Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Our First Review Of Mike Nichols

Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...

This one’s a pretty high-profile film for later this year, and I’m willing to bet there are a lot of awards dreams pinned to it. When NRG recruited this screening, they went after people who never attend test screenings, a totally different audience. Sounds like it’s not your standard fare for this kind of screening, too. So how is it? Let’s see what this person has to say...

Hey guys. Moonshine, here. A couple nights ago, I took in a screening of Mike Nichols' upcoming film, "Closer" in Santa Monica. According to the screening hosts, it was the first time the film was being shown to an audience and they were really interested in the audience's thoughts. I'll be curious to see the movie when it finally comes out to see if anything changes, but in the meantime I thought I'd share my thoughts with AICN.

So, first off, the obvious reasons to even waste a few hours of my time on the flick: it's apparently based on an award-winning play; it's directed by Mike Nichols; it stars Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman and Clive Roberts. Pretty good pedigree, huh? I was thinking Oscar bait before I even walked in the door. And, well, there were other reasons to be interested. The invite called it an "erotically charged drama," and well...that sounded kinda hot. And Natalie Portman played a stripper! Frankly, I'm more interested in Jude and Clive, but sexy adult drama is very cool with me.

What's the story? Well, it's basically 4 people, 2 couples, who apparently live and thrive on coupling, uncoupling, and basically fucking with each other, both physically and especially mentally. The movie opens with Dan (Jude), a failed writer-turned obituary writer, making eye contact with Alice (Natalie), a scruffy and aimless waif (she even calls herself a waif, so don't blame me), anyway), on the street in London. Alice steps into London traffic and gets creamed by a cabbie. Dan rushes across the street to her aid, ends up taking her to a busy emergency room and waits with her to see a doctor. They talk and talk and talk. It's based on a play, after all. They exchange stories about their lives, giving us the fundamentals for their characters. Alice walks Dan to work, and it looks like they'll part there. Then, boom, we see Dan getting photographed for his book cover by Anna (Julia). It's suddenly a year or so later. Dan's written a book about Alice. Dan and Anna verbally joust while Anna takes his picture. Anna accuses Dan of stealing Alice's soul for his book. Dan accuses Anna of stealing his soul by taking his picture. Then, inexplicably, he coaxes her up for a kiss. He wants to see more of her, but she figures out that he's still with Alice, who's now living with him. Alice shows up to the photo shoot. While she uses the powder room, Dan tries to convince Anna to see him again, to no apparent avail. Then Alice emerges and asks Anna to take her portrait as well. They dispense with Dan to get more personal, Alice tearfully admits to Anna that she listened to her conversation with Dan, and then Anna takes her picture. From there, we flash ahead a few days or weeks. Dan's in an Internet sex chatroom, where he runs into Larry (Clive), a horny dermatologist. In the chat, Dan pretends to be Anna and gets Larry all worked up telling him the nasty things "she" wants to do to him. Then Dan proposes a meeting at a public aquarium he knows Anna likes to visit at lunchtime. Larry shows up the next day, approaches an oblivious Anna and starts talking dirty. They quickly realize Dan's set-up, and much to Dan's chagrin hook up and fall in love. From thereon, the story's pretty much a rapidly changing game of musical partners. We keep flashing forward and finding out that Dan loves Alice, no Anna, no Alice, and the same goes for Anna, who loves Larry, no Dan, blah blah blah. They keep on hurting each other, sometimes inadvertently, most of the time seemingly deliberately.

So, how's the movie? Well, I liked it and I didn't. I loved how frank and downright dirty it was at times. Dan and Larry's sex chat is no-holds barred and goes on for a lot longer than one might imagine. It makes you uncomfortable, but I think that's the point. Larry meets up with Alice in a strip club, and their extended private dance segment was probably my favorite scene in the movie, but it's discomforting to watch them each keep trying to push the other further into the painful territory of revealing their emotions and secrets. A whole hell of a lot of the behavior of these four characters will make you uncomfortable. The hard part for me was in finding anyone in this movie I actually liked or wanted to root for. I mean, I suppose I've seen good (even great) movies filled with unlikeable characters. "In The Company of Men" springs to mind. But this one...in the end, I wanted to care about somebody, but I didn't. Without giving the ending away, something big happens, and to me it just felt so small. I really didn't care, and the way the characters end up together in the final scene seemed contrived and false. The action also seemed very stagebound. It's basically a series of extended scenes, with one couple or another talking, talking, talking. I don't know how that could be changed, or even if it should. A sense of claustrophobia is probably the point, but to me the settings seemed almost irrelevant.

There were some prominent positives. Jude's performance as a self-absorbed turd was great. Should you hate him? I did. I wanted somebody to beat the crap out of him, and I'm the biggest wimp you'll ever meet. Clive's also great as the brutish, horny doc. He was my favorite character, but I heard a couple people in the lobby talking about how awful he was, how Anna (or maybe they were confusing Anna the character with pretty woman-style Julia) would never fall for such a lunk. But he seemed like a consistent guy to me. He seemed tough, very crass, a guy who thinks with his dick more often than not, and when he was hurt, he wanted to hurt back. Simple enough. Then there's Natalie Portman. Wow, what a performance! Alice is the great mystery of the movie, a needy, clingy character who thrives on living in painful situations. In her hospital scene at the beginning of the movie, we see her sitting alone and picking at a bloody wound on her leg from the traffic accident, and to me that set the tone for her character for the rest of the movie. She picks and picks at things, allegedly looking for truth, but really getting off more on pain. That leaves Julia, and I'm so happy for her that she's got twins coming in the New Year, because if she's hoping for great reviews or Oscar consideration for this role, she isn't going to get it. It's an underwritten part, it's underacted, and it makes no sense. Dan's a narcissist, so we can see why he does what he does. Larry's a boor, who acts like a boor. Alice is a willing victim, who wears her victimhood like a badge. But Anna makes no sense at all. I got the impression that she was supposed to be one character who had her shit together, but she's really the one who screws up everyone else, simply by willingly playing a part in their three-way head games. I can see the logic in having a character who seemingly has her shit together, but is really the biggest mess of all, but the character isn't played or written that way. If Anna, or Julia, had allowed some of the frayed edges to show, then Anna's behavior in the film would have made more sense. If they could change that one thing, I'd recommend this movie without reservation.

As it stands, I'd have to give this one a good review. I just wish it were a lot better, and with the talent involved, it definitely should have been.

Hmmm… fascinating. I can’t wait to get a peek at this one myself later this year. Sounds like it really will be the sort of thing that we hear about a lot when the Oscar race starts to heat up. Thanks for the heads-up.

"Moriarty" out.





Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 7, 2004, 3:18 a.m. CST

    The Closer will suck nuts.

    by Bcphil

  • June 7, 2004, 5:22 a.m. CST

    There's a review over at the Poop, too.

    by phanboi

    Man... ya gotta read this one ... that's what I'd call a glowing review. Glad to see Clive Owen finally's gettin roles he deserves (well... except Ing Karthur of course :-)

  • June 7, 2004, 5:54 a.m. CST

    I worked on this...

    by JimboLo

    ... A day watching Natalie Portman pole dancing. Not wanting to seem depraved, but it was one of the best days I've had in a looooooooong time.

  • June 7, 2004, 6:05 a.m. CST

    this is a TV movie

    by proper

  • June 7, 2004, 4:08 p.m. CST

    saw the play

    by Larry of Arabia

    It comes from the late 90's "love is only pain" trent in british theater. Think Neil Labute's early work without the warmpth but more eros. This trend also gave us "The Blue Room" and "Shopping and..." It played in 1999 and 2000 on broadway with Natasha Richardson and Rupert Graves. It won an award in England, if you can belive it, for "best comedy." It is bone dry and pitch black. The mindset of it can be summed up in it's most famous scene, when a male pretends to be one of the female characters in an internet chat room and portrays her as a realy filthy slut and another where a character cries out "what does one have to do for a little intamacy in here" while at a strip club. Every character lies, decieves, and is incable of being intimate. This leads them to pair up with eachother in different ways at different times. The characters make the age old mistake of equating sex with intamacy. Sex becomes a way of forcing other the partener to open up to you, but sex is just sex, and it offers only the illusion of intamacy. Therefore, real emotional contact cannot be made untill they put the sex aside and see people as people. Thusly, every character is also searching for an elusive truth and intamacy that they can't get. The characters are as emotionally rich as depressive obsessives can be. Some depressives you want to spend time with (The characters in "House of Sand and Fog" for example, or Labute's "Bash: Latter Day Plays") because you either want them to get better or want them to spiral downward. These people make you just want to slap them. To be fair, many have seen the play as a lacerating evening of high sex and intrigue. I found it dissapointing, but with potential. A few tweeks to even one character make him or her more sympathetic and less pathetic would be an exellant play. Nichols is one of our great directors, so I have faith he can pull it off. Oh, and when will we be back to putting his films on the big screen. His "Wit" and "Angels in America" were among the best films of their years and would have been up for all sorts of awards. HBO, god bless you for doing things like this and giving one of our great directors a place to shine, but for shame for not opening these in the arthouses and watching that set flock to them.

  • June 7, 2004, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Sounds like pretentious muck

    by dochealthyself

    But what a great cast, and the director is top-notch. So, maybe...maybe...I'll give this a try. But I doubt it.

  • June 7, 2004, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Suck nuts?

    by Hamish

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - don't knock having your nuts sucked til you've tried it. It's aces! Especially when NP is involved...

  • June 8, 2004, 2:24 a.m. CST

    Natalie Portman plays a stripper?

    by Rindain

    I'm so there.

  • June 8, 2004, 5:06 a.m. CST

    More proof that Roberts can't act.

    by AnnoyYou

    She's spent her entire career living off that toothy grin, and now we see the fallout: she can't hold her own against Natalie Portman! Good Lord. Still, I'll see this film because Clive Owen is a Fucking. Sex. God. Ooooh.

  • June 8, 2004, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Less warmth than Labute?!?

    by Manatee

    Holy cow, thanks for the heads up, Larry. I was just thinking when I read the review, didn't Labute already do this? Many times? And very well? If "Closer" is more bleak than "Your Friends and Neighbors" I'm not sure I can sit through it. I'm not an escapist kind of film-goer, but I do have limits.

  • June 8, 2004, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Put... the coffee... DOWN.

    by Trav McGee

    Coffee's for CLOSERS.

  • June 8, 2004, 6:46 p.m. CST

    It's Clive OWEN...not Roberts

    by EmilyQFan

  • June 8, 2004, 8:50 p.m. CST

    I WANT TO FUCK YOU LIKE AN ANIMAL

    by Cassius the Evil

    Oh come on, you're just jealous you didn't come up with the NIN joke first. What, you'd prefer I talk about how I'd like to see Hulk Hogan in a pretentious play adaption?

  • June 9, 2004, 12:32 a.m. CST

    is this movie about eric gagne?

    by Toe Jam

    cuz if so, i'm soooo not there

  • June 9, 2004, 2:28 a.m. CST

    You had me with "Natalie plays a stripper"

    by MrCere

    No really. The sales pitch was over. I WILL see that movie. There could be 99 movies a year where Natalie plays a stripper and I would probably see them all. Sripper with a heart of gold, stripper on drugs, stripper who hates stripping, abusive stripper, stripper who things she needs a boob job, stripper who hates men, stirpper who loves animals, stripper assasin, stripper undercover, stripper grew up at a brothel, stripper who longs to dance on broadway, mute stripper, stripper who has a money phobia, journalist stripper, supernatural killer stripper, ninja stripper, mommy needs money stripper, housewife by day stripper by night, warewolf stripper, vampire stripper, sex-change stripper, university student stripper and I am tired of typing these out but I hope you get the idea. Feel free to add some.

  • June 9, 2004, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Toe Jam, I wish I had typed that

    by MrCere

    As a Dodgers fan I am a little ashamed I didn't think of it first.