'Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf', Nichols' classic debut on the big screen is one of the few movies I *haven't* seen yet of that brilliant list we call the IMDb top 250, but after watching 'Closer', the director latest film, you won't see me rushing to the nearest videostore to get it. And here's why.
'Closer', which adapts the play of Patrick Marber, is about 4 people and their ever-changing (or are they) relationships to one another. In the beginning of the movie, we meet Alice (Natalie Portman), a young and mysterious New Yorker, who bumps into (in a way) Dan (Jude Law), a journalist-later-turned writer.
After that first scene, which was quite impressive, Nichols plays a little trick. In the following scene we meet Anna (Julia Roberts), who's taking photo's of Dan to print on his book. At first I thought it was the next day, or even a flashback, but it turns out the story progressed a couple of months, to the point where Alice and Dan live together. In this scene, Dan falls for the more matured Anna, who finds him fascinating as well. And the misery starts.
The fourth player in this drama is Larry (Clive Owen), a doctor who, partly accidental partly 'weird Dan scheme', meets up with Anna. The two get along, and a scene (which, in 'Closer', is a year) later are living together. But Anna can't quite forget Dan. Nor can he forget her.
That's basically the plot line there for 'Closer'. In a movie like this, as in any adapted play, the acting comes first. Of the four performances, Portman's portrayal of Alice is by far the best. She's as innocent as sexy and as much a girl as she is a woman. She can play one scene in which she's a fragile, young girl, while the next moment she's stripping and saying quite nasty things to Larry.
As for Julia Roberts: she once again proves she's not much of an actress. She has chosen some wise projects over the years (Notting Hill and Erin Brockovich in particular), otherwise she would have been long forgotten. Her portrayal as Anna is boring and annoying, by far she's the least shining of them all.
As for the men: Clive Owen beats Jude Law on points. Both actors get their job done, but Law's 'puppy faced mean guy' routine starts to irritate in the second half of the movie, while Owen's performance is sharp and well-delivered, in quite a difficult role.
So, why didn't Closer do much for me then? Well, for one, I was surprised in how little depth the characters (other than Alice) had throughout the film. The characters seem to be lacking emotions, and wander around like machines. They looked made up, not so much real or confronting. Furthermore, I couldn't relate to any of the characters, I didn't feel anything for them. It was almost like the more misery they had, the more I enjoyed myself.
As a whole, 'Closer' has some good performances, and Owen and particularly Portman are allowed to actually win their Academy Awards, but as for story or character development, there is no way I could give 'Closer' the familiar two thumbs up.
5/10.
'Closer', which adapts the play of Patrick Marber, is about 4 people and their ever-changing (or are they) relationships to one another. In the beginning of the movie, we meet Alice (Natalie Portman), a young and mysterious New Yorker, who bumps into (in a way) Dan (Jude Law), a journalist-later-turned writer.
After that first scene, which was quite impressive, Nichols plays a little trick. In the following scene we meet Anna (Julia Roberts), who's taking photo's of Dan to print on his book. At first I thought it was the next day, or even a flashback, but it turns out the story progressed a couple of months, to the point where Alice and Dan live together. In this scene, Dan falls for the more matured Anna, who finds him fascinating as well. And the misery starts.
The fourth player in this drama is Larry (Clive Owen), a doctor who, partly accidental partly 'weird Dan scheme', meets up with Anna. The two get along, and a scene (which, in 'Closer', is a year) later are living together. But Anna can't quite forget Dan. Nor can he forget her.
That's basically the plot line there for 'Closer'. In a movie like this, as in any adapted play, the acting comes first. Of the four performances, Portman's portrayal of Alice is by far the best. She's as innocent as sexy and as much a girl as she is a woman. She can play one scene in which she's a fragile, young girl, while the next moment she's stripping and saying quite nasty things to Larry.
As for Julia Roberts: she once again proves she's not much of an actress. She has chosen some wise projects over the years (Notting Hill and Erin Brockovich in particular), otherwise she would have been long forgotten. Her portrayal as Anna is boring and annoying, by far she's the least shining of them all.
As for the men: Clive Owen beats Jude Law on points. Both actors get their job done, but Law's 'puppy faced mean guy' routine starts to irritate in the second half of the movie, while Owen's performance is sharp and well-delivered, in quite a difficult role.
So, why didn't Closer do much for me then? Well, for one, I was surprised in how little depth the characters (other than Alice) had throughout the film. The characters seem to be lacking emotions, and wander around like machines. They looked made up, not so much real or confronting. Furthermore, I couldn't relate to any of the characters, I didn't feel anything for them. It was almost like the more misery they had, the more I enjoyed myself.
As a whole, 'Closer' has some good performances, and Owen and particularly Portman are allowed to actually win their Academy Awards, but as for story or character development, there is no way I could give 'Closer' the familiar two thumbs up.
5/10.