So 'Closer' looks good then.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

anyone ssen it?
anyone seen the play?
anyone seen both?

weird though how peter o'hanrahahanrahan is now
like a rich hollywood writer and soon to be oscar-nominated, isnt it?

― piscesboy, Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, it is good

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/closer.html

many folks don't like it. that's one of them.

― kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Take the c off that title.

― Leon the Fatboy (Ex Leon), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

It was okay. Performances were good, direction was fine. I just thought there were a lot of holes in the script. I mean, I like the idea of the film breezily jumping ahead in time, but I felt like it prevented us from really getting to know the characters. But maybe that's not the point. Maybe we're supposed to just see these relationships as sketches; it was probably more successful on stage because theatre doesn't require the same kind of specificity as film does.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Nobody seemed to like it but me. And Kyle.

It was good.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

My brother liked it a lot! We had a huge argument about it on Christmas Eve that my dad had to come in and mediate. (Actually, it was about more than just Closer, but that's what started it.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked it, good acting (except for Portman, per usual) and I enjoy 'stagey' movies. I wish I lived somewhere that I could see things like this on-stage.

One nerdy thing that annoyed me - Julia Roberts photographs Portman against the window using a Leica M6 (35mm), but the print in her exhibition is a 6x6 square image (not cropped, it was printed full-frame, probably 'done' with the Hasselblad she had in her studio).

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't usually post just to say I didn't like something -- cause that's annoying -- but this was honestly the worst movie I've ever seen with famous-actors-after-they're-famous. It was like an irritating student play by some sophomore who'd just discovered that sticking his dick into someone didn't make them perfect.

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

oh milo you're such a "photgrapher"!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I enjoyed the writing especially. Clive Owen was great.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm starting to like theater and self-consciously "dramatic" dialogue! Great stuff!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

how is it pronounced?

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:24 (twenty-one years ago)

cloh-SAY. It's foreign.

― Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

CL-OOOZ-URRR

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I love foregin things. They're so...different.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I CAN'T TYPE ANYMORE :(

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Clive Owen was great.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

"You writer"

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I still want to see this, as I am very interested in how plays transfer to the screen. Although it will make me hate people, I know.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Also: We Don't Live Here Anymore has a sort of similar plot but was better, I thought.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

PLUS RUFFALO.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Ruffalo has fallen off

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

It ain't a dramatization of the second Joy Division album = I shrug at it.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

It is, actually. It's really SAD.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

But in a TRAGIC, BEAUTIFUL, HYPNOTIC way.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

ROFL @ RUFFALO '66

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

RUFFALO '66 would be the BEST MOVIE EVER.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

RUFFALO STANCE

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

RUFFALO SOLDIERS

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Where The Ruffalo Roam

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

It is, actually. It's really SAD.

Not in the way you mean it, I'll bet.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought it was hilarious when Natalie Portman's character said, "You can't cry in here," to Clive's character while they're in the strip club. I liked it okay. Clive Owen is hot, but he was pretty damn creepy in this film.

― jill schoelen is the queen of my dreams! (Homosexual II), Thursday, 13 January 2005 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drg500/g596/g59658feyik.jpg

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

RUFFALO RUFFALO

it looks a bit like that film with Nastaassia kinski and kyle mchlaclin and the other people. is it?

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Do you like RUFFALO or something?

jed you won't like this...because I did.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

The play was great. because of that, though, I don't really want to see the movie. Larry was played by someone profoundly unattractive - I now can't imagine someone that looks like Clive Owen playing the character, as it would change things a little much for my liking.

― lemin (lemin), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought all the acting in it was splendid, Portman was really good and I'd pretty much written her off as a the next winona ryder (beautiful, talentless) after Garden State. I like movies where bad things happen to Jude Law, so I liked this.

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Portman made me feel...comfortable.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

adam, i don't think we often disagree on movies actually. you know i love RUFFALO.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

just the Almodovar thing.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I was being "funny".

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

i totally didn't twig this was the Patrick Marber thing. the trailer makes it look pretty bad (Roberts AND Portman? come on...)

― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, neither of them are any good in it...

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

so is it like that movie with kinski kyle downey jr and snipes or not?

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

no surprises there adam.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

ONE NIGHT STAND?

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

ummmm, the movie I mean. That wasn't a proposition.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

well there's the distance problem anyway. yeah that one.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 13 January 2005 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Apart from Julia Roberts, who was just absolutely dreadful, the performances were great. I realy didn't like the script and I didn't think the ellipses worked. It's really hard to believe characters when you only see them at their most hysterical.

― C0L1N B--KETT, Friday, 14 January 2005 04:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes. That was my feeling exactly.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 14 January 2005 05:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Is We Don't Live Here Anymore really good or just better than Closer? I've heard mixed things (and one of the good things was David Denby and I'm pretty sure he'd jizz all over any domestic drama).

― C0L1N B--KETT, Friday, 14 January 2005 05:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Dammit, Ned beat me to the Joy Division allusion.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 14 January 2005 05:46 (twenty-one years ago)

There's still a NIN allusion to be made, though!

― David R. (popshots75`), Friday, 14 January 2005 06:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Damien Rice is keeping me from seeing this.

― Miles Finch, Friday, 14 January 2005 09:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Is he blockading your house?

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Friday, 14 January 2005 10:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I wonder if fans of Chris Morris would agree that Partick Marber is surely the basis for Gobi Jovvler:

‘Stand up’ she said, ‘and meet Gobi Jovvler. He wrote that play that won the awards.’ I remembered the critics had said that it was the most devastatingly accurate play that will ever be written about sex. ‘It’s the most devastatingly accurate play that will ever be written about sex.’ said Suzie.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 14 January 2005 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)

is that suzie who works in 'the warm arts'?

― Miles Finch, Friday, 14 January 2005 10:29 (twenty-one years ago)

and...

We toured London in great random sweeps, Jovvler all the time extemporising on urban alienation in the sexually malfunctioning zeitgeist. ’Look,’ he’d say, ‘look at them. Dual income, six dildos.’ And once; ‘If you’re bored of London, you’re bored of fucking, and I’m bored of fucking London because I’m bored of London fucking.’

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 14 January 2005 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i think there was a falling-out of some sort among the 'new beyond the fringe set' -- partly because of some agentsy bullshit to do with lee and herring. but marber often used to take credit for things (even partridge) and claim to be the cleverest of the bunch. ie he is teh jonathan miller. mind you i don't have the highest hopes for 'nathan barley'.

― Miles Finch, Friday, 14 January 2005 10:38 (twenty-one years ago)

can we re-introduce the phrase SPOILERS when giving away plot points?

ta.

also - the falling outs on THE DAY TODAY seem to have been out to bed as the whole cast did extras on the dvd together. minus lee and herring natch.

― piscesboy, Friday, 14 January 2005 10:41 (twenty-one years ago)

that's true, i'd forgotten that. i liked the ohanrahanrahan one.

― Miles Finch, Friday, 14 January 2005 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Being foil to Chris Morris and Alan Partridge was the best thing Patrick Marber ever did and probably will ever do

― Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 14 January 2005 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

"Peter, you've lost the news!"

Thanks for those snippets of Blue Jam monologues, Dada. Ace. The L&H vs Marber disagreements stem from On The Hour, not The Day Today which they weren't asked to write for. When the CD/cassette compilation of OTH was released, there were edits down to the syllable level to erase any trace of L&H's contributions (i.e. keep the sketch, lose the funny character name they came up with).

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 14 January 2005 10:50 (twenty-one years ago)

"You writer"

Best put-down ever!

Saw Closer last night. Can't say I *loved* it, cos it's pretty bleak and nobody ends up happy, but it's unflinchingly realistic and the dialogue, in particular, is bone-crunching in its authenticity.

Not sure why there's so much Portman/Roberts hate - they're both great, the latter especially underacting, which makes her a hundred times better than usual. Portman is almost supernaturally beautiful, but my gosh doesn't she just know it?

Owen seems to reprise his Croupier role a little, which is fine by me cos he's very good at it. And Law? Law's Law innee. But he's a lot less annoying than usual. Woo.

See Closer. But see it on telly. Or on stage.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Friday, 14 January 2005 10:56 (twenty-one years ago)

It was like an irritating student play by some sophomore who'd just discovered that sticking his dick into someone didn't make them perfect
That's so close to how i felt about the play. i laffed at the chat room gag (is that in the film?). that is all.

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Friday, 14 January 2005 13:18 (twenty-one years ago)

That's so close to how i felt about the play. i laffed at the chat room gag (is that in the film?). that is all.

The chat room is in the film; that and Roberts' line to Law, "What are you, twelve?" are the best things in it.

Clive Owen plays a dermatologist but does not show much skin = disappointment.

― j.lu (j.lu), Friday, 14 January 2005 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

good acting except portman? what?! she's the (still) heart of the movie! only jude law of the leads (in fact are there any other characters in this film?) is slightly rubbish. understated julia roberts I'll take any day. keira's shifty-clementine (sp?) act is nothing short of phenomenal. ok maybe not but the girl deserves credit here. haha funny use of 'how soon is now?' in the strip club scene and use of damien rice at the end totally great (else: he is more powerful than you, most things you know, and what you have just watched which he isn't.)

"you writer!"

― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 16 January 2005 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

nb: damien rice still rubbish but rubbish music does stuff too.

― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 16 January 2005 18:56 (twenty-one years ago)

cozen, you writer.

― Awesome Welles (nordicskilla), Sunday, 16 January 2005 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Thing is, PM may be a twat in real life, but his performances in On the Hour, Day Today and Partridge are funnier than anything
Stewart "Jerry Springer the opera" Lee and Richard "Time Gentlemen please" Herring have ever done.

I have no intention of seeing Closer.

― Bumfluff, Sunday, 16 January 2005 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Closer is dully vile, like Carnal Knowledge rewritten by Richard Curtis. Go and see A Hole In The Heart instead - same basic premise but infinitely better film (oh and Million Dollar Baby stinks as well - bog standard dysfunctional TV movie plot which belongs on a Tuesday afternoon on Channel 5 starring Brian Dennehy, Cheryl Ladd and Frederick Forrest, but we're all supposed to bow and scrape in awe because it's Wise Old Demographic-Balancing Clint).

Also as an NHS employee I can say with confidence that there is no such thing as a dirty dermatologist.

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 17 January 2005 09:46 (twenty-one years ago)

sucks it

― Urkle-bot and Jeanne-Claude (deangulberry), Monday, 17 January 2005 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

bag o'shite.

― Henry Miller, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

i said dermatologist, not rectal surgeon.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:13 (twenty-one years ago)

it's unflinchingly realistic and the dialogue, in particular, is bone-crunching in its authenticity.

i suppose because it's unremittingly nasty this is what we're meant to believe. but it is not unflinchingly realistic is it? has anyone on this thread ever met such a shower of cunts? in fact we get to know very little about any of the characters other than what they're like when angry. law and roberts were even worse than usual. clive owen was fine, portman was okay, but it was very much a male fantasy role. marber is entitled to his bleak view of the world, but it's a bubble world, a closed world. direction was flat and its sense of place was non-existant. factor in damien rice and you have the year's most overrated movie.

― Henry Miller, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 10:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with henry.

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Prettymuch nails it.

Also I thought Portman was better in Garden State. Also, I thought Two Girls and a Guy was better than Closer wrt stage to screen scripts.

― Jimmy Mod always makes friends with women before bedding them down (ModJ), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

And all Two Girls and a Guy had was Heather Graham...

― Jimmy Mod always makes friends with women before bedding them down (ModJ), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Natasha Gregson Wagner (the other woman in Two Girls) is way cuter than Heather Graham. And didn't have a creepy oral sex scene with Robert Downey Jr.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

It was like an irritating student play by some sophomore who'd just discovered that sticking his dick into someone didn't make them perfect.

A-ha! In an interview with Oxford's super-soaraway Isis magazine, the man Marber (Wadham, 1980) says his next project might well be about students in the 80s. His metier, I'd have thought. Wadham was famously lefty then. Perhaps fellow-alum Tim McInnery could star.

― Miles Finch, Thursday, 20 January 2005 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)

one of the best films i've seen in a long time.

― mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 23 January 2005 20:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Two Girls And A Guy SUCKED

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Sunday, 23 January 2005 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I now disagree with henry and agree with the guy in 'sight & sound'.

― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 23 January 2005 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

what'd he have to say?

― mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:00 (twenty-one years ago)

pretty much what I said above with added criticism.

― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:00 (twenty-one years ago)

(I can't remember exactly.)

― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

so you now agree with what you said above? that's good.

― mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:02 (twenty-one years ago)

from best to worst performance: owen, roberts, law, portman

― mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)

owen......BIG drop off...law, portman, roberts

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

ew, patrick marber. and he doesn't even know how to pronounce it.

― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:12 (twenty-one years ago)

roberts was wonderful i thought, and i've never ever ever said that about her.

― mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

have you seen 'pretty woman'?

― cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 23 January 2005 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

The S&S guy prattled on about the cast being too good-looking, and did the classic S&S thing of comparing the film to the play/novel/script as if that mattered. This is already the worst film of 2005.

― Henry Miller, Monday, 24 January 2005 10:12 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, sorry, she was good in pretty woman too.

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 24 January 2005 21:12 (twenty-one years ago)

not everything in a review need pollute everything else.

― cozen (Cozen), Monday, 24 January 2005 23:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sick of watching beautiful people have sex and crying.

― Michael Stuchbery (Mikey Bidness), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 03:11 (twenty-one years ago)

that's kind of why i wanted to see it.
and also because being a bored married woman i like movies where bored married women have affairs with beautiful men. especially younger beautiful men.
But then my flatmate found out so now she and her gross boyfriend are probably going to go on some kind of double date with me and my husband and that totally just kills all interest.
except that it's directed by Mike Nichols.

― Mrs Robinson (Catty), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 06:58 (twenty-one years ago)

not that age has anything to do with closer. i'm just sayin'.

― Catty (Catty), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 06:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Roberts isn't really playing a 'bored married woman' either.

― Henry Miller, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 09:27 (twenty-one years ago)

god I feel like alan partridge quoting top gear magazine:

'people who look sad, but are beautiful, so that the sorrow and ugliness of reality are glossed over by the pleasure of the aesthetic. Acute as this may be, when voiced by Portman in a film purporting to be an unvarnished examination of contemporary relationships it rings strangely hollow. In a sense, all four are simply too good-looking. They risk distraction from the unpalatable suggestion at the film's heart: that these characters and their behaviour are the norm... but Closer piques itself throughout on its unblinking honesty about modern mores...' [goes on to say understated roberts is cool, law struggles with the material, portman is an approximate moral centre and that the last scene is ill-judged, set to its schmaltzy damien rice song] [the last scene ws the best for me, don't get me wrong I dislike rice as much as etc but sometimes there are things in music more powerful than taste etc] [I'm still not sure I like this film btw.]

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 13:09 (twenty-one years ago)

agreed roberts isn't playing a bored married woman. though note: it doesn't matter that she's already divorced.

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, it was great.

― m. (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 18:47 (twenty-one years ago)

married / long-term committed relationship, whatevah.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 03:36 (twenty-one years ago)

okay what did the likaz like about it? did they feel it was a true reflection of how people treat one another? did it provide insight into teh human condix0r? or was it a satire in some way i haven't grasped?

― Miles Finch, Wednesday, 26 January 2005 09:57 (twenty-one years ago)

It didn't make me hate all people after all. And I didn't hate the movie either. Natalie Portman wasn't that bad, but she wasn't great either, because she is too wide-eyed and innocent. Her character was supposed to have this "past" and she just seemed too perky all the time, even at her big moment in the flat with Jude Law when he tells her where he's been all night. I know she's supposed to be a trooper, but I guess she just should have seemed a bit more haunted or lovestruck. Owen was fantastic, but I can't imagine him in the Dan role whci he played on stage, since Law's quite sniveling presence and smaller build seemed to fit the personality better. Really I just had the same problem that some people upthread have, we get so much bedroom talk/end of relationship hurt that we never see them interact in the public sphere. We also never see Law out of a suit in public until the end of the movie, which I found kind of distracting for some reason.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Thursday, 27 January 2005 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

I thought the most interesting thing about the film was the way in which Owen's character was succesfully able to throw a spanner into the works of both of Law's character's relationships. I can't really imagine this happening and/or working in real life, but at the same time I can't really explain why it couldn't or wouldn't work out the way it did.

I thought all the actors played the roles well, in that I wasn't thinking about them as actors (except when Portman was stripping, when I couldn't help but think of her Garden State character and smirk) but as the characters. Jude Law made me hate him, when I usually warm to him even when he's playing an arsehole, so I guess he did that right.

I really liked the Damien Rice song, against all odds.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 28 February 2005 06:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Something about this movie really bothered me. I know that I wasn't supposed to like any of the characters or really relate to the situation, but I couldn't help feeling very shifty when I was watching it.

― stephen morris (stephen morris), Monday, 28 February 2005 06:46 (twenty-one years ago)

rich white people fucking around with each other and talking talking talking endlessly about it later?

― Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Monday, 28 February 2005 07:39 (twenty-one years ago)

rich white people fucking around with each other and talking talking talking endlessly about it later?

No, not really.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 28 February 2005 08:09 (twenty-one years ago)

eric rohmer is great!

― cozen (Cozen), Monday, 28 February 2005 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

i suppose because it's unremittingly nasty this is what we're meant to believe. but it is not unflinchingly realistic is it? has anyone on this thread ever met such a shower of cunts?

yeah, this is how i felt.

god i hated the soundtrack. and those telephoto shots of people walking down the street at rush hour. otherwise it was "well done" without being the slightest bit exciting.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

also portman was terrible and her character made no sense, not even dramatically.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know why, but I love this movie.

― jill schoelen is the queen of my dreams! (Homosexual II), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't know why either

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i kinda agree with amateurist. on the whole i thought it was better acted and directed than written. but i couldn't really figure out the point of this movie.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

also it was supposed to be so nasty but i thought it was pretty tame! especially compared to something like nichols's "carnal knowledge" which is 100x more vicious

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

it helps to have Jack Nicholson in your movie if you want it to be super-vicious.

― sugarpants: new and improved! (sugarpants), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 19:10 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, totally!

http://freespace.virgin.net/philip.matchett/images/pics/asgood.gif

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 19:22 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

Previous to this movie, which I saw today, the only other role I'd seen Clive Owen do was the one in King Arthur so I obviously thought he was the worst actor in Hollywood. Boy was I wrong! He was incredible in this movie.

Like most people I detest Portman's acting but that scene in the end at the porn club were she's in the blonde wig she looks nothing but phenomenal. I had to replay that scene in slow motion. Several times.

― Lovelace (Lovelace), Monday, 23 May 2005 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

The right lubricant could get you down to one, two times at most.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 23 May 2005 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

ICE COLD

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 23 May 2005 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)

POINT OF MOVE / SPOILER that people seem to miss:

Jane/Alice had intended to hurt the guy all along, but he temporarily fucked up her plans by leaving her for Anna. Remember, she said, "I'm supposed to leave YOU!" when he left her for Anna. At end of movie it is revealed that she never gave him her real name, so intended to fuck him over all along.

Also, notice how the kind, forgiving people made mistakes but ended up alright because they were forgiven by a kind, forgiving person. Notice also that the people who hurt (Dan hits Alice, Alice intended to break Dan's heart from beginning) ultimately get hurt by hurters themselves!

Pretty good underlying themes there about intent and justice.

― ReNTBAPA: Resolute Not To Be A Prick Anymore (Unfortunate Prankster), Saturday, 4 June 2005 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I still didn't like it.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see that Alice was planning on 'fucking him over' at all. She wanted to think of herself as transient, moving on before he could break her heart this time, etc.

In the end she isn't punished - she moves on back to her real name and puts it behind her, she 'wins' in the end.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't see this as her intention to fuck him over. It was about protection. Of course she needed him to back so she could leave him. The only reason why she had a fake name is how he's now unable to come back (and hurt her?). I think, when you see the other couple, you realize she's now utterly alone: the others are willing to be fragile (and reveal their real selves) and thus get back together... They risk much more but also win a lot more. I loved the film.

― nathalie's baby (stevie nixed), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

(Of course the fake name/protection is just false: she's alone...)

― nathalie's baby (stevie nixed), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I see it as Jane hurts people because she was hurt and the cycle of hurt continues. But, this cycle of hurt causes selfishness/self-preservation issues. Those who allow themselves to be hurt and forgive are the ones who REALLY get on with their lives and are much happier in the end. Notice Jane was turning a lot of heads in that final scene, but she was all alone.

― ReNTBAPA: Resolute Not To Be A Prick Anymore (Unfortunate Prankster), Saturday, 4 June 2005 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)

This was not my sort of film.

― jel -- (jel), Saturday, 4 June 2005 18:13 (twenty-one years ago)

The dialogue alone was fantastic! The directing and acting was excellent. But, the content of the movie itself was painful and maybe not good head food, depending.

― ReNTBAPA: Resolute Not To Be A Prick Anymore (Unfortunate Prankster), Saturday, 4 June 2005 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

two months pass...

terrible film. i can't believe people are praising the dialoge here, i was aghast at how bad it was. stilted and awkward and, though i dare say it's not quite as bad on stage, it's not really theatrical either. when people talk about "stagey" dialogue i presume they mean that it's artificial or unrealistic in some way (this fim's dialogue is certainly both of those things) but actually that kind of dialogue rarely works well on screen OR in the theatre and is not really what theatre should be doing as far as i'm concerned. Marber is definitely a follower of Mamet and LaBute, a pretty narrow theatrical vision and, at this point, pretty redundant.

― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 28 August 2005 00:51 (twenty years ago)

well, performanaces have a bit to with it jed, i thot clive own did a good job as did natalie portman ( to a lesser degree) but the problem was that the parts were also not well written to me, fel like they were stuck with thes elines nd charcters who were not very well delineated (at least enuf to create yer own role)

clive owen was the only person who really had any force in the film and mebbe need to see the play as it's on;t the 4 there no?
mebbe playing the jude law role onstage allowed him onsight into the other character.

i didn't like the fim, just think terrible is a strond description.

― H (Heruy), Sunday, 28 August 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

as far as the performances went i thought that both women did pretty well. Owen was quite a bit less good and Law was weakest. however, I don't see that any of them did a bad job considering what they had to work with.

― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 28 August 2005 01:27 (twenty years ago)

eleven months pass...

Wow, yeah, this was horrible.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

Really hated this. I just spent the whole film thinking "But why should I give the tiniest shit about any of these CUNTS?"

― chap who would dare to start Raaatpackin (chap), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:29 (nineteen years ago)

i think the worst sub-genre of film over the past ten years is the one where bored, amoral, upper middle class white couples cheat on one another and generally act like cunts. cf: your friends and neighbors, we don't live here anymore, closer, etc

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

The whole thing was like watching porn, only without sex -- really high-budget relationship porn. And I mean porn exactly: it's a series of iffily connected vignettes (check) in which people play-act intense but totally implausible relationships (check) using mannered, overly coy dialogue (check) despite us having no idea who the hell they are or what they're talking about (check) -- there's even that porn-like system where people's jobs and outfits and the rooms they're put in are supposed to be a satisfactory substitute for their seeming like actual people. (Pizza delivery guy humps babysitter; writer in gray suit ditches stripper-waif for sweater-wearing photographer in airy loft.)

And that's even assuming I accept anything that happens in this story after Larry and Anna meet at the aquarium (and Anna, apparently being both completely insane and some kind of psychic, declines to say "I THINK YOU HAVE THE WRONG ANNA" and instead says "OH, I'LL BET DAN DID THIS").

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:40 (nineteen years ago)

(xpost) Ha, I have a total soft spot for movies like that. Although I wasn't really fond of this one or Your Friends and Neighbors -- but We Don't Live Here Anymore totally pushed my bored, amoral, upper-middle-class white couple acting-like-cunts button. I also really liked the house Mark Ruffalo and Laura Dern lived in.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

The only plus side is that it's also sweater-porn and interior-decorating porn, such that you can kind of tune out and just sit there thinking about how that shelving unit is perfect, and the scattering of orange-spined hardcovers along its length is incredibly fetching, and it's just the sort of thing you'd like to sit next to in a nice slate roll-neck like that one.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:43 (nineteen years ago)

One critic I read/heard described it as a '95-minute Calvin Klein commercial', so I've not opted to see it.

La Regle Du Jeu = bored, amoral, upper-middle class white couples acting like cunts = brilliant, btw. The French do it so much better.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

you're totally wrong, it's completely not in that genre. those are rich french assholes, not bored, complacent, cuntish americans.

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:49 (nineteen years ago)

'the rules of the game' cannot share genre space with 'she's the one' or anything like that

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

xpost -- Well, by that logic, Closer is technically half about English people. Plus they don't seem bored or complacent in the least. I was bored, but they seemed to be having a grand old emotional time up there, wailing operatically about their alleged strong feelings about one another.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:55 (nineteen years ago)

you and your nabisco logic

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

i guess the sub-genre should be called 'cheating/arguing white people'

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS

― chaki (chaki), Monday, 21 August 2006 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

Taken on its own, Gear, my statement stands. I wasn't making a direct genre comparison between a Renoir classic and a Lyndsey Lohan (or whoever) film. And they ARE bored during The Rules Of The Game; the 'entertainments' sequence is a masterpiece in bathos and distraction.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

i'm kind of ashamed to say this, but i liked closer just because whenever clive owen is on a movie screen i can't take my eyes off of it. i can't even remember what i thought of the quality of the movie as a whole, just "omg clive owen was so hot."

― Maria (Maria), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

i was really only talking about this specific sub genre over the past ten years, obv. 'royal tenenbaums' otm.

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not ashamed to say I liked 'the royal tenenbaums', precisely because it made us mock its upper-class cunts rather than sympathise with them.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:17 (nineteen years ago)

The whole thing was like watching porn, only without sex -- really high-budget relationship porn

The movie was vile. Carnal Knowledge was crap too.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:18 (nineteen years ago)

I liked the Royal Tenenbaums because of gothy Paltrow and junkie Owen Wilson. Other than that, meh.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

'TRT' was totally sympathetic, it was just 'whimsical'.

does 'laurel canyon' count? i hated that, too.

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:25 (nineteen years ago)

I'd see this if they put Portman's nude scene into a Director's Cut.

― Danny Aioli (Rock Hardy), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:26 (nineteen years ago)

I don't get lumping Tenebaums in here: Tenenbaums is, if anything, really precious and whimsical, always devoted to its storybook vibe, whereas films like Closer (etc) want to be tense, gritty dramas (either realist ones or stylish ones -- Closer wants to be both of those at once). I can't see any significant connection between these things. (The characters are white, have money, live in cities, and have problems that are mostly social and not incredibly pressing or life-threatening: that's kind of true of most all movies, really.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:27 (nineteen years ago)

That was an xpost past Gear -- exactly, it's sappy whimsy versus stuff that thinks it's cutting and dramatic.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:28 (nineteen years ago)

'trt' otm re: mediocrity. definitely different in tone. it'd be more contemptuous if it wanted us to mock its characters, the whimsy all least makes it a little more digestible. 'closer' seems to be saying, 'these characters have problems, aren't they vile?'

― gear (gear), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:32 (nineteen years ago)

Can a movie be "tense" and "gritty" when it's based on a play?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:32 (nineteen years ago)

of course, why not?

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

What were their problems, exactly? Part of the issue here is that I never got much sense that any of them really wanted to be with each other in any significant way. It seemed like endless wrangling over who would date who for a while. But like we're supposed to imagine either of them would stay with the photographer for more than, I dunno, a couple years?

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

fuck 'edgy'

― Vacillatrix (x Jeremy), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

bored, amoral, upper middle class white couples cheat on one another and generally act like cunts. cf: your friends and neighbors, we don't live here anymore, closer, etc

This genre is more Updike, while Royal Tenenbaums is (obv.) Salinger.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, plus endless sexual jealousy.

I liked the part where Jude Law turned to the camera and said "Man, I wish there were more than four characters in this, so I could just go date someone else."

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

Hang on, that comment I made up there was totally stupid. I liked the Royal Tenenbaums because it was a well-observed comedy and it made me laugh. Sympathy and mockery come into it, but it isn't a 90-minute moan-fest like Closer apparently is.

My favourite current TV show btw is Arrested Development, which I absolutely adore for precisely those reasons. It's no sin.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:38 (nineteen years ago)

The whole thing was like watching porn, only without sex

So this is why I love it. I think porn is GR34T, really.

Closer is a great movie. Definitely not my favourite movie, but seeing as I normally hate the actors involved in this movie, it was astounding that I liked it as much as I did.

Dude, you have no clue, have you? Natalie Portman is the one who finally loses the battle. She ends up utterly alone. It's about passion, revenge, (un)faithfullness,... It's nothing like porn.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 21 August 2006 19:56 (nineteen years ago)

Portman starts alone, she ends alone, and everything about the film tells us that this was inevitable and that she embraced this fate, which makes it rather difficult for me to care. I think the writing is somewhat confused with regard to her, actually. We get the implication that she's constantly being used and consumed by the people around her (for books, for stripping, "giving her life to save others" like the Alice in the monument), and that she does this willingly, because she's actually the most honest and faithful of the bunch (never leaves the one she loves) -- but also that none of them actually know the real her, not even her name, and the only time she uses her real name is in a moment when she's getting used and consumed (while stripping, and with Larry). The fact that 98% of the dialogue she's given is coy, mannered nonsense just enhances the sense that we will never get through to figuring out who or what she is ... so, like, why do we care that she goes back to where she started from? What's gained or lost? Is her taking her name from the monument meant to suggest that she gave up herself to save Daniel-the-writer? Not in the end, certainly; he's far from saved. If she'd saved something about him, wouldn't it be in that first cut between scenes, when he has a book finished -- and wouldn't that make 90% of this movie pointless, just a voyeuristic leering at relationships getting fucked up stalling the point where we presumably realize something we knew all along about the very beginning? I don't know, and more importantly I just really didn't care, at any point in the film.

As for it being porny, it's a series of Intense Relationship vignettes, in which not much seems to be at stake beyond our own voyeurism -- the possible problem with which, even just as relationship-porn, is that what we're watching is less thrilling and more just depressing. People cheated and left each other, etc. I don't entirely get how it's "about" passion -- I see a lot of actors pretending to be passionate, but I don't see any of the characters having any real passion about one another. Law and Portman don't seem passionate. Law and Roberts just flirt for three minutes, kiss, and then claim to be passionate about one another. Owen seems passionate about something or other, but it seems more like he has personal issues than anything else.

I dunno, maybe it's trying to make some sort of point by having all of the real connections between people be mysterious, not a part of the story, kind of unguessable and far away -- like Larry, we have nothing but Daniel and Anna's word for it that they're in love. But if there's a point to that, it's not one that's been drawn out well enough for me to care about it.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 August 2006 20:51 (nineteen years ago)

I hate this movie so much. And I totally adore coy, mannered dialogue. The writing is so unbelievably bad. And Portman, ohmygod.

― horseshoe (horseshoe), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:36 (nineteen years ago)

ohmygod so hot as pink-haired stripperette, you mean?

― milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

ohymygod so wooden even as she reveals herself to have a nice ass. (I was surprised by her ass.)

― horseshoe (horseshoe), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:45 (nineteen years ago)

http://home.online.no/~kgroenn/disney/pinocchio/pinocchio5.gif

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 00:56 (nineteen years ago)

This is my least favorite movie of all time. I sat through the whole thing only so I could claim it as my least favorite movie of all time.

― starke (starke), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 05:51 (nineteen years ago)

i actually gave up seeing movies after i saw this film. not seen a one since. that bad.

― Bashment Jakes (Enrique), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 08:19 (nineteen years ago)

just a voyeuristic leering at relationships getting fucked up stalling the point where we presumably realize something we knew all along about the very beginning?

Aren't all movies voyeuristic? It's all about looking, no?

I loved the movie, but at the end of the day (or rather movie) it didn't really change my attitude about life, which is what great movies tend to do (for about five minutes and then life goes on regardless).

That said, I don't understand why people can hate it as much as they do. Baise Moi for example would make me gag, but Closer? Maybe I don't know enough about bad writing?

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 08:34 (nineteen years ago)

i mentioned above that portman's character made no sense, but nabisco spelled out the reeconciliable modes her character is supposed to occupy by turns. that sort of spelled doom for this film for me-- just the complete unreality, the stupid conceit, that was portman's character (she didn't do anything interesting as an actor to try to fill in the gaps, either). i didn't make the porn connection but like porn this film left me feeling somehow simultaneously bored, overstimulated, and depressed.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 09:06 (nineteen years ago)

er, irreconciliable

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 09:06 (nineteen years ago)

Good film, as I remember. Some enjoyable ding-dongs in there. I don't care that I don't care about the characters, nor am I hung up about them being "white" or wealthy or whiny. Though without Owen it would be dead.

As for "pretending to be passionate": a bit like this thread, really.

― David Orton (scarlet), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 12:31 (nineteen years ago)

oh you *would* like this.

― Bashment Jakes (Enrique), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 12:33 (nineteen years ago)

i liked it. I like movies where bad things happen to Jude Law. I hate Jude Law.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

god tho the fist covered in blood line was a keeper, wasn't it?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 16:31 (nineteen years ago)

hahahaha.
or the bit about how the best time a girl can have w/o taking her clothes off is by lying.
SO TRUE. SO MANY TRUTHS.

i actually enjoy this film.

― i've dreamt of rubies! (Mandee), Tuesday, 22 August 2006 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

four years pass...

oh my god this movie

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 19 December 2010 10:10 (fifteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9PKyfkHZgU

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 19 December 2010 10:11 (fifteen years ago)

epic tits

― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 19 December 2010 10:11 (fifteen years ago)

i don't remember a single thing about this movie

― akm, Monday, 20 December 2010 15:23 (fifteen years ago)

ten years pass...

Have been thinking about this film a lot, mainly because I’m always thinking about this film at least a little, but surprised to read the negative reactions upthread. Saw this in 2007 and instantly fell for it. It’s as cynical and depressing as anything you’ll see, but the patches of light - very fucking few and far between - are worth it.

I’ve never seen the play but am sure it’s meant to be a work of beginnings and endings of the various relationships - the end scene in New York (which iirc is a departure from the play in a sense that is is implied but it’s background knowledge in the play) is Alice/Jane breaking free from them all - for a short time.

Is it too cynical? Maybe. Even the most joyous scenes are tainted by damaged people doing damaging things and Closer is not so much the locked gaze as it is the look over the shoulder.

Agree with everyone upthread about “you writer” being funny, Portman and Owen obviously great but really enjoyed Julia Roberts. As someone (akm?) says upthread, there’s a lot of enjoyment to be derived from bad things happening to Jude Law in a film, and this film delivers hugely.

Favourite scenes? The strip club meeting between Alice and Larry (dark, bleak, full of sexual tension) and Dan meeting Larry at his office (the power dynamics here are so cruel but so lovingly rendered - they really cast Jude Law right just for this one scene).

It’s not a film you’d really want to watch regularly or if you’re inclined to misanthropy but it’s a well made and great looking thing about beautiful people doing appalling things to each other, and sometimes that’s what you want in a film.

― Scamp Granada (gyac), Sunday, 25 April 2021 19:08 (five years ago)

Still annoyed that Julia Roberts photographs Natalie Portman with a Leica and then the print at her exhibition is not just from a medium format negative but specifically a Hasselblad.

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Sunday, 25 April 2021 19:13 (five years ago)

Another Natalie Portman classic (Where The Heart Is) got this correct when she's using a Rolleiflex to drag herself out of poverty IIRC.

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Sunday, 25 April 2021 19:15 (five years ago)

Thanks for that scintillating analysis.

― Scamp Granada (gyac), Sunday, 25 April 2021 19:18 (five years ago)

That camera thing is the first (and fifth!) entry on the film's IMDB "Goofs" page.

― blue whales on ambient (C. Grisso/McCain), Sunday, 25 April 2021 19:20 (five years ago)

I really liked this movie at the time

― brimstead, Sunday, 25 April 2021 19:46 (five years ago)

lol I mean I might still like it if I saw it now idk why I wrote “at the time”

― brimstead, Sunday, 25 April 2021 19:46 (five years ago)

my main takeaway from this at the time was "I hate all of these people and I resent having to spend two hours watching them" but maybe I would feel differently now, who knows

― Camaraderie at Arms Length, Sunday, 25 April 2021 20:06 (five years ago)

Julie Burchill was a strong champion of the stage play of this at the time iirc. And also my partner bought the Marber stage play book in paperback for some strange reason at the time and it is still on our bookshelf!

― calzino, Sunday, 25 April 2021 20:26 (five years ago)

lol also still got Closer by Dennis Cooper on there

― calzino, Sunday, 25 April 2021 20:41 (five years ago)

I don’t remember what movie this was at all and I commented on it.

― akm, Sunday, 25 April 2021 23:37 (five years ago)

Jude Law is pretty and dumb, Julia Roberts is pretty and smart, Clive Owen is rough and narcissistic, Natalie Portman is the least believable erotic dancer in history.

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Monday, 26 April 2021 00:12 (five years ago)

I wish they'd stuck with Anna Friel; she had Portman's part in the play on Broadway.

― piscesx, Monday, 26 April 2021 00:16 (five years ago)

I was so into Natalie Portman in the early 00s and I had convinced myself that she was bad in Star Wars because of the material, but then this movie came out and I had no illusions any more.

― keto keto bonito v industry plant-based diet (PBKR), Monday, 26 April 2021 00:33 (five years ago)

It's...terrible. I blame the play, which, like Virginia Woolf relies on actors playing snapping turtles. I didn't believe Natalie Portman for a moment. Clive Owen is best in show.

This sort of thing attracted Mike Nichols.

― So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 26 April 2021 00:36 (five years ago)

I love Virginia Woolf; I see your point, but there is also a difference between 1966 and 2004. Do you not like Virginia Woolf either Alfred?

― keto keto bonito v industry plant-based diet (PBKR), Monday, 26 April 2021 00:42 (five years ago)

As a play, which I've seen a couple times locally, it's a fine queer bitch fest.

The film gets sodden, though I accept the Battlin' Burtons and their performances.

― So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 26 April 2021 00:47 (five years ago)

My only real acting performance was in 9th grade as Peter in The Zoo Story, so I've got a soft spot for Albee.

― keto keto bonito v industry plant-based diet (PBKR), Monday, 26 April 2021 01:01 (five years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.