I admit I'm not very good at describing how the film looked... In a word, it looks amazing--I do think in some instances TOO amazing (Charlie/Moore's house is like *wow*--in the novel it's meant to be unique, but hardly what the film shows). I saw Ford interviewed on Charlie Rose and he admitted that some details, like when we see George get dressed each one of his shirts is individually folded and "done up" in his drawer, come from his own life, which I suppose makes sense. What I found most striking was the change in style for the flashback and fantasy sequences, which I felt were perfect. I'm more mixed on the constant use of eyes as a metaphor--it felt obvious to me, yet there are a couple of cases where it's very effective. But yeah every single aspect of the look of the film, looks perfect and striking (maybe almost too much? I know the negative reviews I've read feel that it's all style over substance, but I think a case coul dbe made for the style being the substance and, again, a way of telling in visual terms what was done as interior dialogue in the novel)

I love that! I have to see this movie then. And not because of the story (read the novel, I do not dislike it, but I'm not crazy about it). Funny you should mention the folded shirts — Tom Ford's perfectionism goes so far as to write a movie script (which you can read here (PDF)) in a program which is used for typesetting magazines, books... He had to change the look, although all within the limits of the standard script look. I found it hilarious and phenomenal.

Many commented and complained about too much polish, e.g. LA Times: At times like this, the film can feel like one of those gorgeous fashion spreads filled with impossible cheekbones, chiseled bodies and moody glances.

The danger, of course, is that perfection will become the flaw, and "A Single Man" drifts perilously close. There are no unattractive people here, at least not ones that matter, and the world they live in is polished to a high sheen.

Yeah there was a good interview with Scearce about his dream to adapt the novel, and talking with Isherwood's widow (is that the right word when it's a gay relationship? widower? lol ) to get certain parts right. I found that interesting, because on apple.com's movie trailer site there's a neat 15 minute quicktime film about the movie where they give Ford full credit for script, repeatedly, which, fom all I've read didn't seem to be remotely true--so thanks forpointing out the change in credit.

From Globe and Mail? The interview? I've read that, it is a nice story. Tom and Scearce have a good relationship, it's actually quite a normal thing for a director to mess with the script.

Yep, I meant the Globe and Mail article. Right, I do know that, it just seemed in the official featurette like Tom was getting *all* the credit for the script. And yeah--those critiques are pretty much what I meant. will be interested to hear what you thought when you see it.