A dreary tale set in a dreary City and a waste of a fine cast

Rating: 1/10 (31 July 2008)

This is just not the kind of movie I enjoy so my review is bound to be downgrading. My initial and final reaction, after sitting through the whole dreary thing in the comfort of my own den (had I seen it in a cinema theatre I would have left long before the end), is why on earth were such a set of four fine actors persuaded to perform in such a pointless exercise? I've given Closer two stars mainly for the heroic efforts the actors must have had to make in dealing with a banal script and uninteresting parts. The whole thing seems to be about three disillusioned aging yuppies and one barely past-puberty attractive young waitress-stripper (23 year old Natalie Portman who plays Alice aka as Janet Rachel Jones). The play seeks to explore the sexual and personal relationships between four people who have met by chance in the City. That storyline might have been interesting except the characters are so selfishly wrapped up in themselves they are more even boring than some deadly boring real life self-absorbed couples I have actually met. Who would want to know about such people when there is so little of interest to learn? A psychiatrist, just back from a refreshing Caribbean holiday, might be prepared to hear their individual stories (and be well paid for doing so) but I am glad it only cost me fifty cents as the DVD came for that extra with the Sunday newspaper. I am not glad, however, that it cost me just about 90 minutes of my life to watch. The absurd thing is while in the modern fashion they are into partner swapping the two males get extremely uptight when they discover that their former bed mate is sleeping with the other guy. They constantly demand the truth from each partner and then don't like it when it's fed to them chapter and verse. Towards the end of the movie I recalled the 1957 film, The Little Hut, except that was a love triangle, not a quartet and also a movie I would like to forget but at least its script contained an element of humour, These things work much better as comical farces than as a drama which one is supposed to take seriously. In fact I usually prefer Julia Roberts in comedies or least melodramas. She is simply is not right for straight parts.
I cannot understand one professional critic who is quoted on the back of the DVD cover writing of Closer "it vibrates with eroticism, bruising laughs and dynamic performance". In my opinion exactly the three elements that are almost entirely lacking in the movie.
Despite the actors' best efforts their performance was hardly dynamic. The script and story didn't allow it any more than would have one for a Cinderella pantomime. As to vibrating with eroticism I would say this movie is no more erotic than a Made in China plastic vibrator urgently needing a battery replacement. Except possibly the one scene in the back room of strip club where Natalie Portman displays much of her pretty young body. But then if some voyeur wanted a good erotic pornography movie there is plenty of such dedicated stuff around without the need to view this particular DVD. In my eyes Julia Roberts was never very beautiful and a personality quite lacking in eroticism. As a young actress she was quite pretty and funny as a prostitute with Richard Gere and still vaguely attractive in a comic way as a film star who falls in love with a stuttering Hugh Grant, but she is rapidly losing her beauty and sex appeal as she ages and evident in this 2004 work. Richard Owen is ruggedly handsome but his role requires him to make remarks to Julia Roberts which suggests the character he portrays is not very sure of himself as regards his sexual performance, more of having a medical problem than erotic in nature. I was also disappointed with Jude Law who I first saw and admired in his secondary role in Gatacca. In Closer he looks seedy, effeminate and unkept. As to "laughs" the only lines that induced a slight giggle on my part was when Judes's character is asked if he still writes obituaries for a newspaper. His reply is "No more, I've been promoted as obituary page editor" When asked "how come? he replies "The previous editor died"! No exactly hilarious and probably not original. The whole play is set in a grey London winter, mostly in probably expensive but darkened flats and lofts which just adds to the overall impression of the banal dreariness that overwhelms the film. May be that's what the producer set out to achieve. It seems the movie won two Golden Globes and two Academy Award nominations (for Owen and Portman's performance in both cases).
I'm sorry , there are plenty of folk who seem to love this film but what I have written is my view after "giving it a go".