attention to. Lastly, the visuals themselves, the framing and lighting throughout is extremely good and engaging to watch – excellent cinematography indeed.

Keaton’s character is also quiet and it takes him a while to speak but that in no way detracts from his presence and the level of performance. Yet the star of the film is Kelly McDonald. Her performance is truly good and having a few lesser-known faces around is a breath of fresh air. A lot of times as a viewer that frees you up allowing you to watch the characters and not the actors acting.

The dialogue is smart and funny and the film is well-written. What I like best is that it remains a drama throughout. And when you have an abused estranged wife, a police investigation and a hit man you have three potential landmines and if they blow it will create genre fluff. The film deftly avoids all these and doesn’t give you a Hollywood or even a tidy ending but its story is told and it’s over at the exact right moment and it was still quite satisfying.

It is also the kind of film that lingers with you. After it’s over you just keep mulling it over. Truly the mark of a thought-provoking film and in this case a very good one.

8/10

Rewind Review: Unstoppable

Posted on December 17, 2015 by bernardovillela

One of the better ways to examine the progression of cinematic history I feel is to look at similar films and compare them. As I was watching this film, as absolutely enthralled as I was by the collision course that was set up; I got to thinking about The Great Train Robbery (1903). Now, granted, there is little that this film holds in common with a title 107 years its senior aside from trains but consider this.

The audiences in 1903 literally ducked out of the way when a train on screen plowed right at them and similarly ducked when the robber shot right at them. What tremendous progress both technically and with regard to audience sophistication has been made. When you look at this runaway train film, however, many classical techniques are what make it work.

Mainly, the editing puts this film over the top. The oldest and most tried-and-true technique in film. The film does set up the danger: this train with X-thousand tons of haz mats is likely to derail in a town of 40,000 or so, however, a number that large in a cinematic context is abstract. Who do we follow and care for? Frank (Denzel Washington) and Will (Chris Pine) who will be chasing the runaway train down and Connie (Rosario Dawson) who is the Supervisor trying to manage the crisis. Yet this doesn’t truly create most of the tension. It’s the cross-cutting that does it. It’s a news helicopter following, the runaway catching speed, showing an on coming train, a switch is made, they nearly hit one another.

And there are situations similar to this throughout. The film builds tension-filled situations throughout and even the littlest mistake by anyone has consequences.

The characters are basically assembled but as mentioned before there is concern for their well-being and a rooting interest is established. It’s not even the facts that make us identify but how they are conveyed. Will has a skeleton in his closet a terrible mistake he made but we get to know him first before we learn what it is. We learn Frank is a dedicated, very capable engineer and then learn of his job situation. We can see Connie is wise, compassionate and courageous through her interaction with her superior.

The cast is vital when you’re dealing with archetypal characters such as these. You need not only talented actors but also charismatic one who will add and unwritten dimension to these people. Denzel Washington’s dialogue is frequently repetitive but there is a presence and authority to his delivery that adds to who Frank is. Pine has a tough look but a vulnerability which is crucial to his part. Dawson has a no-nonsense-ness about her that is inimitable.

The film uses news flashes as shorthand to disseminate crucial information and also to raise the stakes as necessary. Thankfully, this tactic which could wear thin if used too much is used just enough. The one place it gets overly involved is the new helicopter becomes too much a part of the action at a crucial point and becomes an obstacle to our heroes.

To cap it off the cinematography and scoring are both very strong and add to the suspenseful ambiance.

Unstoppable is a nail-biter in the truest sense of the phrase and is a must-see for those who appreciate expert editing.

Rewind Review: Aliens in the Attic

Posted on December 15, 2015 by bernardovillela

If you skipped the movies this weekend and only glanced at the box-office figures you might’ve thought it was a rather dismal weekend. Financially speaking that is the case but one must always keep in mind that the box office is not always a true barometer.

The top ten films combined to just barely top $106 Million over the weekend when just a few weeks ago Harry Potter was nearly at the mark within two days. That is not to say this weekend was devoid of quality. Wallowing lowly in 5th place is an overlooked, under-advertised, and under-appreciated film which is a great time for all just waiting to happen; and one that you should catch before it makes a premature exit from multiplexes.

Aliens in the Attic fully lives up to the vibe I picked up from it when I first saw a trailer for it some time back. It seemed like a displaced ’80s film which had been updated for a modern audience. What I mean is that the film is relevant to today’s youth as the extended family that fight off an invasion of miniature aliens in their vacation home make jokes about how the mind control devices are like video game systems, yet the feel of the film is from a different time.

Those elements which hearken back to yesteryear being mainly: an irreverent, at times goofy, comedy where kids are protagonists, a fantastical world that only the kids have access to while the parents are clueless in more ways than one, a relatively anonymous lead cast, an alien who befriends kids and not necessarily politically correct jokes like “Oh no, it’s the po-po” and “He got hit in the nards” (the latter very reminiscent of the ’80s classic Monster Squad).

From the very start of the film the tone is set that the film will be consistently funny and not only funny but fun. So much so that you just go along for the ride and certain questions about dubious plot points or rationale on the aliens’ parts don’t take up too much of your attention.

The CG, as one would hope was the case in a film where certain key characters are computer animated is pretty good and never shows glaring weakness. The cast despite some seemingly strange choices is quite good. Most notably the young core of the film (Carter Jenkins, Austin Butler, Ashley Boettcher and the Young twins) also deserving of praise are SNL alums Kevin Nealon, who plays a clueless dad in the Chevy Chase mold, and Tim Meadows who brings his wry wit to the sheriff’s role. SNL’s best generation have had overall less than stellar film turns but this two-for is one of the best showings by that class in a while.

The film benefits most from its fine, sharp writing. The writing excels in practically every sense – comedy, one-liners and pace. Despite having quite a diverse cast of characters, none of which have much time devoted to them alone, we definitely get a sense of character from all involved – even the aliens.

The most one can truly ask of a film is to be entertained and Aliens in the Attic does so in spades. It’s pretty much non-stop engagement and enjoyment and there is something for everyone in the family and it’s most definitely worth checking out.

The IMDb user rating is currently a 4.6 which in my estimation is much too low, and it’s a serious contender for most underrated title of the year. It’s not perfect of course, nothing is, but it’s one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had in while and I was rather amazed by that so I will give it a 9/10 – a truly good film which was just a minute detail or so away from greatness but still a wholly satisfying and extremely enjoyable experience.

Rewind Review: 2012

Posted on December 14, 2015 by bernardovillela

So here it is another end-of-the-world-spectacular. Roland Emmerich was recently quoted as denying his penchant for destroying the world even though this is the third time he’s done so as a director and plans on doing so again. The apocalyptic film as a subgenre is tired enough as it is without it also becoming tired from the same director.

This film was not nearly as bad as I had feared when I went into it but it also wasn’t good. Firstly, the Mayan prophecy which is the launch point for the creation of this film is merely referenced and doesn’t really factor into the plot aside from the fact that the film more or less says it’s correct. This film also sets up many disparate story lines at the start that don’t really balance that well. All the storylines that go on connect in the end but you’re left wondering for too long what the relation is and some aren’t as focused upon or necessary. All it is doing is unnecessarily prolonging a film in which you already know what the climax is. The only real mystery is the denouement which ends up being disppointing and not the jolly event the film wants you to see it as.

It reminded me a bit of War of the Worlds but what works in War of the Worlds, meaning any version of that film, is that there is an enemy. You can’t fight a natural catastrophe and trying to prevent it doesn’t make for very compelling cinema which is why there was so little focus on precautionary measures and things just went to hell very quickly.

Suspension of disbelief in a tale like this becomes very difficult during one cliffhanging section, just one. I am quite open to trying to go with the flow but there was one narrow escape that was just too hard to swallow.

There’s also a fine line between showing the totality of the chaos and just being sensationalistic and this film crosses that line several times and by so much that some of it is just downright offensive- the USS John F. Kennedy tumbling off the crest of a tidal wave and crushing the White House, a crack in the Sistene Chapel’s roof and the statue of Christ the Redeemer breaking and falling off its perch above Rio.

The best part of the film is Woody Harrelson and he gets killed off halfway through. Cusack and Peet are fine but they never really had to stretch and be all that impressive. Danny Glover playing the President of the United States is woefully miscast. When playing a fictitious president you’ve either reached that level as an actor or people just buy it and I didn’t buy this one and never heard anyone questioning Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact. Oliver Platt’s character never really made sense because he was fighting to take over a world that was going to end anyway. It’s just another case of a gifted actor in a bad project- something so common with him I now cringe upon seeing him.

The effects for the most part are really believable, nothing mind-blowing but nothing glaringly terrible either. The editing is not good in terms of content. Upon reflection I still can’t see the need of the film to have been that long and it did feel long this wasn’t a Spielbergian two-and-a-half hours either.

The dialogue at times was quite trite, forced and at times just dumb. The film is only serviceable for its action. So if you’re an adrenaline junkie you’ll probably get a kick out of it. Fans of cinema need not apply.

5/10

Rewind Review: The Nutcracker in 3D

Posted on December 13, 2015 by bernardovillela

The Nutcracker in 3D as conceptualized by Andrey Konchaloskiy is a rather strange beast indeed. It’s the kind of film that is impossible to stop watching because despite all that you might have to say against it there is some element of charm, ambition, and brashness that keeps your eyes glued to the screen. Perhaps it is a symptom of the era of filmmaking we are currently living in, there are far too many “play it safe” moves made in film today from sequels, to remakes and generic storytelling. Now granted The Nutcracker has been told over and over again, however, none of them ever quite like this and that’s what you end up taking away from this film, like it or not, is a bold attempt at doing something truly unique and different.

What makes this story, or this retelling thereof, so unique? It is the spin placed on everything in this tale. It becomes a historical mishmash in which suddenly Albert Einstein is the children’s uncle, there is talk of Freudian psychology and of course the Rat King and his Kingdom are none other than the Nazis. Yet flying in this face of this seemingly are exotic flying machines and other-worldly motorcycles. Just to have the audacity to go and mix things that ought not necessarily mix is one thing but it goes further.

To use Tchaikovsky’s music extensively is to be expected and nearly mandatory. Whether or not your interpretation involves any form of dance or not his music has become much more synonymous with this story than E.T.A. Hoffman’s writing ever was. However, to add lyrics to his music is a decision that is dubious at best. Hearing that it is Tim Rice writing those lyrics gives you some hope but sadly they are some of the poorest most trite I’ve heard him compose and furthermore they rarely really work. It’s difficult to shoehorn lyrics into a symphonic score and this proves it. What makes the musical experience of this film even more frustrating is that there are parts in which you see songs that do kind of work and you wonder why all can’t but what makes it more frustrating is it needn’t be. There’s just something about this story, told as it is, that doesn’t make it conducive to music.

The performances show the kind of inconsistency that marks this film. There are those who leave you scratching your head and those that make it worth it. Amongst the head-scratchers is Nathan Lane. Why he was needed to barely sing in in one of the worst accents I’ve ever heard is beyond me. In the middle of the road is Frances de la Tour as the Rat Queen, her over-the-top insanity does grow on you as the tone of this film makes itself known. Making the film stay afloat are Elle Fanning as Mary and Charlie Rowe as The Prince, who is all too frequently absent because as the Nutcracker he is replaced by the voice of Shirley Henderson, who is incapable of sounding like anything other than Moaning Myrtle frrom the Harry Potter films. Her inability to mimic a boy’s voice not only brings this casting decision in question but made those portions of the film hard to bear.

What must be pointed out is that in terms of practicality this film is fantastic meaning in as many places where it could get shot practically it is. The rat-people wore prosthetics, there were many sets built and extras. The only things which were computer generated was what absolutely had to be which was nice to see.
The CGI when used is very effective because it is given more of chance to thrive by being surrounded by mostly real elements, making blending easier. To continue the art direction theme the costuming was also great at being both historically accurate but creative where they were allowed to be which is a nice and rare mix.

It is not only the technical that works in this film, that is merely the most consistent element. As odd as the story is, even being rife with Nazi-symbolism, it does find an odd consistency in symbols and narrative flow such that production concerns and decisions in casting can be temporarily ignored and the story can hit you.

Perhaps the best example of this a scene where Max (Aaron Michael Drozin), the younger brother, discovers that despite being recruited by the Rat King (John Turturro) he doesn’t want to destroy toys anymore. He lets out one of the better and realistic cries you’re likely to hear. It’s like something out of Disney’s Robin Hood in its authenticity.

As for the 3D it falls this far down in the pecking order because it truly is one of the more ineffectual jobs I’ve seen since it came back in vogue. There is little to no value added due to the fact that it’s in 3D. The image is clearer and sharper than many but the trade off is that there isn’t a tremendous amount of depth outward or inward added.

It’s a film that always has a sense of humor about it despite that you can call some of its decisions into question. It is a film that absolutely screams to be seen because it refuses to conform and it is likely to leave very few on the fence and that’s the most we can ask for, and the best kind of movie whether you like it or not, and for that I thank the makers of The Nutcracker in 3D.

5/10

Rewind Review – Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

Posted on December 12, 2015 by bernardovillela

2007’s Alvin and the Chipmunks was one of the more surprising films of that year. This one, however, falls miserably flat in many ways. The main reason is that the plot is overly contrived. Of course, this isn’t War and Peace, however, have a contest in which a school’s music program can be saved, altruistic intention aside, and a situation where Alvin has to be in two places at once then combine that with the Chipettes not liking them, due to lies, and it all became a bit much.

Plot aside most of the actors who appeared live didn’t do this film any favors. In this part Jason Lee is only serviceable for being thrashed and when he does get injured it is funny even if he isn’t. Lee, however, isn’t there a lot. Who is there a lot as the stay-at-home loser is Zachary Levi who is a spectacular failure at trying to be over-the-top funny. The only saving grace is Wendy Malick as the school principal who is a closet Chipmunk fan and David Cross as the devious producer. The voice talents are great and it’s a shame there is only so much they can do.

All the students at the high school also seemed terribly old. Which begs the question: It’s a kids movie so where are the kids? It’s just the Chipmunks kids can relate to. Wouldn’t a great story instead be of a kid being able to have them live with him/her? This way there is much more identification from the audiences instead of just watching them frolic about a world of adult doofuses.

It was surprising to learn through the credits that the Chipettes have their own creator, which is surprising since their personalities are analogous to their male counterparts. It would’ve been nice if the film worked to differentiate them a bit but alas no. To this film’s credit the Chipettes did catch on to the lies they are being fed quicker than expected but still a little bit too late. Yet their introduction was good and their participation in this sequel is by no means what held it back.

In a film where all the music is going to be covers need we hear jokes or lines from other movies ad nauseum? All this kind of dialogue just adds to the contrivances and detracts from what is original and decent in the film.

The song choices in this particular film were better and more appropriate for the entire family. Thankfully it was the original “You Spin Me Right Round (Like a Record)” which was chosen and not the Flo Rida cover, this song is one of the standouts. It also seemed like less singing for those who can’t stand the squeakiness but are dragged to see it.

It was also good that Alvin did get his comeuppance something that didn’t seem to happen nearly enough or as effectively on TV. While the child in this critic did enjoy several parts of this film there were ultimately too many things holding it back.

4/10

Rewind Review: A Christmas Carol

Posted on December 9, 2015 by bernardovillela

When starting out a review of A Christmas Carol, a compulsory beginning should likely read that Robert Zemeckis is incredibly talented and has made many great films that you will never be able to take away from him. Amongst this critics favorites are Back to the Future parts I and II, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump and Contact. Now that list stops before the turn of the century. In the latter part of this decade it seems he’s been on a crusade, as a director, to be at the forefront of motion-capture technology.

Three films into this phase and the animation it seems is still not ready for primetime. The animation is not the only thing that lets the film down but it is a starting point and an important one. The fluidity of motion is just not there in the dance scene and it seems like a jittery video game rendition. The appearance of the characters is inconsistent. Bob Cratchit looks simian through most of his first scene. The characters look good with pronounced highlights or in scenes with very high contrast. Otherwise the artifice of it falls into an odd no-man’s land between live action and animation that isn’t very appealing. The technology has come quite a ways from The Polar Express but it’s not yet in its most desirable state.

The story at times takes a backseat to the technology, otherwise, why would you represent the Ghost of Christmas Past as a flame? It seemed like an overly-contrived way to experiment with lighting techniques in the new technology. Also, the technology allows you to use fewer actors because once you have a reading of their face you can manipulate it in post and have them interpret numerous roles none of which look anything alike.

This, however, is a double-edged sword it can be incredibly liberating as an actor and the modern day equivalent of wearing a mask but it also means fewer actors were hired for this film to fill the roles. Another effect of the technology is that if you make a bad casting decision it could be amplified by many roles. Jim Carrey plays eight roles in this film and in two of them he was not a great fit. Unfortunately, those two were Ebenezer Scrooge, where he neither sounds all that British or all that curmudgeonly, and the Ghost of Christmas Present where he goes way over the top especially when he laughs which is almost all the time.

It seems like for every step forward this film took it took two back. For every new twist added cleverly because they could through the animation there was something extraneous like Scrooge being shot across the moonlit sky that just didn’t need to happen. I won’t even digress into his being shrunk and sliding down the rooftop except to mention it there.

All the charm, spirit and brilliance that does exist in this story can be directly attributed to Charles Dickens and is not really amplified in any way either by the production or the players, good as some of them were. It’s also a little disingenuous to see this branded as Disney’s a A Chrismas Carol in the opening credits when Disney in 1983 created a short called Mickey’s Christmas Carol that in 26 minutes managed to be ever so much more moving and effective than this film so much so that it was nominated for an Academy Award as Best Animated Short.

A case in point about the execution of this film: the effectiveness of the closing line of the tale is completely undercut because all of a sudden it was decided that it would be a good idea to have Cratchit talk to the audience and recite verbatim the closing paragraph and then have Tiny Tim say “God bless us everyone.” The film is not so long that you couldn’t have continued watching Scrooge going around doing his good deeds and allowing that to happen naturally and visually without the “cut to the chase” treatment. It kind of lets the wind out of the sails of an experience that wasn’t all that emotionally satisfying to begin with. Don’t change the nature of the tale and the tempo at the very end just because you don’t want to run anywhere near 100 minutes.

Those who are going to see the the story for the first time will likely enjoy it. I just stress that there are other better versions out there. The only serviceable thing this adaptation does is to reintroduce the tale and maybe it will be read by many for the first time- for as literature it is a masterpiece and this film is nowhere near close.

4/10

Rewind Review: A Single Man

Posted on December 6, 2015 by bernardovillela

A Single Man is a film that thrives on Colin Firth’s performance. He is the titular character and thus the fulcrum upon which the entire film rests. At many times he is alone, more often than not though he is one on one with another scene partner and thus the cast must be exemplary to match him. Firth’s performance is not one of tremendous fireworks but one where we are allowed to get the occasional glimpse beneath the surface. It’s brilliant and true and the finest performance of the year, and was honored as such in Venice.

Accompanying Firth in a few of his more pivotal scenes is Julianne Moore. Moore doesn’t have a lot of screen time in this film but she uses it to her full advantage playing her character remarkably and in so little time breathing life into Charley. In a fascinating bit of turnabout she put on a British accent and is hardly distinguishable from Firth in authenticity.

Conversely Nicholas Hoult, who is British, plays an American and much more convincingly so than when he co-starred in The Weather Man. His scene opposite Firth in the bar was quite memorable and he was perhaps the perfect casting choice as the young man who gives our protagonist a glimmer of hope.

The cast of the film overall is exceptional and because all the scenes were of an intimate nature, in terms of emotion if not subject matter, all actors in parts large and small had to connect and play up to Colin Firth and they did so tremendously.

The edit of this film is likely to go unrecognized and thus we shall call attention to it here. Both aesthetically and technically it is a job very well done. With ease it manipulates our perception of reality on one occasion but more often than not it combines with the cinematography to give the perfect launching point for a flashback. One of the flashbacks being shot in black and white was also a very welcome touch.

The greatest tool at the disposal of the cineast is the ability for him to manipulate time. This film manipulates time brilliantly as we see virtually the entire story of this man’s adult life unfold itself over the course of a day. So much is learned so simply and quickly.

Having all of the events take place over the course of one day is also a great benefit to the film as it lends immediacy and urgency to even the most mundane of actions. As the day starts we think we see how it will end and makes every moment have that much more surpassing beauty because of it.

This is a film which is a subtle tragedy. In as much as the audience experiences the tragedy of events much more so than the characters involved. The film also leaves you wanting more and leaves you wondering what happened to characters after it faded to black for the last time.

10/10

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31