It seems to a really polarized film, either you buy into its idea about love and relationship or you don't, either you think it's really into something meaningful or you think it's very pretentious and you just don't care. Either way, it should generate plenty of discussions, and I will hope to see it myself in a couple of weeks.

How could you walk out of a movie-theatre, especially for a movie like that?

So, you didn't see the ending?

I don't think wuthcrackin visits here :wink: , but I do have the same question too.

Anyway, a couple of more reports from BOM:

By Desires2dream -
"Closer
Santa monica
7:40pm
Sold Out

Review--

Terrible Terrible Terrible. Never have i had a movie experience like this. It was mind numbing to a point i was getting a headache. There was absolutely no point to the plot. Yes, there's love, tribulation, and betrayal in every relationship, but there's nothing new in this movie. I mean if they want to do a movie on this subject, they should at least bring something new to the table, and i don't call dropping the F bomb and dirty talk every 5 secs novel. It was manipulative, forced, over dramatic over something that has no substance. There was no core to the whole melodramatic emotions.

The plot is basically she slept him and he slept with her and then she slept with him. So what? is the reaction i get. I don't see how anyone can get anything from this movie. I was bored to death and even thought of walking out at some point. A better movie on the same subject is " We Don't Live Here Anymore" that movie was a lot better than this piece of trash.

The audience hated it as well. there was a group of people who even went to the box office and asked for their money back complaining that the movie was crap. A couple behind me said " It went from bad to worse to terrible.

Terrible , just terrible. Wasted two hours of my life on this that i will never get back.

Grade --- F- , if there's a grade lower than F, that's what it deserves."

By axel_2 -
"I like intellectual movies and not the usual crap, so I give Closer an A.

Great acting, mesmerizing. Not for everybody. I think a lot of people won't even understand anything about it.


I saw it at DeVargas in Santa Fe. 1:15 matinee, about 50% full.

Although there were four walk-outs, everybody else stayed and seemed to enjoy it. Many stayed after and remarked how great it was. "

Although a different genre, these crowd reports remind me of Kill Bill Vol.1. A lot of people were turned off by the bloody scenes in the movie, and people were turned off by the sense of no plot and just emotion and action. I've noticed a few people walk out of my screening of Kill Bill Vol.1, while the rest of the audience that stayed mostly loved it.

Closer, by the way, at my theater is playing on two big screens. The 9:30 got 3/4 capacity, while the other shows averaged 1/2 capacity, so it's not doing too bad. I say a 5 million weekend is still possible :wink:

I think 5 million weekend is more than possible given the reports so far. A lot of sell-out, not as many as Bridget Jones 2, but we could be looking at $12000-14000 PTA.

Saw Scott online, but he disappeared again. :?

Closer was never meant to be a "crowd pleaser," per se. It's a stage-adapted drama with a hard R-rating whose plot revolves around lies, deceit, and sex. The bad word of mouth (especially by those who go in expecting something 'romantic') is not something I will be surprised by if indeed it does surface in the coming weeks.

I have yet to see the film. Possibly tomorrow, though.

Here is my theater report.

House of Flying Daggers.
1:00 (600 seater) - 11% full.
3:00 (600 seater) - 6% full.
4:00 (600 seater) - 7% full.
6:10 (600 seater) - 12% full.
7:00 (600 seater) - 16% full.
9:00 (600 seater) - 47% full.
10:00 (600 seater) - 40% full.
11:30 (150 seater) - 52% full.
(Good, but not spectacular, but being in thirteen theaters, a $10,000 PTA is still possible).

Closer
1:45 (300 seater) - 17% full.
3:10 (400 seater) - 9% full.
4:30 (300 seater) - 19% full.
5:50 (400 seater) - 20% full.
7:10 (300 seater) - 54% full.
8:30 (400 seater) - 75% full.
9:55 (300 seater) - Sold Out.
11:10 (400 seater) - 69% full.
(Our best performer tonight, but not as good as Bridget Jones)

Overall, it was soooo extremely slooooooooow!!! This is the slowest Friday this year so far. In fact, Closer and Flying Daggers combined did like 35% of the business today. Meaning that if it weren't for those two, the theater would have been like a Thursday (that's how bad it was). Even the lines at Box Office weren't even that long at all. Most holdover shows during the 6-8 o'clock show had between 30 and 50 theater, that is not good (though we had a 60% full show for National Treasure at 9:30 (300 seater), but that's pretty much it). Though it was good for me, since I was an Usher

I didn't dissappear, I was in the BO Games and Quizzes section.

Thanks for the report!

I'm not sure which I'm more surprised about..that House of Flying Daggers opened this weekend at Scott's theatre...or that it got the 600 seaters.

Incidentally, I thought Closer and House of Flying Daggers were both good, but definitely not great. I think I'd give them both an 8/10. I was more impressed with the former though because it's really something different and the performances (especially Portman and Owen) were amazing. I didn't like House of Flying Daggers nearly as much as Hero..it's just too long and drawn-out, even though those who were confued by the story in Hero will have a somewhat easier time. I can definitely see why audienecs might not be into Closer though, and I see the averages dropping it as it expands each week.

(Oh, I should add that I have mad crushes on Ziyi Zhang and Natalie Portman, so your mileage may definitely vary <G>)

2 Crowd Reports:

Saw finally opened here in Australia.

Deep Blue advance screening. Set for a 2005 release in the US.

About 2 weeks until I return to the US and back to the weekly crowd reports.

I wasn't basing that comment off of just one crowd report. This is what I've been hearing. My cousin who lives in Texas saw it, and she didn't like it very much either. She also heard a bad reaction from a lot of the theater she was in (which was sold out, by the way). Plus, earlier today, the yahoo reviews weren't so encouraging. And, how the critics grade isn't all that spectacular like I thought it would be. I mean, people giving it C's or even possibly D's is still bad, but not as bad as when you see a handful of people all giving it F.

Hmm...looks like we've got another love/hate movie on our hands with Closer.

Closer
1:45 show, 400-seat auditorium, about 75 people.

Trailers
Spanglish - chatter
Hitch - laughter
The Aviator - more chatter
Beyond the Sea - silence
Hide and Seek - whispers

Movie
Closer is a very strong film, one of the year's best. Although it is clearly not for everyone (witness all those who went in expecting some sort of feel-good film and then cited it as a failure), those who do see it and are able to appreciate and understand it will also likely find it to be a very good film. Among the cast, Julia Roberts (with the possible exception of Erin Brockovich) has never been better. The actress plays her role to near perfection. Clive Owen and Natalie Portman are both tremendous. Neither has given a more succint, focused performance, and Portman especially impresses. Jude Law, although strong, is not in the same league as the other three actors, perhaps because he has been better before. Closer receives a strong adaptation, and this is likely one of Mike Nichols' strongest films. A.

Unbelievable how the opions on this movie are split.
Is the movie as "cold" and "graphic" as many critics say it is?

Yes. And there was applause when I saw the film Thursday.

It really appears to be a love/hate flick that splits the audiences and critics.

Closer
10:30 Show
6 People in theater

Trailers:

Hitch- no laughs
Monster in Law - no laughs
Assault on Precinct 13 - no reaction
Spanglish - some whispering.

The Movie -

It's hard to review this film. For the most part, people go to the movies to enjoy themselves. But there is little, if anything, to be enjoyed in this film.

The acting is good. But so was the acting in the hit London play this film is based on. What then separates the film from the play? For that matter, if the recipe for success is that simple, why isn't every hit play automatically turned into a film. The answer of course is that success is not that simple. The directing is sufficient in Closer, though nothing spectacular. The cinematography certainly doesn't break new ground. It's all by the book, a paint by number film disguised in a golden fleece.

I don't know who the audience is for this film. It's too "aren't we cool for having America's Sweetheart talk about the taste of semen" for most people. It also jumps back and forward in time without providing proper guidance. It lacks a sense of urgency or authority that usually comes with Oscar season films. And it's with that urgency that films can rise above risqué subject matter (Kinsey for example) and connect with general audiences.

Two scenes are burnt into my mind and they happen back to back near the third act of Closer. One involves Dan breaking up with Alice. I remember having almost the exact same conversation with my ex. And I remember her having the same reaction as Alice.

Then there's the scene between Larry and Anna. Once again, I had almost the same inquisitive fury as Larry. I asked the same painful questions.

If we wanted to remember those horrible moments of love, we would have recorded them for prosperity, instead of paying $8.00 to see Hollywood actors play against type to recreate the moments for us.


C

BTW, I'm tempted to give this film an A+++++++++++++++++ for Portman but I won't.

Alexander
Noon show
15% full

Alexander -

What a marvelous mess of a movie (whew!). I heard a critic refer to it as a car wreck he couldn't turn away from. I would disagree. It wasn't enough of a car wreck to keep my attention. Wow, Sir Hannibal Lecter is narrating. How grand. It was too earnest, it's goals too lofty, it attempted to be something it could never be. A great film.

It wasn't campy enough. Had it veered just a bit more off course, say computer generated elephants, full man on man sex, ultraviolence, mega sets, this film could have been the sandal and sword epic for the ages. Cleopatra for the 00's.

The only thing this film got right was the casting of Jolie, Farell, and Kilmer. They were just nutty enough for the film. Had Stone came along for the loony ride, I think something unusual and in the end, very watchable would of been produced.

Instead, Stone of all people held back. Yes, JFK stone. The same Stone who directed Natural Born Killers and my personal favorite mind fuck, U-Turn.

I can't recommend this film. But if by Zeus' beard, there's a uncut ultimate Oliver Stone version waiting for DVD, I'll be first in line to buy it.

D+

Good review, Libs. I'm looking forward to this a lot!

Closer
4:30 Showing
500 seat theater -- Sold Out

Trailers
Hitch -- Audience loved it. I think it looks great as well.
Spanglish -- Same reaction. Same reaction.
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou -- Some light chuckles. I think it looks great.

Movie
My "review" is in the Your Take section. To sum my review up though, I didn't like it.

C

Audience Reaction
I would like to say it was mixed, but I don't think it was. Most people walking out (That I could gauge) did not like the film at all. There was absolutely no applause when the lights came up, and in fact there were a lot of groans.

The audience didnt understand the film or were mislead so that's why they didnt like it. I knew what it was about therefore my review is right and there's is wrong. Come on Libs :wink:

To think people went in expecting some sort of feel-good film or Notting Hill 2 is one of the most lazy ways to defend your review Libs.

Closer created a great marketing campaign. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who didnt know what the movie was about.

So why didn't everyone love it?

I didn't go to the movies this weekend.