Un hombre diferente

Simply put, it just feels like a cheap shot when the film begins by presenting the undeniable struggles of the main character's life and has him pursue a cure for completely understandable reasons - and then effectively turns around and says "Actually, all of the problems in his life were his fault, he didn't really get better in ways which matter after that, and let us present a totally idealized version of someone with the exact same condition to prove why."

"Accept yourself for who you are and do not seek external fixes" message might come from the right place, but it is not so inspiring when his condition was effectively shown interfering with something as important as his eyesight and generally affect his quality of life even when nobody was watching.

Furthermore, this film also exhibits the same contrivance which brought down Challengers for me - the insistence that like a duckling, the lead MUST imprint onto the first remotely meaningful relationship shown in the narrative and fail to form anything offscreen even when all the conditions are there for it. It is worse here when that relationship effectively comes from a combination of pity and fetishism - as the film is at least honest enough to acknowledge.

For all of that, the first half is very strong in its depiction of the grime of main character's life, reinforced in a variety of unusual ways like the PSA he is part of. Even the second half has enough neat moments - whether in digging down to the details of stage productions or other smaller twists and turns - to avoid ever feeling like a total loss.

I suppose one reason I'm so disappointed is because this could have been a remarkable narrative of a climber who benefited from the system (in this case, the research breakthrough turning him into "A Different Man") only to pull up the ladder behind him for entirely selfish reasons. Instead, the film pretends the climb was never worth it in the first place and stalls around various meta layers instead of developing the point.

"Edward" (Sebastian Stan) is a facially disfigured man, stuck in a rundown apartment, whose life isn't really going anywhere fast. Then he gets a new neighbour. "Ingrid" (Renato Reinsve) is a writer who befriends him and promises him a part in her play. Meantime, his doctors manage to get him on a radical course of treatment that gradually returns his face to a more normal visage. Returning to his flat, and with some fairly grotesque things emerging from his leaky ceiling, he realises that nobody recognises him anymore so he has to assume a different identity. That's when he discovers that "Ingrid" is, indeed, putting on a play - and that the old "Edward" is the title and the topic. He wants the part. It's his part. How to get it though without giving the game away? Add to his frustrations the arrival of "Oswald" (Adam Pearson) who is an ostensibly decent character but who also wants the role, and he has the aesthetics as opposed to the prosthetics. "Ingrid" has tough choices to make but where might this leave "Edward"? There's something quite circular about the way this story pans out. A sort of be careful what you wish for type scenario that gives and removes hope from "Edward" and almost creates a villain of the piece too! Is that merited or is that justified? The drama shines a light on the more shallow attitudes amidst society, on our intolerances and assumptions but it also swipes at the fickleness of friendships, fame and success - all rather engagingly delivered by both Stan and Pearson. It's the former man who positively exudes exasperation as the denouement (only vaguely) skirts the Chaplinesque. It's on that note that it's worth saying this is quite funny at times, too - the writing doesn't try to impose any morals on us, rather it presents us with some scenarios and lets us enjoy and evaluate as we go. It doesn't hang about, and right from the start we hit the ground running as the characters develop, the personalities emerge - for good or bad, and it's well worth a couple of hours in a cinema. I got more from it second time round as I was able to focus a little more on the nuance than the imagery.

What I assume will be a breakout film for Aaron Schimberg, "A Different Man" explores a particular set of emotions that are attached to self-confidence while portraying the short-sided effects of instant gratification. The story provides reason to escape our imperfections until we notice someone living confidently with them. Sebastian Stan is remarkable and transformative in the role of Edward; both physically in the way that he adapts himself to the environment of constant stares and apathetic connection, and also internally with the gradual evolution of his mental complexities. Visually, the film has a 70s noir texture which is complementary to the indie aesthetic of New York City, and with flavors of drama and psychological horror, every sequence is a step in the dark and even more so with the thunderous, and at times, frightening sound design. This is such a unique project that will continue unraveling its mysteries as more people get the chance to see it.

I enjoyed A Different Man, but it fell a little bit short of my expectations because there was so much hype surrounding it. It was good, a very A24 type movie, but not the kind of movie I'll be revisiting very often.

Sebastian Stan is great, but I never admire an actor who has the task of playing a bad actor. He manages to pull it off well, while also doing some solid acting aside from that. Renate Reinsve also had the unfortunate task of playing an unlikeable character, which just seems to be her resume, but again she did well. It's hard to actually rate Adam Pearson as he is such a unique actor and the role was a little bit overbearing, but I certainly enjoyed his performance.

The story felt a little like Adaptation. (2002) at times and even a bit like The Shout (1978). I'm not quite sure how I feel about it on the whole yet, as the ending was somewhat interoperative. It's a movie that will take some digestion so my rating may change later.

I went to see this film without any expectations of what it was going to be like - I don't look at reviews in advance of seeing a film.

Whilst I think this film was well meaning, and had a message, what really confused me was what it was trying to say. The film set off on one story arc, veered to another and then seemed to bounce across several. There were also, what felt like, added scenes at the end - it felt too long.

The acting, direction and writing seemed ok, but as I was trying to figure out want the film was trying to "tell" me, they were rather lost against the plot confusion.

It maybe that I'm too un-empathetic to have got the message but, I suspect, the film is rather confused. Others may well get more out of it than I did, so I don't want to condemn it, but it felt a bit of a waste of time to me.