Closer

A soap opera for discerning viewers. Provocative, impudent, sleazy, artfully filmed (with respect to the possibilities of the interior sets) and, mainly, fantastically acted. Love, deceit, intrigue, revenge. But there is a little too much of that in the last third – a bit of detached humor would have helped. (23/03/2005)

An intimately conceived romantic drama, clearly inspired by the theatrical version, whose success is supported by excellent dialogues, a quality screenplay, and top-notch acting performances. Since the film is based on a play, a significant part of the story takes place indoors, somewhat resembling a more expensive television production. All four of the engaged stars deserve the highest rating for their performance, although Julia Roberts lags behind just a bit. It is reliably directed by the experienced Mike Nichols, with visually appealing shots of Natalie Portman dressed as a stripper, which will be sure to attract male viewers. Compared to the theatrical version, the film concludes much more sentimentally and romantically. Overall impression: 90%. (21/06/2006)

“Where is the love?” Scenes from relationship life for the 21st century. Nichols does not in any way try to disguise the film’s theatrical origins; on the contrary, the chosen structure (several long conversational segments), perfectly timed dialogue and classical music accentuate them. It is only after the encounter at the exhibition that he begins to cut between the individual couples’ dialogue scenes, thus giving the impression that their stories are more closely intertwined and influence each other to the point that they cannot be together because of the others (the flashback to the signing of divorce papers, which is interspersed with Dan and Anna’s conversation in the theatre, serves the same purpose). I consider the big jumps in time, which we are usually informed about ex post and as if in passing through dialogue (we’ve been dating for four months, we got together a year ago, he left me three months ago...) to be a courageous decision, as they bring the film closer to a time-lapse documentary that captures only the turning points of relationships. Unlike Bergman, however, Closer is not a carefully nuanced psychological drama, but a contrived melodrama full of walking (arche)types, “chance” encounters and bookish-sounding lines, and throughout its runtime, I wasn't sure to what extent it was aware of its own exaggeration and unnaturalness or the extent to which it was convinced that it was revealing the unvarnished truth about love and relationships, or something along those lines. Many scenes, such as the bitter conclusion, graphically illustrating the fact that we often truly get to know even the most beloved person after they have left us (i.e. when it is too late), suggest that the simplistic characterisation of the characters was a way to convey a universal, almost allegorical story in which everyone who has ever experienced the ambivalent feeling of not knowing whether to kill or fuck the one you love (as in the last dialogue scene of Dan and Larry) can see themselves. So, there is some sort of life lesson to be learned from that. Personally, however, I prefer films that don’t pretend to have depth where there is none. 70% (22/02/2017)

A quite pleasantly tangled story that focuses on one of the still burning topics - sexuality. What do we actually want and what do we dare to demand? Are our desires accessible to others? Can we share them without people looking at us weirdly? Do we still understand what love really is and can we fall in love? "Closer" is a film about four people whose lives interconnect. Sometimes too much, sometimes only briefly, but the consequences can be more serious. Two Americans and two Englishmen. Their lives come together and then separate again. Who is actually dating whom? And who is sleeping with whom? After a while, one starts to feel that they start to combine with each other regardless of gender. Julia Roberts is a photographer who doesn't know whom she really wants. Jude Law is a young and promising writer who doesn't know whom he really wants. Clive Owen is a doctor who knows what he wants and also gets it. He describes himself as a primitive. And he actually is a little bit. And finally, Natalie Portman. What is she actually? Just a woman who loves? Or is there more to her? What is she hiding from? Her boyfriend? Or from the man who became her customer for one night at a strip club? Relationships between people are very complicated, but only because we complicate them ourselves. We demand certain values that are completely senseless, while we ourselves behave completely differently. Can we still be happy? Or do we just live a life that goes from birth to death without finding true happiness? This film, although it may not seem so, is actually quite disturbing. It doesn't deal with the apocalypse of the world, but with the apocalypse of mankind. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/10/ztraceno-v-prekladu-4-bratri-na-dotek.html (01/03/2013)

For me it was disappointing. Nichols shoots beautifully and the actors give their all to their roles, but the script shows almost no attempt at a deeply dramatic epic or plot loop. The characters swim in an ocean of titillating sexual fantasy, but the average viewer sort of stands on the shore and hopes to at least drool over a naked Queen Padmé or Pretty Woman, but we never get that, unfortunately, even though Natalie has a lot of talent as a stripper. (16/08/2017)