What you feel, watching Close, is not that you are watching gender being bent into new, absorbing shapes but that you might as well have stayed home and leafed through a book on Magritte.
Please note that Anthony Lane in all his years of reviewing at The New Yorker has never seen a film he's liked. Ignore him.
Feb 3 - 08:27 PM
The comment above lacks substance. Check here to see for yourself that Mr. Lane has reviewed both positive and negative: http://www.metacritic.com/critic/anthony-lane?filter=movies
Feb 7 - 07:17 AM
I must agree with Marty W.; Lin's comment is without merit. Lane writes for the New Yorker - perhaps you've heard of it. And he's the best film critic they have. I won't mention the other one. To be on point: this movie is not very enjoyable, notwithstanding Glenn Close's odd performance. But good for her/him; it is evidently a lifelong ambition to do this thing.
Apr 15 - 06:05 PM
You are obviously blind to true talent.
Apr 13 - 11:14 AM
The smarmy, mock RP tone of the review would have nauseated William F. Buckley.
So much for the new New Yorker.
Jun 1 - 08:57 AM
Wonderful film... Sad review...
Jun 4 - 02:02 PM
Glenn Close seems to have had the idea to underline Albert's timidity; this has the effect, especially in comparison with Janet McTeer's character, of making the guy a complete wuss. Result: I was not moved by his plight, I was annoyed. There's a patented GC moment at the end when the actress gives vent to emotion, but it's too little, too late.
Loved the review. Hated the movie (except McTeer--brilliant).
Jun 11 - 06:18 PM