“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.

“Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” - It’s not complicated.

We’ve seen the multiverse coming to the MCU for quite a while. It all started when the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) taught us about the multiverse in Doctor Strange. We get another glimpse of it in Avengers: Endgame, when the Ancient One explained to Hulk that schisms in the timeline could lead to multiple, alternate timelines or universes. It’s possible the quantum realm in Ant-Man is one of those universes. We get more hints at it in Avengers: Infinity War when Doctor Strange tells Tony Stark that he looked at over fourteen million timelines to find one where they defeated Thanos. The point is all of the phase four MCU films and shows have been pointing us toward the multiverse, especially Loki and Spider-Man: No Way Home, the latter of which very much operates as the prologue to Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

On that note, please don’t listen to the crotchety critics that say you need to do a bunch of homework to enjoy Multiverse of Madness (or any MCU movie, for that matter). You don’t. Some people love to complain about there being too much to follow in the MCU - as if the MCU being rich in content is somehow a bad thing - which makes it hard to understand the movies. That’s like picking up book four of the Harry Potter series, then complaining that you don’t know who all these kids and teachers are and that you don’t get the references to past things. Of course you don’t. But you can still understand and enjoy the story in that book, even if you don’t what the Marauder’s map is.

Multiverse of Madness is really easy to follow, even if you have never seen an MCU film or show. There’s a wizard. He knows magic and is the good guy. There’s a witch. She’s knows magic and is the bad guy. There are an infinite number of parallel universes and they are going to travel to some of them. Wizard must stop witch from doing bad thing. The end. It really is that easy - no studying required.

For folks who have even a passing familiarity with the MCU or saw the movie poster, you know the wizard is Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the witch is Wanda, a.k.a. Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen). You’ll also recognize returning characters Wong (Benedict Wong), Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and Christine (Rachel McAdams) from the first Doctor Strange. The one important new character is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez), who can open portals to any world in the multiverse. If there is anything else you should know it’s that Wanda had a psychotic break when Vision died (in Infinity War), and, after mentally torturing the town of Westview (in Wandavision) and conjuring herself two fake children, retreated to a secluded cabin to master the magic described in the book called the Darkhold. Having lost Vision and the imagined kids, Wanda is hellbent on finding a way to be with versions of her kids that do actually exist in other universes.

For folks who know way too much about the MCU and are also comic book nerds, there’s a lot to take in during Multiverse. With every new entry in the MCU, we get more and more call outs and tie-ins to previous chapters, plus hints at things still to come. Multiverse is positively brimming with all of those things, especially the hints at the future. A couple of these reveals had the audience clapping and myself exclaiming “holy shit, holy shit, HOLY SHIT!!” As I am 100% MCU nerd and 0% comic book nerd, I still haven’t the faintest idea where all of phase four is leading us. Especially after the mid-credit scene, where I found myself exclaiming “whoa, fuck, really?!”

Clearly, I’m doing my best to avoid spoiling anything for you, so let’s talk about the aesthetics of the film. Marvel Studios and head Marvel producer/president Kevin Feige have done an excellent job over the years of hiring directors and giving them a lot of leeway with their particular styles. Multiverse has a very distinct style from what we’re used to, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. When the credits rolled and I saw “directed by Sam Raimi,” it all clicked. Multiverse will remind you of Evil Dead, Spider-Man, and an acid trip, but still feel very much like an MCU movie. In retrospect, Raimi seems ideal for a movie like Multiverse. There is a bit of gruesomeness, psychedelics, some very slight camp, and humor, all movie traits that Raimi excels at. If some of the camera angles and techniques don’t scream Raimi, a couple of multiverses we get a peek at do. The best part is that Raimi has MCU money, so he gets to do special effects that don’t involve rubber and corn syrup. Though, that also would have been a funny universe.

Whether you are a very casual moviegoer or a hardcore superhero dork, you are going to enjoy Multiverse. If you like long, slow-burning storylines, you’re good. If you like Benedict Cumberbatch, Rachel McAdams, or Elizabeth Olsen, you’re good. If you really just like Cumberbatch, you’re good. If you like fun, trippy movies, you’re good. If you like magic, you’re good. If you just want to be entertained by a big, bright, loud blockbuster, you’re good. If you like comic books, you’re going to explode. It’s that simple.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, in this universe or any other universe.

“1917” - Can you handle the truth?

If you are into war movies, there are two major ones from which to get your fix. By now, you probably already saw Midway and, depending on what city you live in, might have seen 1917 as well. If not, you are waiting with bated breath for January 10 to get here, which is when 1917 rolls out everywhere. And, I sympathize with you because Midway was not what one might describe as good. Rather, it is what one might describe as “definitely a movie,” or even “the opposite of how to make an interesting movie.”

War movies tend to be really good when the plot is narrowly focused on a specific event. For those of you who have seen neither Midway nor 1917 (or their associated previews), one is focused on a specific event and the other covers several events that take place over a significant amount of time. Based on title, you would assume Midway is the specific one. There was only one Battle of Midway during WWII, so the movie has to focus on that, right? Conversely, 1917 is an entire year of the Great War, in which at least three major battles were fought. Surely, the film will give us a look at the horrors of that year, including the Battle of Cambrai, which was the first time battle tanks were used on a massive scale. If you haven’t already guessed, the opposite is true of both films.

(Side note: Midway should have followed in Dunkirk’s footsteps, but chose to follow in Pearl Harbor’s footsteps. Even worse, Midway didn’t even have great special effects. But enough about Midway; that is not why you are here.)

If you have never seen pictures or heard first or second-hand descriptions of WWI battlefields, think of your worst nightmare, feed that nightmare into a meat grinder, then double it. What little we were taught about WWI in school probably included trench warfare, covered the deployment of new weapons like airplanes, machine guns, and tanks, and briefly described the space between opposing trenches (no-man’s land) as a mess of barbed wire and land mines and thousands of flying bullets and artillery shells. Maybe, just maybe, you had a teacher who also mentioned the bodies that littered no-man’s land, but probably only in the context of a lot of men dying whenever one side would order its men to charge the other side’s line. They never got into the facts that retrieving bodies from no-man’s land was next to impossible, the massive use of modern artillery and chemical weapons left a maelstrom of craters filled with people/poison soup, or that many of those suicidal charges involved horse-mounted cavalry. The point is do not eat any food while watching 1917.

That is not wood floating in the river next to him.

1917 corrects the error of American history classes by showing us that nightmare. British Lance Corporals Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are ordered to make their way nine miles forward to warn a 1600-man brigade that is unwittingly marching into a trap. Like them, our immediate question is how they make it a dozen steps before being mowed down. Don’t worry, their commanding officer (Colin Firth) assures them. Aerial surveillance shows the Germans have retreated to lines further back and that the duo can cross no-man’s land safely. The surveillance is also how they know about the trap. Pshaw (or bollocks), we say in unison with Lieutenant Leslie (Andrew Scott). Leslie tells them where they can cross the barbed wire (directions which include “cross through at the horse”), while simultaneously assuring them they will die. Oh, and don’t fall into the craters because we know they are half-filled with water and nobody knows how deep they are. This is half of the recipe for the movie-long tension that begins the moment the men peek their heads above the rim of their trench.

You want to go out there on purpose?

The other half, as my Ruthless colleague John has discussed, is the lack of film cuts throughout the film. Director Sam Mendes wanted to build the tension and realism by putting the audience into the trenches, no-man’s land, and gutted towns with Schofield and Blake and removing cuts is a great way of doing that. You probably have never consciously noticed that a cut allows you take let your breath out or blink your eyes, artificially releasing a bit of tension and momentarily pulling you out from whatever film you are watching. About five minutes into 1917, I realized there had not been a cut yet (for reference, the average length of a shot is 2.5 seconds) and that my eyes were really, really dry. I did my best to look for them, but it was really difficult once the meat grinder was on full display. There are plenty of clever ways to hide cuts, but they just weren’t there. What was there were Black and Schofield crawling through mud, barbed wire, and craters filled with rancid liquids, rats, and body parts and rotting faces glaring at them for having the audacity to not also be dead. Oh, and the horses the dead rode in on.

Cut me a break already.

Since Mendes did everything possible to make the film appear as one long cut, the tension almost never breaks. Like the two corporals, we are expecting bullets to fly at any moment. For one of them to step on a land mine. For an artillery shell to explode. For Germans to be around every corner. Even worse, and just like in life, nothing happens when you expect it to, instead happening out of sync. If I chewed my fingernails when I got nervous, I would have nothing left below the elbows.

Like Saving Private Ryan and other great war films, 1917 works because the war is the setting instead of the plot. We can experience the war by observing it with Blake and Schofield. For this film and for our benefit, they channel the experience of the entire Allied army.  As they navigate the obstacles of the war to accomplish their mission, not only do we see all of those things we learned about in school (tanks, trenches, biplanes, artillery, death), but we see all of the things no one told us about. The simple plot of two men risking their lives in a suicide mission for the greater good is a far better story than trying to cram half of WWII into a two-hour Midway, I mean movie.

Rating: Do not ask for any money back and don’t forget to unclench.