Critics’ reviews

A Single Man (2009)

18 reviews from 18 publications. Critics’ score 69: 12 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of A Single Man

69
Positive
12
Mixed
5
Negative
1

Most critics come down in favour of A Single Man, and the praise is almost unanimous about where it belongs: Colin Firth. Nearly every review singles out his restrained performance as the film’s anchor, with his portrayal of George’s grief mentioned repeatedly. Several also admire Julianne Moore, and more than one picks out the evening George spends with her as a highlight. Tom Ford’s first film as a director is found more sensitive and substantial than many expected.

The reservations cluster on Ford’s visual style. Several reviews describe the period design as too polished, the colour shifts as conspicuous, and the dreamy presentation as self-indulgent; a few feel the plot is slight. The spread is fairly wide. Slant Magazine finds the style intrusive enough for a middling verdict, and the lone negative review, from the Evening Standard, argues the gloss smothers the human drama, leaving Firth to supply the feeling the rest lacks.

The AV Club
10 December 2009 · A- · Nathan Rabin
90

Rabin finds the film stylish yet genuinely moving, praising its substance beneath the polished images. He singles out Colin Firth’s affecting lead performance and the tenderness of the central relationship.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
13 September 2009 · festival review · The Associated Press
85*

The review finds Tom Ford’s directing debut surprisingly successful and sensitive, with mainstream appeal. It especially praises Colin Firth’s restrained, moving performance and the film’s intelligent dialogue.

Read the full review →
Empire
27 January 2010 · ★★★★ · Ian Freer
80

Freer praises the film as emotionally alive, thoughtful filmmaking, despite occasional overuse of colour. He singles out Colin Firth’s restrained, deeply affecting performance as the film’s anchor.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
11 December 2009 · Betsy Sharkey
80*

Sharkey praises the film as a warm, visually striking character study, with Colin Firth’s performance giving it emotional depth. She singles out Firth’s careful portrayal of George, while noting that the film’s polished perfection sometimes threatens to become a flaw.

Read the full review →
Time Out
9 February 2010 · ★★★★ · Dave Calhoun
80

The page identifies this as a film review, but the review text is unavailable. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be established from the accessible material.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
9 December 2009 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

Ebert gives the film a positive assessment, praising its visual style and Colin Firth’s performance. He highlights the careful rendering of the protagonist’s grief and isolation.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
7 December 2009 · festival review · Eric Kohn
70*

Kohn finds the film’s visual style deepened by witty writing and strong performances, especially Colin Firth’s. He notes that some visual flourishes feel overbearing and the film’s artiness may put viewers off.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
70*

The review finds the film’s plot too slight and its presentation overly dreamy, but ultimately praises it. It singles out Colin Firth’s portrayal of grief and Julianne Moore’s performance in a memorable evening together.

Read the full review →
Variety
11 September 2009 · festival review · Leslie Felperin
70*

Felperin finds the film luminous and treasurable despite imperfections. She praises the emotional nuance of Colin Firth and Julianne Moore, while noting that the immaculate period design can feel overly polished.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
11 February 2010 · Peter Bradshaw
65*

Bradshaw finds the film a poignant, compassionate portrait, though its style can feel self-indulgent. He especially praises Colin Firth’s nuanced performance and singles out a surreal encounter with a neighbour’s child as a memorable directorial touch.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
13 September 2009 · festival review · Lee Marshall
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its verdict is hidden behind a paywall. The visible text does not reveal what the critic praised or criticized.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
64*

The page contents are unavailable, so the critic’s verdict cannot be confirmed. Its specific praise or criticism likewise cannot be established from the displayed text.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
7 July 2010 · ★★½ · Andrew Schenker
50

The critic finds the film’s emotional core worthwhile but faults Tom Ford’s intrusive, overworked visual style. Colin Firth’s expressive performance is singled out for praise, while the DVD commentary is mocked as self-absorbed.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
10 April 2012
20*

The critic finds the film overly polished and emotionally unconvincing, with its visual gloss overwhelming its human drama. Colin Firth’s earthy performance and a scene between George and Charley briefly provide the feeling the rest of the film lacks.

Read the full review →
HeyUGuys
8 February 2010 · Jon Lyus
90*

The critic calls the film sublime and praises Tom Ford’s direction and Colin Firth’s performance. Firth’s restrained portrayal of George’s grief is singled out as especially powerful.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
16 October 2009 · Jeff Robson
80*

Robson finds the film accomplished, moving and full of heart, despite a few quibbles about tone and focus. He especially praises Colin Firth’s subtle, deeply affecting performance.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
29 January 2010 · Stella Papamichael
70*

The review is positive overall, though it finds some character relationships unconvincing. It singles out Colin Firth’s quietly powerful performance as the film’s anchor.

Read the full review →
Collider
26 July 2010 · Andre Dellamorte
50*

The critic finds the film appealing but ultimately uneven, with its ending feeling pat. He praises Colin Firth’s performance while criticizing the conspicuous color shifts.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate