Leave the World Behind

Director: Sam Esmail
Starring: Julia Roberts, Mahershala Ali, Ethan Hawke, Myha'la, Farrah Mackenzie, Charlie Evans, Kevin Bacon
Running Time: 141 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Writer/director Sam Esmail's Leave the World Behind follows a long tradition of apocalyptic thrillers that stretch beyond the likes of M. Night Shyamalan's Knock at the Cabin from earlier this year. Comparing the two, this isn't as much a departure in tone than execution, as the Mr. Robot creator prioritizes interpersonal relationships over mystery. By doing this, his characters exist to make broader generalizations about America's infrastructural and societal vulnerabilities, zeroing in on how people respond to chaos and crisis. 

Based upon Rumaan Alam's 2020 novel, it's easy to see how these elements attracted producers Barack and Michelle Obama, even if it's not necessarily the type of project you'd expect to see them credited on. But it is one that very much exists in the here and now, setting its sights firmly on a frightening near-future that already seems to have arrived. There are eye-rolling moments and plot holes, but as far as doomsday scenarios go, it doesn't fly too far off the rails. We watch as these people scramble, their best and worst traits coming to the surface in the midst of an unpredictably hopeless situation.

New York-based advertising executive Amanda Sandford (Julia Roberts) wakes up one morning and informs her college professor husband Clay (Ethan Hawke) they're going on an impromptu vacation to Long Island with their two kids Rose (Farrah Mackenzie) and Archie (Charlie Evans). Upon arriving at the luxurious rental house, they decide to hit the beach, where an incident involving an out-of-control oil tanker and their sudden loss of TV and Wi-Fi raises suspicions. But it isn't until the home's self-proclaimed owner G.H. Scott (Mahershala Ali) and his daughter Ruth (Myha'la) arrive at the front door in the middle of the night that things get complicated.

Financial advisor G.H. cites a citywide blackout as their reason for returning, and while a distrustful Amanda isn't buying it, the more amiable Clay agrees to let them stay overnight when G.H. offers them a refund. With news alerts reporting hackers are behind the cyberattack, the two families argue about the right approach, gradually realizing this situation is far worse than any of them assumed. With the clock running out to formulate a plan, Amanda further questions how much G.H. and Ruth really know, as everyone's chances of survival hang in the balance.

It's to Roberts' credit that she's all in for this since it just might be her most unlikeable character yet. The performance is essentially a more nuanced take on Sandra Bullock's privileged white woman turn in Crash, complete with some of the racist undertones. Amanda isn't shy about sharing her world view in the film's third wall breaking opening scene, establishing herself as a miserable, self-loathing elitist who indiscriminately despises everyone. The actress believably pulls this off, all while exploring some greyer areas that have us questioning Amanda's true feelings and motivations.

Hawke's more easygoing, far less confrontational Clay seems to accept H.G.'s story with little hesitation, even as he sees no issue with the homeowner and his daughter being relegated to the basement. But H.G. knows something more than he's letting on, and to a far lesser extent, so does Ruth, which only adds to the tension. Mahershala Ali is subtly effective as the calm, steady voice of reason, particularly shining in the scenes where he and Roberts' characters loosen up, discovering more in common than either anticipated.

Myha'la sort of steals the film as rebellious, free thinking Ruth, going toe-to-toe with Roberts in some of the best scenes. While Amanda's disdain for the young woman is evident from the moment they meet, Ruth's easily the most observant and practical of the bunch. Telling it like it is without fear of consequences, she pushes the buttons that shake them out of their bewilderment and complacency.

Self-driving Tesla car wrecks, severed body parts, plane crashes, alarmingly large herds of deer and deafening noises aren't isolated incidents and indicate a worst case scenario that's further confirmed when they step outside. Kevin Bacon appears as a paranoid survivalist and it's downright surreal to see him and Hawke together on screen for first time, maybe finally disproving that popular theory they're the same person. There's also a pretty humorous subplot involving daughter Rose's obsession with finishing a Friends binge cut short by the cyberattack. This seems like a throwaway joke, but Esmail remains committed to paying it off.

By the time viewers are clued into how cataclysmic this event is, it's too late for the characters, who will either turn on each other or unite to pull through. At points, you'd be forgiven for thinking the plot's a troll job intended to send conspiracy theorists into a tailspin, especially since it's so firmly rooted in current events, with few, if any, supernatural elements at play. Its ironic conclusion doesn't insult the audience's intelligence either, with Esmail resisting that temptation to explain everything away. If nothing else, it makes an unusually strong case for holding on to your physical media. 

Like 2022's White Noise, or even the more similar 80's cult classic Miracle Mile, Leave the World Behind deals with philosophical and existential questions resulting from such a disaster, especially the mistrust. It's in good company, despite conveniently withholding certain information and biting off more than it can chew at nearly two and a half hours. Thankfully the cast carries it, with talented actors squaring off in a genre they've rarely tackled.         

Money Monster

 
Director: Jodie Foster
Starring: George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Jack O' Connell, Dominic West, Caitriona Balfe, Giancarlo Esposito, Christopher Denham, Lenny Venito, Chris Bauer, Emily Meade
Running Time: 99 min
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

In Jodie Foster's Money Monster, George Clooney plays the smarmy host of an over-the-top investing show in the vain of Jim Cramer's "Mad Money," but far worse and much more ridiculous. Within the film's first few minutes, it's abundantly clear that any viewer taking serious financial advice from this guy is of questionable judgment to say the least. But when such a viewer is allegedly screwed over by one of the show's "picks of the millennium," he makes his presence known in the network's studio with an explosive device and suddenly the show's a lot less ridiculous. If the film's opening scenes are purely set-up, then all the action that follows, unfolding in "real time" as the perpetrator takes an entire studio hostage on live TV,  are reminiscent of exciting of 90's thrillers like Nick of Time or Mad City (with which this shares a similar plot). This compares favorably to both, mainly because it's more skillfully made and doesn't go exactly where you'd expect, cleverly flipping the script to shift our allegiances and make a timely statement about media consumption that surely resonates stronger now than it would have in that decade.

The biggest hurdle the movie overcomes is the unusual casting of Clooney as slick, oily TV host. Luckily, this does only end up being an issue of casting since his performance overcomes it. He's tremendous in this as the situation escalates. And boy does it ever escalate, as Foster milks the most it can out of its single location premise and the chess game tenuously unfolding on national television between the host and a very unexpected guest. It's not damning with faint praise to say it's the best film she's directed since it's also a challenging one, requiring her to juggle a lot of balls in the air while simultaneously keeping a firm grip on tone. Could something similar actually happen? Given the current socio-political climate, it wouldn't be a stretch to say in some respects we're already there, with the line separating news and entertainment fuzzier than ever before.

Lee Gates (Clooney) is the flamboyant host of TV's "Money Monster," offering what he hypes as valuable advice to Wall Street investors as to which stocks they should buy and sell, and when. With a format more closely resembling a bad variety show, Gates raps, dances and dresses in crazy costumes while bloviating about the week's picks. All this chaos is controlled by his total pro of a director, Patty Finn (Julia Roberts), who not only has the daunting task of keeping things moving, but must constantly accommodate the needs of her egotistical host, who frequently goes off on tangents just to hear himself talk and shake things up. But when one of his "can't miss" stocks, IBS Clear Capital, tanks, disgruntled, working-class investor Kyle Budwell (Jack O'Connell) sneaks into the studio as a delivery man, taking the crew hostage and holding Gates at gunpoint on camera.

With Kyle equipping the host with an explosive vest set to go off whenever he chooses to release his handheld trigger, it's up to Patty to keep cameras rolling and make sure the suddenly humbled and fearful Gates keeps Kyle talking long enough for them to survive. As police Captain Powell (Giancarlo Esposito) and an antsy hostage negotiator close in, Kyle demands answers to how he and other investors were wiped out by IBS, and he's not appreciating the canned ones given to him on-air by the company's PR director Diane Lester (Caitrona Balfe) on behalf of missing CEO Walt Camby (Dominic West). There's more to this story and it's up to Gates and Patty to find out what, and the threat of an on-air massacre broadcasting live for the world to see is quickly becoming a very real possibility.

The pacing here is tremendous, with each passing minute containing its fair share of surprises as both men become increasingly desperate and irrational about their expectations of how this could be resolved, if at all. Clooney just might be our most likable star so seeing him as lying, conniving TV host is undeniably off-putting at first, but once it's clear what the situation is and the perilous danger Gates finds himself in, we're off to the races. It works for the actor that his character never quite buys into the persona either, and the longer he's on air with the volatile Kyle, the more he starts dropping his guard. This is where the casting of Clooney works magnificently, as the interaction he has with his uninvited guest changes with each new bit of information about him he uncovers.

Gates slowly undergoes this epiphany in front of a national TV audience that doesn't seem the slightest bit forced under Foster's direction, but rather a natural progression resulting from the predicament he's in. With lives on the line, the show becomes a truth serum of sorts and with each new revelation comes shades of complexity and doubt as to whether Kyle's necessarily wrong, even as his actions are. What's happening proves itself to be bigger than both of them so it's only fitting it plays itself out on the biggest stage of all.

If Clooney's nuanced performance invisibly guides us across the film's more treacherous narrative waters, just as much credit goes to Julia Roberts, who does it all through a headset, her interplay with him crucial to keeping the tension high. Some of the best scenes involve Patty trying to keep Gates from doing something stupid while simultaneously directing a live TV show that thrives on chaos for ratings. The running joke is that she seems more competent at handling this tenuous situation than the law enforcement professionals actually tasked with the job. Until the final act, there's very little involvement from them at all and what's sure to be a disappointment for Breaking Bad fans, Giancarlo Esposito isn't given much to work with in an underwritten, perfunctory walk-on. He can't be faulted for failing to leave a lasting impression in a role clearly not written to, even if it's a relief that this cinematic hostage situation depends more on the psychology of the participants than police intervention.

The film contains two legitimately jaw-dropping scenes certain to grab viewers' attention and hold it. The first involves the shocking appearance of someone important in Kyle's life while the second is an unusual appeal to the public by Gates. Both come from a script that proves to be smarter than expected, even going so far as to give Balfe's corporate character a believable moral awakening on par with the two leads. While the plot ties together a little too neatly in the end with all the characters converging in one of those big, showy scenes where everything's spelled out with expository information, at least this time there's a reasonable excuse: They're on live TV. Considering all the crazy events that occur in Money Monster, it's a credit to the underlying truth behind them and the intensity generated by the actors, that we rarely stop to question it.

Duplicity

Director: Tony Gilroy
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 125 min.

★★ (out of ★★★★)

Considering the talent involved in the making of it, Duplicity is a shockingly dumb film. And it's the worst kind of dumb film in that it delusionally thinks it's intelligent. Worse yet, it conveys an attitude of smug self-importance. Almost as if we should be honored to watch two big stars play unlikable characters bickering endlessly about the same issue for over two hours in a needlessly convoluted plot. The movie just spins its wheels telling two converging stories (one personal the other professional) ineffectively. As if that's not bad enough, writer/director Tony Gilroy, in his highly anticipated follow-up to 2008 Best Picture nominee Michael Clayton, actually has the nerve to not deliver on anything he promises, defeating the purpose of the entire film.

Usually, when a movie doesn't work there are at least some things in it that make me feel like I at least haven't totally wasted my time. This is different. Here, there are so many pointless (and often predictable) red herrings that the film seems to be setting itself up to fail unless it can deliver on any of it. That would be tolerable if Gilroy presented this as what it should be (a slick 90-minute crime caper). Instead, he attempts to merge an old fashioned Hollywood screwball comedy, an espionage thriller and an epic romance.

The result is a bloated, self-indulgent vanity project made so its writer can pat himself on the back for writing cool, slick dialogue and to remind us what wonderful stars (notice I said "stars," not "actors") Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are. The sad thing is that they are exceptional actors, but this isn't designed to take advantage of that. It feels like one of those Ocean's movies and if you replaced Owen with Clooney it would be. Is it December yet? This is the kind of film that usually rolls into theaters during Awards season so voters over the age of 70 can cast their votes for safe, inoffensive material starring big names. At least Michael Clayton was exciting...and didn't have a stick up its ass.

The movie opens five years ago in Rome when MI-6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) has a one-night stand with CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Roberts) in which he wakes up the next morning having been drugged and outplayed. Their paths cross again as we cut to present-day New York and both are now working as spies for two rival pharmaceutical companies. Ray is a corporate spy for Equikrom, led by its unpredictable CEO Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti), while Claire is the head of security for Burkett & Randle, whose CEO Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson), is sitting on a huge secret that could change lives. Despite their opposing allegiances and a complete mistrust of one another, Ray and Claire make a pact to go into business together in the private sector, a decision primarily based on mutual physical attraction and the potential monetary benefits. What unfolds next is a series of double-crosses, fake double-crosses and twists all built around whether Ray and Claire can trust one other and which side each is actually on. Are their feelings for each other real or is it part of the con? That question grows tiresome when its repeated in scene after scene and situation after situation for 125 minutes. Anyone expecting a big payoff to this elaborate, overwritten and labor-filled set-up will be greatly disappointed.

Owen and Roberts are charismatic and likable leads who share a breezy chemistry. So the movie coasts on it, offering little more. We know from the beginning that Ray and Claire can't trust each other and there's no reason why they should considering both are spies. It's up to Gilroy to sell us on their potential romance, which is difficult because the two characters can't stand one another and continuously throw cranky fits. When they're not doing that they're busy congratulating themselves for delivering cleverly written dialogue that feels and sounds like cleverly written dialogue. Their exchanges are too snappy and movie-like, to the point that they draw more attention to the writer than the actors actually delivering the lines. And it always seems like lines are literally being "delivered." As are the all-too complicated details of the plot, which at times are impossible to follow, even though the story is as simple as can be.

It's tough to pick what Gilroy falters worse with; his tale of corporate espionage in which he can't decide whether this is a farce (Duplicity!) or a dead-serious Hitchcockian thriller or the would-be romance between two lying spies who hate each other which means they really love each other. My vote goes to the espionage portion if only because he makes the screenwriting mistake of introducing a huge SECRET (the contents of which the two companies are battling over), only to reveal it as a huge letdown. It was supposed to be humorous...I think. You can never tell with the film's uneven tone. Gilroy was trying to make about three movies at once and his "twist ending" wasn't just obvious, it was pointless and if you think back on the whole thing, at the end every character is essentially exactly where they started off. Nothing happened.

I don't know what's going on with Owen. After a promising career start he's really found himself in a rut, also starring in this year's equally awful espionage thriller, The International. Here he's playing the familiar role he seems to have mastered lately...himself. Roberts fares much better if only because she's at least cast against type (as she was opposite Owen in 2004's Closer), even if her character is too bitchy and uninteresting for us to care much at all what happens to her. To Roberts' credit though, as she pushes past forty she's much more believable now as a sexy spy than she would have been in her supposed prime. Unlike Owen, she escapes this disaster completely unscathed and reminds us that she's capable of more than she's often given credit for. Wilkinson and Giamatti unsurprisingly impress with what limited screen time they have as the movie definitely could have used more of them. Wilkinson, such an integral part of Clayton's success, is criminally underutilized, hardly appearing at all. The entire film would have been better off if it were just about those two.

Gas is expensive. Movie tickets are expensive. So is soda and popcorn. Paying actors' salaries and promoting a movie is even more expensive. Too much of everyone's money is at stake to deliver a film that accomplishes nothing other than entertaining the director and actors who made it. The leads are appealing, the scenic locales look good and I'm glad everyone seemed to have had a nice time. Now they all should get back to business. Luckily, audiences knew enough to stay away from this and it was released at a time when intelligent adult dramas are bombing left and right. The biggest trick Duplicity attempts is trying to convince us it is one.

Charlie Wilson's War

Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Ned Beatty, Emily Blunt
Running Time: 102 min.
Rating: R

** ½ (out of ****)

A while back I was having a conversation with someone who told me they were “getting sick” of Tom Hanks. I found this funny because in appearing in no more than a film or two a year he’s far from being overexposed. Yet, I knew what they meant. Those one or two films always seem to coincidentally come out around Oscar season and have been diminishing steadily in quality for about the past five years. So while we haven’t seen a lot of Hanks, it seems like we have because his few appearances have been mostly unwanted ones in lackluster films that depend solely on his star power to succeed. This conversation took place in the mall late last year as I was walking past the theatrical poster for Charlie Wilson’s War. The poster (shown above) was voted the worst of the year by the Internet Movie Poster Association, but I’d actually go a step further and call it just about the worst movie poster I’ve ever seen. I almost want to hang it on my wall… as a joke. Just look at it. Really, has there ever been a poster that makes you NOT want to see a movie more? And what’s Philip Seymour Hoffman supposed to be doing exactly?

Now after finally viewing the film I’ve determined that this poster captures the movie perfectly and no other could have possibly been more appropriate. There’s a lot of talk but nothing really happens. What it has going for it, however, is a spry, energetic tone and two strong performances, one of which does come from Hanks. But the movie is so sincere and earnest and the actors look to be having such a great time I almost feel guilty bashing it. It’s as if everyone involved with the picture convinced themselves they were telling the most interesting story in American history, but then forgot to put it up on screen. Don’t tell them that though. They’re having too much fun and probably wouldn’t listen anyway. This is Ocean’s 14: The Cold War Years. The only thing missing from the poster and the film is George Clooney.

It’s the early 1980’s and the United States is in the midst of The Cold War while freewheeling Democratic Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson (Hanks) is busy indulging his interests in hard partying and beautiful women. While cavorting with strippers in a hot tub he happens to catch a Dan Rather report from Afghanistan detailing the struggles of the inadequately armed Afghan fighters against the Soviet invasion. Appalled by the lack of support the Afghans have gotten from our government the flamboyant but well-liked Wilson uses his Congressional pull to set up his own committee and stage a covert war. He recruits the ultra-conservative, anti-communist socialite Joanne Herring (a woefully miscast Julia Roberts) as well as a loose cannon CIA operative Gust Avrakotos (Hoffman) to help beef up support and plan a new strategy. A visit to an Afghan refugee camp populated by wounded children just further inspires Wilson and Herring.

Through Wilson’s efforts U.S. assistance to Afghanistan, which at the time was only about $5 million, increased substantially and his work has been credited with contributing to the collapse of The Soviet Union and bringing about the end of The Cold War. Unfortunately, a major side effect of this strategy is that Wilson ended up unintentionally arming the Taliban, which years later led to the events of September 11th, 2001. Oops. But the movie is especially careful not to actually place blame on Wilson since things didn’t start to go to hell there until years after the events in the film took place. It’s also mentioned many times that more had to be done than just throw money and weapons at the Afghans. It was the U.S. government’s job to follow through on Wilson’s work and they didn’t. Still, it’s fascinating that something that seemed like such a great idea at the time ended up turning into such a disaster. That’s this movie’s meal ticket and what gives the story a more meaningful undercurrent than it would have had otherwise.

This is a film that will play best with history buffs and those deeply interested in foreign policy and politics. Although I’m betting even they may find their patience tried by the film’s self-congratulatory tone. Everyone else will find even less enjoyment in it and may actually be bored despite the breezy running time and light touches. Part of the problem is that there’s no challenge or conflict in the film. Charlie Wilson is just such a charming, likeable guy you can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to help him. What Hanks manages to convey well is that despite Wilson’s superficial character flaws he’s essentially the only honest politician there is and makes no bones about the fact that he really wants to make a difference. Hanks is so sincere as an actor that he’s perfect for the role, even if the unfortunate side effect is that he turns womanizing and drug abuse into almost admirable qualities.

With her spotty Texas accent and cartoonish mannerisms Roberts doesn’t fare nearly as well as Hanks and her thankfully abbreviated appearances in the film come off more as parody than performance. But I was too busy laughing at her perfectly coiffed hair to even care. I’d say she probably spent anywhere between 36 and 47 straight hours in the hair and makeup trailer before cameras started rolling. Luckily, Hoffman steals the show with his justifiably Oscar-nominated supporting turn as rebel CIA agent Gust. There isn’t much to the character which makes his work that much more impressive. With just a few scenes, Hoffman suggests a whole history to this guy that makes each action he takes infinitely more interesting. Between this and Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead it’s been a great year for Hoffman, but it’s a shame the movies he starred in weren’t worthy of the performances he gave. The great Ned Beatty appears, all too briefly, in a worthless throwaway part while Amy Adams is underutilized as Wilson’s “personal assistant.” Emily Blunt has a tiny but extremely memorable role as the daughter of one of Wilson’s constituents. Despite her screen time being limited to about 2 minutes her sizzling scene was just about the only thing in the entire film that legitimately stayed with me.

This was directed with maybe too much energetic vigor by Mike Nichols who goes to great lengths to show us that the charismatic Charlie Wilson LOVES WOMEN. Nichols shoots so many creepy, leering ass and cleavage shots of Wilson’s secretaries (one of whom he affectionately nicknames “Jailbait”) you’d think he was directing a soft-core porn film. The script is from Emmy-Award winning West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin, and it's full of zippy one-liners and catchphrases. It has a real “Old Hollywood” screwball comedy feel to it and despite its many flaws manages to be goofy and endearing, even if I suspect most its laughs are unintentional. For Nichols this effort is a long way from The Graduate, but not too far off from Primary Colors.

This was one of those DVD’s where I was more interested in the special features than the film because I knew all the actors would be slapping each other’s asses and tripping over themselves describing what a wonderful experience making this was. They’d gush about all these fascinating facets to the story that are nowhere to be found in the actual movie. I was right, but in all fairness after actually seeing and hearing from the real Charlie Wilson and Joanne Herring you have more of an appreciation for Hanks and Roberts’ takes on them. I don’t know if that necessarily makes their performances any better but it does make for an engaging contrast. It’s too bad the list of people this film will appeal to is short. It would likely include the families of Hanks, Roberts, Hoffman, Nichols and Sorkin, as well as history teachers over the age of 50. Oh, and Clooney of course. Maybe for the sequel they can all get together and hit a Vegas casino.

From The Vault: Closer

Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 2004

*** (out of ****)

"A heart is a fist covered in blood!"
- Larry

"Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off, but its better if you do."
-Alice

Released in December, 2004 Mike Nichols' Closer (based on Patrick Marber's acclaimed stage play) is likely one of the angriest films about sex and relationships you'll ever witness. It unfolds like a chess game, with each character carefully making their move to inflict pain on one other and, in an interesting twist, using the truth instead of lies to do it. The film, which garnered supporting acting Oscar nominations for Natalie Portman and Clive Owen, also has some of the most insanely quotable dialogue in recent memory. The first quote you see above is actually one of the tamer lines in the film, but merely transcribing can do no justice to the ferocity with which Clive Owen's character delivers it. Anyone familar with the band Panic at the Disco! will probably recognize the second quote above (which was spoken by Natalie Portman in the most memorable scene in the film) because they took it as names for two of their songs.

It's a powerful film, yet when it was over I couldn't help thinking the whole didn't quite equal the sum of its parts. It checks in at a brisk but emotionally draining 104 minutes, which actually works in its favor because I'm not too sure how much more of it I could have taken. If nothing else, it's worth seeing as an actor's showcase as there are some really interesting performances amidst some admiteddly bizarre casting decisions. You'll see some actors in roles unlike anything you've ever witnessed them in before. For all you Natalie Portman fans out there (and I know there are many), you'll be happy to know that you can tell anyone if they watch one starring her, this should be it. But they'll have to wipe the drool off themselves when it's over.

"Hello, stranger." Those are the first words to open Closer as a magenta-haired Alice (Natalie Portman) lies on a London street after being struck by a taxi cab. She looks up at Dan (a whiny, annoying Jude Law), an obituary writer comes to her rescue and accompanies her to the hospital. It's the beginning of a beautiful romance. Well, no actually it isn't. It's the beginning of an emotional nightmare for this couple and one other, as well as for the audience.

Flash forward a year later and Dan has written a book based on Alice's previous life as a stripper in New York called (ridiculously as one character points out), "The Aquarium." He goes to the loft of photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) to get his shot taken for the book jacket and not so innocent flirtation soon turns into something more. Maybe the best moment in the entire film occurs when Alice arrives at Anna's loft to meet Dan. I'm not going to spoil what happens in the scene, but the way it plays out is nothing like what you'd expect and Portman is amazing in it. However Anna, who spends most of this movie falsely believing she's on a moral ground higher than the rest of these characters, puts the skids on the relationship.

An angry Dan decides to play a little prank on her. He poses as Anna in a dirty internet chat room and sets up a meeting with Larry (Clive Owen), a horny dermatologist who's in for the embarassment of his life when he shows up and the real Anna is there. The joke's on Dan however as Anna and Dr. Larry's mutual amusement at the situation leads to a relationship and eventually marriage. We flash forward again a little further to Anna's photo exhibit and the affair between Anna and Dan suddenly seems to be on again, in no small part due to Dan's needy, obsessive, stalkerish infatuation with her. It's here where the story becomes emotionally brutal and the characters hurt each other rather senselessly and pathetically. They hurt only with words, but those words are like a knife to the heart as Marber's dialogue jumps off the page and out of the mouths of these talented actors.

We're used to romantic dramas, especially those involving infidelity to follow the same general formula. A man or woman cheats and then spends most of the rest of the film lying about it or trying to cover it up. Then the significant other somehow finds out and everything explodes at the end. This screenplay does something very interesting by having the characters being completely open and honest about their heinous behavior, thus resulting in nearly every scene in the film exploding with conflict. The movie is extemely talky (as most adaptations of stage plays are) but it holds your interest because of the power of the dialogue and the conviction of the performances. It also raises the question that if you tell the truth, does that make what you've done any less worse? Sure, these characters are being honest with one another but they're doing it just to hurt one another and ease their guilty conscience.

You'll have fun ranking them on their levels of deplorability as you watch the film. Many consider Clive Owen's Dr. Larry to be the worst of the bunch because he seems to take way too much delight in hurling his hurtful but witty one-liners and, like Anna, has a false belief he's acting more responsibly than everyone else. I actually thought he was the most likable because unlike the rest of the chracters he at least had the self-respect to fight back even if his methods were questionable. Owen (who actually played Dan in the stage version) is known for playing dark, brooding characters, but here he starts out as kind of a hapless sap, who due to circumstances beyond his control is turned dark and brooding. It's a huge transformation but Owen pulls it off and it's no surprise to me he was also able to play the role of Dan on stage and Larry on screen. He's that versatile.

2004 was the year Jude Law was in just about every other movie and he's the weak link in this as he mopes from scene to scene adding nothing to the role of Dan. I realize this guy is supposed to be a loser and a coward, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers played nearly the exact same role a year later in Woody Allen's Match Point to far greater effect. Law just seemed to sleep walk through this. Julia Roberts is actually really, really good as Anna. That I believed Law's character would cheat on Alice with her (when on paper it would seem unfathomable) is a high compliment to Julia as an actress. There's also something really funny and exciting seeing an actress who's been known as "America's sweetheart" having to deliver the dirty, graphic lines she does in this movie. Here's an example of casting against type that actually works.

The most sympathy to be had is for Alice, in no small part due to the fact that Portman is playing her, which I'm sure Nichols knew. She gives a great performance , made all the more brave and admirable by the fact that, like Roberts, she is completely miscast. By the end though, our sympathy dwindles for her as we're given a hint she not only hasn't been straight with the other characters, but with us.

What's strange about the film is that it presents itself as a no holds barred look at sex, infidelity and relationships but there's absolutely no sex or nudity in the picture. The closest we get is the now relatively infamous scene at the strip club with Alice and Dr. Larry. This encounter should give Portman fans a heart attack and joins the list of reasons the pause button on a remote control was invented. It comes dangerously close to being offensive and expoitive but Portman's performance reigns it in. I read an interview with her saying she took this role to overcome her fears and prove to herself she could do something different like this. She did, but I'm not sure at what cost or whether that's the right reason to ever take a role. Supposedly a nude scene was filmed then taken out at her insistence. but trust me she comes close enough that it didn't really make a difference either way. From what we know about her and her previous film choices, this had to be an ordeal for her to shoot and I commend her bravery in doing it.

Since the movie was filmed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf?) we know at least an adequate job was done visually to make it look like it's an important film. I have to be honest though and say that by the end I'm not too sure what we accomplished. Everything seemed to go back to where it started off originally, despite Nichols' attempt to visually convey an amazing transformation of sorts (for Alice at least) at the end. That attempt, which really bookends the entire story, is set to Damien Rice's haunting and hypnotic song "The Blower's Daughter." I mention that not only because it's an integral part of the story because the music video for that song is the only special feature available on the DVD release of this film.

You'd figure if any film deserved an in depth analysis complete with commentaries and interviews it was this. How did Portman feel about doing that strip club scene and how did she approach it? What would director Nichols have to say about the deeper themes of the story and how he tried to convey them? You could go on all day. A film exploring as many issues as this deserved a double disc set. The movie may not be as important as Nichols intended it to be but there is a certain cruel irony in the film's title. When the story's over we feel no closer to the main characters than they do to one another, which is probably for the better.