The Roses

He meets she. They fall in love immediately and have sex in the cold store.  Ten years on they are over the pond in California, he is hugely successful, she's bringing up the kids.  A thing happens, roles are reversed, resentment builds, marriage steadily disintegrates.

A simple enough premise.  And a thin plot that can be taken in a number of different directions, depending on how the writer and director see it, depending on the casting and acting.  I've seen some very negative reviews of this film, and that seems to come down to expectations, and sometimes ciritcising something for what it's not, rather than what it actually tries to be.  Based on a novel by Warren Adler, The War of the Roses was a hit film version in 1989.  It was a black comedy, bitter and biting in it's treatment of the fight between the couple.  And if that's what you were expecting this time around then I can understand the disappointment.

But I came to this with no knowledge of the novel or first film version,  I came from seeing a trailer that made it look a lot of fun, and the reputations of the two leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman.  I cam seeing something much lighter and funnier than those other critics came to see.  And I got what I hoped for.

There's not much in the way of drama here. although it has it's moments.  There are no real life lessons to be learned, other than maybe being thankful that you and your partner are relative 'failures' in the rat race side of life.  There are, however, a lot of laughs, a lot of great scenes, a lot of brilliant smaller parts (allison Janney's shark of a divorce lawyer ebing patiruclarly fun).  This is light entertainment, but with great acting and a sharp and witty script.  I loved it.

The Life of Chuck

Based on a Stephen King story (so you know there'll be something creepy...), this is a story told in three parts, in reverse chronology.  

Part one sees society falling apart due to a (largely unexplained) apocalypse.  As the lights go out all that remains is an enigmatic viral marketing campaign thanking Chuck Krantz for 39 wonderful years.

In part two, set a few months earlier, we get to meet Chuck, a boring accountant who suddenly launches into a street dance inspired by a busker, and hints at the disappointments of his past.

The meat of the tale, such as there is, lies in the final, and longest, segment, when we see Chuck's childhood.  Brought up by his grandparents, given a love of dance, he is surely going to be a star...

In the end there's a message.  Or you can take one if you choose to.  Individuals are special and should feel so.  Something like that.  Carpe Diem.  Something like that. It's not really clear.  This confusion, a heavy handed narration, and overuse of coincidence to link the 3 segments, leave an unstaisfactory feeling.

Which is a shame, as there are some great individual performances, notably Chiwetel Ejiofor in part 1, as the man confused by rapidly unfolding events, a man we can all identify with.  And there are some very entertaining scenes, like the adult Chuck (Tom Hiddleston) dancing to a street drummer.  But the whole is so much less htan the parts.