Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) | Release Date: December 3, 2004
8.3
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 488 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
399
Mixed:
35
Negative:
54
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
yesterdayatnoonAug 3, 2015
I don't think I've ever watched a worse movie except for Spawn. I understand the desire to write a movie full of adults who behave the way a high schooler might imagine adults behave, but you spend most of the movie embarrassed for theI don't think I've ever watched a worse movie except for Spawn. I understand the desire to write a movie full of adults who behave the way a high schooler might imagine adults behave, but you spend most of the movie embarrassed for the writer wondering "at what age did they realize how vacuous their notion of social interaction was when they wrote this". I highly recommend it for people who are constantly baffled by a growing distance between friends and family as they are socially marooned by their own social inadequacy. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
JeffMOct 14, 2005
Many there really are people who are cynical enough - or stupid enough - to find merit in a movie about four such self-destructive imbeciles. The artsy types (such as many so-called movie critics) love to embrace the "honesty" of psychologic Many there really are people who are cynical enough - or stupid enough - to find merit in a movie about four such self-destructive imbeciles. The artsy types (such as many so-called movie critics) love to embrace the "honesty" of psychologic pathology. This moive has no shortage of that. Fact is, only people who derive some form of perverse joy in watching idiotic people engage in idiotic dialogue for idiotic reasons might find merit in this movie. The rest of us would do better to spend the money at McDonalds. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MaR.Dec 16, 2006
Pseudointellectual writing and great performances. Dialogue is mediocre and contrived. Not grounded in reality.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
TonyB.Feb 12, 2006
"Closer" is a very well-acted, well-directed and well-edited piece of junk. Unlikeable characters I can take; an unlikeable film is something else.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JeffIOct 14, 2005
Nothing is more pathetic than cinema and amateur critics who rave over a movie's "honesty" just because the characters portrayed within it are psychological and spiritually corrupt. Sad commentary. Unless you're 1000% cynical (or Nothing is more pathetic than cinema and amateur critics who rave over a movie's "honesty" just because the characters portrayed within it are psychological and spiritually corrupt. Sad commentary. Unless you're 1000% cynical (or terminally stupid) avoid this movie at all costs. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
sMSep 3, 2005
Great to look at. Nothing more. Critics loved it because it's provocative and controversial. Washington Post got it right. Highbrow s..t.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DuncanB.Oct 23, 2006
I have a profound loathing of this film. Real people do not talk like this. It asks hard questions like "Why do rich, beautiful, vain, self centered, urbanites treat love as a commodity and sex as a form of power politics". The film looks I have a profound loathing of this film. Real people do not talk like this. It asks hard questions like "Why do rich, beautiful, vain, self centered, urbanites treat love as a commodity and sex as a form of power politics". The film looks great as do the actors but it is presented as an authentic look at modern relationships, but this is as divorced from reality as any fantasy. The characters are emotional children, real people do not act or talk like the people in this film, it is a rich coffee table intellectuals view of humanity. This is a world view that has not been informed by genuine hardship. It is an A Level students view of modern love. I like a bleak film as much as anyone, the bleaker and more pessimistic the better, but this film lacked a key ingredient: RELEVANCE. This film explores the sexual politics of a metro-sexual elite, it is not a genuine universal exploration of love and the damage it does. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RitaP.Jan 26, 2006
Mildly entertaining but unltimately empty and lacking in so many areas. Cannot remember another film where ALL of the main characters are so unsmpathetic and unlike able. At the end of the day I didn't care what happend to any of them, Mildly entertaining but unltimately empty and lacking in so many areas. Cannot remember another film where ALL of the main characters are so unsmpathetic and unlike able. At the end of the day I didn't care what happend to any of them, just hope I never meet people like them in my personal life. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
FredJul 21, 2006
This movie tries to do a lot. It tries to be thought provoking, it tries to be raw, it tries to be deep and it tries to be brutally honest. It was not truly any of things. The dialogue was forced and contrived, attempts to be profound merely This movie tries to do a lot. It tries to be thought provoking, it tries to be raw, it tries to be deep and it tries to be brutally honest. It was not truly any of things. The dialogue was forced and contrived, attempts to be profound merely come off as beautiful, spoilt people displaying their idiotic and warped notions of life, formularized to the last drop. The film is so horribly self conscious it made me grimace to watch it, it was as though the only thought given to the film was that raw automatically equals artistic quality. I hate to say it, but it does not. A soulless and sterile movie that is void of any depth, despite far too obvious attempts to the contrary. It is the Da Vinci Code of films; garbage that is made to appeal to the pseudo intellectuals. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DaveC.Feb 11, 2007
Cloying, affected and tiresomely self-important. Performances are lacklustre, from the insufferably dull Clive Owen to the overemployed Julia Roberts and the altogether useless Natalie Portman. Even the usually impressive Jude Law Cloying, affected and tiresomely self-important. Performances are lacklustre, from the insufferably dull Clive Owen to the overemployed Julia Roberts and the altogether useless Natalie Portman. Even the usually impressive Jude Law doesn't do this a lot of favours. Not that it's an easy task to be asked to spew out such trite, pretentious dialogue at the behest of a pretentious director. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JoelT.Nov 27, 2007
Insufferably pretentious plot, insufferably contrived dialogue, insufferably self-important film. In short: insufferable. A hollow and disappointing offering from Nichols. And Natalie Portman may be purty, but she's a soulless phony. I Insufferably pretentious plot, insufferably contrived dialogue, insufferably self-important film. In short: insufferable. A hollow and disappointing offering from Nichols. And Natalie Portman may be purty, but she's a soulless phony. I don't think that piece of driftwood could act her way out of a paper bag if it had a hole cut it in. Don't get what all the fuss is about over her performance. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful