User reviews

Richard (Clive Owen) and his older sister Natalie (Saskia Reeves) are friend-like with some sexual tension. They grew up separately when their parents divorced. While Natalie flounders over the next few years, Richard becomes a success and a womanizer. Then she marries the wealthy business consultant Sinclair Bryant (Alan Rickman). Richard finds her changed under the domineering Sinclair. The siblings start a passionate affair together.

It's a taboo subject done with sexuality and three great actors. The brother sister relationship is compelling and weirdly mesmerizing. It's a bit disturbing with the romantic tones. It's a twisted romantic melodrama. Clive and Saskia really sell this relationship.

In England, the siblings Natalie (Saskia Reeves) and Richard (Clive Owen) every now and then are together, and Natalie usually opens her heart to her brother. Years later, Natalie gets married to the wealthy Sinclair (Alan Rickman) and in the boredom of her marriage, she has a love affair with her brother. However, Richard becomes obsessed by his sister and addicted to have sex with her. Meanwhile, Sinclair distrusts Natalie and believes she has a lover.

"Close My Eyes" is a powerful drama about the obsessive incestuous love of two siblings. The unusual triangle of love is supported by the gorgeous Saskia Reeves that has a great performance in a bold role. The always excellent Alan Rickman is the stereotype of the British gentleman and Clive Owen in the beginning of his career successfully completes the triangle of lovers. This film was released in Brazil on VHS by Globo Vídeo distributor. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Três Amores Uma Paixão" ("Three Loves One Passion")

Close My Eyes is a mild and genteel examination of sibling incest amid the London yuppie set and against the backdrop of riverside redevelopment along the Thames. Natalie Gillespie (Saskia Reeves) is an unhappy woman of working class roots. We know this from a quick moving opening sequence of brief scenes that covers five years of her dissatisfied love relationships whining to her ambitious sexy brother, Richard, who she is distanced in age and personality. Richard Gillespie (Clive Owens), is a studly young architect, outgoing unlike his sullen sister, and able to successfully pursue his intellectual and creative pursuits. After a shared late night kiss, reality was quickly passed over as simply cuddling until Natalie rekindles her relationship with the long absent brother dearest.

Again bored, and with a new husband, Sinclair Bryant (Alan Rickman), a financial wiz who is pompous, condescending of his wife, and wealthy from family money, Natalie and Richard cross the line of social taboos with a torrid sexual affair. Richard's distraction with his sister becomes obsession while she is simply using him for excitement against a vacuous social schedule with unsuspecting Sinclair. The danger of forbidden fruit and illegal sexual thrill drives the couple to meet under the nose of Natalie's cuckold husband. Inept Sinclair is faithful to his wife and his work routine. A chatterbox of politeness, Sinclair's privileged upbring, beautiful homes, and class distance him from Natalie's insecurities. To make up for her shortcomings, she manipulates the game through her little brother, whose confidence is eroding under the spell of his sister's vacillation and sexual control.

Superior performances by Alan Rickman (An Awfully Big Adventure) in easily one of his most sympathetic roles grounds the erotic performance of Clive Owen (Closer, Croupier), who is naked for extensive portions of the movie. They surround Saskia Reeve's performance with sufficient testosterone to overshadow the shortcomings of the secondary story line of Richard's boss who is dying of AIDS. Although meant to have social relevance, incest and AIDS seem an unlikely pairing.

Perhaps it is the notion of the unspoken pariah status of its victims, or the rightness or wrongness of the sibling's actions that is never examined in depth which makes the film unsuccessful and somewhat dated. It is a weakness surrounding what motivates Natalie's disenchantment with her perfect situation, or why Richard is so drawn to his older sister that the audience is left to ponder. Unlike a Tennessee Williams story of forbidden excesses, Close My Eyes becomes an exercise in the boredom of river front living by a menage of shallow characters.

The subject of incest, between an adult man and his sister, will immediately put off many potential movie watchers, but for those not turned away easily, Close My Eyes succeeds as a sociological study, and should be commended for its hypnotic depiction of very difficult subject matter.

How many times have we seen, or imagined, an inappropriate flirtation from a woman, at a time when circumstances have left her emotionally distraught? That this flirtation of Natalie (Saskia Reeves) should find its way to her own younger brother Richard (Clive Owen) immediately jump starts the story into somewhat previously uncharted water.

Perhaps incest is a drug, not unlike and somewhere between alcohol and heroin, and certainly the intensity of the feelings, the desire, as portrayed between the two translates to us as such. It is this undeniable intensity that is the strength, perhaps the honesty of the film.

Alan Rickman, is brilliant, as usual, in a smallish role as Natalie's husband.

Beautiful writing by Stephen Poliakoff for this film. Close My Eyes handles the taboo of sibling incest extremely well, whilst not really going far enough in the end, to be completely satisfying. Set during a hot English summer in some beautifully shot home counties locales, the film is well scripted, framed and incredibly well acted by the three principles Owen, Reeves and Rickman. Richard and Natalie are sibling, raised apart, who ultimately succumb to a deep sexual attraction and need within one another, that eventually threatens to destroy them. Rickman plays Reeves' rich somewhat eccentric but likeable husband Sinclair, who eventually comes to suspect a connection between his wife and her younger brother that is dangerous and consuming. The ending, while melodramatic, is handled well. The incest is also handled extremely tastefully and never for shock or titillation value. We never actually see Richard and Natalie make love, only the lead in and afterglow. The leads are beautiful actors all. Lovely to look at. Saskia Reeves was beautiful and alluring also, but her character was very disturbed, as became of her brother. A solid seven, for not exploring the subject as throughly as it could have, but nonetheless we'll worth your time.

Sometimes I do surprise myself - but yes no pun intended. Not even sure how many will understand what I am doing there or want to. But not understanding (sometimes even your own feelings) is quite the major topic here! And what better cast could one have assembled? That is rhetorical.

We may know both male leads from different stuff (Alan Rickman will forever be Hans Gruber, but also just an amazing actor as he proves here once again too) - even the female lead seems to have done quite a lot of movies. Some of which I have seen - I reckon she does not play lead roles like here. But all of them were good. So good choices for her too.

And her performance has to match that of the others - and it does. There is some nudity here and quite a lot of steamy stuff. Nothing explicit - but love ... well the concept is quite loose to say the least ... at least when it comes to our main characters ... if you are open minded (at least when it comes to character decisions in movies) and like dramas ... well you could do worse. A really good movie I found by accident ...

Rather than the movie itself, the content is really irritating to me. Not because of the incestuous relationship between the two,I can handle that, but because the fact that the sister is acting like a total b. It could be excused if it's love. But I guess it's not. She uses her brother. She uses her brother yet on the other hand she doesn't dare to let go of her millionaire husband. I guess that could be considered realistic? Then again, the husband must be a fantasy for he knows everything and he just closes his eyes.

I'm not quite in mood of criticizing the movie or how it was made, but I guess since it gives me this personal feeling about loving and hating a character their acting must be superb. I feel sorry for the men and the woman is really ugly, in and out. I couldn't sympathize her, I guess.

Alan Rickman is the only reason I started watching this movie but he couldn't keep me from loathing it sometimes. He is so mesmerizing in this movie, as usual, very fine acting.

I have enjoyed previous and later Poliakoff but this is just silly. The dialogue jars, there is little chemistry between the two main protagonists. Far from being shocking for me the whole thing lacks authenticity, real emotion or passion.

"Close My Eyes" deserves credit for its unexploitive treatment of a highly charged subject matter. On the other hand, I found it just a bit dramatically monotonous. However, it's worth seeing for its sensitivity and its good acting. Alan Rickman, in particular, is very interesting in what could have easily been a thankless supporting part. (**1/2)

I expect this movie was made simply to shock or something, and perhaps it did in 1991 but now it's simply an interminable yawner. A primal no-no of screen writing is the over-use of time jumps, you know, when there is 1 minute of action then a flash on the screen telling is "two years later" etc. Too often this trick is used in this movie to cover awkwardness in the basic story and to cover gashes in the fabric of the script. This flick starts with several such devices. Time jumps can work if the script is top-drawer, which this one is not. It's basically a simple story of a cuckolded, self-absorbed imbecile and his neurotic, self-absorbed wife who is having it off with her rudderless, self-absorbed brother.

All I can conclude after drifting through this mess is that it is a story of arrested development in a trio of unbelievably childish adults leading fantasy lives in chic settings.

Worthwhile only for the photography and beautiful settings, houses, flats and parks along the Thames, not to mention the very attractive bodies of Saskia Reeves and Clive Owen, talented actors who are completely wasted as the two maddeningly inane and vapid leads. Alan Rickman can do little more than look befuddled and helpless as the wronged husband.

It's all rather sick, but not because of the incest issue, which isn't really very shocking due to the ineptness of the script, but more so because of the abominable selfishness and stupidity of the characters. The motivation for the characters' behavior is highly confusing, besides, who cares anyway.

Rubbish.

I rented this because I think Stephen Poliakoff is one of Britain's best story tellers. Clive Owen and Alan Rickman are good actors for which Rickman gets acclaim and Owen doesn't. Considering that the talent here was massive, this film is crap.

Those who enjoyed it might like to think of the rest of us as prudes. I've appreciated films which I found distressingly unpleasant (i.e. Dans ma peau/In My Skin). Yet I don't find incest distressing. It's something with which I've no personal or second-hand experience. I'm not convinced that it's inherently harmful, when consensual, so I'm not going to judge it.

The truth is that Poliakoff fell flat on his bum with this one. Some of the dialogue is worse than I'd expect from a second-rate Lifetime movie. I didn't understand (or feel as though I gained an understanding of) any of the characters or their motivations. Owen and Rickman gave good performances. Reeves was uneven, perhaps due to her having the most idiotic lines of the film, a la Harlequin. The direction and editing weren't very good either. I wonder if Mr Poliakoff was working with severe time limitations and was actually more concerned about the (now complete) development of the docklands (into something that resembles suburban American concentrations of office buildings with, arguably, no character, like Southfield and Troy here in SE Michigan) than telling a story about such uninteresting people.

Unless you're wanting to spend money to see every last inch of Clive Owen, surely available somewhere on the internet, there isn't anything here that isn't done much better elsewhere.

Well, I liked it so much I opted to buy it. (A VERY tough movie to find might I add) But I digress...When the announcer gave a brief description of this movie on T.V, I admit I was curious (in a Ripley's Believe it or not sort of way). I initially watched it for the shock value. But by the end credits I thoroughly "wowed". The acting was convincing to say the least, especially when dealing with such a sensitive subject as incest. The beautiful landscape this movie is set upon is great eye candy (so is Saskia Reeves). This movie gets high marks in my book, however I do have a gripe. Early on in the movie the plot is rushed, switching time periods too often. However, once the time shifts settle the movie begins to shine. The human drama played out represents one possible outcome in a field which most people know little about. Is this an accurate portrayal? Who knows?.....Who wants to know? One thing is certain it makes for an interesting and entertaining movie.

A bit of a strange film, this one. It should be brilliant: the central concept of the incestuous relationship should be harrowing, horrifying, devastating in equal measure, but the film never fully explores the consequences of the brother/sister pairing. In fact, it's a film in which nothing much really happens, despite the dramatic potential.

Clive Owen and Saskia Reeves both work hard to convey sympathy as the siblings caught up in a living nightmare, but director Poliakoff shoots the whole film as a romance when in reality a more horrific approach might have worked. The characters are also a mystery; Reeves fails to elicit much sympathy at any point, while Owen's bullish stalker comes across as more of an obsessive villain than anything else.

I spent the whole of this lengthy, slow-paced film waiting for an explosive denouement, and while there are some decent bits at the climax, it never pays off. You finish the film thinking 'Oh, was that it?' instead of being wowed by what you've just watched. And for a movie to waste Alan Rickman in an entirely boring and superfluous supporting role is something of a travesty.

I actually didn't find too much all that disgusting about the relationship upon which two of the main characters embark, and I find films about unfaithful husbands and wives rather interesting. But cuts are choppy, and some of the dialogue is just plain stupid. The only really good scenes were given to Alan Rickman, playing the cuckolded husband, and such scenes are regrettably brief. It was a bold attempt at something that could have been very interesting, and the twist at the end almost makes it worthwhile. But I'd spend my movie renting dollars on something else if I had a second chance.

I'm surprised this movie isn't rated higher - I can't think of anyone who's seen it who hasn't liked it. Women who see it are all mesmerised by Alan Rickman, who rather steals the show. For many women this was their first taste of Rickman, and it was love at first sight! He _is_ good, and he's cast in an interesting role (Saskia Reeves cheats on him when she has an affair with her brother, played by Clive Owen, who was probably more famous than Rickman at the time because he'd recently starred in a very successful TV drama series). The incest plot is treated very well - the script, acting and direction are excellent. The whole situation is set up so as not to shock, but to make us think, and I think the film succeeds.

While Alan Rickman is perhaps one of the best actors around, this movie was NOT a vehicle that promoted him in any way, except to have him come in and out for those tension moments. A great actor like Rickman needs a stronger role to bring out his various talents in acting. This was a vehicle for Owen and his sister instead.

I hated this movie immensely, even with Alan Rickman in it (he is the only reason I saw it). Clive Owen, as nice looking as he is, was slimy in going after his sister, and his sister was even slimier for giving in. Incest is NOT a topic that ingratiates itself with viewers, unless they are morally deplorable in the first place. This is a movie you should watch with your eyes closed. Meaning, why bother watching it?

This film is an expanded and improved rewrite of Poliakoff's early play Hitting Town. I have always found Poliakoff's plays filmic; this reworking on film is more interesting than the play, although the starkness of the incest in Hitting Town was probably more shocking, and the 1970's UK audience was probably more susceptible to shock.

Three great performances in this film - Saskia Reeves, Clive Owens and Alan Rickman.

Poliakoff has a great knack of mixing the profound, the profane and the mundane. One telling scene in Richard's flat has Richard and Natalie agonising over their tryst, then making love, while in the background a rain-affected test match (cricket) fails to happen and then starts to happen again. Unforgettable symbolism - Bergman would have used it if only the Swedes played cricket.

This film is well worth seeing.

This involves two people Richard and Natalie embarking on an illicit affair . Bad enough that Natalie has just got married but the relationship goes beyond adultery since Richard is Natalie's brother . Yup you read that right . If you thought the incest plot from BROOKSIDE was bad you ain't seen nothing yet

Stephen Poliakoff judging by his previous work isn't a bad writer but he's written a very poor script here . It's been pointed out that there's no motive / explanation as to why Richard and Natalie have embarked on their incestuous relationship which is a mistake by the writer and is there a poorer subject for an audience than incest ?

Alan Rickman is an actor who I can take or leave , he's certainly best cast as cartoonish villains and as Sinclair the husband of Natalie he seems unable to do anything with the role . I also had a serious problem understanding how anyone could fall in love with Sinclair , he's one of those bores you find at every golf club propping up the bar as he tells everyone what a success he's made of his life , but even so I doubt if that would have been enough to drive Natalie into the arms of her loving brother - YUCK . If anyone gives an outstanding performance then it's Clive Owen as Richard , you almost feel sorry for him as he realises the relationship is over but seeing as the relationship is with a blood relative you may as well feel sorry for Adolph Hitler in that case

The film is really haunting and keeps you spellbound. While the film appears to portray sex scenes for nudity's sake, that's not really what is going on.

Okay, okay, this is no Pulitzer Prize winner and Alan Rickman, Clive Owen, and Saskia Reeves can act better than they do in this movie. Butt, I think they each brought so much into the picture that other, less talented, actors would have failed to make this film work as well as it did.

The dynamic between Natalie, her brother Richard, and her husband Sinclair is very strange. If you let yourself go and immerse yourself into the story, then you can enjoy it.

The story is about very taboo subject matter, at the time when AIDS/HIV finally came into the public consciousness. But, I do think the screenplay by Stephen Poliakoff is very well written and the film strongly succeeds because he also directed it.

I can compare the story to that of Jane Campion's "The Piano". It is risqué, bizarre, and seemingly shallow. It is also thoroughly compelling. The characters are otherworldly and mysterious, yet very commonplace. You can almost identify with them and by the end of the movie you will find yourself wanting to know more. It is as if you have been looking into a snow globe at a fantasy world come to life, just on the other side of the looking glass. Everything is madness for this trio....

"Close My Eyes" is a journey into the "What if ? ". The most difficult question is, "Why ? ". Only Natalie and Richard can answer that question, or can they? If you are a fan of Clive Owen, Alan Rickman, and/or Saskia Reeves, check it out.

The opening scenes of Stephen Poliakoff's film, 'Close My Eyes', are truly mesmerising. We see a floodlit bowling green, incongruously (but, given that one of the subplots of the movie turns out to concern urban planning law, not irrelevantly) positioned amongst tower blocks; meanwhile a young woman (Natalie, played by Saskia Reeves) is smoking a cigarette on a balcony, possibly in one of those same blocks. As the credits fade, the camera homes in on a young man in a hurry (Richard, played by Clive Owen), passing by the bowlers; it turns out that the woman is his estranged sister, and he's late. She, on the other hand, is upset, and looks to him for comfort; and in the middle of the night, they share a moment of affection that goes a little bit beyond what siblings ought to do. The unfolding of their lives over the next few years is then summarised through a depiction of their subsequent (non-) interactions: he is every bit the strident, ambitious, fornicating yuppie; while she feels lost and uncertain, with a brother-shaped hole in her life. But after years abroad, Richard comes home, rather surprisingly to take a lowly paid public sector job. And then Natalie, whom he has almost forgotten, gets in touch and invites him to meet her new husband, Sinclair (played wonderfully by Alan Rickman, in probably his finest role). Sinclair is a millionaire futurologist, a man both kindly, but also child-like in his fundamental inability to empathise. And Natalie, who has gained a new confidence, starts to come on to Richard with a very definite intent. The skill with which the film effectively tells half its story in just a handful of minutes, with brilliantly selected visuals replacing the need for expository dialogue, is breathtaking; one can hardly take one's eyes off the screen.

But for all Poliakoff's brilliantly striking imagery, the film manifests some serious defects. To start with, the subsequent plotting doesn't quite work. The central idea appears to be that ambitious Richard falls in love with his sister, but she is only game-playing; he then falls apart. But the film keeps its distance from its characters, sometimes their motivation (beyond raw sexual passion) is unclear, and some of their behaviour seems forced to fit the dictates of plot. One could also argue that, in dealing with incest, the film is slightly dishonest. It wants to be seen to explore a taboo, but creates a scenario in which two consenting, independent adults find themselves in a very unusual situation: to put it another way, the reason incest is taboo is because it is almost invariably exploitative, whereas this relationship is not (at least, not in the way that generally characterises the phenomenon).

Another aspect of this movie is Poliakoff's decision to set his movie in a landscape more symbolic than real. We witness the progression of an almost supernaturally idyllic affair, made even more perfect by being set in contrast to the spectre of A.I.D.S. Sexual intercourse takes place between beautiful bodies disrobing from beautiful clothing in beautiful places. Alan Rickman plays the sort of eccentric genius whom we instinctively feel is exactly what a millionaire should be like, though in reality, one suspects, most are none of the sort. Even the supposedly wretched council offices where Richard takes up his new job have more the feel of a trendy design consultancy than of grim municipal poverty. More generally, Poliakoff's films invariably set up contrasts between worlds defined by qualities such as power, sex, or tradition; but never seem to recognise that all these qualities, far from being opposites, are just different attributes that identify some as the "haves" of our society, as opposed to the "have-nots". There are a few images of the homeless, of the truly dispossessed, in this film, but they only exist as images; while the real drama plays out within a gilded circle. In some respects, it's this romantic other-worldliness that makes the film so physically striking. But social realism it ain't.

Does this make it a bad film? On the contrary, one could say it's a great film. But the roots of Poliakoff's later disaster, 'The Tribe', are clearly on show here, alongside evidence of his rare gift for combining intelligence and beauty, in this fascinatingly flawed film.

I have just watched this movie on TV and it is may be the fourth time I have seen it. It is one of very few movies I want to see more than once and I find something new in it every single time.

Alan Rickman is very suited to this role and Clive Owen is also good but for me the star of the show is in fact Saskia Reeves who is fantastically believable, more so than Clive Owen in many ways. Most noticeable of all are the dramatic changes in her appearance in what are supposed to be the various different years in the movie showing us seemingly the very fast changing nature of her personality from an uncomfortable young office worker to a much more confident and well presented married lady in the prime of life.

The contrast of embryonic docklands with the rich scenery of the sunny Thames is fantastic. Knowing both Thames and the development of docklands at this time well probably made this film seem even more relevant to me plus the taboo subject is one I have always had a vague interest in. The way in which they suffer tremendous guilt as soon as they go too far is also very believable. Most of us stop short of crossing the line they cross here but if Ms Reeves had been my sister perhaps temptation would have presented itself more strongly.

Writer and director Poliakoff has had a variable but often remarkable career in television mostly, with landmarks 'Bloody Kids' (directed admirably by Stephen Frears) and 'Caught On A Train'. His work as a director as well as a writer has been arguably less successful with the recent 'The Tribe' being laughed off the screen despite the sell of a naked Anna Friel, and the critically mixed reviews of his serial set in a photographic museum. His plots tend to have hard to swallow fancies to them, and this is no exception. Life tough and fractured in the modern financial jungle? Roll about on the floor with your sister, after all you haven't seen her for years. Then blow this up in some way to include aids and pretentiously tie the outcome to the fate of humanity, not to mention your actual middle classes. There are many puzzling aspects to this film, not least the overbearing photography and wallowing in architectural richness. There's got to be a reason, it just escapes me.

Poliakoff's script is efficient and always interesting, despite the cringe factor, but it's the performances that make this film so strange and memorable. Clive Owen has cut a curious path in British telly, sharing with Paul McGann a sort of 'new man' image, especially in 'Chancer' where he was seen snuggling up cooeing to his baby son stark naked in bed. "Aaaaaah," went several thousand female hearts. Owen is an interesting, even brilliant actor. He doesn't act with his voice, which is often kept low key and naturalistic, but through his face. He's one of those gifted actors who can portray deep emotion and anguish with a mere inflection. He is partnered with the equally able Saskia Reeves, and together they burn up the screen, especially in the blistering climax. It's at moments like these you really admire actors and the way they make the magic happen.