IMDb > Closer and Closer (1996) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Closer and Closer (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 reviews in total 

9 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Pretty decent

Author: bmovielover from Denmark
13 January 2002

First of all, let me say that I would watch Kim Delaney even if she was in a polish art movie shot in shades of brown!

I think she did a pretty good job in this one, portraying an author bound to a wheelchair. She seemed very natural in her movements, so perhaps she had been practicing? :)

There is genuine suspense at the end, and when we track the killer across the country.

All in all, a decent serial killer thriller

Was the above review useful to you?

One of the best work for Kim (tv) (vhs)

Author: leplatypus from PariS
26 March 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After the Christmas TV marathon with Alicia Witt, now i have the Spring one with Kim Delaney. I have never really understood why Kim never made up on the big screen while she shows on TV screen that she is really excellent : here, the part suits her like a glove because she plays a intelligent, strong willed woman but with a fragility side. In a way, it's reminiscent of King's « the dark half » as a fiction characters unleashes mayhem and blood to get its author ! Sure there is no paranormal here but the bloody path and the thriller is really well done ! In addition, to have Kim stuck in a wheelchair and in her fantastic lodge is really powerful : it has also a funny historic appeal as in 1996, Kim was indeed a privileged user of the Web. Her law enforcement friends are really a nice bunch so at the end, this small movie worths and beats a lot of blockbusters as everything is reunited into a tense, romantic thriller with one the best actress for that ! Highly recommended !

Was the above review useful to you?

Closer then you think

Author: sol1218 from brooklyn NY
24 November 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(There are Spoilers) Somewhat muddled serial killer mystery thriller involving crime writer Kate Saunders who has somehow set off an internet crazed sicko to commit the crimes that she's writing about in her novels.

Kate a victim of a crime that left her paralyzed from the waist down has gotten into writing about this psycho killer that she named Byron Gar or short for the "Gargoyle Killer". Living alone in the wilds of Washington State Kate has her home turned into a massive electronic security command center with her vicious German Shepard-Te Amo-guard dog and a twelve gage shotgun as back up. With only good fiend and fellow paraplegic B.J helping Kate out,in building up her upper body, in rehabilitating herself she has no use for anyone else, besides her literately agent, on the outside world.

It's when this person gets in touch with Kate through the internet that it becomes obvious that he's on a murder rampage and giving her the inside scoop on the crimes that he commits. Using the same M.O as Kate's fictitious killer Byron Gar, or the "Gargoyle Killer", the man murders his victims the very same way. The killer grabs his victims, all young females, from behind before running a dagger or stiletto through them. After murdering his victims the killer writes with their blood on the walls or windows of his victims home the word "Sicka" or "Dagger" in Latin.

With the local police and FBI called in to solve the copycat, from Kate's novel, killings the killer becomes more and more brazen to the point where he starts a nation wide spree of murders from Miami Florida to where Kate is in Northern Washington State. By the time it becomes apparent, after a major false alarm, who the killer is it's almost too late for Kate in that with everyone, with the exception of Kate, thinking that he's in police custody he pops up out of the blue and into Kate's living room.

Average made for TV thriller with nothing that will really surprise you in who the killer is and what his reasons are for trying to implicate Kate in his string of killings that cover, from coast to coast, nine states! There's also no solid information provided in the movie in who was responsible for Kate's falling down a balcony and crippling herself! Which we constantly see over and over again in a number of grainy black and white flashbacks.

As for Kate herself she in fact did kill her fictitious serial killer Byron Gar off in her second novel "Gargoyle II" which may have been the reason for the real life psycho coming on the scene. He felt that Kate was actually writing about him and when he was no longer around, in Kate's book, her decided to keep himself alive by keeping himself, in his murder spree, in both the news and in Kate's, by contacting her on the internet, mind!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

So bad it's good?

Author: ateballzine from Canada
31 March 2005

I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other "tech" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the "high tech" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.

Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid?

Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Average serial killer thriller

Author: David Vanholsbeeck from Bruges, Belgium
13 September 2000

This film is nothing special at all. The story reminded me of COPYCAT amongst others. It's pretty predictable and the acting is very standard. Something to see only if you've got nothing better to do. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Worst movie ever

Author: brygge from Denmark
7 January 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK.. at the time of writing, 65 people voted for this movie, bringing it to a 5 out of 10 rating. My guess is that only the film crew voted. So I'm here to bring some justice to it all.

Never has a movie provoked the audience's intelligence more than this one. Given, I laughed out loud quite a bit - but the movie/story absolutely didn't want me to.

I've seen a LOT of bad movies. A LOT. But man, this one blows them all away.

Speaking '96 computers, ridiculous acting, and wheelchair chases - and we have young Tarantinos who can't get their ideas financed. Yup, life's a cruel joke.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

i found it suspenseful and unpredictable(i liked it)

Author: disdressed12 from Canada
2 April 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

you know, i really liked this movie.i thought it was suspenseful and exciting,with some twists i didn't see coming.i also didn't see the ending coming either,which, for me,is a good thing in a movie.there are a number of suspects in the movie and it really keeps you guessing.i also like Kim Delaney a lot.i think she's a pretty decent actress.i'm still not sure why she was let go from CSI:Miami,but that's another story.she plays the lead in this movie,a thriller writer named Kate Saunders.Kate begins receiving these strange e-mails from someone calling himself Thrillkill.Thrillkill has apparently been inspired by a villain in one of Kate's novels.his messages even claim he was created by Kate.Thrillkil begins killing women in exactly the same way as the villain in Kate's novels.i won't say anymore about the plot.lets just say what follows is suspense and excitement,and some twists.i liked "Closer and Closer" quite a bit.for me,it's a strong 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history