Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

bettycjung 2/14/18. i watched this because I like Rashida Jones. But, even with all her star power she could not save this from cinematic mediocrity. So, Messina plays a bored photographer. Sadly, he's not the only one who's bored. And, playing a voyeuristic photog makes him even more of a snake than he was to begin watch. In the end it really makes you wonder what she ever saw in him.

John C I agree with Hrunting that the idea floated in this movie - creating a business model where you're paid as a personal paparazzo could make for a interesting meditation on the need for attention, which could go either in a dramatic or satirical direction. However, this is not that movie. Instead, we have a soap opera with voyeurism and obsession as a plot device designed to drive the couple apart.I think the actors do a great deal nonetheless with the material, and portray their characters convincingly. The breakup scene is excruciating, because all she's asking for is a reason to stay with him and he can't articulate one. I didn't like his character or his decisions, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie or a bad performance; he was convincing enough in the role that he was believable.My biggest problem with it is that the whole concept wasn't plausible. Does anyone really think that in the internet age, with exhibitionists of all kinds online at any moment of every day, that a guy in his 30s in NYC would seriously find the private life of "subgirl" so compelling? Compelling enough to abandon his fiancée at the hospital? And even if such a guy existed, is it plausible to think any woman would get into a relationship with someone so sexually immature and emotionally backward? Not to mention getting engaged to him.I don't mind watching movies about dumb characters, but this movie treated me as if I was the dumb one.

twilliams76 A small Tribeca Film Fest entry, Monogamy has a nice and respectable performance at its heart (Rashida Jones -- The Social Network, I Love You Man, "Parks and Recreation"); but the story boggles itself down with a delirious subtext of obsession that I found distracting and overly time-consuming.The story is about a young NYC couple a few months away from their upcoming marriage -- Jones and Chris Messina (Julie & Julia, Devil, Away We Go) -- who come upon a rough spot in their relationship. A wedding photographer by day who has grown bored with the monotony and routine of it all, Theo (Messina) starts up a side job which has clients contact him to take voyeuristic photographs of them (in secret).Theo quickly becomes obsessed with his latest client known as "Subgirl" and, well, his obsession takes over not only his life and relationship but the film as well. It became too consuming for this viewer because (at the film's beginning) Monogamy appeared to be about the couple (equally!). Unfortunately and frustratingly (for us), about thirty minutes into the film there are longs spells with NO Jones (she disappears!) ... and this hurts the film (just as it would a relationship).The story is a decent one -- one about fidelity and devotion -- but it takes some spills with Theo's perplexed mind. While the story is realistic and the relationship at its core doesn't appear to be "acted" (well done by both Messina and Jones); I think the film took too many strolls from the narrative thread that mattered and in doing-so relegated Jones to a minor character (again ... a drastic error!).That the film isn't consistent would be my biggest complaint of Monogamy. I liked what I saw until what I saw didn't matter (such as Jones taking the backseat in her own movie) ... and that is about a third of the film while Theo is busy being a voyeur.That -- itself -- is kind of strange/ironic as voyeurism is "watching" and those scenes were the least-watchable ones in Monogamy. This film isn't ALWAYS pleasant and happy and that is as it should be. It is a realistic depiction of a crumbling and strained relationship that is faced with questions that those involved might not want to answer and/or face. I do know that if Rashida Jones hadn't basically been written-out of half of the film, Monogamy would have been better than it is.

RhyanScorpioRhys This indie film walks the well-beaten path of a couple with commitment issues and features a silly plot device that allows one of them to obsess over an absolute stranger. The "twist" couldn't have been better spotted miles off if it were surrounded by road-flares.And I'm getting a little sick of poorly written dialog in screenplays hiding behind what used to be called "cinema vérité". If you're not shooting a documentary, write dialog that either progresses the plot along or drop the stuttering, meandering "realistic" speech patterns altogether. It's boring watching actors stumble their way through scenes in which they need to communicate verbally.On a side note, it's such a shame that Rashida Jones can't land better roles. I think there's some untapped potential there. Or maybe it's just because I think she's cute. Who knows?