1000% correct on every word and syllable!!

Thank God--I was starting to think that I was the only one who hated this movie. I honestly don't understand the good reviews.

It is impossible to be 1000% correct, one can only be 100% correct.

Oh and as negative as the movie was about love, I enjoyed it. Your's is possibly the first negative review I've read. Thanks for the perspective.

I agree, in general, but I disagree with your assessment of Owen and Portman, I thought they were infinitely better than Roberts and Law, who seemed deeply out of sync with their characters.

I so completely wanted to like Natalie Portman in this movie (adolscent crushes being what they are), but I just couldn't do it. As for Owen, though, I've seen a lot of reviews that thought he was the standout in the film.

I might have agreed that he was better than the rest, but there were two scenes that really put me off. The scene in the strip club and the scene where he returns from New York both struck me as so irritating that I immediately started to hate his character.

you can be 1000% correct because you can bat 1000 - ergo sum

oh yeah, Dawn's right about Law and Roberts sucking way harder than Portman and Owen - see her review here

Ah but batting 1000 is actually 1.000, where as batting 400 is .400. Last I checked, 1.000 means 100% despite the first term.

Oh and I aggree with Dawn's assessment in the acting department, but disagreed with Owen's character being nothing more than a slime ball. Sure he was a slime ball, but he was more than just that, as he was the only truthful one. He was insightful and I believe his confession about the hooker was just to try to goad Roberts into admitting her affair. As for everyone else, all they did was lie on a constant basis, and as Owen's character said it, "without the truth, we'd all just be savages."

Unlikeable characters, unrealistic dialogue, and manipulative?

I liked Clive Owen's character. Not only did I empathise with him, but I thought he was a direct, honest person. No euphemisms with Larry! The two women I was neutral toward. The only character I despised was the slimeball played by Jude Law. But I think films can work with unlikeable, detestable characters if they're constructed in a way that takes that into account. Think of Monster, Taxi Driver (Is Bickle a hero or villain?) or even Citizen Kane.

As for the dialogue, I completely agree with you. It's stilted, stylized and the best element of the film. Unlike you, I thought it was witty and delightfully hostile. But I don't think good dialogue needs to be at all "realistic". I enjoy a good David Mamet film. Besides, no film dialogue is "realistic". Screenwriters need to distill conversations and focus the thoughts of their characters in ways that real people can't. If writing good dialogue was as easy as listening to a random conversation and writing it down, then everyone would be a screenwriter (maybe they are?). A film with "realstic" dialogue would be a long, drawn out, boring mess. Real people speak with all sorts of pauses, mess ups, slips, slurs, slang, mistakes, and usually have nothing to say. Characters speak in sentences that it takes writers months to create and refine.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by emotional outbursts that are carefully manipulated, to be honest [in a Larry kind of way]. All I can say is that I defintely didn't become as emotionally involved in Closer as I have with many other films. I simply enjoyed observing these characters and the way in which they toyed with love, emotions and the truth in an effort to gain power. The film let me examine them through a magnifying lens; closer.

One of your final points, that the film lacks moral depth, I disagree with wholeheartedly. Sure, it may lack happiness (which doesn't make it a poor film), but moral depth? I think that the depiction of the power struggle at the centre of the film is full of moral issues. And, more importantly, films don't have morals; they have themes.

Wow. That was a rant.

So, "Thank you. Thank you for your honesty. Now fuck off and die, you fucked up slag."

Not such a bad line, I think. I like it. I think it's pretty good, even. But, if you'll excuse me, "I love you, and I need a piss."

(It's also possible that I just like Closer and its characters because I'm one of the people the film portrays.)

;oP



Not a bad line, I think.

I didn't hate the process of watching the movie, but by the end of it I wondered what the point was, why someone would write something so aimless and dispiriting, and why such fine actors would think it swell to participate in such an unamusing, unedifying mess. Ick and fucking double-ick

My wife insists on watching this movie because Jude Law is in it. I'll watch it because Natalie Portman is in it. I am beginning to suspect we will both be disappointed, however, though for different reasons.

Who knows? Maybe you'll feel something closer to what Quack thought (and, yes, once I've caught up with my morning, I'll try to answer that lengthy comment).

Natalie Portman is beautiful and, potentially, a fine actress. I still didn't enjoy her in the role--and neither did my girlfriend. Although, her view might have been somewhat obscured by my early comment: "hey, she's got an awfully nice butt."

What can you do?

She has an exceptional butt, and is so incredibly beautiful (though Eric and I differ on this) - but Jude Law mmm, I will take him in Cold Mountain anyday, such a much better performance.

I think she's quite cute, but not much beyond that, and the pixieish body is nothing to write home about

Eric

Natalie is incredible in The Professionial. Also very good was Beautiful Girls (at least she was) and also Garden State which I really enjoyed.

Richard, you forgot Natalie's small role in Cold Mountain also. That was the only redeemable scene in that whole movie. Other than that, it was boring and long-winded.

Oh and I agree about Quack's assessment on Owen's character. I didn't like Julia or Jude's character though, probably because I thought their acting was a bit stilted. I remain neutral on Natalie's character though, mostly because I still don't understand the motivation behind everything she did in the movie.

I have never seen it, but I will catch it. Thanks!

The movie is empty of moral depth or happiness, preferring to be cynical and knowing and utterly unpleasant. It is populated by an incestuous, manipulative group of selfish children, untouched by anything outside of their insular little foursome. Dumb, reprehensible, shallow, poorly done, and miserable.

Sometimes I am dumbfounded by the opinions and level of maturity in here. The entire point of Closer is that the characters ARE empty of moral depth and happiness. They have been blugeoned by the modern world, incapable of truly feeling love for anyone except themselves - thus, they are incapable of traditional relationships. It is all about the NOW. These people are indeed shallow AND reprehensible. It is about that initial burst of love, and continually trying to recreate that feeling. These people are selfish products of a jaded civilization.

As for the film being poorly done, I would say name a film well done - and if you say Sahara I'm kicking your boring ass. I thought the pacing intelligent, the direction creative, the style bittersweet and the performances challenging. I sat on the edge of my seat for most of this film, enthralled and fascinated. It was my life, my circumstances upon the screen. Then again, I am an adult (and have been for a while), single, live in a metropolitan area, and frequent many of the same establishments shown in the film (I am not much one for topless/stripper dives....though understood the allegory of that scene).

Films are NOT always supposed to be about likeable people with sunny lives. Films don't need happy endings or pretty bows. They do need to have dramatic relevance - and when it comes to modern-day relationships, Closer is about as close to a home run as I have seen in a while.

My girlfriend and I left the theatre and discussed this film for over two hours over wine at a nearby pub. We found it fascinating, and applauded the bravery of all participants.

It has taken me a while to recover from the shock of seeing Eric's dismissive comment about Natalie Portman. You think you know a guy, you talk to him nearly-daily forever, and then this.

Eric, it's over. I just can't work with anyone who doesn't recognize Natalie Portman as a gift from the gods, sent to torment men and drive women mad with jealousy.

As a precocious child in Leon/The Professional and Beautiful Girls, she stole my heart. I've even forgiven her for the Star Wars prequels, because she also made Garden State.

I would sacrifice my children on an altar for dinner with Natalie Portman.*

Listen to your wife, man, before it's too late and you drift completely into insanity. Next you'll be telling me that Scarlett Johansson or Rachel McAdams (as portrayed in The Notebook aren't ravishing, either!

* Kids, I'm kidding.

I will smack him for you Phillip, as I have argued this Eric to the point of futility.

He just doesn't get Natalie's exquisite features, pouty lips, and her naturalness. I'd say she possesses a real Eastern European flair, almost gypsy like.

While Eric tends to like the obvious features of beauty (all blonde, thin, blue-eyed and tanned) he will occasionally accept those who don't fit into that norm like Scarlett Johansson, Catherine Zeta Jones, Nadia Turner - he barely contains himself when she's on screen.

It's his Norwegian heritage. Even now, after being married almost 7 years, he hasn't come to terms with my not fitting into that category - so don't be to hard on him - he's hopeless.

gotta agree with mr. olsen here.

she's sort of pretty, but...uhm.....sexless.

i feel the same way about julia roberts.

She is very pretty, but a little too girlish for my taste. Even Scarlett, who is younger than Natalie, has much more womanliness about her

Better one smoky brunette than a thousand blue-eyed blondes, I say.

bite your tongue apostate

Firstly, for Dawn and Phillip, do you know how much I love that woman? Do you know how hard it was for me to say that her performance underwhelmed? Truly painful.

As for DBCooper, I have to admit that sometimes I'm dumbfounded by the self-congratulatory pose some film goers take on when they think a movie is "brave" in showing the worst of humanity. That level of bravery is no guarantor of good results.

Oddly, you note that I was right: the characters "ARE empty of moral depth and happiness," that they are selfish, shallow, and reprehensible, but you act as if that was automatically a good thing. And you do this after questioning my maturity and judgment.

Okay, so explain this to me, you're "dumbfounded" by my "opinions and level of maturity," but you go on to note that I actually did capture the essence of the film's characters. Your issue isn't with my maturity, it's with the fact that I don't agree with you and don't want to pat the filmmakers on the back for being so brave.

They haven't been "bludgeoned by the modern world"--that's just a lazy excuse for bad behavior. Aside from which, we're never given enough of their characters outside of the relationships to know exactly who they are--that's another part of what I meant by "shallow."

And thank you for threatening to kick my ass. Speaking of people with maturity issues--let's just say that in one sentence you helped define the way I decided to respond to your comment.

Well done films? How about well done films about reprehensible behavior? House of Sand and Fog comes to mind (with the exception of Ron Eldard (?)) and Leaving Las Vegas at the oppressive end of the scale. How about Rushmore and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind at the lighter end? But I'm "brave" enough to admit that I enjoy movies for the sake of entertainment at times, too. I haven't seen Sahara yet, but I'm not opposed to the idea of liking it; hell, I liked Raiders of the Lost Ark, so the style of the movie won't be enough to stop me from enjoying it.

I thought the pacing was slow and disjointed, and not helped at all by the jumps in time that Dawn noted in her review. I sat back in my seat wishing that the script was better, that the acting wasn't so off key, and that I had rented something else. I found that it was the worst parts of my life, without any of the redeeming bits, played incredibly boringly on the screen.

Are you taking my screen name perhaps a bit too literally? I am an adult, and have been for some time. In fact I'm a 35 year old man who was married for five years, have been divorced six, and am the father of one child that I don't get to see anymore. I've lived in small town and big cities, having been born in DC and lived throughout a good portion of the US and in Zimbabwe. After being kicked out of the Army, I bartended for five years--where I was lucky enough to see my share of bitter, lazy, self-indulgent people like those on screen. And even the worst of my regular customers had some redeeming values unlike the nasty little foursome in Closer.

Does that establish my age and place well enough for you?

No, films are NOT always supposed to be about likable people with sunny lives. I would have thought that my praise of The Royal Tenenbaums would have established that we agree on that count. And I heartily disagree: most relationships aren't that self-destructive and aren't that cruel, and most people aren't that shallow, whether the ending is happy and has pretty bows or not.

I have not obligation to like a movie just because the director put some ugly behavior on display, although that isn't an automatic disqualifier, either. The problem with this movie wasn't the subject matter, it was that the subject matter wasn't treated as well as it should have, the script was poor, and the acting was uneven.

My girlfriend and I talked about the movie for only half an hour and felt no need to congratulate ourselves for recognizing the "bravery" of the filmmakers. What's brave about it? Actors love the chance to take on heavy roles like this where they can be praised for their seriousness. Directors and writers love to be seen as true artists with something dark and subversive to say. That's why the world gets House of Sand and Fog and Leaving Las Vegas.

So, fine. You enjoyed it and I didn't. I was much happier watching the documentary, The Lost Boys of Sudan this last weekend. The relationships and the people were real, interesting, and illuminating.

Now, back to the natural wonder that is Natalie...

Okay, this is about to get so radically off-topic that I really feel I should ask for permission from Zombyboy. Then again, he did seem to imply permission in his last comment, so....

Eric, blondes? Really? Blonde hair? I'm feeling queasy. I know I'm supposed to call you in a few minutes, but I don't know if I can now.

I mean, Dawn is sounding hotter and hotter as she lists Natalie's amazing qualities, which is already something I need to put out of my mind, but that you don't find Natalie overwhelming sexy is just mind-boggling.

I only accepted my wife becoming a vegetarian because Nat is a vegan. She makes wish I was Jewish (as she is), and younger, and thinner, and heck, looked like Jake Gyllenhaal.

I normally fixate on red-haired actresses, but Nat is exceptional.

And blondes? Not for me!

Crazy man, it has nothing to do with hair color (except for redheads, of course). It's all about the shape of the face, the allure of the eyes, and, well, a few other things, too, but I'll try to not run too far off the path.

Blondes, brunettes, redheads, Sinead in her no hair phase--yep, I could be happy with any and all of the above.

I am genetically inclined toward blond-haired blue-eyed lean and curvy, but I am not limited by genetics

Eric

How about Anna Kounrikova?

Sorry about the spelling, Anna Kournikova...aw, hell...Anna K

zombyboy, well, as a man, of course my "limits" are far wider than my expressed preference, but for me I'm afraid it really is mostly about the hair.

Zboy,

Nice Comment #25 and some fine points. I disagree with much of what you said, but I will say the comment was quite a bit more interesting than your post and many of the creepy comments that followed.

Having now seen this movie, I liked it quite a bit. Not for everyone, sure. Some of the actors did better jobs than others, too. But I thought Clive Owen and Natalie Portman came out the best, while Julia Roberts did the worst of all.

I was a little worried by the opening, as Natalie Portman was just odd, but after that first scene with her introduction to Jude Law, she settled down.

I gave it a B+, and my wife gave it a B-. That's pretty good on the scale we rate movies. :-)