“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.

“Wonka” - Life is like a box of chocolates.

It’s the holidays and you know what that means...mystery chocolates. I suppose it’s also a time for family and gifts and arguments. But nothing gets the adrenaline going like examining the box of chocolates that mysteriously only materializes on holidays, hoping the picture on the inside of the lid is telling the truth about the insides of the chocolates, and scrutinizing every wrinkle of chocolate on that morsel two from the left that isn’t a perfect match to the picture. Best to just take a deep breath and hope that wrinkle isn’t bourn of coconut.

The box of chocolates this year is called Wonka. Based on the new film Wonka, the box promises a variety of flavors from chocolate to vanilla to magic to indentured servants to songs to cartoonish villains to more chocolate. The box also features a name and description for each type of chocolate found in the box. The box itself is gorgeously decorated. So, I took a deep breath and started trying them.

The first one is labelled “The Opening Number.” The box tells me it’s a song sung by Willy Wonka (Timothee Chalamet) upon arriving in a town that may or not be European, this chocolate is one of several that tastes like music in your mouth. It’s perfectly round with no identifying frills or markings and tastes like vanilla. The box appears to have five or six more chocolates that look just like it.

The next one says “Scrubbits.” A surprise for your palette, this piece is inspired by innkeepers that always have a room available for a downtrodden traveler. It features two faces on it, one named Mrs. Scrubbit (Olivia Colman) and the other named Bleacher (Tom Davis). The box wasn’t kidding about this one being a surprise. It tastes like ham, but well-seasoned ham.

The next three are all shaped like eggs and richly colored. The yellow one with the plaid print is called “Prodnose” (Matt Lucas). The grey one painted like a suit jacket is called “Fickelgruber” (Mathew Baynton). And the blue one with pin stripes is called “Slugworth” (Paterson Joseph). The description is the same for each: Whether eaten individually or as a group, these bad eggs will attack your palette. Fickelgruber and Prodnose both have a bland nougat center and taste like a 3 Musketeers bar that has seen at least three Halloweens. On the other hand, Slugworth is filled with a gooey cherry concoction that practically explodes when eaten. It’s a very loud, flamboyant flavor that isn’t trying to be subtle at all. I mostly like it, but it’s a bit over the top.

Another round one, this time named “Song Number 2.” No description. It tastes like the first round one and I have no urge to sing. Not even hum.

There are five chocolates arranged in a circle around a large, spectacular chocolate (called Willy Wonka). We’ll come back to that large one in a minute. The five are each shaped like their names - “Noodle” (Calah Lane), “Abacus” (Jim Carter), “Piper” (Natasha Rothwell), “Bell” (Rakhee Thakrar), and “Chucklesworth” (Rich Fulcher). These uniquely shaped chocolates pair well with Willy Wonka. Aside from their shapes, there is little else of note about them, especially flavor, except Noodle. There is a bit of texture to Noodle’s insides, but not enough to matter.

This next one is painted like a badge and called “Key-stone Kop.” This delectable police chief (Keenan-Michael Key) will tickle your taste buds. It tastes is kind of funny. Not haha funny, but I-see-what-you-are-going-for-there amusing.

A third round one. Or sixth. I’ve lost count, I don’t bother reading the names, and they all taste the same. I think. It’s hard to remember what any of them tasted like.

The next one is was teased on the outside of the box. Called “Lofty” (Hugh Grant), it is colored orange and green. Lofty tastes like how we imagine an Oompa Loompa smells...delightful! Upon splitting open the candy, it smells like orange sherbet, but in a pompously British kind of way. The box was right - it is delightful. Too bad there isn’t more in the box.

There are two chocolates left. I save that big one for last, and pick up the one that has a book on it and is called “The Story.” Like the 3-Course Dinner chewing gum that turned Violet into a blueberry, The Story offers you a variety of flavors that perfectly complement each other. Upon examination of the chocolate, a couple of small holes reveal themselves. One is leaking chocolate syrup and part of the shell is really thin. Also, there’s a bizarre shaped appendage hanging off one side for no reason. I try not to think about the flaws and quickly eat it so I can get to the real reason I opened the box.

Finally, “Willy Wonka.” It’s beautiful. I just want to stare in its eyes forever. Willy Wonka is inspired by the original recipe we created in 1971. We poured our hearts and souls into getting Willy Wonka just right. All five of your senses will savor Willy Wonka or your money back. Confirmed. Rarely is anything as good or better than the original, but this Willy Wonka comes close.

Rating: Ask for three dollars back. Some of it should be more memorable than it is.