Multiverse of Bruh-ness

There’s no way of sugar coating this: let’s discuss Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. There’ll be spoilers.

I enjoyed the movie. Is it amazing? No, it suffers from writing and pacing issues. But I don’t consider it the garbage fire that its detractors have posited. It’s a memorable, low/middle-tier MCU entry.

There. Was that really so hard?

I’ve been hearing lots of obnoxious claims from both sides, but mostly from film nerds defending the movie because “it actually has interesting direction”. Yeah, what does that mean? I’m tempted to pull a Carla from In the Heights, but claiming that a movie’s good because “it has interesting direction” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Battlefield Earth has interesting direction, but is it a good movie? Batman & Robin has interesting direction, but is it a good movie? The Matrix Revolutions has interesting direction, but is it a-actually, some would argue that it’s underrated…

Anyway, claiming that “interesting direction” elevates a movie’s quality is misleading. Especially since it’s not true. Writing and characterization are more important, and The MCU generally does both well. Their level of consistency varies, but they know how to make their movies compelling. “Interesting direction” be damned!

Does this mean that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness doesn’t have “interesting direction”? Not at all! I loved when Baron Mordo explained night-walking, as it cross-cut with close-ups of Wanda doing that. I also thought the Doctor Strange on Doctor Strange fight with music notes was fun, as you wouldn’t normally see that in The MCU. And while the gore could’ve been toned down, I liked how the movie portrayed Wanda as a demon straight out of a horror movie. I’m not kidding, she made me uncomfortable a few times.

But all of these on their own don’t save a movie. A movie’s more than the sum of its parts, even when they’re fun and memorable. If Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness wants to be taken seriously, then it needs good writing and a through-line that strings its memorable moments together. I think that’s being missed here.

On the flip-side, venturing into a newfound territory isn’t something to shun or fear. While the writing needed another pass or two, bringing in Sam Raimi to direct was a smart choice. He loves comic books, and he already name-dropped Doctor Strange in Spider-Man 2. Having him direct a Doctor Strange movie is coming full circle. And I appreciate that.

Besides, Raimi’s a talented director! It’s easy to whine about the cheesiness of his Spider-Man films, but he did the character justice. Most superhero films in the early-2000’s were garbage, Marvel included. The few exceptions, like Bryan Singer’s take on X-Men, were overly-serious and ashamed of their comic book origins. But here was Raimi and his Spider-Man trilogy, which embraced Spider-Man’s roots while simultaneously telling good stories. There’s a reason why no Spider-Man film would recapture his touch for more than a decade after he left.

So yes, Sam Raimi was perfect Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Could the movie have been better? Maybe. But it wasn’t half-bad. And I’d love to see him tackle the character again in a sequel that fully embraces his talents. We owe him that much.

That said, it doesn’t mean that other MCU films haven’t done their characters better justice. Even this movie’s prequel, which wasn’t “as interesting” visually, did a better job with Doctor Strange 6 years earlier. It also had that Dormammu scene that, for the love of me, remains the funniest and most-creative climax of any MCU venture. Not every MCU movie will have the visual flair of this one, but that’s fine. They don’t all need it.

Interestingly enough, I wish people understood that about the Martin Scorsese situation. For one, being a visionary director doesn’t make you an expert on everything in the industry, and people need to recognize that. And two, I don’t agree that MCU films “aren’t cinema”. The whole purpose of art is to elicit a response, and MCU films have done that on a large scale. If using a snippet of one of WandaVision’s jingles can get audience members to clap, then isn’t that eliciting a response? Doesn’t that make The MCU cinema?

I’m annoyed because people love putting up fences around art. Yet if PragerU’s video has proven anything, it’s that that’s actually really toxic. Since no one wants to parrot a PragerU talking point, even if unintentionally, we really should build bridges instead of gate-keep. It’s hard, and it requires suppressing your ego, but it’s necessary. I’d say the same of people who only watch nerdy films.

Finally, I don’t like this notion that liking MCU films “is lame”. I also don’t like using other films as “better” alternatives. I’ve seen many of these “better” films, and many of them didn’t impress me. In particular, Birdman, that anti-superhero drama that won Best Picture at The Oscars, felt like a pretentious, nostalgic circle-jerk for an actor who joined The MCU a few years later. I know it’s not Michael Keaton’s fault, but it still reeked of self-righteous hypocrisy. Being “better” doesn’t mean I have to like you more…

I know I’m coming off as whiny, but my point stands. Like I said, I enjoyed Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness! I enjoyed it immensely! And I appreciate The MCU’s attempts at shaking itself up to keep from getting stale, even if it doesn’t always work. This is an example of that, and it’s unfortunate that we can’t be happy. Because, honestly, why can’t we be happy?