The film sins with a syndrome of deep inner meaning, the transfer of which the writers and director did not have enough funds. What has remained clear is that “deep, subtly feeling and educated” people (writer Jude Law and photographer Roberts) can be empty and worthless people to check, and simple, slightly uncouth (Owen Wilson) understand about themselves and others much more than one could expect, know how to achieve their own, behave with dignity and restraint, and maybe hide a double bottom (Natalie Portman). Not a bad move with the understatement of the final - it's unclear if there was anything between Portman and Wilson or not - is a great way to show it really didn't matter. Again, as far as I know. The only interesting character in the whole film is Portman's heroine, although - and that's what makes her interesting - it would seem that she is a stripper.
Stupid movie. It has no real drama, no irony, no subtlety, only a claim to depth with all the vanilla innuendo, vanilla dialogue and an overdose of pathos. It is simply about the lives of four stupid people, for nothing that two of them are slightly less stupid, but at the same time so loud words, so bent seriousness and pathos that, if you are not a vanilla, the whole spectacle will cause a slight laugh or annoyance from wasted time.
“If you believe in love at first sight, you will never stop looking for it.” With this phrase placed in the slogan, sounding a brief renome for Ostinov’s novels, an acquaintance with “Proximity” began. In general, with love, or rather with her on-screen presentation, Mike Nichols has always been in relative order. Take at least the intriguing direction of “The Graduate”, or “Jealousy”, based on the novel by Nora Efron, or gravitating to the mysticism of “The Wolf”, in which the main character is forced to struggle with personal and relational transformations of his own life. Even in Knowledge of the Flesh, the director managed to tame the play of Jack Nicholson - one of the notorious Hollywood bad guys - thanks to which we see on the screen not only a womanizer smelling cynicism, but also a sensitive, receptive personality. The presence in the next project of a quartet of famous Hollywood lyceums was supposed to contribute to the creation of a film canvas not only impressive visually, but also advancing on the psychological heels of McGigan's "Obsession", linen's "Never" or, if you play on the lowering of the degree of love heat, Coppolov's "Difficulties of Translation". Roberts’ feminine drama, Portman’s refined melancholy, Owen’s emphasized masculinity and Lowe’s sly charisma were able to more than provide the tape with sensuality and boiling of various passions. But, despite such a “golden set”, something could still go wrong. And it goes.
Operating with Nabokov’s principle of chimeric word, the above-mentioned verb “sent about / i” can be safely transformed into a similar-looking, but different-sounding adverb. It is vulgarity as a quality, which is insultingly urgent in relation to this picture, discourages above all else. More hopes were expected from the tape with a foundation in the form of a twenty-seven-million budget and a set of high-profile names of very frank nudity, but the plot, in contrast to the innocent slogan literally screaming about sexual attraction, sometimes turning into an obsession, no matter how hard, should contain a shockingly compulsive core. And when instead the gaze clings to quasi-erotic scenes, and the hearing clings to hulkingly knitted dialogues, the minor combination of yawning boredom and laziness to continue watching will not be long in coming. The apogee of the described emotions coincides with the equator of the narrative, when you understand that the plot continues to dance around the systematic jumping into other people's beds, and the expected progress, bypassing the sucking of the permutations of the terms in a remorselessly unchanged sum, is unlikely to happen. A great paradox of the ideologically-incarnate concept is that the declared eroticism will turn into vulgar antics, leaving sex and even adult preludes behind the scenes, and the anticipation of dialogues, in its naturalism related to Zola’s prose, – fragmentary clichéd phrases drawn from tabloid novels in dispersible soft covers.
On the dialogue, by the way, I want to dwell on more details. It is hard to believe that they had a hand talented Patrick Marber, listed in the graduates of the famous Oxford College Wadham. Of course, for verbal picks in style:
He wanted to kill you.
- Why not fuck me?
- Don't be rude, pig.
First of all, we should thank the nuggets of domestic dubbing, but still the mood message of such phrases very transparently hints that the language original was also far from high matter. The numbness of some successful shots looks like an oasis in the middle of a desert dried up by philistine habits, but it is in a hurry to be leveled by outright obscenity and banalism pouring from the lips of the characters. It, obscenely, sticks a stubborn head into the deliberately demonstrated below-belt correspondence between the two heroes; it also skittishly walks around in everyday conversations that take place everyday, almost automatically. "Have you eaten the way?" "You know, I fucked Sarah." Relax, this is just a free presentation on a given topic, but a similar conversational canvas makes itself known again and again. The strengths of “Proximity” is not recruited even for the prize of audience sympathy, not to mention the two “Golden Globes” for the best supporting roles. Such an impression of the audience can be dictated by the success of the Marber play of the same name, which gained nonconformist hitiness on the European stage in the late 90s, and if this is the case, then the success of the television show is nothing more than the phenomenon of transference described by Freud. The functionality and concise construction of the play structure significantly dissonates with the transfer to the camera, and due to non-compliance with the axiomatic norm of filling interdialogue voids with a thoughtful “life in the frame”, the film loses its integrity, mimicking a set of cheap sketches. Of the positive qualities of the film, these include, perhaps, only acting. It is, however, not surprising - talent can not be hidden, but you can put it in such an infertile environment, where it is transformed into a foreign element, unable to rehabilitate the overall bad adaptation. Post-view sensations from “Proximity” are reduced mainly to a long-standing rhetorical question: “Is it really so bad with good ideas, and with money so good that even stars of the first magnitude agree to participate in such orchards of bad taste?”
Julia Roberts, pictured throwing between a metrosexual writer and a dermatological macho - neither give nor take a headless chicken. Natalie Portman in the process of simultaneously demonstrating striptease, weak cellulite and poorly concealed shyness. The finale, as if snorting for bravery love drink No. 9, otherwise how to explain that all the males of the Big Apple, from puberty teenagers to aging poodles, vectorly curl their necks to yesterday’s strippers in simple jeans and a T-shirt. Programmed as a leitmotif, the urge to “sleep” as an acute and indisputable urge to start dating. Sleeping together to break up completely. Almost sleep together to finally realize you don't love anymore. So the hand with the usual movement throws the bone rosary in their endless string, or tears the next chamomile petal from the saffron core. "Loves, doesn't." No, not at all. Love is not the root cause, it is a pitiful excuse for taunted excuses. And so in an enchanted, incessant circle, not as charmed, as overgrown. Concentrating the basics exclusively around the lower chakras, despite its typicality for the acclaimed projects of Tinto Brass or Zalman King, turns out to be disastrous for “Proximity”, in which everything is different, ranging from script finds and the choice of director.
The family of swingers or everyday life in the village
I think my title fully conveys the meaning of this film, because the ridiculous actions that the characters of this film commit can happen and be logical either in the midst of radical personalities committed to the swinger lifestyle, or in a remote village with a population of 4 people.
The beginning of the film is intriguing and tunes to the fact that now you will see at least a good melodrama, or a great romantic film, but expectations burst like a soap bubble in the middle of the film. In short, the plot of this film tells how adult uncles and aunts can not decide on their feelings and then fall in love, then fall out of love with their halves, and then fall in love with others, then again fall out of love and fall in love with their previous partners. Well? Isn't that a brilliant story? Nope. In the middle of the film, love zeal and frankly stupid and vulgar dialogues of all the main characters begin to irritate, and at the end only cause an ironic smile.
You ask yourself, “Lord, do these people have personalities, interests?” In this city, what other than these 4 ordinary types does not exist? Can they think of anything other than sex and some bizarre form of love? In the film, year after year, judging by the context of the narrative, but you do not visually feel this, and the characters do not change or develop.
Play actors very ordinary, in their feelings do not believe. Pleases only costumed masquerade performed by Natalie Portman, as well as very frank scenes with her.
4 out of 10
In a dense indifferent crowd of people in a hurry, two eyes once caught on: a crimson-haired informal in a hippish coat and a classic office plankton in glasses and a tie. And it could have been a beautiful story of a romantic encounter, of subsequent dates, and of a sacramental “and they lived happily ever after,” if this love story at first sight had not suddenly... been transformed into another one. Again the look, again the spark, the irrepressible attraction, "...their lips easily touched" ... and the prudent question: "Do you have a boyfriend?" And the equally unexpectedly cold-blooded answer is, "There really is." The viewer is confused, the moment is lost, the chemistry is gone. And there is a terrible suspicion that Mike Nichols in the movie with the intriguing title “Proximity” apparently meant something quite different.
Two theoretical couples - two men, two women. They live with some (M+J), they dream of others (M+J), ulcers of others (F+J), make nasty fourth (M+M). And the strange geometric figure of the relationship, which should be a quadrangle, bends into a complex psychedelic form, acquires and loses the delicate pink color of lover youth and scarlet adult passion, leaving only a caustic acid yellowness of resentment and repeatedly betrayed trust. But what is trust or betrayal but the degree of intimacy? Dan lives with Alice, but is in love with Anna, Anna lives with Larry, but is in love with Dan. The logical decision to break up two unhappy couples to create one happy one doesn’t work in this case, because Dan is unable to live with Anna. The story of an almost physical near-obsession of two people, which could theoretically hook with its naked sincerity, naive romanticism, or deafening passion, inspire awe, awe, and even respect for the power of feelings, in fact turns out to be a caricature mirror, a vulgar, almost vulgar sketch on the theme “Learn the most disgusting thing about me.” Or is that just what it looks like?
The main action of the tape is on dialogue. Heroes talk on the street, on a bus, in a photo studio, through a sex chat, in a museum, at an exhibition, in a strip club, and in bed they talk too. In women's tantrums, rolled by men and in cold calculatingly thought-out monologues of women, equally exhausting the viewer, they open the soul, exposing the most valuable thing - their own essence. Shake every intimate detail, savor every / every obscene detail, revel in every / every petty offense ... The degree of rejection is growing, the viewer is filled with growing contempt for the heroes, considering them empty, spineless and unprincipled creatures. But, abstracting from the details, what is this spiritual nudity if not the desire and search for true proximity, complete unity with those to whom you are dear and who are dear to you? Or even just the opportunity to be yourself to the end, without the formal conventions of society and upbringing?
This is where the ugly truth is revealed. For, as it turned out, the desire to know a person to the end, the desire to open up to a person to the end, to become closer, even closer, to get under the skin to know everything, is fraught with the loss of any feelings. In other words, love between loved ones does not live. She is chastely wrapped in translucent garments of omissions, hides behind a hundred polite veils / veils, covers herself with bright masks of outright lies. And being thrown under the bright light of complete frankness, she disappears. Of the four people who once decided to play the fascinating game “Tell About Yourself” to preserve the appearance of normal relationships, only two were able to choose the compromise path of reasonable silence. Another (one?), as it turned out, guessed about the consequences of total frankness and from the very beginning held an ace up his sleeve. Well, it was prudent and safe. And only one who, by the nature of his activity, needed to know all aspects of human nature, received a clear bitter but useful lesson.
Mike Nichols created something exceptional in the power of his influence, even if its impact lies in a negative key. The four of his characters presented a visual characteristic of the versatility of the human personality, when the base animal nature can think strategically, and the aesthetic intellectual can fall into the sphere of influence of the senses. Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen used all their acting potential, paradoxically insulting him with the image of openly unpleasant personalities. The whole picture is filled with a dozen honest confessions, but produces the repulsive impression of digging in dirty underwear. And she says one thing that is not obvious: it is true, there may be one, but you can not live with it. But the variety of shades of lies opens endless horizons for maneuver.
Or not? ...
Playwright Marber wrote the play "Proximity." About the aesthetics of human webs and fetters against the backdrop of the new fogs of London. No, that's too complicated a definition. Let it be so: this play is about the drama of the love relationships of a modern European. "New Chekhov, new modern Chekhov," critics whispered. Then Marber wrote the script for his play and gave it to venerable Mike Nichols. And director Nichols was already on the fly, his famous Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf saw the light of day in 1966. And don’t be fooled by the seeming simplicity of a story in which only four characters hang around on the threads of the narrative. Unlike the play, where the change of scenery and light confidently and visually move the timeline for the viewer, in the film, five-plus years of stories are compressed into one hour and forty minutes of intense dialogue, and these years lived by the characters in betrayals and doubts seem almost weightless. But the severity of the time periods leaves cracks between the episodes and between the relationships of the main characters.
Behind the dry lines of the script is always someone's life. And here at the command of the director, the lights include their soffits. Between the cardboard partitions of the scenery, a new life occurs. Can Chekhov’s Dmitry Ionich Startsev, swallowing the foggy winds of the city of L, turn into, say, Dr. Larry, the character of “Proximity”? Hell no. New people are born on the set. Natalie Portman’s hair is brighter than bright, her heroine is Alice, a stripper. She drives obituary writer Dan crazy, inspires him to write a novel. Dan's already published novel inspires fashion photographer Anna. In the end, Anna annoys Dan and he inspires Anna Dr. Larry. Our four characters resemble the heroes of the parable. There are many unnecessary things missing in history: crying babies, subways, snow, aliens, sex. Theatrical laconic interiors are filled with only one – dialogues.
It would be worth the film to give the name “Face to Face”, because all its salt in close-ups, when showing which the main characters find out the relationship with each other. The characters are unaware that the big one is seen from a distance. Two lovers who do not let each other out of their arms – they are closer to each other. And now the face of the person dear to you disappears, instead of the face of a particular person there is a new exciting image, so tedious to look into the void. In the end, lovers have a relationship with someone else. Two women and two men with different temperaments, habits and upbringing walk in an enchanted circle, forming two love triangles. Is he a mathematician in love? Not at all. People’s relationships are not like a confused theorem, but random circles on the water from a stone, a word, a deed, a deed. And also on the incessant running on the trail of other people's feelings. Feelings cooled long ago, evaporated, and the trace remained. Eternal intuitive search for a stranger, fleeting glances in a crowd or long glances when parting. Four characters, four colors, four times of day, four eternity.
Each of us interprets the meaning of the word “proximity” in its own way. The invariable rule of successful symbiosis of two lovers - someone takes, someone gives - is successfully embodied by the director in the selection of performers. From the brutal alpha male performed by Clive Owen through the phase wire through the switches of the main characters, the current of the narrative flows to the “Chicken” Jude Law. Although the character named Anna performed by Julia Roberts can easily be characterized as a safety lock in the bright chain of the main characters. But here the laws of physics are powerless. Human relationships are so paradoxical and unpredictable that electrical discharges of replicas amaze the viewer, regardless of whether the words of the speaker are false or crystal clear. In the end, this story makes you remember Karamzin’s “nothing new under the moon” and turn the story to the very beginning: not far from the Cathedral of St. George. Pavel Dan and Alice wander into one of the courtyards of the city of L. On the facades, entwined with ivy, hang commemorative tablets of the nineteenth century with the names of the fallen heroes of half-forgotten times. In the end, each of us will know the truth and realize that the intimacy and temptation of the word are almost one root. Beautiful women will leave, only their smiles to remember, like the grin of a Cheshire cat.
I was hooked on this movie. So much so that I want to write a review.
What impressed me the most was the dialogue. They are kind of random, illogical, not from life. People don't talk like that! The whole film did not leave the feeling of theatricality. And here in interesting facts read that the play is based. Now it is clear where the legs grow.
In my opinion, most of the actions of the characters are illogical. Dialogue is illogical. The whole movie is a mess. We are thrown from event to event, between which the plot is a long break. There is a lack of disclosure of the characters, it is not clear why they fall in love with each other and what makes them act one way or another.
I really didn’t like the movie, I don’t even know what made me watch it to the end.
P.S.
Many, judging by the reviews, find deep meaning in this film and draw many conclusions for themselves. Explain to me, I don't see that depth.
The movie is disgusting, actually. And almost everything about him is disgusting. The director tried hard and turned all four heroes of the story into disgusting and boring types.
The heroine N. Portman was supposed to be a good person in a difficult modern life, which should be regretted. But not. It's not a pity. A lying and hypocritical person, with the image of which somehow does not fit the heroic feat of which they will say at the end.
The heroine D. Roberts is a typical middle-aged woman. She doesn't really know what she wants. He hides behind the mask of a decent man, but it is hard to believe. The character is poorly written, looks faded. The actress is not happy with herself. It seems that she soon wants to “wash off” from what is happening.
The hero of D. Lowe cries so much that he cannot inspire trust a priori. I have no doubt that the actor coped with his role, but the role is quite slippery. This guy doesn't know what he wants either. But something is definitely needed, for he is godlessly emotional.
The hero of C. Owen is typical, vulgar, insolent, licentious. In general, there is no sympathy for him, there is only dislike.
All four subjects are people who exist in any society. And the hypocrisy of the film is that it is all saturated with lies, pathos and promiscuity. The most “dirty” story can be presented beautifully and tastefully. It's not here. Just a depraved melodrama with an inflated pseudo-tragism. Usually in films of this kind there are a couple of characters whose fate or history is interesting. In "Proximity" everything is polar opposite. It’s just a soap opera that teaches nothing and discovers nothing new. A few days in the life of bored average revelers who came off the pages of kiosk tabloid novels.
2 out of 10
The heart is a fist drenched in blood. Gong. Today, there are four completely different people in the corners of the ring: a rough-sensual dermatologist Larry, an intelligent obituary writer and a lover of crusty sandwiches Dan, a pragmatic photographer Anna and a fragile stripper Alice. Everyone is ready to give a hook to the left and repel from himself a flaming lump of nerves, jealousy and lust, which elastically bounces from one to the other until it breaks through the tightly strained ropes and releases someone from this damned battlefield.
“Intimacy” is originally a play and only then a script; the comfort of perception – both visual and psychological – is sacrificed for didactic purposes, so that the viewer himself co-/imagines, appealing to all his experience in relation. Everything in it is ugly, confusing and uncomfortable, but it is difficult to call it the fruit of fantasy. At first, the plot romantically swung - a faint crowd, suddenly eyes in the eyes, a knight takes the princess away on an iron horse of public use, and will not soon plant the heart - so far only broken knees. But immediately, silent about the n-th number of months of idyllic, betrayal breaks the couple into the sharp edge of a cynical reality, in the dictionary of which there is no word “love”, but there is “possession”. Sex remains behind the scenes, but the atmosphere palpably rings vulgarity, brutality, maturity and even overmaturity. Dialogues tactlessly fall into tact - primitive stupidities and sarcastic insults, unceremonious picking of someone else's soul performed by repulsive, mediocre anti-heroes, to whom beautiful actors - Owen, Lowe, Roberts, Portman - have brilliantly humiliated. And it seems to be clamped in the heart-fist that mythical intimacy - spiritual intimacy, mistaken for physical. You won’t find her with a greedy look in the secret delights of a private dance in a strip club, just as you won’t type on a keyboard in an anonymous sex chat and extort with scrambled details from a cheating wife. As a result of the seemingly innocent search for a real, pure feeling, a monstrous, destructive impulse is born – in a way, a sobering phenomenon of the doom of failure of any, even the most harmonious relationships. It is unpleasant to follow this and listen to it, but it inevitably pulls, as a locked door attracts, behind which - you know for sure - lives a vile monster, which it is time to expose, for it is no longer children and do not believe in fairy tales.
What is it, behind closed doors, behind eyes wide closed? Like Soderbergh and Kubrick earlier, Nichols, in continuation of his previous work, carefully palpates the conflict between a man and a woman, only he has this conflict not in a bohemian velvet dress from a party, but in an intricate doctoral coat. And the final diagnosis is dry, severe and disappointing. The main commandment is to lie to your neighbor as to yourself. It is in lies, oddly enough, that the truth about relationships is born with pain and oppression; only on the basis of lies and cowardly compromise, one pair survived, and the so-called “love at first sight” – without tearing eyes from each other, according to the behest of the troubadour Damien Rice – fled to different parts of the world. Because life does not kill, not betrayal, but the very intimacy. The further we go, the more expensive we are; the more indifferent, the more attractive. Only when we are strangers are we really close. Damn paradox.
Quite a curious movie, revealing a modern approach to intimacy and relationships as such.
The problem with Jude Law’s character, for example, is not so much that he doesn’t know what he wants, but more that he wants everything at once. What he has, that Anna has a common problem - they do not want and cannot appreciate what they have, because the sharpness of novelty seems to them much more attractive.
The film is not for nothing called “Proximity” – in the process of watching we are invited to decide what it is. Someone calls this word “spark”, the feeling that arises between two strangers when they think they have known each other all their lives. And someone believes that this feeling appears over time, when people are not just in love, but love.
Perhaps, of all the characters, the heroine Natalie Portman knows the most about intimacy, and she suffers the most. Trying to maintain dignity, she behaves as calmly as possible, but in the depths of her eyes lives the pain of a broken heart.
In my opinion, this is a film about human cruelty and indifference. Boredom, which gives the right to betrayal. And true intimacy, which is impossible if your heart is stiff and you only seek adventure.
All my life I have been looking for that stranger.
This movie is amazing. What was happening in my soul after watching this film masterpiece can not betray words. This tape should be felt by every corner of your soul. The film is literally about everything and nothing at the same time, it is wildly dirty, but at the same time, disarmingly innocent. This film is about people, about love, about relationships, about sex, about lies, about truth, about betrayal and about loneliness. About the eternal solitude of the human soul, wishing to find someone who will fill the void.
I'm not going to talk about the story, it's not that important. People are important, heroes are important, strangers are important.
Dan (Jude Law) is a typical romantic. He is a writer with a difficult childhood who still survives the death of his mother. A vulnerable guy, ready to succumb to an instant spark that flashed, albeit briefly. Dan lives with emotion. He seemed capable of deep, sincere, really strong feelings. But like everything great, they are not durable. Dan needs to be loved constantly, he needs to love constantly.
Larry (Clive Owen) is an animal. A man with instincts. He knows what he wants and how to get it. His feelings are not easily destroyed, he accepts the world as it is. And ready to come to terms with the imperfect order of life. But Larry in the film reveals not just as a "stone wall," but as a feeling person. He turns out to be not just another callous pragmatist, but also a person.
Alice (Natalie Portman) is my character. She is a strong woman who has experienced a lot in life. Alice doesn’t give up, she’s always ahead. The film captures the tragedy of people like Alice. Sometimes such people do not bend under the onslaught of the most ferocious storm, but sometimes enough light breath to break them in half. For that breath was love. Love that burns from within, love that forgives all, love that takes everything and leaves nothing.
Anna (Julia Roberts) – to be honest, she’s the character I never fully understood. Her soul is dark to me. She's someone who doesn't share her feelings with strangers. But it often happens that these people are the most unhappy.
The atmosphere of the film, the wonderful acting, the strong plot and the beautiful music in the mind give us a film called “Proximity”. And believe me, watching this movie everyone will feel close to the characters. We all have our own story. It is impossible to look into the soul of a stranger, but this tape allows us to slightly raise the canopy.
10 out of 10
A picture about a love square with such actors as Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Natalie Portman and Clive Owen just force it to look. Ideal for watching with the second half, but judging objectively, the film is not the most successful. Let me explain why.
The plot is simple and uncomplicated, the author wanted to say “look, this is life itself!”, this, of course, is not a minus, but, alas, 105 minutes of timekeeping look hard, as if it was all 205 minutes. Showing all this time the suffering of the heroes, who for the most part of the picture themselves do not know what they want from relationships with their partners and in general from life, all the action smoothly flows into the traction. In such cases, they say “vanilla” and confirm this sad soundtrack, which we hear from the first minutes of the film.
If we talk about the technical aspects and disassemble the film “on the shelves”, then there are no complaints. The whole picture looks harmonious, you can see the “hand of the master” who gathered and connected all the pieces into a single whole. And the fact is that all this in general is not catchy. At least me. I am sure that the female half of the audience, the film received and will receive most positive reviews, which only more accurately characterizes this picture. As for the evaluation of this work as a genre film, the tasks have certainly been fulfilled, the melodrama has succeeded.
In my opinion, it is not the strongest work of Mike Nichols. Despite the strong cast of the same “Graduate” 1967 with solo Dustin Hoffman looks at times more interesting, lively and memorable, and “Proximity” seems to me a film for 1 time. I looked and forgot.
This film should appeal to those who have experienced how difficult it can be to understand feelings for someone, how difficult love can be; the rest are unlikely.
Almost all of the action is in the dialogue of the characters, and they (characters) here, by the way, are very candid (as the hero Low - Dan: 'I'm addicted to the truth'), which is funny, actually. The whole viewing of me did not leave the feeling that I was watching the play - the emphasis was placed on the main characters, and there were simply no others. There was almost no outside world either. And that's good. This is unusual.
The cast is terrific, even though I don’t really regret Roberts. And, by the way, it was because of the caste that I decided to watch this movie, because it is obvious that they would not gather Jude Law, Clive Owen, Natalie Portman for the sake of the usual for-cry-autumn-evening melodrama
Many, judging by the reviews, did not like that all the characters are too turned on sex, here we can not disagree, but for me it did not seem a minus. Love is just an animal here.
The only thing I didn’t like about this film is that I don’t fully understand the motivations of the characters in some ways, sometimes they behaved illogically. Maybe we need a second look. And sometimes they confused the implicit jumps in the timeline - everything happened very quickly.
In general, the movie looks in one breath. I highly recommend it.
The film “Proximity” refers to those rare films that, with a very modest budget (43 million), collected at the box office a very decent amount of 115 million. And this despite the fact that we are not a crazy blockbuster, but rather a chamber movie with 4 main characters. Of course, such a picture can “pull” only beautiful actors, and they brilliantly cope with the roles.
Unlucky writer Dan (Jude Law), sprouting obituaries in the newspaper, his girlfriend American Alice (Natalie Portman), alternately stripper, waitress, doctor Larry (Clive Owen) and photographer Anna (Julia Roberts). In fact, all love happens between them – hatred. And together they meet only in one scene, the rest of the tape are duets.
The plot clearly demonstrates to the viewer that people are governed by the law of selfishness. Each of the characters wants happiness according to their own recipe, and this is always fraught with trouble for others. Dan was especially successful in this, demanding the utmost honesty from others and, at the same time, absolutely unable to forgive. However, this does not prevent him from driving a girl in love with him by the nose for a year. No wonder at the beginning of the meeting with Anna in response to the confession: “You ruined my life”, she replies: “Nothing, it will pass.” And it really does, because Dan is a selfish kid who can't really love. Larry in Clive Owen’s stunning performance is also selfish, but loving, tormented, although largely because his “property” – his wife – was encroached on. And he returns her, without neglecting any means, along the way taking revenge on everyone, including Anna, for having been hurt. Anna can only be sorry: choosing between two egoists, she falls from the fire and into the fire. The fourth heroine Alice seems the most truthful and honest, but in fact she lied from the beginning.
The picture is not simple, interesting not by the twists of the plot, but by the characters of the main characters. For me, the downside was that instead of Cate Blanchett, who was planned for the role of Anna, Julia Roberts played. These are personal preferences.
After the final credits, for some reason, I remembered the words of Grigory Melekhov from Quiet Don: if you do not forgive, you can not live. Larry and Anna understood this truth, but Dan has yet to change or be left alone.
"Intimacy" is a sensual, candid, emotional melodrama that I love. The movie turned out to be an interesting, life story with a drop of comedy and drama. The film was made well and I watched it several times. We see a love story, a story of deception, sex, betrayal and a cycle in love, in which four heroes participate.
This melodrama is not simple and extraordinary. It is imbued with some irony, feelings and revelation. The cast is gorgeous, so not seeing this movie means really losing a lot. Beauty Julia Roberts in this film played a very controversial role, but she did it talented and clean. Jude Law is also a very interesting and difficult actor, and in this film he flashed his talent in a very difficult role. I liked Natalie Portman the most, because it is simply impossible to break away from her character in this melodrama. She performed best, and received another Academy Award nomination. This film is saturated with the feelings of the characters, their emotions, floggings and mistakes. I have enjoyed watching this melodrama and recommend it.
If you are a connoisseur of real pure and sensual melodramas, then this movie is a must see.
9 out of 10
After watching this movie, I would have forgotten about it, but somehow I thought back to it. There may be something in it, but...
What's this movie about? About everyone sleeping with each other. But in some ways it's a philosophical ribbon. But only in some ways.
Natalie Portman, Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law - such a cast willy-nilly attracts the attention of the audience. It’s a shame that it’s the only thing a movie can do. "Proximity" almost fits into this category.
Many times I tried to turn off the film in the middle, because there was not much pleasure in watching this very long action. However, I looked to the end and do not regret it. Everything in this movie is good at the end. There are certainly highlights here, but that, unfortunately, does not make the film a masterpiece. The acting is great, but by and large there is nothing else to cling to. With the exception of a few worthwhile plot twists, this picture is quite passing.
I'm not close to that topic. The hero of Jude Law in his inability to determine the pity did not cause. However, other actors also did not cause special feelings. Besides Natalie Potrman, I liked her in this movie. And this "love at first sight" that sounds so enticing in the slogan "Intimacy" - but it's not here. That's what Alice feels like, and to some extent Larry, but not the other characters. Of course, it was possible to make a film about an all-consuming passion that cannot be resisted, but here only the stupid throwing of those in whose heart there is no love.
And finally, an interesting story with a name that can be called a philosophical point, saying that sometimes what we considered our own, never really belonged to us.
In short, the film is not admirable. There’s probably something in it, but I won’t watch it a second time.
7 out of 10
Another look, another director on the relationship between the opposite sex. The film is interesting, with its intrigue, characteristic characters, the moment “there is something to think about”. Special thanks to Damien Rice and the actors for:
At first glance, Alice and Larry are the two people who are confident in their choice. But..
Larry (Clive Owen) is a player by nature who revels in the psychological victory over the opponent and the sole physical possession of the prize. Is the prize really worthwhile or is its value determined by competition? The only thing I can say about Larry is he's good!
Alice (Natalie Portman) is the extreme bipolar degree between “overwhelming attachment” and “cold indifference.”
I don’t see in Julia Roberts a strong woman who knows what she wants. For me, she's just going after someone who's closer at the moment. The inert position that eventually led her to relative harmony. The most interesting thing is that the heroine Alice is engaged in providing sex pleasure, and the feeling of “fallen” leaves Anna behind.
I don’t want to write about Jude Law. He just had to be "nothing" to reveal the character of everyone else.
Treason is not forgotten, no matter what anyone says. The world they call family is fragile.
The perfect ending for me is 4 slashes – pictures where everyone goes their own way.
The film is ambiguous. I'd say it's complicated. If someone craves entertainment and action, then this movie is not for you. But I wouldn’t call it high art either. He didn't touch the strings of my soul. Rather, it is a film for a particular life situation.
It happens that you love one person, sincerely and strongly. And you're attracted to someone else. So you decide to give in to passion, and that turns out to be love. Or you want someone so passionately that you convince yourself that this is love. It turns out to be just greed. So the characters of the film are rushing closer and further away.
It's amazing how people fight for the truth, but they lie to each other all the time. Like Alice, aka Jane, she is straightforward and childishly innocent, and she did not tell the truth. As Anna is a strong and independent woman, and so gullible and despised for male lies. Larry was probably the only honest man, but his candor made him like an animal. Well, Dan, he just doesn't know what he wants, he's confused.
But that's just one opinion out of a thousand, my opinion. I saw here what I must have wanted to see. This film is interesting, I think everyone will understand it in their own way.
Played perfectly, as if in one fell swoop, without editing. The dialogue, while dramatic, is ironic. And of course, the song "I Cant Take My Eyes Off Of You" (Damien Rice) catches from the first frames, and the film ends with it.
6 out of 10
P.S. Natalie Portman in the image of a stripper excited!
“The surest way to overcome temptation is to yield to it.” – Oscar Wilde But what's next?
Very often, watching a movie, we draw parallels between the lives of the characters and our own. Often we find a character who reminds us of ourselves or a hero, whom we admire, wish to be as smart, cheerful, sincere or purposeful. For me, this film is not in that category. He is from the category that sometimes you can and should learn not only from your mistakes, but also from others. Such films are simply necessary for our society, in which deception, treason are sometimes considered completely normal and ordinary.
Romantic, you could say fabulous beginning. Dan and Alice see each other in the middle of London. She falls under the car and opens her eyes and sees him in front of her. Excited, attractive Jude Law, beautiful and young Natalie Portman. Talented, bright and insanely attractive actors. They fascinate each other at first sight. They don’t know what they’re going to do in the future.
Dan is a young, not very successful writer, Alice is a stripper who came from America. Love, tenderness, interest in each other ... something connected this couple, but we do not see how their relationship develops, the director does not show us this period. Dan, inspired by his muse, writes a book about her and at a photo shoot for the presentation of the book meets a successful and attractive photographer. This role is played by Julia Roberts (Anna), as always refined and attractive. And it attracts self-confidence, self-sufficiency and at the same time simple, straightforward behavior. Dan's in love again. He is ready for anything, deception, lies and betrayal just to master his new passion.
Alice is crazy about her chosen one, she strangles him with her love. Anna pushes Dan away from herself, asks not to confuse their lives, says that they will not succeed. ': What attracts you to her? - That she doesn't need me' - that's how Dan answers about his passion for Anna. And it is true, as so often happens in life, that people respond to love with cold indifference and vice versa. Why are we so cruel? Why do the strong feelings of others, even those closest to us, sometimes provoke the opposite reaction? Alexander Pushkin: ' The less we love a woman, the easier she likes us' Our great poet and writer long ago derived this inexplicable formula of human relations, but still no one can explain why so many people, without realizing it, constantly use this formula in their lives. .
Alice and Anna are complete opposites, which is not in one, Dan finds in the other. Alice is an open, playful, charming and sexy girl. It's childish and it makes her so sexy. Anna is a beautiful, successful, self-sufficient woman who simply cannot but attract men.
So often girls, it is not clear why and why come up with the image of a business lady or vice versa naive cute stupid and try to conform to this image always and everywhere. But on the example of our heroines, we see that a girl should always be different for her man. And sweet, and passionate, and defenseless, and powerful. You need to be able to combine a playful girl and a self-sufficient woman. Then your man will not have to look for new sensations in someone else.
Anna has a boyfriend after a while, they get married. Incidentally, he is played by Clive Owen, perfectly accustomed to his role as a successful, intelligent, a little arrogant and lustful doctor. But, after watching the movie, the doctor seems to be the only one of the crazy four who knows from the beginning what he wants and most importantly, knows himself. But the writer and the photographer cannot break their secret bond. They lie, hide, cheat, then confess to their chosen ones in love with each other ... Further, random throwing from one to another in this love quadrangle begins. Revenge, dirt and again deception after deception. We see the complete fickleness of the heroes. This continues throughout the film.
I wanted to mention the work of the director, which was really done at the highest level. A film full of vulgarity, sex, betrayal and deception in its psychological content is shown to the viewer in a very restrained form for our time. The gorgeous cast, their amazing play, phrases and lines that they say, cause much more emotions and impressions in the viewer than if we watched throughout the film bed scenes full of passion and fire.
What kind of movie is this? is a real interweaving of feelings and passions, love and vice. This is the story of four people who are confused in themselves, in their desires and in their lives.
' The surest way to overcome temptation is to succumb to it, wrote Oscar Wilde.39 But what awaits us next?
You can find the answer by watching this movie. It reveals the complexity of choice, the complexity of human relationships. Desire, attraction to something forbidden, passion, betrayal, revenge, vulgarity, deception. The whole picture is imbued with this. Living for a minute without thinking, giving in to your desires...Maybe this will make your life happy, bright and ' hot' but it will be only a flash, a moment followed by bitter retribution. We must not forget that we are human beings, not animals. And man, I think, first of all, is a rational being, who should be inherent in such concepts as respect, honesty, loyalty and loyalty. You need to be stronger than your instinctive needs, you need to appreciate and be faithful to who you chose and who chose you.
7 out of 10
But in this picture of love you will not find. Passion and rivalry are the two main emotions driving heroes.
Selfish Dan (Jude Law) who will not be happy with anyone because he loves only what he does not have. "Dirty animal" and just unscrupulous man Larry (Clive Owen) - who in the end still got his way, no matter how, because the goal was one - to come out victorious. Anna (Julia Roberts) is a self-fulfilling, strong and beautiful woman, but throughout the film you can see how she can not decide who her heart belongs to and sleeps with those whom she feels sorry for. Alice, aka Jane (Natalie Portman) to whom Dan eventually returns, only out of fear of being left alone, tries to show her appearance that she is strong, but more like an offended child. Her sexuality and unpredictability combined with childlike spontaneity and “angelic beauty” attracts men like a magnet ... but for a short time ... and she resigned herself to it, as well as the fact that she will earn her whole life serving coffee and working in a strip club.
I doubt that any of these four can love at all.
The film, based on the play by Patrick Marber, is shown in separate fragments, giving the viewer the opportunity to think out the details himself. Please note, despite all the sexual background of the picture and dialogue in the style of “who fucked whom”, there is not a single bed scene.
My applause for the musical series, which is selected very harmoniously, to the tone of London’s overcast and stiff mood.
And the main, in my opinion, the question of the film: "What is better bitter truth or sweet lies?"
10 out of 10
I won't open America - the actors are great. After watching the first 20 minutes, I thought, "Well, this is the movie." At first, the film really interests the viewer: an interesting acquaintance of a writer who has not yet found himself, and a free-thinking stripper who lives easily and does not seek to collect stars from the sky. Next came the acquaintance of the writer with a charming photographer. Well, anyway, it's over. But then what happened? To be honest, I may not know much about real relationships, but I just didn’t understand the positions of all the characters.
When Dan comes to Larry and tells him he loves Anna and wants to be with her, Larry advises him to go back to Alice. What does Dan say? "She won't accept me." How can you say that you love a person, and the next minute consider a relationship with another person? And he's back with Alice. And such unreasonable throwing of the main characters cannot be counted. I don't think that's true. It's like you're driving in a car, and it looks like the terrain is familiar to you, but because of the huge number of corners, you just get confused.
I, as a spectator, might empathize with the characters, because the actors did their job well. But towards the end, I just stopped understanding them.
Having never grasped the ideas of the film and not understood the tragedy of the relationship, after watching I had a clear feeling of confusion.
I am attracted to pictures about betrayal: it is interesting to learn about the psychological side of this action, to understand what pushes people to it, why love suddenly goes away and whether anything good comes out of it. If you are looking for answers to the same questions – do not waste your time on “Intimacy”, it will not reveal the topic of betrayal in the right way. Much more elegantly, this problem was covered by “Last Night in New York” or “Living Flesh” by Pedro Almodovar.
Everything that the characters of the film do comes down to banal sex. It is never even shown to us, but it does not get better: endless conversations and clarifications about “who”, “where”, “when”, “with whom”, discussed with an infinite number of vile details hardly hide the deep meaning. Or they're really good at hiding. It is completely unclear the purpose of the scene in the chat, it is not very pleasant to watch how men have fun in their free time. The chronology of events remained a mystery to me. We have to guess how many days or even years have passed since this or that event.
Actually, what's the movie about? Four uninteresting, lustful people who are not even capable of love? I got confused about who cheated on whom and how many times, all these acts of adultery merged into one big and boring one. If there was love in the couples relationship initially, I would still sympathize, but what do I care about characters like Clive Owen's character, who was vile to the point of being impossible in his endless search for satisfaction? To the pathetic hero Jude Law, who doesn't understand what and who he wants in this life? To the ever-sad and creative Roberts kind of heroine, sleeping with everyone out of pity? The heroine Portman also did not cause pity: well, what a stereotype, if the girl has nothing to live on, she necessarily earns a stripper... I would rather be a salesperson.
In general, the film did not bring food for the mind. Treason on treason and treason drives. And for what? Was there anything to destroy initially?
“What do you have to do to get a little bit of intimacy? ?
The incomprehensible complexity of human relationships has always attracted filmmakers. Because once you get into this pool, you can't get out. At first glance, the picture is about infidelity, about the nature of betrayal. But the further, the more accurately the title reflects the essence of the thought that the writer leads throughout the film. Namely, people are irrevocably lonely in search of true intimacy. They are hungry for soul kinship. They want the kind of love that can’t suddenly end just because of some stupidity. For example, when your chosen one long and hard to get from you what he calls the truth, you suddenly wake up in the realization that the petty and faint-hearted thing he is doing makes you deeply despise him. And then you tell him, "I don't love you anymore." And you know that's true. In fact, these falls happen all the time in our lives. And it hurts not only those who hear it, but also those who say it. These people are losing intimacy. They are no longer bound by some elusive thread.
Why didn’t you have a sandwich?
- Don't eat fish.
- Why not?
- Fish are walking around.
- So are the children.
- Don't eat them either.
This picture so accurately reflects the nature of human relationships that I want to say bravo to all those who created this creation. It’s everything from the title to every character. The love quadrangle, from which every corner is knocked out, but at the same time the characters are so integral in their connections, makes everyone understand and in no case takes sides (because everyone is good). Acting work is phenomenal. I have always loved Portman and Roberts, and I have no doubt that they will deeply reflect their characters. And it really turned out that each bathed in the fate of his hero, as in his own. Portman certainly outshone everyone. She has an amazing talent. I don't doubt that now. But about the male half of the cast, I was wrong. I hate Jude Law, and I didn't like Clave Owen until now, but these actors made me admire them. Especially Owen. It was a real revelation to me. I didn’t even think that there could be so many strong, clinging emotions in it. Such a strong character: both in the gut and externally. There is so much bad in him and so much good. He's all contradictory. He is very charming in everything he does.
- Lord, I walked in claws, and you - in diaper.
- The diapers were flared.
As for the history of these four complex and multifaceted heroes, I can say that it is impossible to break away. It's like a magnet pulling towards the screen. Subtle, sarcastic, and even vulgar dialogues cause all sorts of shades of emotion. But whatever it is, the interest in the film does not fade to the credits. Maybe it's because in every hero we learn something from ourselves. Perhaps because their vices are echoes of our vices? Cowardice, cruelty, weakness, cowardice, selfishness... All this is what we try to condemn in heroes, but we cannot, because we too are subject to these vices. And at the same time, we have hope, care, and love for someone. We're human. And we need intimacy.
For all its vitality, the film is beautiful. It was shot extremely, and in the frame as if there was nothing accidental. You can see that operator work is not only professional, but also subtle. This is further confirmed by the completely disarming close-ups of Roberts, Portman, Lowe and Owen. The camera seems to climb inside, where everything hurts and moves. And that's amazing.
When discussing "Proximity", there really is something to talk about. It is a journey into the abyss of human relationships. This is a gamut of all kinds of emotions and feelings. It’s a movie that I don’t enjoy the first time I see it. You won't get it right away. I don’t want to throw the pretentious word “masterpiece”, but if this word is in my head, then it means something. So yes. "Proximity" is a masterpiece.
- Men are insignificant. It's an axiom.
- You ruined my life.
- Nothing, it will pass.
I can’t start with anything other than acknowledging the genius of this film. I fell in love with him!
“Amazing, incredible, daring, right in the forehead...” is the first thing that comes to mind. It's a flawless film mocking human relationships.
Impressive is such a complex and intricate interweaving of the plot, which is perceived with amazing ease, as if the plot of some extraordinary cartoon. This is the first film in which sudden leaps in time did not annoy, but rather intrigued.
God, what dialogue! This is a huge stretch for the lover of epic quotes. I thought I was watching nothing but comedy. Although the film, as it turned out, was established as a serious drama, a melodrama. Amazing. It was interesting to watch how something dramatic, something serious, broke through light, mocking conversations, but at the same time this drama did not burden even a drop, which is amazing.
Interestingly, the word “truth” has been used more times in this film than the word “hello” and “bye” combined.
The cast is a bomb. The four most brilliant people in one movie, all starring. Fairy tale. Just a fairy tale!
And how wonderful that until the last, literally to the last second of the film and do not know how it will end. The ending was quite unexpected, but pleasant at the same time.
No time to look back, as already on the black screen running credits, the film flew in one breath.
It is a pity that life is not as simple as in this film.
11 out of 10
What is intimacy? To be honest, I didn’t see the full title in the film. Where's the intimacy? Not clear.
The beginning is as intriguing as the end. The film is full of surprises, albeit small ones, but they end up putting the film together.
Clive Owen, No Words. Anger and audacity and love are all with him. Clive was able to show us all the feelings of his hero: Larry. Jude Law: what to say. He played Dan so well that at the end of the movie, you want to kill him. He deserves a lot of praise.
Natalie Portman, to be honest, I have a strange attitude. Her character Alice broke the wood herself. She played well. Julia Roberts is always good at presenting her material and is rarely wrong.
In general, the heroes tried and their efforts gave their result.
The film, we can say, about people who suffer other people’s mistakes and about people who make these mistakes throughout their lives. ' Proximity' makes you think: 'Do we do that?' What do you think of me as a friend? 39. This is a film about finding yourself and your second piece in a vicious circle. Someone is not destined to be together, someone will be happy, in spite of everything and not even through their efforts.
Whatever we do, we feel sorry for ourselves and condemn others. The movie is amazing. For a good topic for reflection and the truthfulness of the concepts of love, good and evil, about lies at last:
9 out of 10
A film about four corners - heroes. Or a film about what connects these angles - proximity.
The movie is amazing. He's amazing! And the fault of this is both the magnificent performance of the actors and the story itself. But everything in order.
Jude Law. I think I'll start with him. Played great. A true romantic and heartthrob. Confident and vulnerable. To be honest, I would not have chosen a better actor in my life.
Julia Roberts.
History. Very simple at first. But with each frame, this loving, seemingly rectangle twists many times, changes corners, turns inside out ... In short, what doesn't happen to him. The lack of time is one of the director’s best ideas. The film holds throughout its timekeeping. I think few people will say, “I knew it would end.” I personally didn't even think.
Clive Owen. That's amazing! I don't know why I liked him more than Lowe's character. But every speech he makes, every glance shows what a wild madman is inside.
And, of course, the gorgeous charmer Natalie Portman. Before this film, she was completely neutral. She didn't remember much for me. But here she appeared in all its glory. No, don't think bad. She, of course, very beautifully and fascinatingly presented her body. But I liked her childish, in my opinion, inner beauty. Oh, my God, those eyes! From now on I consider myself a big fan of her.
You have to watch this! Every movie lover will find their own here. Yeah, what am I saying? In the film there is not a single scene of sex, erotic in general one (but what), but the whole film is saturated with this “proximity”. What these dialogues are worth. The film is mostly based on them. But these words are pronounced by talented actors, who in turn play one of their best roles. In four words, you have to look at this! And I'm going to reconsider.
P.S. I can't remember a single minor character other than a customs officer. Yeah, they're not required. This “magnificent four” is able to keep for more than one film.
Close contacts of the third degree.
First, the writer-loser Dan (Low) meets on the street with the English stripper Alice (Portman) and begins to have an affair with her. Then, he falls for the photographer Anna (Roberts), and to get rid of this obsession, he sets an Internet pervert on her in a medical coat Larry (Owen). Then Anna and Larry get married, Anna cheats on Larry with Dan, Larry cheats on Anna on business trips, Alice abandons Dan and meets Larry. In short, not life, but a bloody love quadrangle.
The film “Proximity” is based on the rather popular play by Patrick Marber, which has been staged many times, both on Broadway and in theaters around the world. I will not judge the play, since I did not see it, but the film turned out to be rather boring, drawn-out, uneven and even plain. It would seem that I, as a lover of theatrical films, should like it, because everything here is as I like: really good actors, a minimum of special effects, scenery and costumes, dialogues, monologues and dialogues. No, I'm not impressed.
By and large, it is the script that is to blame. I simply did not understand it, did not believe in its reality, in its conditional admissibility. Too pompous, pretentious, unnatural, sometimes even too vulgar seem speeches of the main characters. At the same time, the same mussel for almost two hours. Yes, the first 30 minutes was interesting to see what other combinations can turn this love chaos of 4 people, but then it became boring. And that's the main claim to the film - it's just boring. Despite the fact that I am far from a fan of conditional "Transformers" and I like colloquial dramas (" Game through, "Simple formality", "Big Deal").
The one who has no complaints is the actors. All four try their best and show their best side. Not even Julia Roberts, who usually annoys me. Owen and Portman are especially good, which was noted in the Oscar and Big Globe nominations. If you watch this film, it is primarily for the pleasure of a beautiful acting tandem.
Thus, “Proximity”, in my opinion, is an atypical and non-banal, but very boring film with excellent acting and very decent musical accompaniment. I will not advise you to watch or not to watch. It's hard to say. I should have liked it by all the criteria, and that’s how it turned out.
6 out of 10
I finally saw the movie. I can say that my expectations were fully met. The film is wonderful, it has so much emotion. And the actors played well, although the concept of “good” is quite stretchy.
Julia Roberts’s performance is a good one. I think she's good for the role. Her character (Anna) is like a donkey that is tossed between two haystacks, not knowing which one to choose. She lies and then suffers from her lies. He speaks the truth, but too late and again suffers, while torturing others with his indecision.
Speaking of Jude Law, that's not his brightest role. His character turned out to be something unexpressive, in my opinion. Dan doesn’t look like a chick at all, but rather like a sparrow sitting on a wire in the rain – just as ruffled and pathetic.
Clive Owen is beyond praise - I've discovered another good actor. The most interesting scenes of the film are related to him. The character he plays (Larry) is an amazing bastard. He achieves his goal by any means and methods. He's a bit lustful and selfish. By nature an owner. But you don't feel disgusted with him.
Natalie Portman surprised, in a good way. I felt like I had Matilda from Leon again, but only grown up. I liked her character (Alice) the most. She has an amazing cool mind. For more than three years to live with your beloved man and not tell him your real name – you need to have a heart of stone. Therefore, it is easy for her to lie to people, she does not suffer from it, rather enjoys it. But she's honest with herself, and that's what matters.
Yes, there is also a very beautiful song, at the beginning of the film it tunes in a romantic way, and at the end of the film - soothes and does not let you forget what you saw.
What's this movie about? Love? I don't think so. If people so easily abandon and betray each other, then what kind of love can we talk about? And whether it is true, I mean true love.
10 out of 10
The proximity of the collapse of the institution of personal relations
"Proximity" is a film about the interweaving of the fates of four completely different people. Because of their weaknesses and shortcomings, each of them becomes at a crossroads and eventually makes a choice, leaving a lot of unresolved questions, unfinished conversations, unbroken plates and uncried tears.
I didn’t really like the movie at all. “Proximity” has, it seemed, a potentially interesting plot, there is a wonderful cast, who played their roles with hurrah, there is a beautiful musical design and good camera work, nominations and awards of the American and British film Academy.
However, none of the above saves him in my eyes due to the extreme falsity and immorality of the main characters. None of the quartet of characters at the end of the film evokes any sympathy for themselves. I don’t know what the writer’s and the director’s goal was, but it made me very uncomfortable that in this web of relationships, the phrase “I love you” is so monstrously vulgar, and each of the characters is false, insincere and infantile. Whether it is the master of obituaries, with his nasty, eternally apologetic tone, which does not prevent him from frankly wiping his feet on a young and naive sigher and doing petty dirty things; whether it is an impulsive lover of blind dates, falling into emotional extremes. Female duo Anna and Alice is a conglomerate of various female negative qualities: each of them to some extent frivolous, hypocritical and vicious, despite the fact that outwardly both differ strikingly, both in occupation, and in age and social status.
Contemplating the vicissitudes of the spiritual quarrels of these rather ambiguous people, I want to believe that this is not the most successful projection of intimate human relationships on cinema. Psychology, neurolinguistics, pickup truck and other labuda teach us to manipulate and receive, but whether it is possible to call such connections “love” and “relationships” in the most cynical way, I can hardly say.
From everything I have seen, I have drawn only one simple conclusion: people, do not complicate your life (there are enough problems of another kind in it), trust each other and be as sincere as possible, no matter how difficult it may be.
6 out of 10
What determines my tastes is not what I watch, but what I review.
A movie I was offered at a store and I was afraid to buy it. I finally saw it, but three years later. I have no regrets at all!
Such a simple, at first glance, love quadrangle: she loves him, they live together, but he meets another and falls in love with her. The other, for a long time resists feelings, she has a man, but she loves him somehow not enough. Then these two disliked, performed by Owen and Portman, converge on the ground of rejection. In general, everyone hurts each other, rushes, can not make a choice.
The heroine Portman at first looks like a kind of naive simpleton who came from America, but at the end of the film shows the true face: she is a woman-mystery, a woman with a double bottom and a flame in her soul. She is the biggest surprise of the film. For some time now, I have taken her role in Closeness as a dress rehearsal for Black Swan. The final scene, when they walk down the street, is very sensual, just stunning with its energy.
Jude Law's hero is a windy writer who doesn't know what he wants. He wants to be good for everyone, but in the end everything comes out quite wretched, clumsy and not worthy of a man. He just made me angry at times.
Julia Roberts, in my opinion, has the most boring role – a buttoned-up photo artist, so strict and correct, but, nevertheless, a woman who also wants to love and be loved. And I was never able to figure out whether the role itself is boring, or whether the heroine became boring exactly in the performance of Roberts.
The fourth character went to Clive Owen. That’s who I like and purely male, and as an actor! Ironic, rude, at first glance, simple and specific as a stool, but with the mental organization there is also all right. If I was in the shoes of the heroines and was mired in the throes of choice, I would undoubtedly prefer the direct and cynical Larry to the reflective and slippery Dan. In general, one of the coolest roles in the career of an actor.
In short, a very good multifaceted psychological film. I recommend you to watch it without fail! And I think that everyone will read it for themselves in their own way: in accordance with their character, their temperament, actions and life aspirations. Perhaps the heroes will be perceived in a completely opposite way than I was, and this ambiguity of interpretation will also have its own truth and beauty. Moreover, I know that the same person, revisiting this drama under different circumstances, will see it from a new angle. That's what I did.
10 out of 10
I watched this movie because of Jude Law, one of my favorite actors. I love Natalie Portman, too.
What can I say about this painting? Only one thing is brain drain. The film is completely atypical. You never know what will happen in the next minute, and the actions of the characters completely defy logic. You expect one thing, and they throw out another. No, honestly, I tried hard to understand them, their motives, but in the end, my brain almost exploded, and I quit. What are their crazy conversations worth? They're very well built. Heroes carried a lot of all sorts of nonsense, but nevertheless all this beliberdy made sense. Anyway, I liked the story. This is an interesting and unexpected story.
As for the actors, they played great. Jude Law was great. He was able to make his character so ambiguous: on the one hand you hate him, and on the other you love him. Natalie Portman played the Iron Lady perfectly. Her character combines both resilience and fragility. Julia Roberts also looked good in the role of a lost woman who does not know what she wants and rushes between two fires. But most of all I want to praise Clive Owen. His character was the brightest, most real, alive. Owen played this character so brilliantly that even though he is a real psycho, you fall madly in love with him. Perhaps Larry was the most unusual character in the film. What were his scenes with Julia Roberts worth?
In visual plan - the picture is ordinary. Nothing remarkable here, the same can be said about the soundtrack. They just go through the background without attracting too much attention. The main thing in this film is the plot and characters.
As a result, we have a very unusual picture, with mind-blowing dialogue and great acting. I've seen a lot of strange pictures, but this one is probably the weirdest. Definitely worth watching.