Skip to main content

I don’t know if we should leave, but I would definitely advise skipping the fish course.

The War of the Roses
(1989)

(SPOILERS) Danny DeVito’s ruthless black comedy is an evergreen. Based on Warren Adler’s 1981 novel of the same name – Adler’s Random Hearts was later adapted much less successfully – it finds the director using audience familiarity with Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner and himself to sell a very different prospect to the Indy-riffing Romancing the Stone. The War of the Roses certainly wasn’t guaranteed to become the hit it did, but it’s uncompromising freshness, and its offbeat seasonality (it was released in December in the US, with an accompanying 12 Days of Christmas-riffing trailer), hit a nerve with audiences.

Much of the credit for this is down to DeVito, who favours a heightened, sometimes cartoonish style. You’ll see the use of split diopter here, courtesy of cinematographer Stephen H Burum and a reliance on punchline reaction shots, as well as a comic style that wouldn’t be out of place in a John Hughes movie. Or a Warner Bros cartoon (the scene where, after being delicately injured, Douglas’ Oliver Rose is pushed out of the loft hatch by Turner’s Barbara Rose, is pure slapstick). Even the opening credits shot is a macro one, of the sort then recently seen in Innerspace, as the camera pulls back from DeVito’s handkerchief.

But the movie’s success is also heavily to do with its stars. Trevor Willsmer in The Film Yearbook Volume 9 speculated over how much of the antagonistic energy directed at Oliver by Barbara was genuine on Turner’s part. After all, she just been sued into making The Jewel of the Nile by her co-star, and he was being paid many times her fee for this picture.

If there was any of that in the mix, it nevertheless has to be recognised that Oliver Rose is not the kind of part an egomaniacal star embraces. Indeed, in context, The War of the Roses is merely the most extreme and unstinting of the Douglas brand of flawed males that began with Fatal Attraction and would continue through much of the 90s. Here, though, there’s really very little at all that’s likeable about Oliver, and Douglas gleefully plays up his deficiencies, his blinkeredness and self-centredness. He doesn’t want a divorce, has no capacity to identify with his wife’s position and takes the pettiest approach to every situation when it’s abundantly clear there’s no rescuing their relationship. And yet, he still professes to love her.

In concert, DeVito and Turner make sure Oliver’s irritating qualities – in particular, his assumption that he’s always right, that “phoney laugh” and his sitting at the opposite end of a long dining table smirking and talking to himself as he wolfs down his dinner – are writ large for all to see. He revels in his self-conceived role as breadwinner, mocks Barbara’s desire to start her own business (“You sold liver to our friends?”) and uses the contract he’s promised to read as a fly swat.

DeVito allows the small and not-so-small irritations to fester with enough ghoulish emphasis that, by the time things break – she doesn’t turn up to hospital when it turns out he isn’t dying at all (he has a hiatal hernia, rather than a heart attack) – there’s no room left for rationality and civility. Hence, DeVito’s lawyer Gavin’s framing device of a cautionary tale: that it’s best just to persevere and look on the bright side, because the alternative will be much worse. Oliver’s “Go on then, smash my face in!” gets a literal response he didn’t expect, and from there, it isn’t long until they have divided up the house into zones (“I’ve got more square footage” gloats Oliver to a bewildered Gavin: “This seems rational to both of you?”)

Barbara comes out better in this mess simply because she only stoops to pettiness when Oliver’s already been childish or inconsiderate. Which is most of the time. His volunteering her for an anecdote at a meal with his boss, then telling it for her when she starts rambling, elicits an entirely understandable “Fuck face!” But Barbara is quite capable of living in her own flawed bubble (“I don’t think it’s a good idea to give them sweets like that” warns Oliver; the next time we see their children, they have ballooned).

When escalation reaches a certain point, she drives over his car and ignites the final fatal fight by leading him to believe his pet pooch is in the pâté – “A good dog to the last bite” – after he accidentally ran over her cat. Admittedly, he did earlier ruin an important evening for her potential clients by pissing on the fish. By the time it’s over, they’re both equal and opposites, except that Oliver is more weaselly and comes out worse in any altercation.

The manner in which The War of the Roses was completely ignored by the Academy was noted at the time. Perhaps its sensibility was too brazenly bleak for Oscar to appreciate the quality of writing and performances (and direction); BAFTA did give it a screenplay nod. Thirty-plus years on, the observational humour remains as sharp as ever; it’s a shame DeVito the director didn’t manage to make good on his first two features’ promise. He largely continued with black comedies, but only Matilda met with any kind of comparable success.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .