Tag: Clive Owen

Dark Globe.

A weekend of playoff football (ugh, so close, Jets) has fed into the Golden Globe awards which, I must say, have been pretty disappointing this year. I root for both Clive Owen and Natalie Portman in general, but Closer was a lousy film, and I would have much preferred to see some love for Eternal Sunshine at some point in the evening, even if Sideways and The Aviator are deserving in their own way. (I have yet to see Million Dollar Baby or Ray, but would be very surprised if they turned out better than Charlie Kaufman’s magnum opus.) Ah well, perhaps this’ll help Jim Carrey beat the Golden Globe curse.

Getting Colder.

It’s too bad some of Julia Roberts’ Ocean’s Twelve mojo didn’t rub off on the Closer shoot, ’cause here’s a film that could use both the fun and the self-awareness of Soderbergh’s flick. But, no, Mike Nichols’ Closer (meant, I assume, in the primal and jagged sense of the NIN song) turned out to be a pretty grievous swing and miss. Jude, Julia, Natalie, and Clive each do what they can to enliven the proceedings, but they’re fighting a losing battle this time around. Stilted and stage-y throughout, Closer feels like warmed-over Neil LaBute, and seems less a treatise on our often-frightening capacity for emotional violence as much as an excuse for A-list actors to talk dirty to each other.

First, there’s the dialogue. Perhaps Closer works better as a play, but it certainly doesn’t work as a movie. All four characters speak past each other in sterile, well-crafted bon mots that sound unspontaneous and rehearsed throughout. Then, there’s the fact that all four of these characters come off as thoroughly detestable (and not in an empathetic Sideways kinda way): Jude’s a wheedler, Julia’s depressive, Natalie’s somewhat heartless, Clive’s a bully. Thus, it becomes much easier to dismiss the characters’ respective agonies as just-desserts for awful behavior, rather than as any kind of meaningful comment on the evils “normal” people perpetrate in the name of love.

Add these flaws together and you end up with some strikingly misconceived scenes, probably none more so than Natalie’s strip-tease for a love-ravaged Clive. Both actors go for it, with Portman fearlessly parading around semi-nude and Owen drawing up barrels of rage and despair to the fore. But to what purpose? Their conversation seemed so forced and artificial, and Portman so curiously distant from the traumatized Owen (who we just saw at his worst the scene before), that it took me right out of what’s going on. Ultimately, Closer leaves you with not much more than the experience of watching first-rate actors splendidly overexert themselves on cut-rate material. And sadly, to paraphrase Morrissey, the closer they got, the more I ignored them.

Sea of Sin.

Some extended footage from Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s Sin City makes it online. Got a very strange, stylized look to it, to be sure. But I’ve been underwhelmed by everything Rodriguez has done since El Mariachi, and, let’s face it, graphic novels and film are two different mediums. As one AICN talkbacker noted, this could very well end up looking a “Max Fischer Stage Production of Frank Miller’s Sin City.”

Law will tear us apart.

There’s talk about that Jude Law will play Ian Curtis of Joy Division in a forthcoming biopic. That’s pretty good casting (better, for example, than Ashton Kutcher as Flash Gordon), although after 24 Hour Party People I’m not sure a Curtis biopic is really necessary (but cast Paul Bettany as Bernard Sumner and we’ll be getting somewhere.) Also in the Jude department, the trailer for Mike Nichols’s Closer is now online, and it looks pretty solid, if you can buy that anyone would actually leave Natalie Portman for Julia Roberts.

Stretching his Chops.

Uh-oh. Ioan Gruffudd remarks on landing Mr. Fantastic of The Fantastic Four, and it sounds like (a) he’s not familiar with the character and (b) he hasn’t read the script. Schweet. Meanwhile, Lancelot’s lord and liege, Clive Owen, talks up his own comic adaptation, Sin City.

Siege Perilous.

Well, in some other movie Clive Owen would’ve made a really great King Arthur. And he’s definitely very watchable here as the lead in the Jerry Bruckheimer-produced King Arthur. But this project basically feels like a Gladiator meets Tears of the Sun retread, and, aside from the characters’ names, it has very little to do with the Arthurian legend. I’d say the film’s probably better than you’ve heard, but still somewhat disappointing. Workmanlike, but ultimately rather drab.

I must say, I really can’t get my mind around the current trend in epic movie-making. After the wild success of PJ’s LotR, it should be a no-brainer: You can’t tell The Iliad without the gods, and you can’t do justice to the story of King Arthur without sorcerers, enchantments, love triangles or the Holy Grail. Demystify the legend and you end up with…well, I guess you end up with what you have here, which is a lot of grunting and flying arrows and bad hair days along Hadrian’s Wall. Admittedly, I liked the realistic take of a film like The Alamo, but it just seems unnecessary here (particularly when the “realism” portrayed involves 5th century Abu Ghreibs and an Arthur who’s a good 1000 years ahead of the times on the political philosophy front.)

As I said, Clive Owen is pretty solid, though, and he helps his case here as the next James Bond. Keira Knightley is passable given the material, although every time I see her now I can’t help but think of Winona Ryder and a quote by Bilbo Baggins (“I feel thin — sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.”) Ioan Gruffudd’s performance as Lancelot was also derailed by my terminal fanboyisms, as I spent most of his screentime trying — and failing — to remove his facial hair and picture him as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic. And the rest of the knights? Well, they’re a dirty, ragged bunch, but Ray Winstone (of Sexy Beast) and Ray Stevenson stand out as Sir Bors and Sir Deadduck respectively. Mention must also be made of a Tom Waits-voiced Stellan Skarsgard as the Saxon Big Bad, who gets off a quality zinger about Anglo-Saxon interbreeding, and who is the only person who seems to be having any fun in this project.

All in all, I suppose this movie is solid enough if you’re looking for a decently well-done entry in the long line of period war movies we’ve had of late. But, if your thoughts on King Arthur run towards Camelot, the Lady in the Lake, Morgan le Fey, or even the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, you might want to wait for the next iteration of the story (or just go rent Excalibur.)

My Ringdom for a Horse.


Not with ten thousand men could you do this. It is folly…
Reader Jenny from NH passes along this series of pics from Troy (mirrored here), which includes this shot of Sean Bean as Odysseus (who’s been strangely missing from the trailers.) Along the same lines, some new King Arthur images are also up today, including this one of Arthur, Guenivere, and Lancelot (although word is the love triangle has been scrapped.)

Bring out your dead.

Speaking of Ms. Knightley, it’s come to my attention that I’ve been remiss in not blogging the trailer for King Arthur, which happened on the web during the very busy holidays. Hmm…even with the big production values, it’s still kinda got that Very Special Presentation of the History Channel feel to it. (Stellan Skarsgard’s bad hair day doesn’t help.) I fear they’ve screwed this up…they should’ve gone the Magical Merlin & Morgan Le Fey route, Lady of the Lake and all. The world is currently enraptured with Lord of the Rings, and Bruckheimer & Fuqua seem to be still thinking Gladiator. Clive Owen’s got charisma to spare, though…he may be just what the Bond franchise needs.

King and Coens.


Empire Movies secures a number of pics from two highly awaited projects: The Clive Owen-Keira Knightley King Arthur and the Coen brothers’ remake of The Ladykillers. Tom Hanks looks great in the latter, and it’s the Coens so it’s gotta be good. But what on Earth happened to Guinny? She looks more like Morgan le Fey.