“Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” (2022) is the twenty-eighth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a sequel to “WandaVision” (2021), the first Disney+ Marvel Studios produced television series and a sequel to “Doctor Strange” (2017), which you do not have to see if you have kept up with “Avengers: Infinity War” (2018) and “Avengers: Endgame” (2019). Benedict Cumberbatch has a lock as the titular character tries to save a multidimensional girl, America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez), from someone trying to take her powers.
I had mixed feelings about Sam Raimi directing. As much as well-established directors enjoy complaining about comic book movies, Marvel has taken obscure independent film directors such as Ryan Coogler, Taika Waititi and Destin Daniel Cretton, threw gobs of money at them and raised them to prominence faster than their perfect work was doing prior to that point. Now they are household names. Raimi may not be as big a gun as Martin Scorsese, but he is well-known and has a firm position in movie history with such horror classics as “Drag Me to Hell” (2009) and his Bruce Campbell collaborations, commercial success with the first cinematic franchise adaptation of Spider-Man, which I never could enjoy because of Tobey Maguire, and the criminally underrated independent drama “A Simple Plan” (1998). He was also executive producer for one of my all-time television faves “Xena: Warrior Princess.”
Teaming up Raimi, Cumberbatch and Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff/the Scarlet Witch made “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” exponentially better than “Doctor Strange.” It solved all my issues with the original because Raimi’s visual style is not an imitation or an homage. He brought his visual style, a combination like a haunted house of mirrors fun house with some cartoon goofy elements, to the MCU. This film was gorgeous, and Raimi plunged into his bag of tricks and executed a few new ones—namely a mind rescue that goes wrong. It felt very “Star Wars: Episode VIII-The Last Jedi” (2017). I noticed one reference to Brian DePalma’s “Carrie” (1976). If time was not in such short supply, I would go back to the theaters and rewatch. When it is available to stream, I will definitely rewatch it with subtitles to insure that I understood all the mythology introduced in this story.
The voguing made more sense in a world where the titular character’s first action with the hoi polloi is a memorable grand flourish like a showman magician. There was a more thorough dancer aesthetic to everything that Strange and the Scarlet Witch did, so it seemed less outlandish when they fought. They were not suddenly moving in a distinct way in comparison to their quotidian lives. The best sequence is a musical notes and instruments battle which is its own dance between the actors, editing, special effects and score. Raimi’s camera movement has always been more circular than rigid lines
Some viewers have an issue with how “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” continued Wanda’s story and compared it to how “Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015) let us down with its gendered depiction of Black Widow. I disagree. Michael Waldron, the writer who also wrote “Loki” (2021), credits Olsen with contributing substantially to the story. Interviews dating back to 2015 show Olsen suggesting this storyline. If viewers have an issue with Wanda wanting to be a mother, then the issue is with the writers of “WandaVision.” Why does Wanda decide to create children while in Westview? If she wanted to live a sitcom life, married couples usually have kids. I hate gender norms when they are imposed, not when they are chosen. Wanda embraced and created a world based on them. Also the final scene of the series sets up this movie perfectly.
I consider “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” cannon. I watched the series and the MCU in real time, and Marvel tied the stories and promotions together so MCU can revise history, but not memory. “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” and “Agent Carter” laid the foundation that the Darkhold has on its readers, and anything related to the Dark Dimension is trouble. Critics complain that the Darkhold’s effect is inconsistent because it did not affect Agatha. Um, is not Agatha already evil? Seems like a short walk. I have not seen the “Runaways” yet, and I do not read the comics so I am not suggesting that I am a definitive authority, just my conclusions from absorbing a lot of content since 2008. I loved how the film addressed the hypocrisy of flaws in MCU heroes. Wanda was always judged harshly, but others are praised for behaving just as irresponsibly. This film explored Wanda’s furthest corners and still found a way to make her sympathic with a road to redemption.
If there is an issue with the story, it is that “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” does not explore deeper moral issues like the other films, but I like the priority given to the surface story. A lot happens in the first act, and the movie never slows down. Doctor Strange and Wanda are flawed individuals, but unlike Steve Rogers, have no grand ideals that they want to implement in their work. They are motivated by personal crisis, so this movie does not reflect on broader socioeconomic issues, which is fine. The big lesson of this film is to not be a control freak, i.e. doing bad acts under the veneer of the greater good and allow others to take the lead. There is this neat god complex reference when Strange turns water into wine at a wedding, which was Jesus’ first miracle. I also loved that Wanda busted out some old skills that she has not used since Ultron.
“Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” is being called a horror movie, which is fair because of all the classic Raimi horror elements and violence, but reducing it to horror ignores the sci-fi backdrop of multiverses. “Everything Everywhere All At Once” (2021) is the new gold standard that even this latest entry in MCU cannot live up to. The multiverses in this film felt as if they were catering to kids and was basic, especially considering the creatures that chase America. While I am psyched to see more diversity with this new character, I am less invested in kid protagonists.
The multiverse’s strongest asset was fulfilling viewers’ fantasies of seeing how heroes would fare if they squared off against each other. Visually Raimi’s strongest multiverse was its most desolate, a surreal Dali clashing of nature and manmade objects-a staircase in the fog, which leads to a scene that felt as if Gustave Dore’s engraving of The Empyrean from Dante’s Inferno inspired it. There are lots of cool visual notes such as an ocean in a teacup
“Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” never answers the difference between sorcery and witchcraft. I do not read the comics, and the MCU never explains the distinction. Also I hate when people do dumb things like waste time and wait for the creature chasing them to catch up. Stop looking for it and go! Also why did Strange’s taste in clothing deteriorate in the denouement? I despise when movies act as if these characters live in voids. At the wedding, the bride has zero family who would then recognize Strange and engage him in awkward memories?
MCU has done a great job getting me to like Doctor Strange by connecting him to other established characters. I am looking forward to the next movie, especially since it appears that Strange finally has chemistry with a new character introduced at the eleventh hour.