Closer (I) (2004) User Reviews

Flawed and cold, but sharp and haunting.

[OverAnalysisBoy · 8/10 · 30 January 2005]

I've seen Closer described as a cinematic triumph, but it's precisely not. The film wears its theatrical origins on its sleeve, and the presence of the camera is mostly irrelevant.

It also fails in a more subtle way. Initially, I watched four apparently amoral people, devoid of depth or shame, being clever at each other in increasingly hurtful and exploitative ways, and my mind rebelled. This can't be right, I thought, people don't talk like this. Hell, people don't *act* like this.

Then the light dawned. The characters seemed inhuman because they are. They aren't people at all, they're philosophical positions. When they talk, they're not talking. They're saying the things that people only dare think, asking the questions that haunt anyone whose relationship has gone horrifically pear-shaped. This isn't the story of four people and four relationships, it's an attempt to compress everything the author believes about human relationships into a film and bend it into a story. It feels artificial because it is.

With that realisation, I actually began to enjoy it, because Closer is a very clever film. I wish I could disagree with more of it, because many of the things it has to say about human relationships are painfully true. Every mistake you've ever made in a relationship is in here, and it's guaranteed to make you squirm at least once. It's also blackly funny in many places.

Without exception, the performances are fantastic, with the honours going to Natalie Portman's emotionally scarred escapist who wears lies like they were armour, and Clive Owen's brutal, perceptive, and ultimately absolutely human dirty doctor.

Be warned! The marketing campaign may lead you to think it's a comforting rom-com, but it's not. I wouldn't advise going with your partner unless you're rock-solid. You may leave asking some uncomfortable questions, and wondering how well you really know them...

Four Great Performances

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 5 February 2014]

Dan (Jude Law), an obituary writer, falls for stripper Alice (Natalie Portman) who is new in London. Later Dan writes a book about Alice, and meets photographer Anna (Julia Roberts). Alice knows she's losing Dan. Dan tricks dermatologist Larry (Clive Owen) on an internet chat, and Larry meets Anna. Larry marries Anna but the wander eye strikes again.

Director Mike Nichols is going minimalist with Patrick Marber's play. This is a movie with four incredible performances. Clive Owen is brutal. Natalie Portman is hurt. Jude Law is childish. Julia Roberts is wonderful. They are doing some of their best work here. Don't come for a rom-com. This is emotionally vicious, damaged, pathetic human relationships.

Who's afraid of Closer?

[arichmondfwc · 8/10 · 21 December 2004]

Mike Nichols directed, in my opinion, one of the three best adaptations from stage to screen. "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf" (The other two being Sidney Lumet's "Long day's journey into night" and Elia Kazan's "A Streetcar named Desire) After the extraordinary television adaptation of "Angels in America" I also would have pleaded with Mike Nichols to do "Closer" Sorry I'm rambling. What I'm trying to say in a rather convoluted way is, simply, thank you Mr. Nichols. Adult themes, conceived and performed by adult artists. I hope it makes zillions of dollars so we can have more of it. Jude Law is a Peter O'Toole without the steroids, Julia Roberts a Jeanne Moreau with an American passport, Clive Owen is a child of John Garfield and Peter Finch and Natalie Portman a Jean Peters with a college degree. I saw the film twice in a row, I hadn't done that in years. Not since "Drugstore Cowboy", "Apartment Zero" and "Sex Lies and Videotape" The unfolding of the dark happens in front of our eyes and it feels chillingly familiar. Lies we tell each other with so much conviction with so much honesty. The only real thing is the pain and the loneliness. It doesn't sound like a very entertaining night out but believe me, it is. Go, see for yourself. You may have to confront something you didn't want to confront. That's part of the process call growing up. Who's afraid of that?

It's all about questioning surfaces

[peffs · 6 December 2004]

Closer: A

Mike Nichols delivers his best work yet. CLOSER is a well crafted dissertation on art's reflection of the human condition, particularly the dependence on romantic relationships. It delivers an intimate film that actually achieves depths rarely seen on screen. Kubrick's Eye's Wide Shut only scratched the surface of literal naked lies that represent sexual game-playing on screen. His work came off as a freshman treatise on relationships in a pervy, self-obsessed way. Nichols and screenwriter Patrick Marber deliver a full and rich study on the difficulties of love and sexual tension. Without ever showing a sex scene on screen they are able to portray the nasty nature of jealously, lust and obsession without actually exploiting these acts as Kubrick and countless others have done. The result is a pure _expression of the realization that we don't know anything when it comes to assessing truth in character.

Alice (Natalie Portman), a former stripper, is hit by a car in London as she forgets to look right. Dan (Jude Law) comes to her rescue and guides her to the hospital before guiding her into his life. Dan writes obituaries but soon finds a novel in himself thanks to Alice. While shooting the photo for his book he falls for the photographer Anna (Julie Roberts) who pulls back from him given that he's with Alice. For light-style revenge Dan sets up Larry (Clive Owen) in an Internet sex chat room to meet Anna thinking this will embarrass him and her. Cupid backfires thus throwing Larry and Anna into a relationship of their own. First impressions, like all art, can only show you broad strokes of character like stereotypes and lies. Alice is presented as a young girl in need of saving, literally. Anna is a strong, independent artist who seems smart in her career and choices. Dan is a struggling, sensitive writer in search of a muse, someone to inspire and rescue. Larry is a sex obsessed dermatologist and self-described caveman. By the end of the film, however, the audience will get a deeper and more profound view of all four characters and realize we just don't know them as well as we think.

Acknowledging that film can be art, the screenwriter is skilled with dialog that reflects the illusionary quality that is art. Every piece of conversation, every word has meaning, reflection and sometimes foreboding for what is to come and the gaps in story and exposition brilliantly leads the audience to fill in those elements with their own interpretations. It is those interpretations and broad-stroke impressions that the film is there to question. Alice, in the scene at Anna's photo exhibit, discusses this very concept to Larry when discussing her reaction to the photos and the show. The function is just a big lie, the glossy photos of people's faces don't' show the real person, the fancy people at the party only reflect that same quality. Everything is for surface show - one-dimensional illusions of character. Alice, Anna, Dan and Larry are those photos just in moving form but that makes all the difference. The movement and editing of the film allows us to jump through months and years of their relationships to unpeel parts of the illusion of character and stereotypes. We can explore wrong assumptions about characters and that should make us explore the real-world difficulties of knowing people, really knowing them and not just their image or attitude. Many will just see this film as a sad story of four wounded people making bad relationship choices. This is really sad because this film is truly a great wake-up call to humanity to embrace a new approach and attitude about art and people. Strength can be a weakness. Vulnerability can be empowering. Dependence can be comforting. Nothing can be valued or viewed without bias and prejudice. Great art, like this film, can sometimes achieve a new way to show us how wrong we can be when we let our bias prevent us from just experiencing life and being open to shifts in perception. So take a closer look, at this film and the life around you. You just might find happiness in walking away from the expected.

He who laughs last

[glgioia · 6/10 · 6 July 2005]

The chronicle of an overlapping pair of relationships done up in raw 21st century life-is-pointlessism.

Loved it until the final scenes, when it all stopped being in any sense of the word believable, and even resorted to done before cheap gimmickry? The rest however is rather good, and the acting by all four principle characters is to a person, first rate. Another problem I have is, I don't associate Natalie Portman with the 'rare uncultivated beauty' we're supposed to believe she is, quite the opposite actually. While I realize that is purely a matter of taste, I am sure I am not alone in believing her part was terribly miscast. The dialog is provocative, and definitely cuts to the quick on a lot of issues, but more importantly keeps you watching. But I wouldn't go overboard with the praise heaping on this film, because in the end its main tool is shock through brutality, crassness and vulgar lower the bar even more pillow talk. It is startlingly intelligent and even fresh, yet I don't care how its dressed up, or who the director is, the film is not dark as everybody labels it, but base. I don't know of any enduring literature or art that is patently vulgar, think about it.

Rabidly Romantically Unromantic Story about Love and Other Human Frailties

[Her-Excellency · 10/10 · 23 March 2020]

Because Closer is, in a way, like sneaking a peek behind the closed doors of people we know, or more so, like looking in a mirror when we are at our most base and humanly human, some people seem to be viscerally turned off by it, as is apparent by a few of its more negative reviews.

To me, the very fact that it opens the door to such "voyeurism", if you will, is part of its deep emotional appeal.

Who among us can say we have never been tempted to be lured away from what we believe is love, by what we momentarily believe to be love? In closer, however these moments go beyond temptation, into lies, deceit, infidelity, misery, painful truths, abandonment, tears and suffering. "Love", in Closer, is shown to be against everything we've been taught to believe it should be, such as: honest/truthful, enduring, constant ... and faithful.

In short, it is a rabidly anti-romantic film, where, unbelievably, somewhere within each of these broken, self-serving, selfish, emotionally-underdeveloped people, brilliantly played by Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Clive Ovens and Natalie Portman, we find beauty, and in the end, a deep satisfaction upon seeing that love of self can lead to release and rebirth.

It had been a while since I watched this, and I am happy to say that I loved it this time around as much as the first time I laid eyes on it. And isn't that the mark of real love? That it endures?

Closer, is one of my favorite films.

9.5

The three years of my divorce wrapped into two hours

[The Davii · 7/10 · 3 December 2004]

While I thought the characters were interesting, I found it very difficult to watch, as my own marriage disintegrated in a fashion too familiar to these characters. The lies, the half-truths, the inability to distinguish truth from lie after being told so many lies. I could completely relate to the characters in this movie.

Though I could laugh with it, it was nevertheless painful to watch. I couldn't recommend this movie to anyone except my ex-. Even then, I have trouble believing she's understand any part of it.

This particular film was more like a documentary shot without the shaky hand-held camera. But, like the still photographs the movie mocks as being false, Closer allows only glimpses of the truth behind the myriad lies.

I want to be entertained at a movie and I cannot think of a single person to whom I'd recommend this movie. It was very well acted, scripted, and executed on all parts. But it was more painful than pleasant or enlightening.

Very good

[ShannonAmidala · 10/10 · 5 December 2004]

I've been hearing lots of negativity about this movie. I think a lot of people have been shocked, frankly, by the raw and rough nature of the film. Having read the play, I've been looking forward to it for about a year now, and it's honestly one of the best plays I've ever read. Mike Nichols presents it in an amazing way, very faithful to the words as they're written (and they should be, for the movie is also written by the man who wrote the play, the brilliant Patrick Marber).

It's a brutal topic, sex and love, especially when they're combined. I thought the movie was amazing. It captured all of the vulnerability, caustic harshness, and acerbic flirtation that the play vibrated with. All of the cast brought the movie alive. It uplifts and then brings you way down, but that's the point, and yet at the end, I didn't feel depressed or saddened, just really really awake and curious. It's the feeling you get when you get "closer", I suppose.

Natalie Portman, in a tour-de-force performance, is the standout by far. Maybe it's because she's the youngest, and not expected to be that awesome, but she is. Anyways, her Alice is flirty and sweet, caustic and manipulative, evasive and yet very open, sexual and gloomy all in one character. She has the best chemistry with the men - whether it be purely sensual with Clive Owen, or innocence and affection with Jude Law. She comes alive with the two guys, and their scenes are ones to look forward to.

Julia Roberts, whom everyone looks towards, is not bad in this film. She's very understated and good, but she is outshone in nearly every scene by whomever she's acting with.

Clive Owen is absolutely astounding, and he's definitely on everyone's radar screen. As the man of experience and "simplicity", as Jude Law's character comments, he's brash and hotheaded, but also extremely clever. Owen perfectly plays the sleazy, unlikeable character, but somehow manages to appeal to the audience and even though he's a disagreeable character, I think many managed to find something all right about him - Owen's human sense in Larry.

Jude Law is simply very very good; neither astounding nor bad. The only reason he does not stand out is the fact that we've all expected him to do a good performance. And he does, he has a great performance. He and Portman have amazing scenes together, and he's always on par.

Simply put, the movie is not for everyone (especially not for seeing with a parent or young child); it's a mature adult flick, and does not back down from anything. It's high drama - with all the uplifting romance and brutal arguments of relationships. It's a story about people.

Good acting, good script, but poor pacing and sluggish direction spoil it

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 23 October 2009]

I like some romantic comedies like the Holiday and Love Actually, but I was disappointed in Closer. It wasn't terrible, but it was very disappointing. It does benefit from a very good acting ensemble. Julia Roberts, Natalie Portman, Jude Law and Clive Owen all give very creditable performances, Owen the standout of the four. They are helped by an above average script, that is surprisingly intelligent. The cinematography is beautiful, fluid and sensitive.

However, there were a number of things that made Closer disappointing for me. The biggest problem was the pace; the film is at approximation just under two hours, however the film takes a long time to get going, and the pace is very uneven, sadly it never recovers. The direction from Mike Nicolls is very sluggish, and lacked credibility. I will admit I liked the premise of Closer, but when I got round to seeing the film, its structure is disappointingly episodic and even underdeveloped. My next complaint is more of a semi-complaint. I really liked the overall music, but I disliked the song at the beginning. I think that was mainly to do with the singing voice of the vocalist, I found it very flat for my musical ears.

All in all, Closer isn't a bad movie. Unfortunately, despite the fine acting ensemble, there were a number of things that didn't work for me. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I Stayed To The End

[marcosaguado · 8/10 · 15 December 2004]

What a treat. Most of the people who came with me, left, half way through the film. I stayed to the end and I loved it. It moved me. A rarity this days. The face of Jude Law is, still, so full of possibilities. He seems unafraid of darkness. Strong. This is his most grown up performance. I can't wait to see what he'll become. (If he stays away from Hollywood as much as temptations permit, and keeps that purity, that makes his darkness so powerful, as intact as humanly possible). Julia Roberts is wonderful in a performance part Margaret Sullavan, part Jeanne Moreau but all her own. Clive Owen is a force of nature. Dangerous, compelling, human to the hilt. And what about Natalie Portman? Wow. No surprise here. But what a surprise. I'm sure she is going to amaze us for years and years to come. I'm really glad I stayed to the end.

Well made but misguided version of the play

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 12 December 2004]

A few years back I saw the play of Closer on stage and while I wasn't truly in love with it, it had stayed with me during all of the intervening time. There's been talk of turning it into a movie since before the Broadway run, and finally with Mike Nichols at the helm it arrives on movie screens.

How is it? A well acted, well written mess that suffers for the changing. Bouncing through time the story tells of the coupling, uncoupling, re-coupling and uncoupling of four people who try as they might not to abuse the hell out of each other.

What worked on stage doesn't here. Conversations that took place in one place over a brief period of time are opened up and seem to stretch through various locations and so seem to be artificial, or having been staged by a director who was afraid to make a talking head picture.

Natalie Portman's character seems to have been reinvented and for the most is not the disaster I had feared. I do question her constant smoking since it seems to have been put front and center as a means of making her seem older (or closer to her actual 20 something age) than the 15 years of her looks.

There are several changes to the source material, in particular at the end where the fate of one character is completely different, and the stunning ending of the play is muted.

I know I should not be comparing the play to the movie since they are ultimately different, but the only way to express why the film didn't work for me is to compare the two. I had given up any real hope that the film was going to be the play early and so took the film on its own terms and found it wanting. It just doesn't work on its own terms except fleetingly.

The performances are first rate and as a series of unconnected scenes this is dynamite, but nothing hangs together. Its as if Mike Nichols had several very fine pieces of cloth but couldn't bring them together as anything that looked like the quilt he had in mind.

See it or don't, I don't know what else to say since its such an almost film it may click with you or it may grate on you, the choice is yours.

Closer to reality...

[pic23ent · 10/10 · 8 December 2004]

This is the most honest film I've ever seen. Although I'm sure there are critics out there who will comment on the explicit language rather than the story, anyone who's ever been in a dysfunctional relationship can relate to at least some part of this film. I for one found it a very personal and shockingly accurate depiction of how human beings use love and sex to unintentionally destroy each other. The performances were magnificent from all angles. Mike Nichols has done it again. This film is "Carnal Knowledge" for the new millennium. If the Academy does not recognize "Closer" as a Best Picture candidate, then the Academy should no longer be recognized as the authority on achievement in film... yes, it's that good.

Flawed but ultimately worthwhile

[revival05 · 7/10 · 13 February 2005]

People aren't having fun. The world isn't nice and reality is cruel. The deep core of relationships consists in the end of pure self-humiliation. The human heart looks like "a fist covered in blood" and we should "try lying for a change, it's the currency of the world". This is "Closer". Four people that go around in circles through each other, exploring the art of heartbreaking. By the credits, all of them has been (and cheated) with each other. In the beginning, nobody is particularly happy. In the end, nobody is particularly happy.

This has been seen before, but seldom in Hollywood. It is very understandable that there has been a hype surrounding this film, given that it is an American film and not, specially not, European. The raw and totally unforgiving tone is daring indeed. Mike Nichols, on the other hand, has always been dancing around the thin line of what is sentimentally "under-the-top" and his very raw directing is of course a given trade of success for "Closer". The precision of the work in this film is, at moments, pure brilliant. The Production Design is always reflecting the hollow and artificial, the music is symbolic to the very last (wether The Smiths "How Soon is Now?" or Mozart's "Cosí fan tutte", translated "So do they all") and while the audience never gets to witness any real love sequences, the characters are constantly finding aways of avoiding emotions when faced with them. It is very well-made and the collaboration between the elements are giving a solid rock foundation for the film which makes it deliver it's punches.

There are problems, though. In an absurd way, while the themes are heavy, there is something very "easy" about the film. If there ever was a "feel-good"-movie playing with the audience instinctive emotions, "Closer" is quite the "feel-bad"-film, doing just the same. And while "Closer" has a realistic portrayal of the real life, the film also feels somewhat unrealistic at points. The screenplay is filled with smart and overly coherent dialog, but it doesn't give anything else. In all the wit of the dialog, the coherence vanishes. The characters, specially Julia Roberts', tend to come off blank and fuzzy, going from one point to the other constantly and without any reason. Nichols' directing makes "Closer" look the real world, but the screenplay shows us things that, without being exaggerated, still come off like something that simply doesn't happen.

Still, "Closer" is a refreshing American film. It's too shallow and unambiguously written to be any near a masterpiece, but the good craftsmanship makes it a worthwhile and recommended tragedy.

Farther

[blanche-2 · 5/10 · 4 December 2004]

I couldn't wait to see this movie. Now, I realize I should have waited to see this movie until it could be rented.

This is a very cold film about some very unpleasant people who don't seem to be able to make up their minds about much. I liked the way it was done, I loved the acting, and I loved the use of "Cosi Fan Tutte" throughout the film. Yet it left me feeling empty. I never saw the play, but I imagine it was quite powerful. As a film, it had a deadly detachment.

Certainly when one looks at a film like Virginia Woolf, also based on a play, also directed by Mike Nichols, also about some unpleasant people, one wonders why Woolf came off so well and this one didn't (for me, anyway). I think it's because Virginia Woolf is an incredible love story - at the end, when George explains that they're childless, and Martha says "We couldn't" [have a baby], one realizes what's underneath all of the unpleasantness. In "Closer," there's just no payoff. Four people change partners, hurt one another, are seemingly incapable of doing anything else, but no one tells us why. Only the Natalie Portman character shows some humanity. But some isn't enough.

Mike Nichols is a fabulous director, but the direction wasn't the problem here. It's the characterizations. I can't agree with some of the other posters that the film was fascinating. I didn't find it so. The theater was packed because of good reviews. I suppose the critics are hungry for something intelligent, and obviously the ticket-buying audience is, and who can blame them? But don't tell me this is the best you can come up with. When everybody walks out of the theater complaining, as they did after the showing I attended, there's a problem.

4-Braided

[tedg · 15 January 2007]

I prefer when a movie is a movie. But when a movie is a very good play, we should be happy as well because there just aren't that many good things around.

This is a play, there's no mistaking. All the dynamics in it are seated in the words, all the motives in the four beings. There is no cinematic device used or necessary, except the revealing of the passport at the end, and I am sure that was handled differently in the stage version.

Mike Nichols makes a living out of taking constructions that work well on the stage and adding a few cinematic glosses so that the thing gives the impression it was born as a screen being. I find his tricks in this regard distracting, even a bit offensive because he hasn't adapted as the visual vocabulary has.

Never mind. Just eliminate the film components of its being and focus on the stage components and you still have something worthwhile, because here Nichols is still fresh.

You can read other folks to learn the story. It hardly matters. What matters to me is the clever, deep way the writer has constructed the thing. The visceral effect is from the panic and desperation of love. Nothing new there. What makes this effective, I think, are two things. Writerly things.

The first is that he hasn't just described the tippy balance of living in a romance. He hasn't just displayed the radical fuzziness and unpredictability of a world where that is all you know. He's made it the root of the story. This story has absolutely none of the logic to it that you expect when you see a love story. Everything seems real and natural after it has happened, but there's no way at all to predict what will happen next when you are in the thing. Its a great help in storytelling; you have to cling fast to what is happening. Its the best type of engagement, sucking you in by simply making you wonder, even worry about what is going to happen next. Its rare. Its good.

I'd like to point out how the four characters are constructed. A popular writing technique is to take one whole soul and break it into bits. Then the bits can get fleshed out imperfectly and interact so that the interaction has a being. In this case, start with a movie. What four pieces do you need? The writer (Dan), the photographer (Anna), the actor (Alice) and the director, the person concerned with the "skin" of the thing.

Its no accident, I think that it is impossible to settle on any one of these characters. You can go through this experience time and time again, each time tracing a different person's path, or the path of a relationship or even an urge.

This part is great too. Apart from Nichols' cinematic naivety, there's only one blot: Julia Roberts. She just doesn't understand what it means to be part of an assembly. She's not an actress in the real sense, the theatrical sense that Nichols knows how to sculpt. No wonder he wanted Cate Blanchett instead.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Just a movie, people ... a pretty good one but not a great one

[WriConsult · 7/10 · 6 July 2005]

Looking at the previous reviews and the message boards, it looked like some people were offended by the moral universe occupied by the characters in the movie. You'd think these people would recognize a morality play when they see one! This movie is clearly a cautionary tale, a fulfillment of the old proverb, "if you can't be an example, at least be a warning." The Greeks were writing stories like this over 2000 years ago, full of murder and mayhem and deceit, of people having sex with their mothers and poking their eyes out. Yet I haven't heard the "Christian" conservatives getting all worked up about THAT.

Of course these characters' behavior was offensive. That was the point of the movie. We watch as the brazen disregard of moral laws wreaks tragedy on stage or on screen, thinking to ourselves "boy, glad I'm not that screwed up" (or in some cases "boy, I'm really screwed up"), and then we walk out of the theater vowing to behave better than that. Didn't we all learn this in 10th grade literature class? Anyway, to me this movie was about trust, honesty and deception. This was most clearly played out in the strip club scene, but it was a central theme throughout. At times a character would show an incredible level of trust in one of the others, often in a completely amazing and charming way. Sometimes this trust was rewarded, and sometimes it was violated. At times one of the characters would break another's trust through deception in a completely vile way, sometimes over a long period of time. At times we in the audience would find that we ourselves had been deceived by one of the characters. This plays out especially well in a scene near the end that reverses several of our earlier notions of who was deceiving whom, and when.

The old adage, "what a tangled web we weave, when we endeavor to deceive" is illustrated vividly here. The clear message is: don't behave this way, folks. And don't get tangled up with someone who does). I know some have expressed amazement that anyone would live like this. Is it any more surprising than finding out there are people who rape or murder others, molest children, or start wars needlessly? Most people aren't like this, but there are those who act without conscience, either continuously or at convenient times. This story sets out to illustrate the damage they can cause.

After setting that record straight, I have to say that although the acting was fantastic all around, I thought the script and dialogue were a bit flat in places, and this film just didn't grip me as well as it should have. 7/10.

DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO PERFECTION!

[rcavellero · 9/10 · 4 December 2004]

It's once in a very rare time that I go to the movies and I'm treated as an adult. I see a film that is intelligent, thought provoking, provocative and rawly realistic. Closer is that film. It present an honest portrayal of four severely unlikable characters and they screw with each others love lives back and forth. The film is told in adult sporting complexity through the growing plot points , the way it's filled and it's tasty advancing dialogue. Everyone in the film turns in a powerhouse performance worthy of Oscar consideration. Ms. Portman is wonderful as Alice shedding her blockbuster star wars acting skills and portraying someone multi dimensional with heart and pizazz. Julia Roberts stars as Anna in a cold, subtle performance which will leave audiences appreciating her acting believability as she pounces through each of her scenes with charismatic force. Jude law and Clive Owen are the real surprises here both turning in wonderfully appealing performance. Strong, weak, flawed and memorable. Especially whose last outing was the entertaining but mediocre action summer pic King Arthur. The film has wonderfully tight direction and sports beautifully placid colors and a fine adult score. The film draws dangerously close to being a near perfect film. I only wish it could've gone on for abit longer I wasn't completely satisfied to the ends of the characters on which we were give. but life itself isn't perfect or satisfying and this is a slick of someones life. Rush out and go see Closer! Oner of the best film's of the year!

A searing drama that made me want to shower afterward

[FilmOtaku · 7/10 · 3 February 2005]

Mike Nichols' film "Closer" is simply a study in human relationships. Other than the four main characters, everyone else is an extra, with minimal dialogue, if any. Jude Law is Dan, a struggling writer who is a member of the Obituary staff at a London paper. One day he catches the eye of Alice, (Natalie Portman) who is walking down the street toward him, newly arrived from the United States. They lock eyes (in the film it seems like minutes, but is probably seconds) before she steps into oncoming traffic and gets hit by a car. Her injuries are not serious, but they are the beginning of a long and painful relationship. Some time later, Anna (Julia Roberts) a photographer, is snapping a photo of Dan for his upcoming debut novel when he promptly hits on her. The attraction is obviously mutual, but she manages to hold him off since he is involved with Alice, and she is newly separated from her husband. Some time later, he is messing around on the Internet, pretending to be a woman and chatting with a completely clueless doctor, Larry (Clive Owen). Dan arranges to meet Larry at the aquarium and tells him his name is "Anna". Of course, Anna is sitting there, Larry thinks she is the one he talked to, she is clueless, but figures out that Dan played a joke on both of them. Soon, THEY begin a relationship. Throughout the next year or two (the passing of time is so off-handedly managed that it is hard to determine exactly what time frame we pass) relationships get blurred, soured and, I hate to create a pun here: closer.

The tagline for "Closer" is "If you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking". According to the action in the film, truer words were never spoken. The moral of the story is that everyone cheats. And if they don't, they are excessively co-dependent. (And actually, there are some cheaters who are excessively co-dependent.) While the story was very intricately woven, impressively so, it was still hard to take, particularly during a scene in which Clive Owen confronts Julia Roberts about her infidelity. The pain that these people cause one another is so pervasive that it becomes almost a character itself. And while the sleaze factor was so high I wanted to shower with a particularly abrasive soap the second I got home, the film's story was actually extremely thought provoking and discussion-worthy. Just driving home, my boyfriend and I got into a discussion about the characters, and he said that Anna was the most despicable character Julia Roberts has played, while I thought that Clive Owen was a bit much. I think the film acts as both a solidifier and divider between men and women on a few different levels, a sign that the film obviously succeeds in proving its thesis.

The acting in "Closer" is first-rate. I have never seen any of the characters in better form, quite honestly. Portman, an actress that I have marginalized as mediocre since every performance after her stunning debut in "The Professional", also impressed me; she subtly exhibited both weakness and slyness in a manner that made her character purposely hard to read. I actually consider Jude Law's performance as Dan to be his best since his role in "Road to Perdition". (Certainly a feat considering he was featured in no less than 653 films in 2004.) Roberts was actually mesmerizing (she's come a long way since the insipid "Pretty Woman") and I look forward to seeing Owen have a well-deserved prolific film career. As for the direction, Mike Nichols is flawless. He has really become a master at his trade. This doesn't necessarily mean that he is ceaselessly compelling, though he made all the right decisions in "Closer" from the pacing to the soundtrack, particularly the Damien Rice track that plays a couple of times throughout the film, (though I would have liked to have heard the Suzanne Vega song that is featured in the trailer) I would not go out of my way to see a Mike Nichols film based on his name alone, but I put him higher on the cred ladder that Ron Howard is also on; the films are usually good, but they don't always completely enthrall me.

This was not the case with "Closer" however. I walked out of the film not liking it at first, but I think that was because it was such a depressing commentary on relationships. The more I realized I was thinking about it even days after seeing it, the more I realized that it actually was a good movie with an unpleasant theme and some great acting. Whereas I would have given it a lower score right out of the box, I give it a supportive 7/10 now.

--Shelly

Exquisite Cruelty.

[nycritic · 10/10 · 22 April 2005]

Mike Nichols must have a thing for dysfunctional quartets, as this is his third entry that tells a story of how four people damage each other with their callousness and emotional immaturity.

With CLOSER he decides not to go loud as in WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? but to misdirect the viewer into thinking he is watching a series of Meet Cutes between the four leads. This is really only the setup for something completely rotten that comes out in a crucial moment, when both Natalie Portman and Clive Owen discover that their spouses, played by Jude Law and Julia Roberts, have been quite shamelessly carrying on and excusing their affair with wordy denials as if that would remedy the situation. To see Portman express total devastation in the fact of infidelity as she asks Law how can he go on with his cheating is to see her innocence and purity of emotions taken away, turned into something that later on becomes ugly and manipulative, although of the four she is the one whom at the end rises above and detaches herself of a damaging relationship.

Owen's descent into conscious perversion is also disturbing. Already apparently heavy into Internet chatting, he is introduced as someone who would innocently chat with what he thinks is a woman and actually believe "she" would meet him later for a quickie, and this gullibility is what also has him believing his wife would not leave him for anyone else even when it's clear she's carrying on with the same person who introduced them. He later decides to hurt them both, and succeeds so, but in trying to tie Roberts to him, he is only cementing the grounds for more mental and emotional cruelty.

Definitely not a date film nor one to watch on Valentine's Day, this is one of those films that takes the notion of love, sets it up on a pedestal, and them hacks away at its limbs and stabs it repeatedly in the heart until there is nothing left but hurt and more hurt and no way out. Ironically, it's physical abuse, never seen throughout the entire film until the very end, that sets at least one character free. Powerful, ugly at times, CLOSER betrays its title and makes you want to remain single for a long time.

Four people become entangled.

[ruthierocks · 6/10 · 23 March 2005]

Synopsis: Dan (Jude Law) meets Alice (Natalie Portman) after she is hit by a cab. She's just moved to London from NYC. He takes her to the hospital, where they chat and become friends. He writes obituaries; she's a stripper.

A year later, Dan and Alice are living together. He's finished a novel and falls for the photographer that takes the picture for his book jacket, Anna (Julia Roberts). He introduces Anna to Larry (Clive Owen) and the four people become sexually entangled over the next few years.

Review: Closer is a respectable effort. The film had a lot of potential, but failed in so many ways. Closer can be seen as the anti-date movie. It's hard to like the characters, and even harder to like their actions. Even so, it paints a picture so close to reality.

A controversy revolving Closer was the sexual content. While sex never occurs on screen, it's a prominent topic and is actually the plot (if there is one) to the film. The only nudity is seen at the strip club, but the dialogue is almost repulsive. Most is not needed, or could have been better if it was only implied. A scene in the strip club with Alice and Larry is probably the height of the vulgarness.

Julia Roberts and Jude Law turn in good performances, but are easily out acted by Natalie Portman, who proves to be an adult, and Clive Owen, who shows incredible emotion with his sleazy character.

Closer is the perfect example of love at first sight. The tag line for the film states: "If you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking." That's essentially the core of the movie. Were these people truly in love? If they were, why would they be so unfaithful to their "true love"? Is appearance and first impressions an important factor in determining who we're going to spend our life with?

Each character in Closer has their share of lies. Lying to their current lover, lying to themselves. It effectively shows that men will do anything to get what they want, and how quickly the women will fall for it. I'm not saying that the female characters are any less guilty in immorality or whatever you'd call it, but they seemed to be the more naive of the four.

Closer contains a great deal of good, but in all, it doesn't add up to a complete motion picture. The sexual content could have been reduced, thus unneeded in many instances. A very depressing film, but thought provoking nevertheless. Good performances abound, but do not make up for holes that could have easily turned this average film into a more compelling motion picture. Viewer discretion advised: Closer is not for everyone.

C (6/10)

C|oser

[sunnyday04 · 8/10 · 6 December 2004]

Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a fist wrapped in blood.... Only in the film Closer can the universal symbol for love and devotion be brutally manipulated into a tool, one whose sole purpose is to express men's vile and barbaric proclivities. But this isn't your ordinary love story, in fact when viewing Mike Nichols newest drama, you can throw everything you thought you knew about modern relationships out the window. In Closer, your best bet is to expect the unexpected.

If you are searching for a traditional romance of sorts, this isn't the film to turn to. If you are searching for a film to bolster up your Holiday spirit in anticipation for the Christmas season, then have a Jimmy Stewart marathon. But, if you are open to the idea of seeing a film thick with hostility, brutal honesty and dizzying intellect... then this could be a film that could satisfy your expectations. Let it be said, that at the very least this is a film to be marveled. It is such a well-crafted production, that you can't help but appreciate the obvious talent that went in to making this movie look as glossy and stylish as it does. Not to mention, how splendid the cast is... I only wish I could say the same for the characters that they play...

These gorgeous creatures, exude radiance and outer beauty, yet what lies within their psyche is brutal and cold. Based on pre-conceived notions, it's hard to see 'America's Sweetheart', Julia Roberts, or the charming Brit, Jude Law utter such biting, vicious, and somewhat disturbing statements. The character's have virtually no consciences, and care about little more than appeasing their own personal urges and impulses. The men in particular seem to be the most primitive in their acting upon their animalistic instincts. Although, the woman are far from innocent. Each of the four leads harbors a series of secrets they are hesitant to unleash upon their counterparts. This blanket of mystery leads each to act in contemptible ways. The character's are all terribly detestable and obnoxious, yet still put on a facade of refinement. It's unbelievable how articulate and intelligent these characters really are. Every line that comes out of their mouth has an aura of brilliance, and while one may find their comments offensive, you can't deny that there is a lot of truth behind their sentiments. The dialogue drives the film, and serves as another artistic device for the director... it is truly poetic. The entire film is in essence, a critique on the human race... a social commentary that exposes the underbelly of the modern relationship. A disheartening subject to be sure, and Nichols does not shy away from stating it like it is.

The story basically revolves around four characters and the ensuing relations between them. It is a very slow moving film driven entirely by the intelligent, cynical and piercing dialogue that spills out of the character's mouths. There are probably only ten scenes in the whole film, which goes to show you how lengthy each episode runs. Yet, I never felt as though time was standing still... I was so wrapped up in the character's lives and their ever present struggles to worry about the scene's length. A technique that was implemented by the veteran director, Mike Nichols is that there is no real sense of time in the film. The story spans over four years, a gimmick which I thought was a brilliant way to disorient the audience into the same dizzying mindset the characters themselves possess.

The four leads, are remarkably and perhaps unrealistically witty... Yet, in many instances they use this uncanny intelligence in ways that make you cringe with disapproval. Those with an optimistic attitude, would be best off suspending disbelief while watching this film. An open mind is a must, and if you are easily offended... then you'd be best off watching Disney cartoons or after-school specials. This movie doesn't even attempt at hiding behind MPAA restrictions, and instead pushes the limits by having the entire film revolve around the 'behind closed doors' aspects of a relationship. Sexual slurs, derogatory statements, and painful betrayal all pollute what in an idealistic world would be a text-book perfect relationship. Don't expect a happy ending. But, be sure to expect dialogue that sizzles and pops, and stings those who it is directed at. C|oser is a film that divides audiences like none I have seen before. Love it or hate it, you will be glad you saw it... 3.5/4

WRITTEN BY A MAN

[rzaiguihaidi · 6/10 · 12 July 2023]

How can I get those 2 hours back ? I'll never know This whole movie justifies cheating from a man's prospective. It just felt pathetic I had to Google the writer and the director just to be sure like damn 😂 where does it even end with you people

I have to admit though that the ending was top tier, the dialogue was nicely written too but the relationships between the characters kept getting tanglier and I was hooked I swear 😭

I hated Dan's character so much, he embodies everything wrong with our society 🙂

I loved Alice though because she knew she deserves better and walked away, as she should.

Truth clarifies but it does not bring people closer.

[Fella_shibby · 8/10 · 10 May 2022]

I first saw this a decade ago on Sony Pix channel.

Revisited it recently.

The movie has top notch star cast n solid performances.

The movie is very engrossing n I found it to be darkly comical.

The way Larry messes with Dan's mind is a big lol n Dan's face when Larry reveals him the truth is again rofl.

Jude Law is epic as Dan.

I Love & Hate it

[redlips-04219 · 7/10 · 6 January 2023]

This movie is a big game of narcissistic people who treat each other as puppets. There is no love, no truth, no good. In the beginning we all try to find a hero in the story, someone to sympathize with only to realize what we have is a bunch of mentally ill people making themselves suffer. Dan (Jude Law) is just a big kid longing for attention and a new toy, which he only cares for about 5 mins. Anna (Julia Roberts) is also desperate for attention and love since her ex left her for a younger girl. She is confused and unreasonable, her ego makes all the decisions instead of her mind. Larry (Clive Owen) is an agressive jerk, playing along Dan's little game, while Alice is just a naive, traumatized, young girl who falls in love and decides to avoid all the red flags and becomes part of this sick 4 some. Brilliant movie. Honestly not the ending what I hoped for tho (I just wanted all 4 of them together in a room while Slim Pickens rides the atom bomb there).

Far, Far Away: America Loves Delusion

[rdekoch · 1/10 · 29 December 2004]

I won't reveal what ultimately happens in Closer but I will confess that I was disappointed that it didn't end with a fiery double-decker bus crash that left no survivors. This film would have been stale 20 years ago, but it's completely ridiculous now. The "truths" about relationships that the movie attempts to reveal are just nuggets of stereotypical nonsense that you could see in a TV movie(Men thrive on conquest and dominance, Women can't resist being treated like whores, etc.). The film, like it's characters is shallow and dishonest underneath the pretty exterior.

Of the four main actors, Natalie Portman fairs the best. I didn't buy her character, but I didn't want to beat her with a lead pipe either. The other actors aren't so lucky. Clive Owen is in total stage actor mode. I have long suspected that Julia Roberts is actually computer generated or a state of the art robot and this film offers more compelling evidence in support of my theory. Jude Law is a total non-presence here which is a shame because he shows hints of charisma in other films.

I am absolutely dumbfounded by claims that this movie is in any way truthful, real or gritty. It's incredibly stagey and the dialog in no way resembles the way people talk when they're not performing on stage. I thought Neil Labute's The shape of Things was a low water mark that no film adaptation of a play could surpass in awfulness. Not the case. I am intrigued yet horrified that this film seems to resonate with a large chunk of viewers. The characters are total constructs: the Arbus rip-off photographer, the duplicitous writer, the educated yet primitive doctor, the wise stripper.

Maybe the film is realistic in the same way that Iraq was full of WMDs and privatization will solve the country's social security "problem". The real truth seems to be that most folks aren't interested in reality. It doesn't look like four pretty people in London.