Leofwine_draca 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.

Theo Robertson 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

clemato 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.

pekinman 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.