"A Closed Book" is a rare English-language project from the extremely prolific Chilean director Raul Ruiz, and it's also one of the last films he completed before his death. "Poirot" and "Marple" (see also "4:50 From Paddington" and "The Secret Of Chimneys") fans will feel right at home in the magnificent Knebworth House where most of this is filmed and set, and "Sleuth" or "Deathtrap" fans will appreciate the two-character format (90% of the movie is between Tom Conti and Daryl Hannah; there are only three supporting characters, two of whom have one short scene each). This is almost a terrific film: Ruiz's use of the camera is masterful (you must be careful to notice some telling details in the background - a mirror removed, for example), the dialogue (very important in a film like this) is well-written, and the story keeps you wondering. The main problem is that there aren't enough clues for the viewer to figure out the motivations of the characters for him/herself before they are revealed, so these revelations seem to come out of nowhere. An intriguing film, but not for all tastes. **1/2 out of 4.
24 Reviews
Quickie satisfies
oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx25 March 2010
It is very strange to my mind that such a celebrated director as Raoul Ruiz is making straight-to-video movies in the UK! However the English-language world has a goldfish memory for foreign giants and so perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised. Maybe he needs to get Spike Jonze or Quentin Tarantino to "sponsor" him ^^. Nucingen House didn't even get a DVD release, so we shouldn't look a gift horse in the eye with this one.
So we have an art critic living in a country pile who has gone blind following some nasty maiming. He wishes to publish a final book and thus sets about hiring an "amanuensis" to assist him with this. Tom Conti plays the role of blind critic Paul pretty well, he has just the right mix of pomposity and fragility. The film is quite surreal, but nowhere more so perhaps than when we see a selection of self-absorbed characters interviewed for the position of amanuensis. In this country we never really hailed the arrival of the Surrealist movement, which is perhaps strange as we are about as surreal as it gets. So surreal that we understandably have problems rising out of the fog and making well-realised films about ourselves, although Patrick Keiller's London and Peter Greenaway's The Falls are notable successes. Yes the UK is a nightmare of prejudice, public conformity, self-repression, snobbishness, and reverse snobbishness; all the more bizarre as it's totally unenforced. British lives collectively are a myriad of uncorrelated banalities. We live in post-colonial anomie. Another example in the film is the political canvasser who is timid and petrified at the idea of engaging with someone on a non-superficial level, even if that were to be a well-to-do blind man, and even if that were, ostensibly, her mission. Our politics are quite funny, although we have again an ostensibly socialist party in government, it's just come to light that, in effect, Tesco are able to pay to get proposed legislation torpedoed!
The amanuensis (Jane) is eventually selected and is played by Darryl Hannah. She's fairly clearly hostile to him from the start, but is gentle enough in resting demeanour that it's clear we're seeing a vendetta from an aggrieved party, rather than the acts of a psychotic. There's a lovely example of female passive aggressive behaviour here, which, as someone who is as pompous as they come, though with a strong twist of self-deprecation that most don't ever seem to get, I have experienced myself. Jane sits listening to the usual enthusiastic and self-indulgent discourse, carefully choosing her moment to burst his bubble, when Paul mentions that it was always a bad thing to do for writers to drink, she coldly brings up Bukowski and Hemingway.
There is camera-work here, though the movie is obviously a quickie. The best example would be when the camera floats dreamily as we are told of Princess Diana's appearance in Bhutan. The opening shot of the spires of the pile are suitably surreal, however the atmosphere of the very comfortable gentrified interior is in contrast to that making the opener look slightly contrived. Being a quickie we also have a generic soundtrack over the top, which must have taken all of half an hour to select and edit in during post-production. I doubt anything was shot twice in the movie either, hence the zoom shots when Paul takes his glasses off, which are a bit silly.
For people who care about such things, the twist at the end regarding the critic himself, was pretty obvious in the first act if you are used to looking at paintings with anything other than a blank stare, or have knowledge about the meaning behind the travel itineraries of British men.
Though this is a quick production, done with a minimum of fuss and cost, there's enough artistic value to make this worth a watch. You even get to hear a good recital of the poem Jenny by James Henry Leigh Hunt.
So we have an art critic living in a country pile who has gone blind following some nasty maiming. He wishes to publish a final book and thus sets about hiring an "amanuensis" to assist him with this. Tom Conti plays the role of blind critic Paul pretty well, he has just the right mix of pomposity and fragility. The film is quite surreal, but nowhere more so perhaps than when we see a selection of self-absorbed characters interviewed for the position of amanuensis. In this country we never really hailed the arrival of the Surrealist movement, which is perhaps strange as we are about as surreal as it gets. So surreal that we understandably have problems rising out of the fog and making well-realised films about ourselves, although Patrick Keiller's London and Peter Greenaway's The Falls are notable successes. Yes the UK is a nightmare of prejudice, public conformity, self-repression, snobbishness, and reverse snobbishness; all the more bizarre as it's totally unenforced. British lives collectively are a myriad of uncorrelated banalities. We live in post-colonial anomie. Another example in the film is the political canvasser who is timid and petrified at the idea of engaging with someone on a non-superficial level, even if that were to be a well-to-do blind man, and even if that were, ostensibly, her mission. Our politics are quite funny, although we have again an ostensibly socialist party in government, it's just come to light that, in effect, Tesco are able to pay to get proposed legislation torpedoed!
The amanuensis (Jane) is eventually selected and is played by Darryl Hannah. She's fairly clearly hostile to him from the start, but is gentle enough in resting demeanour that it's clear we're seeing a vendetta from an aggrieved party, rather than the acts of a psychotic. There's a lovely example of female passive aggressive behaviour here, which, as someone who is as pompous as they come, though with a strong twist of self-deprecation that most don't ever seem to get, I have experienced myself. Jane sits listening to the usual enthusiastic and self-indulgent discourse, carefully choosing her moment to burst his bubble, when Paul mentions that it was always a bad thing to do for writers to drink, she coldly brings up Bukowski and Hemingway.
There is camera-work here, though the movie is obviously a quickie. The best example would be when the camera floats dreamily as we are told of Princess Diana's appearance in Bhutan. The opening shot of the spires of the pile are suitably surreal, however the atmosphere of the very comfortable gentrified interior is in contrast to that making the opener look slightly contrived. Being a quickie we also have a generic soundtrack over the top, which must have taken all of half an hour to select and edit in during post-production. I doubt anything was shot twice in the movie either, hence the zoom shots when Paul takes his glasses off, which are a bit silly.
For people who care about such things, the twist at the end regarding the critic himself, was pretty obvious in the first act if you are used to looking at paintings with anything other than a blank stare, or have knowledge about the meaning behind the travel itineraries of British men.
Though this is a quick production, done with a minimum of fuss and cost, there's enough artistic value to make this worth a watch. You even get to hear a good recital of the poem Jenny by James Henry Leigh Hunt.
Not Many Thrill In This Thriller
chicagopoetry26 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In the vein of What Ever Happened To Baby Jane or Misery, the movie A Closed Book deals with a woman who is mentally torturing a blind man. Daryl Hannah is virtually unrecognizable as the (for whatever reason) unemotional person who has ulterior motives who is hired by a blind author to help him write his autobiography. Hannah looks like a cross between Catherine O'Hare and Loretta Swit, if they were both on Lexapro on bad hair days. Too bad she didn't revamp her role in Kill Bill: that would have been scary. Tom Conti has a few good moments as the blind author, but his character is ultimately a confused mess, at one point highly acute to sounds and smells (even though he's only been blind for a few years), and at the next point completely helpless and stumbling over his own feet. But the most distracting flaw in Conti's character is that he has eyes that don't even exist, with skin that has grown over the sockets like something out of a Twilight Zone episode. Now how can we believe that? Why not just give him empty holes or ghost white eyeballs or something else that is believable? I was looking forward to seeing what Ellen Page had to offer to this film but to my disappointment the actress turned out to be someone named Elaine Paige. Guess I should read the credits more closely. We never find out what happened to the housekeeper and the ending comes out of left field as intensely as a wiffle-ball. There was some real potential here to do some really creepy things and if they had played upon the theme of claustrophobia and the fear of the dark, they might have delivered some tense moments, but unfortunately it turned out to be an average night of off-Broadway theatre.
One of Raul Ruiz's most accessible works by some measures at least
philosopherjack11 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
One of Raul Ruiz's most accessible works if measured by the ease of dissecting what's on screen (which didn't however mean it was any more effectively distributed and marketed than most of the others), A Closed Book (alternatively and less gracefully titled Blind Revenge) takes place almost entirely within a large country house occupied by Sir Paul (Tom Conti), a former art critic blinded a few years earlier in a car accident, who engages Jane (Daryl Hannah) to help him write his autobiography. For a while the movie plays like a robustly peculiar character study as the two work out a mutual equilibrium and routine, telling each other what they dislike about the other's style and so on, then out of nowhere it swerves into the grotesque as Jane starts to mess with Paul, walking about in the nude, fueling the fire with his valuable book collection rather than with logs, and then (once the housekeeper is conveniently out of the way) turning paintings upside down, moving furniture around, and ramping things up still further. Assessed as conventional narrative, it's a weakness that the ultimate revelation of Jane's motives, and Paul's subsequent reactions to them, seem (to say the least) inadequately connected to what's gone before (the movie might as well have posited say that she's an obsessive animal lover harboring a grudge at Paul for having once kicked her dog), although looked at more generally, it's a swerve that reflects Ruiz's playful sense of narrative contingency. Conti is in robust form, and as if to satisfy some producer's quirky contractual demand, the movie includes single-scene appearances by Elaine Paige and Simon MacCorkindale, so, there you go. A delectably lasting moment has Jane making up a bunch of fake news to tantalize Paul (who conveniently never listens to the radio or TV) including that Donald Trump has become a Muslim (hey, if only...).
Strange but rather compelling
suewhitfield27 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I wasn't sure what to expect of this film but thought the cast list made it worth a look. Having just finished watching it, I'm still not entirely sure whether or not I enjoyed it but it was certainly interesting and somewhat compelling.
It is a thriller and there are several moments of suspense and moments where I found myself taking a sharp intake of breath, but it is certainly not particularly scary or shocking. The best moment, for me, was the ending which, even though I realised what was going to happen, was well-executed and did make me jump.
Elaine Paige is a very strange choice for one of the cameo roles and I'm not sure what prompted her casting, and (sorry if it sounds trivial) I found Daryl Hannah's "new" facial appearance rather distracting. Tom Conti's character is rather wooden at times and, at other times, is rather moving and interesting. Miriam Margolyes is one of my favourite actors but is given no opportunity at all to shine.
All in all? As I said in my title, strange but rather compelling. Definitely worth watching but just don't set your expectations too high.
It is a thriller and there are several moments of suspense and moments where I found myself taking a sharp intake of breath, but it is certainly not particularly scary or shocking. The best moment, for me, was the ending which, even though I realised what was going to happen, was well-executed and did make me jump.
Elaine Paige is a very strange choice for one of the cameo roles and I'm not sure what prompted her casting, and (sorry if it sounds trivial) I found Daryl Hannah's "new" facial appearance rather distracting. Tom Conti's character is rather wooden at times and, at other times, is rather moving and interesting. Miriam Margolyes is one of my favourite actors but is given no opportunity at all to shine.
All in all? As I said in my title, strange but rather compelling. Definitely worth watching but just don't set your expectations too high.
Hammy But Good Fun
Auzdigger15 February 2010
Saw this in a preview today. If you like Sleuth, then this is a poor man's relation. Very theatrical, and in fact best suited to the stage than the big screen, this film documents the mind games played out between a reclusive blind author and his new live in assistant. Daryl Hannah can't act for toffee in the latter role but does please the boys by getting her kit off, although how it advances the plot defeats me....Tom Conti plays the eccentric art critic author to a tee, and holds the whole thing together...just! Elaine Paige plays a very strange cameo role (the casting in this film is a little odd to say the least). Lots of Gothic overtones and a creaking old mansion in the country fit the stereotyped mould of the film but at least if doesn't overstay its welcome at 90 mins. Suspend disbelief and ignore the plot holes, and the film is weirdly enjoyable....
A Bad Film
fragou-324856 September 2021
Not as bad as some reviews make out
derektrotteresq1 March 2010
I have just finished watching the film and as I have never read the book, I viewed it with no expectations. If you're after action a fast paced movie then this probably isn't for you as the drama unfolds at a slow to medium pace. Tom Conti and Daryl Hannah do a pretty good job in the role and are the glue that hold the film together. I won't go into what the film is about as that would render it pointless to watch but I will add that this is the not the kind of movie that you can watch over and over again but will find satisfying for the one viewing if you like suspense mysteries.
In conclusion, it's not the best film i've seen, but I did enjoy it so I gave it a 7.
In conclusion, it's not the best film i've seen, but I did enjoy it so I gave it a 7.
Not worth it, no really...don't bother!
tylerez-736405 October 2021
Honestly not a bad premise for a movie, it definitely had potential! However, the acting and dialogue were mediocre at best. It started off really slowly and never gathered enough momentum to get me hooked. Although it was described as a psychological thriller, there were minimal thrills, nothing clever and absolutely no climax. Their idea of revenge was absolutely laughable, literally pointless. By the end I was scratching my head and wondering why this movie was actually made. There's an hour and a half I'll never get back.
I like this film
Emmabey4 October 2021
Eh Naw
allengoldie14 September 2021
Ruiz transcends mediocre material
timmy_50117 March 2010
As A Closed Book begins, distinguished author Sir Paul is planning on writing his first book since a head injury that made him completely blind four years previously. In order to do this he needs a helper so he hires Jane Ryder, an intelligent but mysterious woman who agrees to live with him in his baroque mansion five days a week. Sir Paul is unsurprisingly a fussy, arrogant man who would likely be hard for anyone to deal with. Still, it's hard not to feel sympathy for him as it quickly becomes clear that Jane takes sadistic pleasure in deceiving him. This starts out harmlessly enough with lies about a jigsaw puzzle and made up news stories about the murder of Madonna and the suicide of O.J. Simpson but progresses into harmful territory as she begins to rearrange the furniture and leave books on the stairs. The last few minutes of the film involve some hastily applied twists that don't really give the viewer much of a chance to comprehend the way the situation has changed before the next one appears. As suspense thrillers go, this is pretty standard fare in the plot department.
Since this is a film by maverick auteur Raoul Ruiz the writing is naturally the least important part of the film; as usual his films rely on his unique sensibilities to succeed. For a Ruiz film A Closed Book is fairly low key: there are plenty of unusual angles and the frame tends to be filled with sumptuous details but the camera movements are standard save for the scene in which Jane brazenly tells Sir Paul nonsensical lies as the camera spins wildly directly overhead. There is also an emphasis on the house's architecture, particularly the baroque exterior with its spirals and turrets. A Closed Book is not a film that breaks new ground for Ruiz, in fact the style calls to mind all of the Ruiz films I've seen from the past decade or so including Time Regained, Comedy of Innocence, and That Day but his style is so rich that he could easily spend another twenty years working within it and not exhaust its possibilities.
Somewhat perversely for a film released this year, A Closed Book has already been released on R2 DVD. It's also worth noting that the film seems to have been universally judged by the least important aspect of this particular work: the script. This surely accounts for its absurdly low IMDb score (4.7 as of this writing) and the score of negative reviews it has received from critics who view it as a genre film.
Since this is a film by maverick auteur Raoul Ruiz the writing is naturally the least important part of the film; as usual his films rely on his unique sensibilities to succeed. For a Ruiz film A Closed Book is fairly low key: there are plenty of unusual angles and the frame tends to be filled with sumptuous details but the camera movements are standard save for the scene in which Jane brazenly tells Sir Paul nonsensical lies as the camera spins wildly directly overhead. There is also an emphasis on the house's architecture, particularly the baroque exterior with its spirals and turrets. A Closed Book is not a film that breaks new ground for Ruiz, in fact the style calls to mind all of the Ruiz films I've seen from the past decade or so including Time Regained, Comedy of Innocence, and That Day but his style is so rich that he could easily spend another twenty years working within it and not exhaust its possibilities.
Somewhat perversely for a film released this year, A Closed Book has already been released on R2 DVD. It's also worth noting that the film seems to have been universally judged by the least important aspect of this particular work: the script. This surely accounts for its absurdly low IMDb score (4.7 as of this writing) and the score of negative reviews it has received from critics who view it as a genre film.
Worth more than the current score
Laakbaar8 November 2015
I think the top review by derektrottersk says it all. The reviews are too harsh on this movie. It's actually an intelligent, theatrical drawing-room drama about a sophisticated but blind art critic and his quiet and beautiful amanuensis. Each turns out to be not as they seem. Some of the dramatic tension comes from Sir Paul's blindness, and how he and those close to him deal with it. Some drama arises out of the scenario of a beautiful new woman living together with a difficult, handicapped old man in this grand manor house. I thought it was well played by both Conti and Hannah.
Not a movie to be avoided.
Not a movie to be avoided.
Mild thrills
dierregi14 June 2022
Tom Conti is Sir Paul, a curmudgeon lord, blinded in a horrific accident who decided to live alone in a huge mansion. Strange choice and quite unlikely, even for a grating, misanthropic character who could nevertheless afford to have some live-in staff for safety and practical reasons.
Instead eccentric Paul employees only a not-live-in cook and one cannot but wonder who's doing the cleaning and laundry in the immense house.
Among all that remote loneliness Sir Paul starts to get bored and three years after his accident he decides to hire an amanuensis to write his last book. How and where does he put the "amanuensis wanted" notice it's a mystery, since Paul hates technology. However, several candidates go through an uncomfortable interview process, only for the job to be given to Jane, the only female candidate, a surgically refreshed Daryl Hannah.
Jane lies through her teeth from the beginning, stating her age as 38 when at the time of shooting she was 49 and goes downhill from there. Paul may be unpleasant, but a woman who deceives a blind person with stupid lies and tricks is certainly not admirable. Whatever her reasons, they're probably not good enough and Jane comes across as a petty liar bent on some stupid revenge.
There is a minimum tension, compulsory in an old, gothic, creepy house with plenty of creaking floorboards. Dark corridors and sinister armours but with no side to take it's difficult to feel for either main character put into a totally unrealistic situation.
Instead eccentric Paul employees only a not-live-in cook and one cannot but wonder who's doing the cleaning and laundry in the immense house.
Among all that remote loneliness Sir Paul starts to get bored and three years after his accident he decides to hire an amanuensis to write his last book. How and where does he put the "amanuensis wanted" notice it's a mystery, since Paul hates technology. However, several candidates go through an uncomfortable interview process, only for the job to be given to Jane, the only female candidate, a surgically refreshed Daryl Hannah.
Jane lies through her teeth from the beginning, stating her age as 38 when at the time of shooting she was 49 and goes downhill from there. Paul may be unpleasant, but a woman who deceives a blind person with stupid lies and tricks is certainly not admirable. Whatever her reasons, they're probably not good enough and Jane comes across as a petty liar bent on some stupid revenge.
There is a minimum tension, compulsory in an old, gothic, creepy house with plenty of creaking floorboards. Dark corridors and sinister armours but with no side to take it's difficult to feel for either main character put into a totally unrealistic situation.
decent revenge story
Kirpianuscus7 May 2022
A good premise, not bad acting, a provocative story of revenge, step by step. At first sight, good ingredients for a decent film. The only problem remains their not very fair use. The potential of story remains the basic virtue and the film is saved by the gaslighting. The actors are more than good, but their work covers only a story reduced to easy solutions.
Pityful Waste of Time
leonardhalliwell21 October 2021
Pityful. Worse irritating film I've ever watched in my life. Conte has always been boring to watch but this pile of crap must be his worse.
There was one laughable moment in the film when he asks Daryl Hannah how old she is and she replies 38. Try 60.
As I said, I've never liked (Made for TV) Tom Conte. This film was so irritating to watch. His character's blind of course but the film can't seem to continue without him bringing that fact up every 5 minutes.
There's no intrigue in the film and the storyline leads nowhere. There are no spoilers because there's nothing to spoil. I think I'll give this flick 9 out of 975 billion.
There was one laughable moment in the film when he asks Daryl Hannah how old she is and she replies 38. Try 60.
As I said, I've never liked (Made for TV) Tom Conte. This film was so irritating to watch. His character's blind of course but the film can't seem to continue without him bringing that fact up every 5 minutes.
There's no intrigue in the film and the storyline leads nowhere. There are no spoilers because there's nothing to spoil. I think I'll give this flick 9 out of 975 billion.
It has been written
kosmasp19 September 2021
You'll get it (my summary line), once you've seen the movie. The question is, do you want to? The premise itself is quite interesting and our two main actors really go at it. You know there is more to it, from the first moment they meet. You just don't know what and who ... and especially why.
I have to be cryptic, because there are twists along the way. They may not be exploited all in the best way possible and you may be a bit dissatisfied with all the build up and eventual ... pay off ... but it is a neat little thriller with a good central idea. If you dig that, you are on a good way to be entertained by the movie - despite its pacing and some flaws along the way.
I have to be cryptic, because there are twists along the way. They may not be exploited all in the best way possible and you may be a bit dissatisfied with all the build up and eventual ... pay off ... but it is a neat little thriller with a good central idea. If you dig that, you are on a good way to be entertained by the movie - despite its pacing and some flaws along the way.
Daryl Hannah is a sorry sight
fredrikgunerius18 October 2023
This hybrid between Sleuth and Misery finds Tom Conti and Daryl Hannah in a battle of wits and will in a large British manor house. Conti plays a famous author left blinded and disfigured after a car accident in Thailand, Hannah is the mysterious woman he hires to be his amanuensis. Chilean veteran director Raúl Ruiz (in one of his final films) wastes no time disclosing that Hannah isn't there for the purest of reasons; she immediately starts disobeying and counteract her employer, weirdly enough in rather childish and trivial ways which, the man's blindness taken into account, appears more ominous for us than for him (genre conventions, anyone?). The ultimate showdown is inevitable, and also includes a thematic plot twist, for good measure. It's not completely ineffective, but it's not exactly groundbreaking either. Tom Conti does the witty aristocrat well enough without excelling, whereas Daryl Hannah is a sorry sight, both when it comes to appearance and performance.
Wait until dark.
ulicknormanowen18 September 2021
The current rate is totally unfair ;it's Roman Polanski meets Gothic psychological drama ; as soon as she's on the place ,one suspects that Hannah is not the perfect educated secretary devoted to a cantankerous boss :cracks soon appear in the mirror (the jig saw puzzle, the door , the editor who would be away )
Conti and Hannah play cat and mouse in a forbidding house , a lethal game: Conti is really scary ,but his eyes-less face is the only terrifying element ,there's no gore or special effects which mar contemporary horror movies .Matching him every step of the way is Hannah's sly treacherous performance ;till the very end ,one cannot guess why she begins to torture (in a sweet way ) ;and the unexpected end won't disappoint you , revealing another aspect of the scholar's elusive personality .
Unless the cook counts,there're only two characters on the stage (Simon McCorkindale ("death on the Nile" ) only appears in one scene ) , but fear of darkness,claustrophobia, and the dark side of the soul make up for it ! Don't miss Conti 's final words!
Conti and Hannah play cat and mouse in a forbidding house , a lethal game: Conti is really scary ,but his eyes-less face is the only terrifying element ,there's no gore or special effects which mar contemporary horror movies .Matching him every step of the way is Hannah's sly treacherous performance ;till the very end ,one cannot guess why she begins to torture (in a sweet way ) ;and the unexpected end won't disappoint you , revealing another aspect of the scholar's elusive personality .
Unless the cook counts,there're only two characters on the stage (Simon McCorkindale ("death on the Nile" ) only appears in one scene ) , but fear of darkness,claustrophobia, and the dark side of the soul make up for it ! Don't miss Conti 's final words!
Eyeless in Gaza
tim-9357 July 2022
There's a lot that blind people can't see, but motivations and misplaced items are not among them.
Veteran actor, Tom Conti, delivers an almost static performance, using his sonorous voice to good effect as the now blind art critic occupant of a rambling old mansion, played by Knebworth House.
He employs an attractive amanuensis, Daryl Hannah, to transcribe the ageing, irascible, misanthrope's final opus, "A Closed Book".
From the start we know that there is more beneath the surface, and the critic slowly becomes aware that his scribe is misleading him. She recounts the preposterous Madonna murder, the improbable O. J. Simpson suicide, and the laugh out loud conversion of Donald Trump to Islam.
She further gaslights the old man by moving familiar objects in his house, some of which he cannot be aware. But this is no narcissistic programme of dominance: it is a campaign of revenge.
What past trauma brought these two together? What profound loss has turned this otherwise pleasant woman into a relentless avenger?
This is a two hander, with three supports. The housekeeper played by the excellent Miriam Margolyes, a Conservative Party canvasser from Elaine Paige, and the literary agent, in a swansong performance from Simon MacCorkindale, have barely a scene each.
Raúl Ruiz's direction keeps the tension building, with some masterful camera work from Ricardo Aronovich. Adrian Murray's music is understated, being cliché horror on only a few occasions.
Don't be swayed by the negativity of some of the reviews; this is a worthy effort that will reward the hour and twenty minutes you invest in this dark, claustrophobic world.
Veteran actor, Tom Conti, delivers an almost static performance, using his sonorous voice to good effect as the now blind art critic occupant of a rambling old mansion, played by Knebworth House.
He employs an attractive amanuensis, Daryl Hannah, to transcribe the ageing, irascible, misanthrope's final opus, "A Closed Book".
From the start we know that there is more beneath the surface, and the critic slowly becomes aware that his scribe is misleading him. She recounts the preposterous Madonna murder, the improbable O. J. Simpson suicide, and the laugh out loud conversion of Donald Trump to Islam.
She further gaslights the old man by moving familiar objects in his house, some of which he cannot be aware. But this is no narcissistic programme of dominance: it is a campaign of revenge.
What past trauma brought these two together? What profound loss has turned this otherwise pleasant woman into a relentless avenger?
This is a two hander, with three supports. The housekeeper played by the excellent Miriam Margolyes, a Conservative Party canvasser from Elaine Paige, and the literary agent, in a swansong performance from Simon MacCorkindale, have barely a scene each.
Raúl Ruiz's direction keeps the tension building, with some masterful camera work from Ricardo Aronovich. Adrian Murray's music is understated, being cliché horror on only a few occasions.
Don't be swayed by the negativity of some of the reviews; this is a worthy effort that will reward the hour and twenty minutes you invest in this dark, claustrophobic world.
Well written, superbly acted
floatingpolarbear29 September 2015
A tense, well paced mystery that delivers a superb, unexpected ending. I felt very intellectually energized after it ended. You think you know what it's all about and then when you're settled in your sofa you get a jolt. The main character makes you feel a bit uneasy throughout. Conti plays him brilliantly with understated panache and a great sense of self. Hannah is very convincing as the soft spoken aide with a secret agenda. As she starts to get under his skin, and yours, the story keeps you in a tight grip. I like how the horrific creepiness is left off screen, mentioned briefly, like a lightning bolt that changes the very air particles in the room. Never melodramatic, the story is bare, harsh, and proves the startling power of truth.
It's ok-ish
lruella12 October 2021
I like how well spoken the protagonist is. The thrills are not great, not terible. It's a luke-warm thriller with a not-so climatic ending that tries to be something but ends up unconvincingly. All in all worth a watch if you really have nothing else.
Entertaining thriller...
paul_haakonsen12 September 2021
I had the chance to sit down and watch the 2009 thriller "A Closed Book" (aka "Blind Revenge") here in 2021. Sure, I hadn't even heard about this movie before now in 2021 as I sat down to watch it. But of course I opted to give it a chance, as it was a movie that I hadn't already seen before, and it also had Daryl Hannah on the cast list.
The storyline told in "A Closed Book", as written by Gilbert Adair, was actually interesting. Sure, this wasn't by any means groundbreaking material, but the story provided me with adequate and proper entertainment, so the movie did what it was supposed to do.
The pacing of the storyline was good, and director Raoul Ruiz did a good job at slowly piling on to the ongoing events and keeping the audience in the dark, guessing at what is actually going on here. So the movie wasn't a linear or predictable one, which certainly worked in favor of the movie.
"A Closed Book" is nicely carried by lead performs Tom Conti and Daryl Hannah. Now, it should be said that "A Closed Book" is a movie with a small cast ensemble, so there is a bit more pressure on each performer to deliver, and they certainly did so.
I am rating "A Closed Book" a six out of ten stars. This is definitely a thriller that is worth spending about an hour and a half on watching.
The storyline told in "A Closed Book", as written by Gilbert Adair, was actually interesting. Sure, this wasn't by any means groundbreaking material, but the story provided me with adequate and proper entertainment, so the movie did what it was supposed to do.
The pacing of the storyline was good, and director Raoul Ruiz did a good job at slowly piling on to the ongoing events and keeping the audience in the dark, guessing at what is actually going on here. So the movie wasn't a linear or predictable one, which certainly worked in favor of the movie.
"A Closed Book" is nicely carried by lead performs Tom Conti and Daryl Hannah. Now, it should be said that "A Closed Book" is a movie with a small cast ensemble, so there is a bit more pressure on each performer to deliver, and they certainly did so.
I am rating "A Closed Book" a six out of ten stars. This is definitely a thriller that is worth spending about an hour and a half on watching.
Wow!
debimac25 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Found this by accident. Always had a soft spot for Tom Conti as I am also from Paisley Scotland and two of my children were born there.
I didn't know what to expect from this but I really enjoyed it and wondered all throughout what her real intentions were, it ramps up nicely and I certainly didn't see the twist(s) coming.
I pitied Sir Paul until the very end and he revealed the truth about his' accident ' which led to his blindness, was not something I saw coming.
Mind you, when I cast my mind back to their discussion about relationships/sexual orientation I suppose it makes sense.
Good film and I may look out for the book now.
I didn't know what to expect from this but I really enjoyed it and wondered all throughout what her real intentions were, it ramps up nicely and I certainly didn't see the twist(s) coming.
I pitied Sir Paul until the very end and he revealed the truth about his' accident ' which led to his blindness, was not something I saw coming.
Mind you, when I cast my mind back to their discussion about relationships/sexual orientation I suppose it makes sense.
Good film and I may look out for the book now.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
