Written by: Kevin Berge
When you see a lot of movies in one year, they begin to blur together. As I make a more concerted effort to watch the best films of the year in theaters, I have been witness to a whole lot of completely average movies.
This is especially true of these next four 2018 films. There's nothing outstandingly wrong with them. They are just held back by a few flaws that made each of these movies less than they could have been.
The four films focused on today are the fictional drama on a man feeding off the work of his more talented wife The Wife, a three-part short flick about racial conflict Monsters and Men, a true story biography about a man feeding off the work of his more talented wife Collette, and a dramedy about a trouble comedian All About Nina.
This is especially true of these next four 2018 films. There's nothing outstandingly wrong with them. They are just held back by a few flaws that made each of these movies less than they could have been.
The four films focused on today are the fictional drama on a man feeding off the work of his more talented wife The Wife, a three-part short flick about racial conflict Monsters and Men, a true story biography about a man feeding off the work of his more talented wife Collette, and a dramedy about a trouble comedian All About Nina.
Never has a film laughed at the Nobel prize more viciously. (Image Courtesy of: usatoday.com)
The Wife
Glenn Close (Fatal Attraction) and Jonathan Pryce (Grengarry Glen Ross) spar in a dialogue-driven drama about the balance of power in gender. That seemed like a recipe for major success, and it occasionally is. The Wife certainly makes an impact.
Unfortunately, it often comes off as awkward particularly in its writing. This is a film about two highly schooled writers whose interactions amount to the occasional literary quote and fairly generic confrontational dialogue.
Close and Pryce are great in their roles even if their roles are underwritten. Close especially dominates the screen throughout, selling a character who is slowly cracking under the pressures of the truth. She adds a weight that just is not there in the actual screenwriting.
This is a story of two people finally coming to an understanding late in their life of how flawed their relationship was. They both need to come to terms with what role they played in their own deception, of the world and each other.
While the dialogue is messy, the actual base of the story and resolutions are impressively complex. There is no simple answer. The reason there's a divide here is that the novel the movie is based on by Meg Wolitzer works. It's the adaptation by Jane Anderson (Oliver Kitteridge) and director Björn Runge (Daybreak) that doesn't.
They waste a compellingly involved script and incredible actors by not diving deep enough with the film version. This is a deep dramatic piece that would have done well with a simple and elegant film adaptation but instead just comes off as fine enough.
Unfortunately, it often comes off as awkward particularly in its writing. This is a film about two highly schooled writers whose interactions amount to the occasional literary quote and fairly generic confrontational dialogue.
Close and Pryce are great in their roles even if their roles are underwritten. Close especially dominates the screen throughout, selling a character who is slowly cracking under the pressures of the truth. She adds a weight that just is not there in the actual screenwriting.
This is a story of two people finally coming to an understanding late in their life of how flawed their relationship was. They both need to come to terms with what role they played in their own deception, of the world and each other.
While the dialogue is messy, the actual base of the story and resolutions are impressively complex. There is no simple answer. The reason there's a divide here is that the novel the movie is based on by Meg Wolitzer works. It's the adaptation by Jane Anderson (Oliver Kitteridge) and director Björn Runge (Daybreak) that doesn't.
They waste a compellingly involved script and incredible actors by not diving deep enough with the film version. This is a deep dramatic piece that would have done well with a simple and elegant film adaptation but instead just comes off as fine enough.
Grade: B-
There's so much meaning in those stares... that amounts to nothing. (Image Courtesy of: variety.com)
Monsters and Men
There have been a lot of movies this year about police brutality and racial injustice, and it's great for getting fresh voices out in the world with new perspectives. Monsters and Men though feels like it is trying too hard to explore everything at once.
Unlike most movies, Monsters and Men is not one story but three, working back-to-back to explore the unique sides of understanding social injustice. The main characters play a role in building to the ultimate point that comes off a bit contrived in its directness.
Anthony Ramos (She's Gotta Have It), John David Washington (BlacKkKlansman), and Kelvin Harrington Jr. (It Comes at Night) play the three main characters, each adding weight to their role in the story. They just never get a chance to truly shine as their most emotional moments are cut off.
Director and sole writer Reinaldo Marcus Green's first feature film is a sequence of short films, pretending to cohesively create a movie. It's frustrating because only the third act has a complete narrative, which leaves too much left hanging with no resolution with the first two parts.
The purpose of the movie is clear and valuable, but many movies this year have done it better by being more distinctive, more cohesive, and more emotionally engaging. This comes off as a vital film defined by the creativity and inexperience of a new filmmaker.
The biggest sin of Monsters and Men is its forgettable nature. Even just weeks removed from watching it, I find events blending together while similarly direct racially focused movies have defined this year for me.
Unlike most movies, Monsters and Men is not one story but three, working back-to-back to explore the unique sides of understanding social injustice. The main characters play a role in building to the ultimate point that comes off a bit contrived in its directness.
Anthony Ramos (She's Gotta Have It), John David Washington (BlacKkKlansman), and Kelvin Harrington Jr. (It Comes at Night) play the three main characters, each adding weight to their role in the story. They just never get a chance to truly shine as their most emotional moments are cut off.
Director and sole writer Reinaldo Marcus Green's first feature film is a sequence of short films, pretending to cohesively create a movie. It's frustrating because only the third act has a complete narrative, which leaves too much left hanging with no resolution with the first two parts.
The purpose of the movie is clear and valuable, but many movies this year have done it better by being more distinctive, more cohesive, and more emotionally engaging. This comes off as a vital film defined by the creativity and inexperience of a new filmmaker.
The biggest sin of Monsters and Men is its forgettable nature. Even just weeks removed from watching it, I find events blending together while similarly direct racially focused movies have defined this year for me.
Grade: B-
This movie will introduce to 1000 different fashions, all of which Keira Knightley will pull off. (Image Courtesy of: variety.com)
Collette
This film is interesting paired with The Wife as it is exploring a real-world example of that film's fiction. Collette is less focused and intense, but it is also far more wide-ranging in its ideas and explorations. It is a movie not just about one gender dynamic but the evolution of gender dynamics and roles over time.
The film has so much going for it. Keira Knightley (Atonement) is intensely charismatic in the lead role. This is a crazy real story that Wash Westmoreland (Still Alice) directs and adapts with impressive deftness to keep it feeling organic but also cinematic.
The life of Sidonie-Gabrielle Collette is an impressive one to behold and well worth being showcased in a movie. Unfortunately, the ultimate execution leaves much to be desired. The film relies too much on the actual events than any genuine artistic touches to guide the experience.
At nearly 2 hours in length, the movie drags on down the stretch, just presenting moments rather than using them to boost the narrative. There are many surprising twists along the way that surprise by not being set up ahead of them. They just happen because that's the truth.
There's an incredible story to be told here, and it ultimately amounts to an all right film because not enough was done to be creative with such a robust focus. It's the typical bio pic, too engaged in the truth to present it cohesively and interestingly.
Still, there's enough here to enjoy, more than most recent bio films especially thanks to Knightley leading the way.
The film has so much going for it. Keira Knightley (Atonement) is intensely charismatic in the lead role. This is a crazy real story that Wash Westmoreland (Still Alice) directs and adapts with impressive deftness to keep it feeling organic but also cinematic.
The life of Sidonie-Gabrielle Collette is an impressive one to behold and well worth being showcased in a movie. Unfortunately, the ultimate execution leaves much to be desired. The film relies too much on the actual events than any genuine artistic touches to guide the experience.
At nearly 2 hours in length, the movie drags on down the stretch, just presenting moments rather than using them to boost the narrative. There are many surprising twists along the way that surprise by not being set up ahead of them. They just happen because that's the truth.
There's an incredible story to be told here, and it ultimately amounts to an all right film because not enough was done to be creative with such a robust focus. It's the typical bio pic, too engaged in the truth to present it cohesively and interestingly.
Still, there's enough here to enjoy, more than most recent bio films especially thanks to Knightley leading the way.
Grade: B-
You really don't need background arrows to know who's leading this film. (Image Courtesy of: hollywoodreporter.com)
All About Nina
While it is the most flawed film on this list, All About Nina affected me more than any of the other movies on this list. This is a focused character study that dives deep into the way people handle trauma and what others see in that traumatic reflection.
First and foremost, this movie stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World). She dominates the screen and makes the entire film worth watching. No one else even comes close to her charisma let alone her nuance in the lead role. The film had the budget for two big names, and it nailed it on one.
The other big name is Common (Wanted), who is insufferably awkward in this role. His attempt at being the cool understanding older man just comes off as bizarre. Some of this may come down to poor direction, but his entire role in the film felt miscast.
For better and worse, this is Eva Vives' first full-length film as a director and screenwriter. It is likely that her own experience informed this movie, which makes it affecting, but her inexperience shows through. This feels oddly paced often with dialogue that often relies on Winstead to sell everything.
Before the final act of the movie, I was not sold, but I will admit that the payoff was worth the experience. There's a genuine purpose behind a film that often feels like it is floating. I just wish the whole movie felt as complete as that last messy act.
What this comedy-drama experience amounts to is an important idea wrapped up in a lot of unfocused elements. It is well worth experiencing even if sections can be skipped entirely without missing the main purpose of the story.
First and foremost, this movie stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World). She dominates the screen and makes the entire film worth watching. No one else even comes close to her charisma let alone her nuance in the lead role. The film had the budget for two big names, and it nailed it on one.
The other big name is Common (Wanted), who is insufferably awkward in this role. His attempt at being the cool understanding older man just comes off as bizarre. Some of this may come down to poor direction, but his entire role in the film felt miscast.
For better and worse, this is Eva Vives' first full-length film as a director and screenwriter. It is likely that her own experience informed this movie, which makes it affecting, but her inexperience shows through. This feels oddly paced often with dialogue that often relies on Winstead to sell everything.
Before the final act of the movie, I was not sold, but I will admit that the payoff was worth the experience. There's a genuine purpose behind a film that often feels like it is floating. I just wish the whole movie felt as complete as that last messy act.
What this comedy-drama experience amounts to is an important idea wrapped up in a lot of unfocused elements. It is well worth experiencing even if sections can be skipped entirely without missing the main purpose of the story.
