closer

You heard it hear first:  Natalie Portman is the next Hugh Grant.

When you hear "Hugh Grant movie" you think romantic comedy, starring a charming and slightly disheveled bloke who will stumble all over himself before finally landing the girl and apologizing for not recognizing how much of an ass he's been the entire film.  Audiences smile, chuckle, marvel at the black taxicabs of London, and want to reach up on to the silver screen to muss up his hair.  And then maybe strangle him for that whole Elizabeth Hurley / Hollywood hooker thing.

Five years from now, when you hear "Natalie Portman movie," you'll think of a slightly arty yet accessible film that stars a charming, disarming, naive-on-the-outside, knowing-on-the-inside young woman that seduces the leading man and by the end of the film holds all the cards.  Think The Professional.  Think Beautiful Girls.  Think Garden State.  Think Closer.

Closer could have been a good movie.  I'm not sure that Nichols could have made a great movie from the original play, but he could have at least made a good one.  He almost succeeded.  Jude Law is reasonably convincing as the puppy dog obit writer; you think Julia Roberts is phoning it in until you realize that that's her character (how convenient!); and Clive Owen chews up the scenery with his "I'm an ACTOR!!" portrayal of the victim-turned-aggressor dermatologist.  But Natalie Portman wasn't right for this movie.  She seemed in over her head, and compensated by trying to mold the tough, streetwise Alice character into yet another Natalie Portman Role. 

There's a line near the beginning of the film, when Dan (Jude Law) is explaining to Anna (Julia Roberts) why he prefers her character over Alice (Portman):  "because you're a woman, and she's a girl."  I fear that Portman, even when she's trying to play the woman, will still be reprising her role as Marty from Beautiful Girls -- the precocious girl next door.  I'm just waiting for the movie where that girl lives next door to Hugh Grant, and then we'll know exactly what we're in for.

Comments

[judith]

"Look, it's not that I hate Natalie Portman..."

[Mark]

interesting read

[Darrin]

I agree 100%, me and the date I saw this movie with both commented on how Natalies performance was the worst of the 4. That is quite a statement given Julia's yawn-inducing portrail. Clive Owen started out clownish but ended strong (the scene in the dermo office was excellent).

Natalie still needs the breakout role, but she is capable. Unfortunatly neither this nor any of her Star Wars dribble has or will historically amount to anything. If she can get back to getting strong scripts that fit her acting style and basic personality, she will be big IMO.

[Meg]

I thought this movie was, well, annoying. I walked away thinking...well, each of those people had little self respect. All of the roles were too complex for the actors chosen to perform them. The moral of the story was..."wow, people are screwed up...?"...but those actors couldn't portray the role as "screwed up"...let's try this movie again with a different cast.

[Jennifer]

It's true, Natalie Portman has not yet had the breakout role that she's trying to obtain. It almost seems as though she is accepting any movie role; trying desperately trying to become this huge movie star, but in fact all I see is Queen Amidala without the face paint.