The Roses (2025)

If you have forgotten The War Of The Roses (1989) then I encourage you to revisit it. Based on the book by Warren Adler, directed by Danny DeVito (who also gives himself a fun supporting role), and starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, who are both clearly having a blast in their main roles, it's about as dark and twisted a black comedy as you could hope for. Don't watch it if you're planning to check out The Roses though, which is a "reimagining" starring Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead roles. 

The Roses isn't bad. It just doesn't hold up when you compare it to the original film. 

The story is all about a married couple who seem to fall out of love. A lot has changed since they first met, and resentment grows into something that eventually makes them toxic and dangerous to one another. Some may want them to stay together, but many eventually realise that they'd be better separating. The lawyers (played by Allison Janney and Andy Samberg) look set to be the only real winners though.

It's odd that this was written by Tony McNamara, who must have seemed like a great choice after his recent work with Yorgos Lanthimos. In fact, I'll take the rare opportunity now to recommend the wonderful The Rage In Placid Lake, his directorial feature film debut, adapted from his own stage play. While this is passable entertainment, I can't really recommend this. It lacks real bite, which is even more of a shame when you get the feeling that both Colman and Cumberbatch would have enjoyed leaning even further into anarchy and viciousness.

While they're not on top form, I cannot blame either of the leads for their work here. They both do quite well with what they're given, although Colman easily outshines her male co-star in the second half of the film. Janney is very good fun as the out-for-everything lawyer, Samberg is fairly amusing as a more timid member of the legal system, and there's some fun to be had with Sunita Mani, Ncuti Gatwa, Zoë Chao, and Jamie Demetriou. The actors who play the Rose children also do well enough, but their characters are generally passive observers to the disintegration of the relationship between their mother and father. The biggest disappointment comes from Kate McKinnon, someone I often enjoy seeing in comedies. Her character here feels like she's been dropped in from a completely different movie, or (more accurately) a very weak SNL skit.

The main person I blame for this being such a disappointment is director Jay Roach. Roach can do comedy, but he has come unstuck before when trying to add some edge to the laughs. The fact that he also doesn’t have strong enough comedic talent here (with no offence intended to the leads) just undermines his decision to try to keep things more fun and funny until lurching sideways for the grand finale. 

Casual viewers should find enough to enjoy here, especially if you like either of the leads, and, despite my criticisms, I really cannot call it a bad film. It just feels completely neutered and toothless, which is something that could have been avoided with a bolder individual at the helm.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness (2022)

As many of you already know, Marvel have been setting up the multiverse for a little while now. And here we are, once again showing the possibilities and the dangers of the multiverse.

It all starts with an action sequence that shows Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) dying while trying to help a young woman, America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez). America can jump from from one multiverse realm to the next, but doesn’t know how her power works, and she eventually ends up in what seems to be our world, where she is saved from a giant monster by . . . Doctor Stephen Strange, assisted by Wong (Benedict Wong). Powerful forces seem intent on destroying America, which leads to Doctor Strange asking for the help of Wanda Maximoff aka The Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) . . . which actually ends up making everything worse. An ancient text could provide the key to fixing the whole situation, but that might need some more travelling between universes.

With the kaleidoscopic imagery throughout, elements of celestial horror, a nice line in macabre humour, and an inevitable Bruce Campbell cameo, Sam Raimi fans should be delighted by his return to directing superhero fare. The material, revolving around a quest for an ancient book that may save or damn mankind, feels like a natural fit, and there are a couple of genuinely glorious moments in the third act that show just how much Raimi was allowed to retain his Raimi essence. I can easily say that I enjoyed this more as a blockbuster Raimi movie than as a superhero movie.

The screenplay, written by Michael Waldron, does a good job of explaining the situations, characters, and rules without bringing everything to a grinding halt. Waldron has experience with multiverse-based entertainment, having been a writer on both Loki and Rick & Morty, and he excels when it comes to clarifying concepts that are then complemented by Raimi’s directorial decisions. He also does well while exploring an aspect that was kept out of a lot of the advertising on the lead up to the release of the film, something I won’t spoil here, and I was pleased to find that this was another Marvel movie that opted to question decisions made by main characters over the years, and to muse over who gets to decide what is ultimately good and bad.

Everyone does well in their main roles, with some people (mainly Cumberbatch, Olsen, and Rachel McAdams, once again playing the lovely, and beloved, Christine) clearly having some fun portraying multiple versions of their characters. And Cumberbatch can do the magic-creating finger/hand movements in his sleep by now, surely.  Gomez is a great new addition to the cinematic roster of Marvel main characters we have had so far, playing her character with a lovely mix of sadness, strength, and sass, and Wong has been one of the best supporting players in any of the MCU movies since his first appearance (although there are a number of actors who would deserve to be in contention alongside him). Chiwetel Ejiofor also needs to be mentioned here, with his character, Baron Mordo, being used in a way that allows him to do more than just be another potential enemy of Strange.

I’ve saved my main criticisms until the end though, because this is far from perfect. Some scenes are just too overstuffed, some of the dialogue, already embraced by a large part of the fanbase, is too hokey and trying too hard to become instantly quotable, and it’s easy to say that this isn’t the best recent multiverse movie release (which would be Everything Everywhere All At Once). It’s not even the best recent Marvel multiverse movie release though, with Spider-Man: No Way Home proving to be a much more satisfying end product. The reason? Cameos.

Yeah, let’s end this review by talking about cameos. Not Bruce Campbell. He is welcome in every Sam Raimi movie. And Spider-Man: No Way Home showed just how enjoyable the right cameos could be. Unfortunately, Marvel haven’t realised what they got so right there, cameos that allow them to work some interesting story strands together from their recent history into something that felt much more satisfying, and like closure for many, and go back to making the mistake of using cameos as obvious set up for whatever path they want to lay ahead. One major character aside, someone seen in the recent animated “What If?” show, all of these cameos made me roll my eyes and wish that I didn’t recognise any of the faces onscreen. It’s irritating, feeling like a way to tease people or test reactions to potential future (re)casting. And it sadly makes up what feels like a decent portion of the middle of the movie.

None of the negatives are enough to stop this from being a good time. There’s enough money and talent here that it would seem almost impossible to make something truly awful. But, as the film itself shows us, there are infinite possibilities.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

If you have made it this long without having Spider-Man: No Way Home spoiled for you then I congratulate you. I'll also try not to spoil anything here, although that makes this review a little bit trickier. I AM going to work on the assumption that most people saw one or two of the trailers, revealing some familiar villains coming back to our screens.

The basic plot concerns Peter Parker/Spiderman (Tom Holland) having quite a miserable time of things, all because of the repercussions from his battle with Mysterio. Everyone knows who he is, and everyone has a view on his actions. Some of them believe the lie fabricated by Mysterio. Some don't. What's worse is that it's not just affecting Peter, but also the ones closest to him. His friend Ned (Jacob Batalon) and his girlfriend, MJ (Zendaya), are guilty by association, which leads to them being unable to get into the colleges they have applied for. Desperate for things to go back to how they were, Peter heads to Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and asks him to cast a spell that will make people forget who he is. The spell goes just a bit wrong, resulting in our universe being invaded by characters who have met other incarnations of Spiderman in other universes.

Director Jon Watts and writers Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers may not have been the only people shepherding this Spiderman through his latest cinematic trilogy, but they have certainly been there for each instalment, helping to maintain the balance of light fun and major peril that our friendly neighbourhood Spiderman has dealt with over the past few years. This is the darkest of the new Spidey films yet, but it still allows plenty of time for humour, and it still incorporates a bright, solid, colour palette for the majority of the runtime. It helps enormously that Holland has a brightness to him that lights the screen further whenever he's not being beaten down by overwhelming odds.

Holland does his best work yet here (in these movies, I'm not talking about his entire career), moving from lighter moments to moments that are all the more heartbreaking because of his vulnerability, and it's hard to imagine what the bigwigs will plan next for the character. They clearly have to keep making the most of having Holland in the role, but this feels like a tough one to top. And yet, somewhat paradoxically, it's far from the best Spiderman movie. It's overlong, it's overstuffed, it's all just a bit overdone, and the third act has to ensure that every single character gets at least one satisfying moment. And the CGI is equally overdone, even if it is generally at a very high standard.

As well as Holland, both Zendaya and Batalon are as good as they have been in the previous movies. Cumberbatch has fun, playing a strong supporting role. And there’s pure joy in seeing the return of characters played by Alfred Molina, Willem Dafoe, Jamie Foxx, Thomas Haden Church, and Rhys Ifans, with each actor appearing to relish the opportunity to give their character a better resolution. Marisa Tomei remains an excellent Aunt May, doing her best to help and protect her nephew as danger crowds around them. And there are at least three other cameos/supporting turns that will have fans enthralled and delighted while the screen is loaded up with one treat upon another.

It’s clear that this has been made with the aim of really pleasing fans of the web-slinger, especially those who have enjoyed every one of his modern cinematic outings. Pretty much every big rumour you already heard about is true, but that doesn’t lessen the impact of every wonderful moment, whether big or small. It’s just a shame that it feels like a bit too much, this is a film that would have worked better split into two. It’s stimulation overload, just barely allowing the quieter, more sombre, moments time to breathe. That doesn’t mean that it’s not great, it just also feels slightly exhausting as you move towards the inevitably super-busy third act.

With great film-making tools comes great responsibility. The people putting this extravaganza together have been very careful to treat the characters with care. They just weren’t quite so careful with the pacing and the excess of visual effects.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: The Power Of The Dog (2021)

I often think that I dislike the films of director Jane Campion, but that's not true. I really disliked In The Cut, and I have yet to watch The Piano (despite owning it for a number of years), but I always forget that I saw, and really liked, The Portrait Of A Lady. Campion has, according to many, been creating superb art for a number of years now and it is up to me to see more of her filmography.

The year is 1925. The place is a ranch in Montana. Phil Burbank (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a difficult and unfriendly owner of the ranch, alongside his much more pleasant brother, George (Jesse Plemons). When George marries Rose (Kirsten Dunst), bringing both her and her son (Peter, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) to live at the ranch, things take a major turn for the worse. Phil becomes more and more nasty to those around him, Rose starts to assuage her pain with alcohol, and Peter looks like he may not do well in an environment full of men quick to point and laugh at his perceived weak character. But things take an unexpected turn, which means some characters may be saved from their impending fates.

Based on a novel by Thomas Savage, this is a film that you would think of as, well, typical Oscar fare (which was proven by the love it received in the shape of Oscar nominations). It moves at quite a slow pace, it's beautifully crafted, and the central performances are uniformly superb. There's also a dark and intriguing third act that will make some viewers have to think back to details that were interspersed throughout the rest of the movie. I would, for some reason, see this pairing up nicely with Phantom Thread, and I hope others who see both movies can see why I would make a connection between the two.

Campion puts everything in place, from character details to important, but small, plot details, and trusts viewers to put things together as things play out. It's subtle throughout, in many ways, but also not subtle if you know what Campion is trying to make you notice. Even the start of the potential friendship between Phil and Peter, as the unpleasant man starts to make an effort to bond with a boy he realises maybe shouldn't be faulted for the choices made by his mother, feels entirely plausible, despite seeming highly unlikely during the earlier scenes.

Nobody in the cast disappoints, and Cumberbatch deserves extra praise for not fully mangling the accent that his character has. He also seems to enjoy playing someone who initially seems irredeemably bad. Plemons is a much calmer presence, but also ends up not getting as much screentime. Dunst has to act out some angst and emotional histrionics, but she feels right for her role. Then there's Smit-McPhee, playing the character who arguably goes through the biggest change in the movie. Smit-McPhee is excellent, and he's entrusted with carrying viewers through from start to finish, clarifying the main theme of the film, a thought-provoking and complex conundrum that will leave you weighing up your own moral stance on things long after the credits have rolled.

It feels like too long since I sat down to enjoy some full-on "worthy"drama, the kind of films I do normally try to check out in the run up to the Oscars. I'm glad I set aside some time for this one. I may have inadvertently started with one of the best from 2021.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

1917 (2019)

Directed by Sam Mendes, who also co-wrote the thing with Krysty Wilson-Cairns, 1917 is that WWI film that looks as if it is all made in one shot, with some of the hidden cuts easier to spot than others as you follow the main characters on a quest to the front, to deliver a message that will stop a load of soldiers from falling into a trap laid for them by the enemy.

That's really all there is to it. Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay play Lance Corporal Blake and Lance Corporal Schofeld, respectively, the two soldiers sent through dangerous territory to deliver the message. And the cast also includes small roles for Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, and Benedict Cumberbatch. The more recognisable faces seem to help mark various chapters in the journey, with most of the other people onscreen either unrecognisable or just featured as one part of the military unit they're enlisted in.

There was a time when I considered attempting to write this review in one long ramble, hence that lengthy opening paragraph. But then I decided that would be too painful to read. It's a gimmick that would work worse on this blog than it does onscreen, and it doesn't work that well onscreen. Maybe war isn't the best subject for gimmickry, or maybe this technique (one shot/long scenes without cuts) already feels slightly overused, thanks to some recent great examples.

That's the main thing about 1917. It's quite dull. The acting is just fine from everyone involved, the cinematography from Roger Deakins is pretty glorious, and the music by Thomas Newman is there to ensure that you never forget how important and impressive the film is. That's in line with every other aspect of the film.

Considering the main message of the film is one we have seen many times before (which, in itself, is no reason to NOT make a film), and considering we don't get to learn as much about many of the main characters, 1917 is a film that turns out to be all about itself. It's all about that pretend one shot, it's all about Mendes marshalling everyone to get his vision onscreen, it's all about nothing more than how it all looks.

That wouldn't be so bad if it was also thought-provoking or interesting. It isn't. 1917 is a very dull war movie. And war during wartime is far from dull, I'm sure, which leaves me thinking that Mendes has somewhat let down the many people he had set out to honour. There are a couple of cinematic moments that do make it worth your time, for the scale and skill of the visuals, but that's the best thing I can say.

5/10

Yule Love It: The Grinch (2018)

And here is my second review for this year,
Of a film that is overloaded with good Christmas cheer.
It's an animated retelling of a Dr, Seuss tale,
But does The Grinch succeed, or does The Grinch fail?

I watched it last week, with hopes not raised high,
Even the cast could not help me stifle a sigh.
Benedict Cumberbatch, Rashida Jones, and more,
Would they be any match for the casting from before.

First we had Karloff and then we had Carrey,
Both of those versions kept me happy as Larry.
But this boasts animation from Illumination,
Is it just a distraction or artistic creation?

Scott Mosier and Yarrow Cheney co-direct,
Not two names I would first choose to select,
But they're in charge of this cartoon presentation,
That ultimately wallows in creative stagnation.

The animation is nice, the voice cast not bad,
But nothing improves on the other's we've had.
You get what's expected, no more and no less,
It's shiny and new, but far from the best.

The characters are cute, some gags make you grin,
Whoville looks pretty, but lacking something within.
And the problem with Cumberbatch, his accent, I'm sorry,
He's clearly binged House and is copying Hugh Laurie.

The screenplay is dull, there aren't any good songs,
What the film gets right it outweighs with the wrongs.
So I got an idea! An awful idea!
This review was that wonderful, awful idea!

If you're thinking this is a waste of your time,
I can only apologise for trying to rhyme,
But it was better than other ideas that I had,
To say the film was not great, while not entirely bad.

It is what it is, which is nothing mindblowing,
Though I'm sure it will amuse you while outside it's snowing.
I'm no Dr. Seuss, but this review was fun.
I hope you were amused, and now it is done.

6/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.

War Horse (2011)

This Steven Spielberg movie, based on a popular play written by Nick Stafford which was based on the children's book by Michael Morpurgo, is an easy target for critics to take aim and fire at. There's no denying that it has many moments that exemplify the very worst of Spielberg's predilections and there will be many people for whom this is just absolute anathema. Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed it.

Peter Mullan plays Ted Narracott, a farmer who doesn't really have much luck in life. Mind you, he doesn't always help himself, like when he decides to outbid his landlord (David Thewlis) for a horse that everyone knows will be of no use to him for ploughing purposes. He gets the horse, but is also indebted to his landlord. It looks grim, grim indeed, but his son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), has faith in the horse and sets out to prove everyone wrong by leading it around the field and getting it to pull the plough. Sadly, despite the horse showing great tenacity, there's not enough done to keep the farm safe and so Ted sells the horse to an army Captain (Tom Hiddleston). Albert is determined that they'll be reunited one day and he signs up for the army as soon as he's old enough, but there's no guarantee that he'll ever actually see his horse again or, indeed, survive the perils of war.

Yes, it's overloaded with sentiment in places (thanks to Spielberg and the music of John Williams) and yes, there are too many shots with rays of sunlight just providing an aura for the lead characters, thanks to cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, but this is still an enjoyable family adventure that will take you through a range of emotions before the end credits roll.

The best thing about it is the quality of the cast. As well as those already mentioned (Mullan, Thewlis, Irvine, Hiddleston), viewers gets to see the following actors in a variety of small and large roles: Emily Watson, Niels Arestrup, Benedict Cumberbatch, Geoff Bell, Eddie Marsan, Toby Kebbell and Liam Cunningham. Even the lesser-known (and unknown) cast members do a great job, with Celine Buckens making a good impression as young Emilie, a girl who also makes a connection with the titular horse.

There are one or two moments of darker content in the movie, but they're handled with kid gloves and moved aside in plenty of time for the next uplifting sequence. People will accuse the movie of being far too sugary and heavy-handed for its own good and it is, but it's also just a nice, old-fashioned adventure story with plenty of great moments throughout.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Horse-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B00742SSEW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356070669&sr=8-1