“The Roses” leaves the “War” part out on purpose.
Part of the glee associated with Danny DeVito’s coal-black “War of the Roses” was watching two beautiful people attack each other with everything in their arsenal.
It wasn’t pretty, but the 1989 film sure was memorable.
The quasi, sort-of remake, “The Roses,” can’t help but wallow in the marital mud. It’s more of an urbane affair, featuring two elite stars who know the deepest cuts come from insults, not flying dishes.
Casting Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch transforms a modest film into a keeper.
Cumberbatch and Colman have a meet cute moment early in the film, the kind that rom-coms invented for our amusement. It’s interspersed with a therapy session that lets us know this marriage eventually goes off the rails.
Still, Theo (Cumberbatch) and Ivy (Colman) have a terrific bond, two beautiful children and wealth that would make a Nora Ephron character blush. When a cartoonish disaster wipes out Theo’s architecture career, Ivy leans into her culinary skills.
Within moments, she’s created a popular seafood restaurant and is eager to expand. Meanwhile, Theo’s career takes a back seat, allowing him to inflict military-like discipline on their children.
It’s a funny running gag, but one that keeps the parenting part at arm’s length.
Soon, Theo begins resenting Ivy’s career and she pines for more quality time with the children. And we all know where this is going …
“The Roses” offers a witty script by Tony McNamara (“Poor Things”) that knows precisely how even stable marriages can go wobbly in short order. Said script has no clue what to do with the obligatory ensemble around our shining stars.
Yes, Andy Samberg and Kate McKinnon are first-class scene stealers, but their characters make no sense from the jump and get more absurd as the film progresses.
It’s like they were deposited here from a wacky Kate Hudson romcom and didn’t pick up the new tone.
McNamara’s script also threads plenty of progressive asides into the mix, tells that reflect the author’s sensibilities more than the main characters. Theo and Ivy are British transplants and may not be as well-versed in stateside wokeism.
The original “Roses” went deliciously over the top, allowing Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas to play against type. Here, the awkward fights feel more relatable, which makes the marriage’s rocky state compelling.
The rest is up to Colman and Cumberbatch. The pair makes every fight matter, from the smallest insults to more direct attack lines. A calamitous dinner scene finds them in full-throated rage, something their American friends find droll and delightful.
That cultural chasm could have elevated “The Roses” in powerful ways. Instead, it’s a cheap way to slip in a few obvious yuks.
Director Jay Roach (“Meet the Parents”) waits until the third act to uncork the nastiest bits. It’s a jarring transformation, one that likely felt necessary given the 1989 original but plays out as not fully formed.
Still, it’s hard to imagine “The Roses” without its sublime leads. Then again, if they had compelling supporting characters to bounce their crumbling marriage off of, the film could have come close to matching the original’s bleak charm.
“The Roses,” like the earlier film, is based on a book by Warren Adler. Both serve as near-perfect examples of movies that should never, ever be consumed on a first date.
HiT or Miss: “The Roses” lacks the gossipy snap of the 1989 film, but its leads dig deep into the heart of marital darkness.