Después de haber varias películas de homosexualidad que me parecían muy malas, veo esta y pienso, bueno al menos alguien sigue haciendo buenas películas de este tipo. Al principio me estaba saturando. Todo era basarse en lo de siempre, sexo, sexo y sexo, pero luego se endereza y nos cuenta una película interesante en la que ya no solo es sexo si no que los personajes van profundizando se va avanzando en la trama y se cuenta una historia.Los actores están estupendos, te llevan todos por donde quieren llevarte. Se huele la sensualidad a flor de piel, sobre todo después de la primera media hora y sin necesidad de hacer esos planos a cámara lenta que tan malos son.La fotografía me ha parecido, estupenda, preciosa, te mete en la historia completamente. Cada momento tiene su fotografía. La parte fría tiene luz fría, la parte cálida tiene luz cálida, cuando la historia crece la fotografía mejora y se hace más cálida. No me gusta, al principio, cuando se empeña en hacer esos planos a cámara lenta de torsos desnudos, de solo ojos, como si ese personaje solo pensase en cuerpos, cuando tenemos un personaje tan culto, tan cuidadoso, tan elegante. El está presentado muy bien.El director que empieza muy mal, luego corrige la película y la lleva por un camino estupendo. La lleva sin prisa pero sin pausa, te lleva a ti con ella. No sabe poner la cámara, se conforma con observar la historia, pero al menos no hace planos feos.Es una película con estilo a la que remontaría la primera media hora para mejorarla. After having several homosexual movies that I thought were very bad, I see this and I think, well at least someone is still making good films of this type. At first I was getting saturated. Everything was based on the usual, sex, sex and sex, but then straightens up and tells us an interesting movie in which it is not only sex, but the characters go deeper and the plot is told and a story is told .The actors are great, they take you all where they want to take you. You can smell the sensuality on the skin, especially after the first half hour and without having to make those slow-motion shots that are so bad.The photography has seemed to me, great, beautiful, it gets you into the story completely. Every moment has its photograph. The cold part has cold light, the warm part has warm light, when the story grows the picture improves and becomes warmer. I do not like it, at first, when he insists on making those slow-motion shots of naked torsos, of only eyes, as if that character only thought of bodies, when we have such a cultured, careful, and elegant character. He is presented very well.The director who starts very badly, then corrects the film and takes it down a great path. He carries it without haste but without pause, it takes you with it. He does not know how to put the camera, he is content to observe the story, but at least he does not make ugly plans.It's a movie with style that would go back the first half hour to improve it.

About seven minutes into 'A Single Man', there is a scene that should never have worked so early in a film. It is that moving, 'Oscar' moment that most movies would have in their second or third acts, after strong character establishment and buildup.But this scene -- a value addition by fashion designer Tom Ford to Christopher Isherwood's brilliant prose -- works perfectly here. It epitomizes what this film is about -- emptiness. That Colin Firth produces what I consider to be the finest single piece of acting helps.The story of 'A Single Man' is straightforward. It is set in one day in the life of George, a middle-aged college professor in 1960s California. He is grieving the loss of his long-time partner, Jim. Through this day, we follow George as he wakes up, "becomes George", lectures students, has dinner, drinks, and has a few chance encounters. Clearly, this is not a film for everyone. Audiences not keen on character-driven stories will probably not even be able to sit through it.That Ford chose this book for his first feature film is interesting. Not because of the subject matter, but because the internal nature of the book would have given any film-maker fits. This is a book that could be considered impossible to translate visually because not only is there little in way of plot or action in the story, but it is all narrated in the third person's head. What is even more surprising is the way Ford deals with this problem. He does not abandon who he is. He chooses to make this internal story extremely visual -- a choice not everyone seemed to like. But that he did it his way made me appreciate the honesty behind his effort to take this beautiful, poignant story to the screen.This is not Isherwood's story fully. The tone is different, as is George, and there are elements added for driving the narrative. That is exactly why this is a great adaptation. It is full of original elements but at the same time does no disservice to the raw and powerful source material. Ford does make a few questionable and indulgent choices, but even when he does flounder, his lead actor is always there to save him. Firth delivers a career turn as George. How he produced a performance so heartbreaking and empty at the same time, I will never know. Ever the paragon of subtlety, Firth comes out of his shell as an actor in the most unique way -- by going into a shell as his character. This is a performance that should have landed him the Oscar gold, not just the nomination. It is his finest 95 minutes on screen. There are many reasons to watch this film. Firth is the biggest, for he barely seems like he is actually acting, which is the highest praise I can give an actor. But he is not the only one. He is supported by wonderful turns by Julianne Moore and Mathew Goode, both of whom have great chemistry with him and make use of limited screen time to convey real emotions and relationships. Nick Hoult is good too, though less brilliant in the third act (he is not helped by the relatively weak dialogue there).Also a hat tip to Abel Korzeniowski, whose score is one of those few that perfectly capture the mood of the film. Sometimes, good music is not matched by the film, and vice versa. Here, the harmony is perfect. It is a beautiful score that stays with you long after you have watched the film.I have, however, docked a star even though 'A Single Man' is one of my favorite films. If you have seen it as many times as I have, the editing mistakes -- probably a result of Ford over-directing the film -- become hard to ignore. Also, the day the story is set actually falls AFTER the Cuban Missile Crisis ended. A little research would have helped avoid that frustrating mistake. But those goofs matter little in the grand scheme of things. A beautiful story, the aesthetic and tender handling of it, and one extraordinary performance recommend this film. As one critic put it -- it is a thing of heart-stopping beauty.

The answer - visual masturbation. Like this complete waste of time. Sure it might look great but so does a perfume commercial, which ironically is what this director maybe should concentrate on. What happened to keeping the audience engaged? Plot? Character? And the ending. Come on! He drops dead? He could have done that after 10 minutes and saved us all some time. This drones on without any real purpose. Why are people hyping this film and how on earth did it get an Oscar nomination?

If you want to submerge yourself into the soul of a (possible) man full of contradictions, confused, suffering and involved in continuation of his deviated convictions, you may enjoy this movie. The actor excels. The theme is sick. Where is there a 'learning' from the plot - story? Why we must support sick minds? I don't mean to be mean, it is simply a deviation of nature which I believe the majority do not enjoy reviving it. The movie has a few brilliant conversations, but there is no follow through. Just lose ends and lost cause. A few errors in the screen setup about time location. Street had no painted lines and lipstick wasn't as bright. Finding a suit that would not wrinkle was impossible. But it is understandable, nobody really wants to see 'reality'. SO this is like a Picasso painting, colorful, bright and awkward. You'll never understand the mind of the person, and you will probably make yourself a story which is not the true story.