“The Roses” - They love me, they love me not, but in British.

I won’t bury the lede - yes, The Roses is a remake of the 1989 film War of the Roses. No, it’s not a shot for shot remake, but a retelling of the original story. The Roses is a good example of why remakes actually do have a place in film, despite what many people think. Remakes give filmmakers a chance to tell a story from a different perspective or in a different way. That’s not to say all remakes take that opportunity. Looking at you, Disney.

The obvious question you want to know is if The Roses is better or worse than War of the Roses. Well...that really depends on how you feel about watching two people who used to love each other sabotage each other’s lives to get custody of their house. If you were cringing your way through the more than an hour’s worth in War of the Roses and never watched it again, you’ll enjoy The Roses more. If you don’t care about the couple’s relationship and just want to see carnage, you should stop reading now and go watch John Wick. Because The Roses spends maybe ten minutes on the petty vengeance and does so almost apologetically.

Unlike War of the Roses, The Roses is primarily interested in the couple themselves and the evolution of their relationship. Theo Rose (Benedict Cumberbatch) is an architect with strong, sarcastic opinions about other architects’ work. Ivy (Olivia Colman) is a chef with a killer palette and acerbic wit. They have their meet-cute and the film spends some time showing us how much they truly love each other over the next decade. Oh, and they’re British instead of American, which allows both actors to really strut their A+ British stuff.

Living the seemingly idyllic life in America - married with two kids, a house near the coast, and a friend group - Ivy is raising their children and running a low-key crab restaurant while Theo is the breadwinner about to complete his masterpiece (a nautical museum). When a storm upends their lives, roles are reversed. Theo finds himself out of work and raising the kids while Ivy’s restaurant business explodes in popularity and success. Had this film been trying to follow in the 1989 version’s footsteps, the Roses’ relationship would have quickly deteriorated into vitriol and hate...monster trucks and urine.

Instead, it’s a slow burn downhill as the film depicts a much more realistic version of two people falling out of love. Broken promises, missed dates, depression, jealousy, apologies that don’t quite make up for damage caused, fights over little and big things, therapy, and a whale. Ok, maybe the whale isn’t realistic, but...actually, never mind about the whale. It’ll make sense when you see it.

There’s even a last-ditch attempt to save their marriage, this time in the form of Theo designing their dream house. Yeah, the film did decide to keep that aspect of War of the Roses, including the part where they fight over who gets the house in the divorce. But that fighting is just the climax of the film instead of the entire second half. Like I said, the film’s heart isn’t really in this bit of fighting, though it doesn’t shy away from getting creative about it.

I’m glad director Jay Roach and screenwriter Tony McNamara went in that direction. I’m not a fan of watching people behave horribly and spitefully to each other, especially not for extended periods of time. It’s tolerable here because the film earned it, but it’s still really hard to watch. And that’s how I know this was a good film. I wasn’t rooting for either of them to defeat the other because they both were responsible for letting their relationship fall apart. It made me sad to watch them terrorize each other because I know how much they were hurting. And that is definitely not how I felt watching War of the Roses.

While the storytelling was solid and the character development was really good, the performances from Cumberbatch and Colman were fantastic. As much as I enjoy them in any role, the best decision by the filmmakers was to let the two of them go full Union Jack. Not only is the dry wit perfect for the story - and, wow, do they both deliver on that wit, Colman even says at one point that the British are known for repressing their feelings and staying too long in dying relationships. They were so good that I might not have minded a few extra minutes of spite. Especially with their accent.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, dollars or pounds.

“Nobody 2” - For better or for worse.

Prior to attending the screening for Nobody 2, I figured I should watch Nobody. Literally the night before the screening is when I watched it. That way, everything would be fresh in my mind going into the sequel. I’m really glad I did because it was a decent action flick, the sequel featured some characters and elements that would have made far less sense, and it highlighted things that were done better (and worse) in the sequel.

Obviously, I never reviewed Nobody so here’s a quickie. Hutch (Bob Odenkirk) is a retired CIA assassin trudging through each day of his ordinary, mundane, married-with-two-kids, marriage-on-the-rocks life. One night, his house gets robbed, so Hutch tracks down the burglars to recover his daughter’s missing kitty bracelet. On his way home he prevents some drunk Russians from raping a woman, beating the hell out of them on a bus. Next thing you know, there are scores of dead Russian mobsters, Hutch’s house burns to the ground, and hundreds of millions of Russian mob dollars get set on fire. When the dust settles, Hutch’s family and marriage issues are all better now. The end.

It shouldn’t surprise you in the least that a movie featuring next to zero plot, Russian mobsters, and an unkillable retired assassin murdering everyone was written by the same guy (Derek Kolstad) that penned the first three John Wick movies. And like John Wick, Nobody is entertaining in a brainless, violent action kind of way. But at least Nobody doesn’t include a set of completely ignored and pointless rules.

Now that we’ve established Kolstad is a human skipping record player, you can go into Nobody 2 assured that Kolstad has not evolved in the slightest. Nobody 2 is the classic sequel that repeats all of the beats from the first film but dressed in slightly different clothes. And I mean every single beat.

Mundane regular life? Check. Hutch’s angsty son Brady (Gage Munroe) is mad at Hutch? Check. Hutch’s marriage with wife Becca (Connie Nielsen) is on the rocks? Check. Hutch takes revenge on some guys for a slight against his daughter Sammy (Paisley Cadorath)? Check. Hutch’s revenge stumbles him into a Russian mafia operation? Check. Fight scene on a moving vehicle with Hutch fighting several dudes? Check. Psychotic Russian mob boss? Check. Hundreds of millions of dollars in torched Russian mob money? Check. Hutch’s dad David (Christopher Lloyd) and brother Harry (RZA) helping Hutch booby trap a location MacGyver-style for the climactic showdown with dozens of Russians and their boss? Check, check, and check.

To be fair, it’s not an exact clone. Hutch’s regular life now includes missions assigned by The Barber (Colin Salmon) to pay off the money he burned, which cause him to miss a bunch of family life stuff and piss off Becca and Brady. Hold on a second. The money didn’t belong to The Barber, so why is Hutch working it off? If Becca knows about Hutch’s new job and past, presumably including the debt, why is she getting upset at Hutch? Same question for Brady? Seems like Hutch not doing his job means they all die, so maybe they should be a little more grateful.

More importantly, why wasn’t this crap left on the cutting room floor? It doesn’t build the characters. In fact, it actively regresses Becca and Brady and turns the audience against them. The movie makes the family angst the motivation for Hutch to take the family on a vacation, but he was going to do that anyway since he told The Barber he needed a break for a little while. Needing a break from murder missions is a perfectly reasonable motivation for a family romp. None of that family angst matters later either. Erase it from the movie and the rest of the movie unfolds exactly the same way. This is a great example of the sequel doing something worse than the original.

Speaking of things worse than the original, Sharon Stone plays the sequel’s Russian mob boss, Lendina. If you’ve never heard the term “chewing the scenery,” it describes when an actor delivers an over-the-top, exaggerated performance. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad. Think of it as when a performance seems like the opposite of natural. The moment Stone appears in the film (roughly the midpoint), “chewing the scenery” is a vast understatement. Stone appears to be having a seizure through most of her performance and nothing about it can be described as good. It’s the kind of cringingly awful performance that will make you question if Stone forgot to take her meds before fleeing the retirement home.

On the flip side, the sequel did do some things better. First, the plot was much tighter. Everything that happens is tied together in the town Hutch takes the family to, rather than two completely disconnected events clumsily transitioning Hutch through the first movie. Second, the sequel is mostly shot during the day or in bright lights rather than at night or dark venues. Yes, filmmakers, audiences tend to better enjoy what they can actually see. Third, both the vehicle fight and climactic fight in the sequel are a bit more fun, mostly because they’re a bit more silly. Nobody is pretty grim and dire, but the sequel lightens the mood. It’s like if The Great Outdoors was invaded by John Wick. Family angst and everything.

Rating: Ask for thirteen dollars back because you’ve seen this movie several times with different titles, but still kind of enjoy it.

“Weapons” - Lessons learned.

How did you feel about the 2022 movie Barbarian? You can read what I thought of Barbarian in detail, but, to summarize, I was not amused. Weapons is the second film solely written and directed by Zach Cregger, Barbarian being his first. Knowing that, I set my expectations for Weapons to...very guarded. My hope going into Weapons was that it wasn’t gross and disturbing the way Barbarian was and I was looking forward to Josh Brolin. I’m happy to report that Weapons was only a tiny bit gross and a tiny bit disturbing but in the best way possible. Also, Josh Brolin was excellent and the film was orders of magnitude better than the overrated Barbarian.

Before I go on, this is a great time to reiterate one of my rules for movies. Do not watch full movie trailers. No exceptions. Part of the fun of watching movies is being surprised by what you see. But trailers always show way too much of the movie, including many of the best parts. I know there are some people out there who like the anticipation of wondering when certain parts they saw in a trailer will show up in the movie. But those people don’t realize how much of the movie they’re not fully absorbing due to that same anticipation taking up part of their concentration.

I bring this up because Weapons is one of the best mystery and horror movies I’ve seen in a long time. Maybe ever. Yeah...it’s that good. And the trailers will rob you of some of that experience. Don’t worry, I didn’t watch the trailer until after I saw the film. All I knew going in was the synopsis - seventeen kids from the same classroom all disappear and only one is left. Oh, and I knew Josh Brolin was in it. If you need more than those two things to be very interested in this film - and the Josh Brolin part is optional - you and I cannot hang out.

(Side note: Teasers for movies are perfectly acceptable to watch because they are essentially the synopsis come to life. You’re welcome.)

Cregger definitely learned all the right lessons from Barbarian and implemented improvements in Weapons. The structure of the film is the most obvious improvement. Cregger is definitely fan of nonlinear narratives, showing the same period of time or the same events through different characters’ perspectives. Think Pulp Fiction or Go. When done right, this structure serves to move the plot forward while also spending ample time developing characters. Unlike in Barbarian, all of these components are done right.

In Weapons, the film opens with a child narrating the synopsis while showing us the kids running out of their houses and disappearing into the night. Once the setup is complete, a title card reading “Justine” appears and we get a chunk of the story from Justine’s (Julia Garner) perspective. After spending some time getting to know Justine, revealing more of the main story, and meeting several other characters, the film cuts to a new title card reading “Arthur.” Arthur (Brolin) is the father of one of the missing kids and he wants answers. Character development happens, more story, more character intersections, next title card. Lather, rinse, repeat for police officer Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), drug addict James (Austin Abrams), school principal Andrew (Benedict Wong), and the last remaining student from Justine’s class, Alex (Cary Christopher).

As we get the various character perspectives, the film does an excellent job of introducing questions early, then answering those questions later. All in service of a dramatic buildup culminating in the various arcs dovetailing together in a very, very excellent climax. During all of this, we get served the exact right amount of scares using various techniques. A couple of jump scares, a pinch of witchcraft, a dash of gore, and splashes of creepy imagery, including Alex’s Aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan). It’s a horror mystery recipe so well-crafted it would make Alfred Hitchcock and Agatha Christie cry in delight.

As if all that wasn’t enough, Cregger also managed to fit in some exquisitely timed moments of comic relief to break up the tension. Various characters sum up these moments nicely, uttering the phrase “what the fuck?!” several times to voice what the audience is thinking at the same time.

One of my hopes every year is that a movie comes out of nowhere to blow my expectations out of the water. Weapons is definitely that movie this year, a movie so good that an excellent Josh Brolin performance was approximately the tenth best thing about this movie.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back and don’t watch another trailer ever again.