{"id":3537,"date":"2018-10-26T04:06:15","date_gmt":"2018-10-26T04:06:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bryanbuser.com\/365moviesbyday\/?p=3537"},"modified":"2024-05-30T21:23:39","modified_gmt":"2024-05-30T21:23:39","slug":"the-wife","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/365moviesbyday.bryanbuser.com\/the-wife\/","title":{"rendered":"The Wife (2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Interested in seeing\u00a0Bj\u00f6rn Runge’s (Happy End, Daybreak<\/em>) much anticipated\u00a0The Wife<\/em>? Do yourself a solid. Skip and see the remarkably well-made\u00a0Big Eyes<\/em><\/a>\u00a0instead. It’s essentially the same movie, except it’s actually entertaining.\u00a0The Wife<\/em>\u00a0makes its point in a nuanced fashion. It’s slow and not in a good way. Its two main characters are so different from one another that you wonder why they are still together. And then, when you learn the big, dark secret, your only question is why they didn’t divorce years ago. Nevertheless, it’s a movie that is gaining recognition for the performance of its lead (Glenn Close –\u00a0Fatal Attraction,\u00a0Dangerous Liaisons<\/em>) as Joan (aka\u00a0The Wife<\/em>). Could it lead to her seventh Academy Award nomination? Yes. Should it? It’s still early in the season, but probably not.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

So, if you’ve seen\u00a0Big Eyes<\/em><\/a>, you know what this movie is about based on my unapologetic first paragraph. I encourage you to stop reading and watch it if you haven’t. It is fabulous in a way that you wouldn’t expect. The performances of Amy Adams and\u00a0Christoph Waltz far exceeded the performances of Close and counterpart\u00a0Jonathan Pryce (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl<\/em>,\u00a0Ronin<\/em>). But if you haven’t seen\u00a0Big Eyes<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and want to keep reading, I will keep the remainder of this review spoiler-free. Pryce stars as Joe, Joan’s wife and one of the most unlikable characters you’ll see on the big screen this year. The Castlemans are just your average elderly couple, right? Not quite.<\/p>\n

There is a secret that they share. But it’s more than a secret. It’s more like a betrayal. And it’s more than a betrayal that you might at first imagine. It’s also tough to believe that all is okay between this husband and wife before we meet them on the day he is notified that he has been selected to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. It’s almost like the inexperienced Runge set up the film’s first scenes as seeming so loving between the leads that what happens in the many scenes that follow feels like they are set in stark contrast. But it feels forced in the beginning. It feels forced in the middle. And it feels forced at the end.<\/p>\n

\"the<\/p>\n

As I frequently mention in my reviews, I love movies that use flashbacks well. Ones that don’t use this technique well get on my nerves. This was one of those incidences. There was no growth in the flashbacks. It’s like they were on repeat, and they had no regularity. The flashbacks were of the couple falling in love and the secret they shared emerging for the first time. He was slightly older. She was impressionable. He thinks the world is his oyster. She knows better but humors him. Fast-forward to the present day, and he hasn’t much changed, but boy, she has. She’s not impressionable. She’s a realist struggling with what to do about the secret the two share. He still thinks he rules the world, but she’s not afraid to inform him differently.<\/p>\n

So much has changed in the dynamic of their relationship, and I don’t know how you could assume that these two could still be together. Sure, they have kids, but they are grown and on their own, so the whole “stay together for the kids” argument could be thrown out the window. Joe was a putrid, self-indulgent, arrogant man with an astonishing sense of entitlement. We couldn’t stand the man and only had to spend an hour and a half with him. Honestly, it isn’t easy to imagine how a charming, mysteriously judicious woman like Joan could stay married to this adulterous man who occasionally belittles her and often speaks for her before she has a chance to for four decades. It’s hard to fathom, though we feel she may have reached her tipping point after Joe parades the Noble Prize for Literature selection in front of her.<\/p>\n

\"the<\/p>\n

Christian Slater (Murder in the First, Mobsters<\/em>) plays biographer Nathaniel Bone. He’s a thorn in the Castlemans’ side, “conveniently” always running into one or both. So it’s no surprise he ends up on the same flight to Sweden to be there for Joe’s ceremony. Nathaniel wants to write a biography on Joe and hints that he knows about the secret the couple is hiding (there have been rumors for years). It’s not Slater’s best performance. This role could have been performed by anyone else. He’s so persistent that\u00a0it’s annoying, and you almost wish it was an actor you weren’t familiar with. He wants the Castlemans to cooperate with him with his book, but he assures them he will still write it if they won’t. When he pinpoints Joan, it’s evident that she is torn. Does she continue to be the dutiful wife, or has Joe’s egotism reached the point where she can’t take it anymore? It’s a dilemma that is layered with decades of mixed emotions.<\/p>\n

Close is the highlight of this film, but it feels very far from her greatest career performances. I mean, this was the actress who lit up 1987 with her performance of a psychotic woman who torments the life of a married man who has a one-night stand in the unforgettable\u00a0Fatal Attraction<\/em>. This could, and probably will, earn her Oscar nomination number seven, but she will not win. It won’t be close enough to give her a “feel good” Academy Award. But she does well in this film by building her character little by little, as much with her nonverbals as with her verbals. She often waits before speaking. She often waits before not speaking. She offers these wry smiles with so much hidden meaning behind them that you could guess five things she might be thinking, and none of them would be correct. She knows so much more than she leads on. Her looks towards other characters convey a meaning deep inside her that something is just waiting to come out. The question becomes, will it and, if so, how?<\/p>\n

This movie isn’t great. But I’m also willing to admit that it may be generational. You’ll have to judge this one for yourself if you deem the movie important enough to see. You’ll have to learn about the betrayal that Joan and Joe share, their handling of it, and ultimately if you think it’s A) effective and B) worthy of a story. For me, it was not. It’s not a movie I can recommend when there are better ones out there (like\u00a0Big Eyes<\/em><\/a>) that do a similar storyline but do it so much better.<\/p>\n

Plot 7\/10
\nCharacter Development 6\/10
\nCharacter Chemistry 6\/10
\nActing 8\/10
\nScreenplay 6\/10
\nDirecting 6\/10
\nCinematography 6\/10
\nSound 6\/10
\nHook and Reel 6\/10
\nUniversal Relevance 7\/10
\n64%<\/p>\n

D<\/p>\n

Movies You Might Like If You Liked This Movie<\/strong><\/p>\n