The Roses (2025)

Director: Jay Roach

Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Olivia Colman, Andy Samberg, Allison Janney

Have I Seen it Before: You go into this feeling like you probably have, as long as you’ve seen War of the Roses (1989)…

Did I Like It: But that’s not quite right. It’s a precarious position to criticize a film by comparing it to another film, but it’s hard not to touch on that here. The heart of DeVito’s film is pitch black, with the doomed lovers committed to hating one another straight through to their final breaths. This is a broad Hollywood comedy, coming from one of the chief purveyors of broad, Hollywood comedies. Cumberbatch and Colman are sufficiently biting at their height, but the ending—even in its bleakness—is entirely too soft. The original works so well because Douglas and Turner seem to hate each other, even when they’re in love, whereas Cumberbatch and Coleman seem to love each other, even when they’re trying to kill one another. There should be no happy ending in the tale of the Roses, merely a sense that we can try to be a bit happier in their stead.

The films problems don’t end there, either. I laugh occasionally, but the cast is so stacked I’m left wanting more from the supporting characters. Ncuti Gatwa’s all-too-brief tenure as the Doctor let us all know he has the charisma that he should be leading his own movies, not playing the fifth Ken. Andy Samberg and Kate McKinnon play Andy Samberg and Kate McKinnon, earning their paychecks. The real missed opportunity here is Allison Janney. One would think that getting featured on the poster and generally being a national treasure would warrant more than a single scene which taxes none of the comedic minds at work here. This movie sold me the idea that she would be playing the Danny DeVito role. It was far less than that, and that’s a real shame.

A good adaptation makes one want to seek out the source material. Why does a lackluster remake also make one want to do the same thing?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

Director: Sam Raimi

Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, Rachel McAdams, Xochitl Gomez

Have I Seen it Before: Feels almost normal to be catching a film on opening weekend.

Did I Like It: The first Doctor Strange (2016) had enough, er, strangeness going for it that it elevated a character for which I had absolutely no feeling previously and made him one of my favorite Marvel characters (I’m still marching my way through the Masterworks volumes). When the title for this, his second solo-film* was announced, I thought it just might be one of the wildest titles ever dreamt up by anyone. When the imminently competent Scott Derrickson stepped aside from directing duties on the sequel, owing to the ubiquitous destructor that is “creative differences**”, only to be replaced by Sam Raimi, it seemed like this one was well on its way to being one of the all time greats in all the MCU.

And… it’s fine. It is (in frustrating fits and starts) more interested in table setting than being as weird as it could be. We get how the X-Men and the Fantastic Four might join the MCU after Disney’s acquisition of 20th Century Fox, but that act isn’t really committed to. It’s not like we’re getting a post-credits scene of Avengers Tower being converted into the Baxter Building. As far as table-setting films in the MCU go, it probably fairs better than Iron Man 2 (2010) or Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), but the film is doomed to be less than the sum of its parts.

It rises above those other films, likely due to Raimi’s sure hand and singular style. There’s a reasonable argument to be made that this can probably double as the least satisfying Evil Dead film as well, so even Raimi isn’t really showing up to play, although I don’t get the feeling throughout that the man really wanted to get fired. I’m looking in your direction, Spider-Man 3 (2007).

*Has there been a character who has guest-starred in more Marvel movies? To my memory, I can’t come up with one.

** How many “could have beens” are there in the MCU? I’d attempt to list them, but after dwelling on just how great Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man (2015) might have been, I’d probably just get depressed and stop right there.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Benedict Cumberbatch

Have I Seen it Before: …yes? This is an ongoing debate in my house. We definitely remember going to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in the theater, but I couldn’t honestly say whether my wife and I have ever seen this one.

Did I Like It: Which should tell you something.

Second movies are tricky, especially where the trilogy has any degree of planning. Star Wars - Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) can stand on its own for the most part, but as the years go by, I’m extremely convinced Lucas had no plan as he proceeded, especially for the original trilogy. I might like Back to the Future - Part II (1989) just fine, but plenty of people view it as only part of a movie, and that’s a reasonable criticism to levy.

But when the middle part of the film is only supposed to comprise the middle portion of an entire novel? How can such a film not feel almost entirely of a second act, with the proceedings being nothing more than a cavalcade of incident rushing forth in anticipation of a catharsis that—at least theatrically—wouldn’t come for another year?

For a true analysis of how Jackson attempts to accomplish that, you might just have to wait for my review of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014). There’s some fast dealing here. Fan service pads out the runtime*, forcing Legolas (Orlando Bloom, looking ten years older, despite being sixty years younger, but don’t tell anyone) into a story he didn’t exist in before. We are stuck with a cliffhanger for cliffhangers sake, made all the more strange by…

No. You know what? You will have to wait for my review of The Battle of the Five Armies. How does it feel, Peter Jackson? How does it feel?

*Jackson actually exhibits some restraint with the runtime in this series, as each film clocks in at under three hours, but what happened, man? The Frighteners (1996) was under 2 hours. You have the ability to do this!

Doctor Strange (2016)

Director: Scott Derrickson

Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch*, Chiwetel Ejiofor**, Rachel McAdams, Mads Mikkelsen

Have I Seen it Before: Yes, but oddly enough I did not make it in the first weeks of its theatrical release. Between this and Ant-Man (2015), I’m not entirely sure why I wasn’t in much of a hurry on some of these latter phase 2/early phase 3 MCU movies.

Did I Like It: Yes, but I wonder if the movie is holding back.

I suppose I have something of a conception of why this film didn’t initially rise to the top of my agenda, and that’s because I had next to no knowledge of the character up until the MCU tried to bring it into the mainstream***.

And from what I’ve seen of the movie, it is that jamming into the mainstream that weakens the whole endeavor. People love Strange because his exploits are like an acid trip in 64 colors. Here, the film is loopy at times, but not “last ten minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), and more just loopy enough to make sure the film can have a strong opening weekend. Amid the cascading dimensions, there’s an unrequited love story and a pretty basic superhero origin tale at the core. It’s fine, but it’s not terribly revelatory.

So the movie succeeds, as it’s objectively an enjoyable time spent at the movies, and doubly succeeds because it makes me want to steep myself in the greater mythology of the Sorcerer Supreme. I want to be a fan of Strange, I just wish Marvel hadn’t held back.

And maybe they won’t from here on in. 

*Joking about his name has become pretty passé by the time I write this, but I’m as certain as I can be without actually checking the footage that his one of the alternate names for Gerry Dorsey, and I’m reasonably sure that we hadn’t heard of the actor before that time. What is he hiding?

**Why my spellcheck was bent out of shape about “Chiwetel” and not “Ejiofor” is beyond me. Why it’s only bent out of shape the second time I typed the last name, I’ll never know.

***Which would be a big part of the reason that the casting of Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One. It is whitewashing, sure, and that’s not great, but it also frees a character from the constrains of gender, which is better than not good. Interesting at least that the film could both fail and succeed to embrace diversity. And it certainly isn’t the most whitewashed film to star Cumberbatch.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Director: J.J. Abrams

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Bruce Greenwood, and that great latin lover, Benedict Cumberbatch.

Have I Seen it Before: Since 1994, it is reasonable to assume that I’ve been there for every Star Trek film on opening weekend.

Did I Like It: Folks, I really want to enjoy every Star Trek film. I want to. And yet…

It’s difficult to try and criticize this film without taking a deep dive into my long-standing Trek fandom…

So here I go criticizing from that perspective:

The opening scene is such a complete and total violation of the Prime Directive in every way, shape and form. How Kirk (Pine) is not arrested and sent to a prison colony for life twenty minutes into this movie is beyond me.

They keep referring to the transwarp beaming equation that Scotty (Simon Pegg) “developed” in the original film. That was supposed to allow people to beam onto a ship traveling away from you at warp speed. It has nothing to do with beaming people to a planet in a completely different sector of space many light years away. Also, not for nothing, the effective development of that technology negates the need for starships at all, and pretty much nullifies the entire concept of Star Trek. Not great, all things considered.

The fact that Leonard Nimoy, in his final performance as Spock Prime, doesn’t argue with McCoy (Karl Urban) is a missed opportunity that will never present itself again.

Maybe one can try to make an argument that the film has a certain energy that someone who isn’t steeped in the lore of this franchise might find entertaining, but in my best attempt to try and see this film from that perspective, I just can’t make it happen. This movie has been unleashed on the public for nearly six years. Can anyone explain to me what it is actually about, beyond a tame studio-watered down semi-parable for the post 9/11 world? 

Even the stakes are much lower here. In Star Trek (2009), Nero threatens the entirety of planet Earth, after proving that he is a real threat by destroying the planet Vulcan. Here, Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) has a plan. I’m still not entirely sure what it is, but at the end of it, a large ship crashes into San Francisco. 

Let’s talk about Khan, and for that matter, Khan, while we’re at it. The casting of the whitest man in all of time and space to succeed a decidedly non-white hispanic actor playing a man of Indian decent is a little… Well, it’s certainly something. The error is retconned by a four-part comic series published after the movie was released, but it doesn’t bode well for the film itself if you have to have the ancillary material to make heads or tails out of it. Also, the reversal of roles merely for a rehash of the far, far superior Wrath of Khan (1982) is lame in extreme.

Also, his blood wasn’t some sort of fountain of youth. Just saying.

It’s flimsy, and cheap in its writing, and that’s pretty impressive when you could say that about a lot of the big budget action far hoisted upon us. I cannot help but think that Abrams was eyeing adventures in another galaxy, far, far away and didn’t have his eyes on the prize here, and it became clear that his various lieutenants don’t have his same skill.

For some reason I want to rate this film higher than the generally accepted worst films in the franchise (either Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) or Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), depending on your particular taste), but on this particular viewing I don’t think I can go light on it. This may be the worst Trek film…

Or it’s as bad as Nemesis, not worse. I think I’ll go with that much. Worse than Nemesis feels like a stretch.