Closer (2004) - Movie Review
NA
Law is Dan, a struggling writer who one day meets Alice (Portman), an ex-stripper looking for a new start in London. A relationship ensues, but Dan soon becomes intrigued by photographer Anna (Roberts). Anna, meanwhile, meets dermatologist Larry (Owen) and they get married, but the lust between Dan and Anna turns to something more. Within a matter of moments, two seemingly happy relationships have been turned upside down, and that is only the beginning of what these people will do to fulfill their own happiness, whether it be simple betrayal or sexual revenge.
If you're uncomfortable with the thought of Julia Roberts saying stuff like "His cum was like yours, only sweeter," than this movie probably isn't for you. "Closer" examines what really makes relationships work - or, to be more exact, what makes them not work. The result is almost a constant barrage of gritty sexual dialogue. None of the characters are especially moral, but then again, this is definitely not a film about morality. In many ways, it purposely takes morality out to see why relationships fall apart and why people get back together even if their significant other cheats on them or hurts them.
Furthermore, what's interesting about the film is that people will probably come out of the movie liking certain characters better than others. I felt for Portman's character the most and Roberts' character the least; one was the victim, the other the perpetrator. Surprisingly, I felt for both the men, even though both do some pretty bad things. Surely, some people will relate with Roberts' character the way I didn't.
In the end, some will like it and others will not. Technically, the movie is very character driven; the scenes are long and dialogue-heavy; director Mike Nichols ("The Graduate") has long stretches where there is no music playing. He uses occasional flashbacks near the end that aren't as effective as they could have been, mainly because he doesn't use them earlier in the movie. More than anything else, much of the action is never seen; Nichols relies on Patrick Marber's script to indicate that a year has passed since the last scene. Despite the gritty dialogue, there is no sex on screen.
"Closer" falls a little short from being an Oscar contender. It is good, maybe even pretty good, but not great. The acting is terrific, but not especially powerful; if anyone, Owen, who played Law's character in the original stage production, is the best. The screenplay could have a chance, but the harsh and sexual dialogue might be a turnoff to some voters.
"Closer" comes close, but never completely hits it out of the ball park.
Comments
No HTML. Be kind - your mom might read what you say.
Home |
Movies |
Movie Reviews |
Blog |
Media |
DVD |
Contests |
Links |
About Us |
Contact Us  Movie reviews © 2003-2009 Erik Samdahl. All other content © of its respected owner. Read our Privacy Policy |
Anonymous says:
May 10, 2005To call Closer a dark film is to pay it much too high a compliment. The film flatters itself that it is grown-up, adult, sophisticated, that we are somehow led to believe that if we buy into the film's premise (whatever that is) and its jaded, pointless characters that we somehow can pass for a sophisticated audience. Such self-flattery leads to another s-word, self-indulgent, but that too pays the film much too high a compliment, so I continue my search. "Sucks" or "stinks" come close, but do not quite define the film's essence. Eureka! The film is a piece of shit! A word so common, so ordinary yet one that so perfectly captures the overall feeling of a film that makes pretensions to being sophisticated, and attempts to mislead the audience into believing that if you are sufficiently cynical, nasty, self-absorbed, worldly, fucked-up adult only then can you claim to be the member of an elite audience of sophisticates privvy to the high art of this film. But the rest of us bumpkins, philistines, hayseeds, and provincials are not so easily fooled. We have seen enough cow turds and plugged toilets that we know a piece of shit when we see one.
One word about the acting: if you have liked the work of Julia Roberts, Natalie Portman, Jude Law, and Clive Owen in the past, you will not be disappointed here, for they turn in some strong performances, especially Ms. Portman. The funny thing about that is that the acting is so good that it made me hate the film even more, because the alleged "adult" characters in this "adult" love story then become even more convincing, that is to say, more hateful, vile, nasty, crude, and vulgar. The acting is so convincing that you are left absolutely convinced that the only way the film could be redeemed is if they all kill each other in the end and put the rest of the world out of its misery. But they do not kill each other (sorry, I gave away the ending!), leaving you, the viewer, wanting to kill them yourself. Actually, in a scene near the end one character (Clive Owen) does threaten to kill the other (Jude Law) if he ever again even comes near his so-called wife (Julia Roberts), which is laughable because by that time they have already had so many affairs with each other in what amounts to a kind of game of sexual musical chairs that you are left begging the question: why would it even matter if, one more time, the Jude Law character had another affair with the Julia Roberts character and the Clive Owen character returned the favor? By this point, I was past caring. Finally, the other bad effect of the film added to the already bad effects of wasting two hours watching it and being left with a horrible aftertaste is that I have lost a good deal of respect for Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Clive Owen, and Natalie Portman and question their professional judgment for agreeing to appear in such a film. That's especially a shame in the case of Ms. Portman, who won me over with a bravura performance in Garden State. Now she will need to win me over again--and I do not anticipate that will occur in the soon-to-released Star Wars movie. The only other good part about the film is that it actually spared us from viewing any sex scenes, which, unfortunately, are replaced by very crude, graphic language in the dialogue describing the sexual liaisons between the characters, but at least we did not have to watch them as well, thus sparing me from the necessity of spending half the film puking from watching bad sex.
The script writer, to put it as nicely and delicately as I possibly can, should find another line of work.
Rating: 0 stars out of 4.