I was going to recommend a bridge camera. You're never going to get full, true macro images without spending $400-500 minimum on JUST a lens. But for just close ups and a versatile lens? Bridges are fantastic for that.
Their zoom range, is just phenomenal. You do however, due to the lens length and build quality compared to higher end dslr lenses, have to deal with a lot of lens faults, like distortion at the wide end.
That said, I was going to recommend either the Canon SX40 or the Panasonic Lumix FZ150. The Lumix range of bridge cameras, easily compete with Canon and Nikon, they are incredible.
You get a shorter zoom with the Lumix (24x compared to 36x) but you gain 0.7 Megapixels, which may help you 'get closer' with cropping. Otherwise, never believe the Megapixel hype. More MP does not = better camera. Never has, never will.
Unless you want to spend a lot more, either of those two cameras will do you proud. Both have their own in built Image stabilization, which will help with movies, and shots being taken at the longer zoom length.
For zoom lengths, the general rule is ' Focal length = Minimum Shutter speed'. So on the canon, it extends to around 800mm (equivilent). So you'd need 1/800th of a second. In low light, that will be a problem.
With the image stabilization, it effectively gives you around 3 'stops' of leeway. Meaning you can shoot at around 1/100th of a second, at 800mm, and still retain a sharp image with no motion blur (from your hands holding the camera, it won't freeze action in the frame).
I can explain all that jargon in much more depth if you want, but tbh I can hear people falling asleep