Closer

miir · Post by **miir** » April 4, 2005, 4:04 pm

What disgustingly over-rated and overhyped trash.

I did not see one bad review for it, and with the 2 golden globes and oscar nominations I was expecting something that would at least be entertaining.

Every scene is contrived tableau.
Every setting is static.
The screenplay adaptation is embarrasing. It felt like I was watching a film made of a play.
The cinematography is dull.
The dialogue was asinine, bordering on insulting.
And to top it off, the story was completely uninteresting.

Natalie Portman was about the only redeeming part of this movie. Was nice to see her in an 'adult' role.

Lastly, fuck Jude Law.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 4, 2005, 4:08 pm

miir wrote:
Natalie Portman was about the only redeeming part of this movie. Was nice to see her in an 'adult' role.

It's X-Rated?

I've never heard of this movie so it can't be too overhyped.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 4, 2005, 4:14 pm

Oh and I've never seen a movie with so much fucking dialogue and so little character development.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » April 4, 2005, 5:00 pm

This is the movie where she plays a stripper right?

I think I read somewhere that that was about the only redeeming quality to the film.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 4, 2005, 5:52 pm

Yes, fuck Jude Law. He is almost as stuck on himself as Tom Cruise is, but the difference is Jude Law is a terrible actor.

And I wanted to jump through the T.V. and rip out sean penn's jugular when he got all pissy w/ chris rock at the movie awards and defended Jude Law..

noel · Post by **noel** » April 4, 2005, 6:05 pm

Don't jump through your TV. You might screw it up.

I hear the thing to do is to spit in his face and try to get him to punch you...

(sorry, it's really funny to me for some reason)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » April 4, 2005, 6:33 pm

I haven't watched it yet. But if miir doesn't like it I'm sure that I will.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 4, 2005, 7:01 pm

Aslanna wrote:I haven't watched it yet. But if miir doesn't like it I'm sure that I will.

Think you might be getting me confused with Akaran

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » April 6, 2005, 4:46 pm

It was a play. I saw it in London about 6 years ago ><

Wasn't that good as a play, even.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 7, 2005, 5:51 pm

miir wrote:Natalie Portman was about the only redeeming part of this movie. Was nice to see her in an 'adult' role.

Was nicer to see her butt!

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2005, 10:34 am

masteen wrote:
miir wrote:Natalie Portman was about the only redeeming part of this movie. Was nice to see her in an 'adult' role.
Was nicer to see her butt!

Urrr, Natalie Portman has man-butt. It's long and flat with no roundness to it at all.

Mildly NWS

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 8, 2005, 11:42 am

Am I the only one who thinks lots of these "hot" girls really aren't anything special? Don't get me wrong, I do think they're hot, but there're girls in every one of my classes that are just hot.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2005, 12:17 pm

I don't know about being 'hot' but she's definately very attractive... Add to that she's intelligent, well educated and talented.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 8, 2005, 12:34 pm

miir wrote:I don't know about being 'hot' but she's definately very attractive... Add to that she's intelligent, well educated and talented.

Intelligence goes a long way in making up for any other shortcomings. She also survived Lucas and the Star Wars debacle.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 8, 2005, 12:51 pm

shes hot as hell.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 5, 2005, 2:22 pm

I watched this last night. I didn't see it as a bad movie but it wasn't that great either. I sorta have a non-opinion about it. I basically couldn't identify with any of the characters. Yet for some reason I kept watching it.

The screenplay adaptation is embarrasing. It felt like I was watching a film made of a play.

Well considering it was originally a play.. Not sure why it would feel otherwise. I sorta liked it having that same feeling as a play. The characters are the main focus afterall not the grand scenery and special effects.

(7/10)

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2005, 2:56 pm

Well considering it was originally a play.. Not sure why it would feel otherwise. I sorta liked it having that same feeling as a play. The characters are the main focus afterall not the grand scenery and special effects

Ummmm, what the hell does a screenplay have to do with scenery and special effects?
Do you even know what a screenplay is?

A good screenplay gives a director more freedom to work in the medium of film. Marber might be a good playwright but he can't write a decent screenplay.
I doubt the abrupt disconnection between scenes was intentional... the film version surely could have benifited from even a tiny bit of continuity. There was no flow and segues were non existant.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 5, 2005, 3:46 pm

No. I have no idea what a screenplay is. Oh please enlighten me oh sultan of the big screen.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2005, 3:48 pm

Aslanna wrote:No. I have no idea what a screenplay is. Oh please enlighten me oh sultan of the big screen.

Pretty obvious you don't... scenery and special effects have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the screenplay.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » May 5, 2005, 4:54 pm

miir wrote:
Aslanna wrote:No. I have no idea what a screenplay is. Oh please enlighten me oh sultan of the big screen.
Pretty obvious you don't... scenery and special effects have abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the screenplay.

It's a fucking script. I think most people, including myself, know what a screenplay is.

A script is a document that outlines every aural, visual, behavioral, and lingual element required to tell a story.

If you don't outline the scenery and special effects in the script just where do you think they'll be documented? I mean damn they are elements of the movie afterall.

Actually my main point was that it was a character driven play why exactly would it feel differently as a movie. Unless the writer/director specifically went out of their way to alter the way they wanted to present it. Which would serve no purpose since it is entirely character driven.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2005, 6:03 pm

My point is that Marber did a piss-poor screenplay adaptation of his play.

Actually my main point was that it was a character driven play why exactly would it feel differently as a movie.

Because when a writer actually makes a fucking effort to write a screenplay adaptation, they make changes to take advantage of the different medium.
The content and the type of story is completely irrelevant... how good would the LOTR movies have been with character action/dialogue and a vioceover reading the text from the books?
Pretty fucking cheesy, I think.

I can't fathom how anyone could justify or defend the terrible screenplay adaptation of Closer.

VeeshanVault

Closer

Closer

Re: Closer

Re: Closer

Re: Closer