Saturday, December 04, 2004

If only to be better than Scott...

This is my long-awaited review of "Closer." Finially, a review by someone other than the illustrious Scott.

"Closer" sucked.

This was perhaps the most degrading, whiniest, and overall worst movie that I have seen in a long time. It makes me long desperatly to see "Garden State." That or gouge my eyes out. And "Garden State" blew. Hard. Just like my mom. Through out most of the movie, I was I was bored out of my mind. The only thing that kept me awake, or in the theaters at all is the alluring thought of Natalie Portman's chest, an obsession of mine ever since seeing "Attack of the Clones." If only. The whole movie, no Natalie Portman. Sad. What a waste of two hours. And six bucks. And it's not like I can "wait for the DVD," because if I ever see tha movie again, I will be forced to shoot something, probably the TV, but quite possibly the person who made me watch this travesty of a movie.

Now to the reasons that I hate this God-forsaken movie. First of all, I hate Jude Law. He might have been okay in "Sky Captain," but in that, he didn't look exactly like Ryan MacArdle. And, as the person who has known Ryan twice as long as anybody else on this blog has, don't try to deny it. First of all, Jude Law whines the whole movie. He has a good thing, then he goes off, and screws another woman, then decides that she isn't good enough for him, only to go whining back to the first girl, who is like half of his age, and obviously too good for him (She is a stripper). What an asshole. Then he whines when the woman that he is having sex with has sex with someone else, the same person that he screwed over by screwing his wife, the person he has sex with. So apparently it is okay for him to be unfaithful, but as soon as someone does it to him, suddenly he is hurt and turns into a giant pussy. Which brings us to my next point, Jude Law is a pussy. This one scene, he just starts crying for no reason. Oh, he does has a reason you say? No he doesn't. He is just a victim of the crime that he himself has commited. It's not like he learns his lesson, either, he keeps screwing over everyone he screws. Then he threw the most pulled slap I've ever seen. I mean John was more realistic in the "A Murder in Hollywood," and that's saying something, no offense, Kelse.

Second, WTF? That was the most offensive movie I have ever seen. And that includes everything by Trey Parker. At least he was tasteful about it. This movie did nothing but promote fornication, adultery, and overall pathetically casual sexual promiscuity. I mean I like sex in movies as much as the next guy, but honestly, somewhere a line is drawn. And then trampled on. And then had sex on. This is the most harmful, and awful disregard for everything sacred. Sex is used as an object, something to be possessed, to be used, even as a weapon, and a form of revenge. These attitudes are harmful to society, and do nothing but entertain our own sick fantasies and promote the cheapning of one of our greatest gifts. Now I am not usually the one to go off about God, but seriously. Am I the only person who got sick of Whiner having sex with Stripper, at the same time as screwing stupid artist, who just happens to be married to asshole, and then asshole has sex with stripper when stupid decides to divorce him to go with whiner, who dumps her when she screws asshole to get a divorce, but then goes back to him, and whiner to stripper until stripper finds out that whiner knows about stripper screwing asshole, etc. I mean Jesus. Am I the only one who found the movie sick, and not entertaining. Apparently I am, because some people like movies about whining and sex. I don't know, I'm done. Oh wait, no I'm not. The movie is set in London, too, that just makes the movie suck all the more. Actually I'm glad that American soil was not desecrated in the shooting of this heinous, hienous, crime.

Honestly, what was the point of the movie? If anyone knows, I would love to be informed. It wasn't even a love movie. By any means. Love had very little to do with it. Love is not traded casually, used to hurt people, and able to be shared so freely between more than one person.

13 comments:

Ben said...

What do you mean "no Natalie Portman"? I haven't seen it, and the only thing I heard about it was that she knew that her nudity would be exploited and she wasn't bothered by it. But thanks for the review anyway, even if it did approach Jeff-like heights of grammatical and typing mistakes. I wasn't sure about it, but after hearing your opinion, I'll just save my money for the Flight of the Phoenix, which no one is talking about but looks really good to me.

post script
We can have book, music, or poetry reviews in addition to our abundance of movie reviews. I know movies are more immediate, but y'all can review anything and I'm sure the rest of us would appreciate the thoughts.

John and Karolyn said...

To contrast Doug's hatred of the film, I must weigh in with my opinions.

The movie was awkward at times. I'll give it that. Were I alone, or just with strangers, it woulda been fine. The "Closer" is very, very blunt.
Very blunt.
The story, as I took it, is about love. The writer/director used four characters to display a variety of types of relationships and the attached emotions. To this end, some situations seemed slightly implausible and stretched.

And oh, there were awkward moments. Did I say that yet?

Despite the above negatives, the movie was well made. I was confused at a few points (it makes jumps in time with little/no warning) but greatly enjoyed the film. The acting was well done, the situations were real, I saw some of myself, my hopes, and my fears, in the characters. (Gotta love that punctuation...hey, its after one am, cut me some slack.) As with all movies, go see it, then form your own opinion.

Just don't go with your parents.

-JB

Scott said...

Okay, I liked "Closer." I didn't think it was the best movie of the year, and probably ranks fifth or sixth, but I DID like it. I liked it because of how it was told, with the skipping-ahead-in-time. Because it told you enough to know how far along it was, chronologically, but it also SHOWED you by how the characters had changed.

I thought the acting was tremendous. Doug said Jude Law whined a lot. He did. THAT WAS HIS CHARACTER. Julia Roberts had one of the few roles I didn't hate her in, and more importantly, one of the few roles where everytime she came onscreen, I didn't think "hey, it's Julia Roberts!" Natalie Portman wasn't QUITE as good as she was in "Garden State," but she did some very nice work her. But Clive Owen was THE MAN. By the end you hate him, but you like hating him.

As for the business about it being filled with sex...well, and I know this will come as a shock, that is actually how some people's lives are. I know...WOW. But there are people out there who are so wrapped up in sex, and go purely by what the moment demands, that this is how their lives turn out. If anything, the film displayed the emptiness of that.

As an important note, there was NO onscreen sex in this film. I found that fascinating.

Oh, and I sat by two girls, one of whom walked out, and I felt no discomfort. Having said that, I'm glad I didn't go with my mom.

Post script (my first!)
It appears that all the people who didn't like the film (also going by Maggie's comments over at Pink Whatcha-Ma-Call-It) were people who didn't really know what the film was about. And, y'know, I have no sympathy. If you're gonna go see a film, don't just take someone's word on it. Unless you specifically ask me if I think you'll like it, don't blame me either. Doug, I clearly remember telling you I didn't think you'd like it.

Doug said...

I know, I didn't want to see it, I knew that I wouldn't like it, but I was under the distinct impression that I did not have a choice. And I totally didn't think that it would be as bad as it was.

Doug said...

I know, I didn't want to see it, I knew that I wouldn't like it, but I was under the distinct impression that I did not have a choice. And I totally didn't think that it would be as bad as it was.

Cynda said...

Ok first of all Scott I don't recall Magda or I blaming you..in fact I clearly remember us saying from now on we should research movies more before we decide to go see them and second yeah in magda and my opinions the movie did suck....I dunno I'm sure there was a good plot line in there somewhere but it's hard to focus when the afformentioned plot line revovles around sex, or at least the reference to sex, sometimes very grotesquely. Eh thats my opinion but I'm sure there are many others who would enjoy the movie...it just wasn't for me

Scott said...

Sorry Cynda...didn't mean for that to be directed at you or Maggie. Don't know if it was really directed ay anybody. I think it was one of those things I end up saying for no reason. It happens.

Ben said...

Henceforth, I shall refer to you as Doug, the Love Expert.

Cynda said...

wait so how can you tell doug wrote it....I was soo cnfused for a while...then again it is me....

Scott said...

The main way I could tell Doug wrote it was that the poster mentioned "the alluring thought of Natalie Portman's chest." So unless there's something Adrianna hasn't told us...

Cynda said...

oh I suppose that makes sense...then again Adrianna could be a Karolyn in disguise hmmmm....thoughts to ponder......

Cynda said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adrianna said...

You guys, I have a confession to make.

I wrote it.

*sniff* I'M GAY FOR NATALIE PORTMAN!!!

Okay, no, not really. That was Doug. You can tell not only because of the chest comment but also because he used the word "fornication," which is far too large and has far too many consonants in it for me to use. FORN-I-CATION. NATALIE PORTMAN. BOOOOBSSS... sorry, just had a soda.