Does CLOSURE change any of this? In a word, no. But surprisingly, it doesn't falter in the same ways that past films of this ilk have. Quite the contrary; it gets all that stuff right. And for its first half, I found myself invested far beyond I would've thought possible for a film that was not only rejected a theatrical release in the U.S., but was barely given the time of day back in its own country (the UK, where it was originally titled STRAIGHTHEADS). Its second half clarified why.
Lets examine, for instance, a scene in which one of the assailants explains—without any sort of provocation—the reasoning behind his crime. The only thing more illogical than why he's telling us this (since it's obviously not for the sake of the other characters... or good storytelling) is the explanation itself. It just doesn't make any f*cking sense.
As aware as I was of what writer/director Dan Reed was trying to do, the many unjustifiably ludicrous scenes really destroyed any sort of momentum the film previously had going for it. They turned what could've added up to a reflective and powerful look at how we deal with our grief, and if the desire for revenge overcomes that of our desire for peace within, into a display of disappointing shallowness. This potential greatness is evidenced further by the film's carefully nuanced yet brutal closing scene, which in turn ends up feeling wasted by the average revenge tale that surrounds it.
As far as acting goes, Danny Dyer does a decent job smoking pot and crying his way through most of the film, and Gillian Anderson pulls off a British accent very well. But the real interest here will be for those "X-Files" fans still salivating over that sexy redheaded Scully. Two words: tit shot. Have fun!