Julia Roberts Movie "Closer"

I'd like to hear what anyone who's seen this movie has to say about it. I felt it was kind of a pointless exercise, that didn't offer much of anything. But I keep thinking I may have missed something? Did I, or did the movie just suck like I thought?

I think the movie just sucked.

That caption!

I hate a movie that leaves me feeling bad, but I generally like Julia Robert's movies. Pelican Brief, and that Mel Gibson movie (forget title) were both pretty good.

then it sucked.

None of the characters were really sympathetic, but it was very interesting as a character and relationship study. Plus it was very sexy.

That's my take...

it was a big ole hurt-fest. And what was with her never giving the guy her real name, which was Jane Rachel, or something of the sort. She told the first guy she was Alice Ayers? I never saw the point in that, and in the end, when he saw that name on the building they had gone to commemorating heroes. Funny thing is, she actually told the doctor her real name, but the first guy never knew it, apparently. Perhaps it was kind of a fantasy relationship all along.

Natalie is cute, no doubt.

thing....I thought Jude Law picking up the old discarded flowers from outside the hotel room was very symbolic of his deceit and lack of real commitment. He was trying to convince her he was sincere with throw-away flowers....He deserved what he got.

I loved the way took a bunch of dirtbags and showed how they are even worse in love. It is amazing that the sicko perv Doctor is actually the LEAST bad of them, at least in my opinion. His actions where bad, but he was plainly honest about them the entire time. I thought it was well made and showed what it is like to have to tell a loved one the truth when the truth hurts. Do you tell them the truth? Will it hurt them more to hear the truth or it it best to just keep it a secret for their benefit? Who are we REALLY hurting or helping when we drag out our (or our significat other's) secrets?

the dialogue on sex, marriage and relationships was surprisingly sophisticated and geared towards adults rather than adolescents. Haven't seen anything in awhile that measured up in that department.

Where I thought it failed miserably was in the casting department. Clive Owen was perfect. Jude Law, Natalie Portman, and Julia Roberts were completely miscast.

Jude Law's character was a struggling ordinary entry-level peon who falls for this vision of sexuality and loveliness that he sees on the street. Jude Law is a fine actor, but he's so successful and too much of a pretty boy to allow the audience to see him in that role.

The Natalie Portman character plays a woman who not only turns heads, but who's been a stripper. Natalie Portman is attractive, but to me she does not have the kind of radiant in-your-face sensuality that the part called for.

The Julia Roberts character, like all the others, is guilty of betrayal and subterfuge as the plot develops. Julia Roberts has played so many "good guy" roles that it's very difficult for an audience to see her in this role. There were not enough opportunities early on for her to obviously "play against type" and change that image.

If the movie didn't resonate, I think that's one reason why. Other than that, I thought it was great.

Jude Law comes across as too much of a golden boy to play such a role. Not to mention the fact that he is overexposed. I think a Jonathan Rhys Meyers type would have been better in that role (although he's a little young.)

Natalie Portman is very pretty, but really lacked the sensuality and "knowing" world-weariness of the character - There is something about her that is childlike and tomboyish, and I thought seeing her as a stripper was almost obscene in a "kiddie-porn" kind of way. I think someone like Scarlett Johansen could have pulled it off much better. Also, I don't really think Natalie Portman is a very good actress - she seems like the same person in every role to me. Her Garden State character was most appropriate for her.

Julia Roberts - Ugh. Wrong for the role in every way. Again, she's another one of those actors without much of a range and can't very well play against type. Also, she just bugs me. I think Cate Blanchette was supposed to have the role initially and she would have been excellent in it.

However, I didn't really think the script was that great, as I think it was little more than just a misanthropic spew of human nature and sexual relationships. Also, it was just very contrived (I get the impression that Patrick Marber was jumping on the Neil LaBute Bandwagon and also that the guy had never been in a relationship - at least not with a woman - in his life.) There was no subtlety woven into the dialogue and the characters seemed pretty one dimensional. I could go on, but I won't. It was an interesting film, but far from great.

but I don't think a good movie has to be robust in every way. Sometimes just taking one element and maxing it out is the best way to proceed. To me, imbalance is not the same as failure.

Maybe I'm just too upbeat for it to bother me, or too morose to feel depressed by its portrayal of human weakness. People do behave this way. I thought it was a particularly good depiction of certain characters and certain types of behavior, made more so by the fact that it's repetitive and unrelenting. And despite the supposed valuelessness of the film industry, it isn't typically shown with this intensity.

I've ever seen. I made it to the end waiting for some thing to pop out and bring it all together, didn't happen. I felt like it was just a waste of time.

Whatever it was, it just seemed that there was no real point to the movie. I should have just watched some ESPN classic instead.

...that I'd seen a movie like it before--Neil LaBute's "Your Friends and Neighbors"--which I thought was a better movie and which, I think, pretty much gave me my fill of that type of nasty relationship flick.

I didn't think it was bad, nor great - despite Julia Roberts. But that awful song at the beginning and the end was intolerable.

I really hated the music as well - it nearly drove me crazy!

I'gawd, I was almost ready to snap the (rented) DVD in two if that horrid song and slo-mo sequence in the beginning went on any longer! It seemed an eternity...and then they reprised it at the end!

although I did think the acting was good.

I just didn't see the point of making a film where each character was more of a lying, cheating nutcase than the next.

but that's just my opinion.

Clive Owen was perfect.

At least the first hour did. Thats when my wife and I switched to Law and Order reruns.

... but what I read of it, it seemed like a mean-spirited exercise in nothingness...

Should have been titled (after the line by the Julia Roberts character): "What, are you 12?" because all the characters behaved exactly like adolescents.

Didn't care for it.