closer

[movies]

posted by catherine / December 06, 2004 /

two days later, and i still can't figure out whether i liked it. i guess if i haven't decided by now, i probably didn't - but then again, i'm still thinking about the movie quite a bit later, so maybe i did. i think i can settle on the fact that the acting was fairly good. however, one of the major problems of the film is that it asks you to suspend reality and be willing to believe that two men would prefer julia roberts over natalie portman (who looks more gorgeous than ever), and one would prefer roberts to such an extent that he'd fuck up absolutely everything to get her. roberts' acting isn't bad in the film (which is interesting since i normally think she's terrible), but she's still cold fish throughout, restrained and not at all alluring, and exudes absolutely no chemistry with either jude law or clive owens.

additionally, there was a lot of other stuff that i really didn't find that believable. for example: roberts meets owens in an aquarium after law has played a trick in order to get revenge on roberts for rejecting him. i guess this is a bit of a spoiler, but law gets owens to show up by pretending to be a very horny and bad roberts in an internet sex chat room. owens shows up, thinking he's to meet roberts and they'll immediately go have dirty, dirty sex all over the place, and when he sees her, he talks to her in a disgustingly lusty and perverted way, although she's got no idea what he's on about. naturally, after this gross encounter with a stranger, she decides to date him! but of course! i date men all the time who say they've met me in an internet chat room and then refer to my wet knickers. lovely.

there were various other things i didn't think were accurate, such as roberts deciding to marry owens even while she's carrying on an affair with law, all because she "wanted to make things work." marrying someone when you're in love with and having sex with another person ususally does not mean you want to make things work. the dialogue also really got on my nerves - i just kept thinking, people don't talk like this! people who are getting their hearts shattered or people are so blinded by love and lust can barely make coherent words come out of their mouths, let alone whip out highly polished, ironic, cutting sentences that seem practically rehearsed.

overall, i just thought that the movie tried to present in a very clinical and ultimately shallow manner something that's very deep and confusing and messy - that is, love and betrayal. and it's all just so serious and tortured. i guess even though the subject matter is tragic, some levity might have helped. the only person i felt any affinity for was portman's character alice, and that might just be because she is so goddamn beautiful. the other characters, despite all their moaning and crying, did shit that, well, was bad. they cheat, they lie, they break hearts, and then they're the ones we're supposed to feel sorry for? i just wanted to tell them to get a grip and stop cheating all the fucking time.

but somehow i can't outright say i didn't like the film, so i guess there was something about it that was appealing. it was shot beautifully, for one, and there's also the way the director uses chronology - he just spurts ahead in time on occassion, and you've got to use contextual clues to figure out what's happened, and that can be kind of fun. another thing, like i said, was the acting. i thought portman and owens were the best, though law and roberts are good as well. the movie might benefit from a second viewing, though i'm definitely not willing to pay the $10 regal theaters charge for an evening show again.

anyway, just my humble opinion. anyone else seen it yet?