Danny DeVito's "The War of the Roses" dark comedy was one of my favorites when I was a kid. I didn't really understand the dynamics of the doomed relationship between the feuding couple in the film, but I loved watching Kathleeen Turner and Michael Douglas's performances. I was a little wary when I heard that there was a remake in the works, but the right people seemed to be involved in "The Roses" - director Jay Roach, screenwriter Tony McNamara, who worked on "The Great" and "The Favourite," and stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman as Theo and Ivy Rose.
"The Roses" is not what I expected. It is very different from the 1989 "War of the Roses" and is definitely not the broad comedy that the trailers have made it out to be. I know both of the film versions are based on a novel that I haven't read, and I wouldn't be surprised if "The Roses" hews much closer to it than the first adaptation. Where "The War of the Roses" focused on the end of the Roses' marriage, "The Roses" spends much more time documenting the whole relationship. And the relationship starts out very supportive, loving, and healthy, which makes its eventual downward spiral rather sad and unfortunate. However, this means that the emotional stakes are definitely better laid out, and it's easier to feel sympathetic towards both parties when the hostilities finally commence.
Theo is an architect and Ivy is a chef. They're Brits who meet in London but move to the San Francisco area to seek their fortunes. They have two children, Hattie (Delaney Quinn and Hala Finley) and Roy (Ollie Robinson and Wells Rappaport), and a circle of friends including lawyer Barry (Andy Samberg), his wife Amy (Kate McKinnon), rival architect Rory (Jamie Demetriou), and his wife Sally (Zoe Chao). Everything is going fine for the first decade of the marriage, with Theo working and Ivy as the stay at home parent, until circumstances change unexpectedly, forcing their roles to switch. We watch them adjust to the new status quo fairly well, but resentments start to build. And they just keep getting worse and worse over time, until things fall apart spectacularly.
So, I was invested enough in the relationship by the end of the film that I was rooting for Ivy and Theo to stay together, as opposed to the couples in most of the similar movies I've seen, like the '89 "War of the Roses" and "Marriage Story," where I was rooting for the breakup. McNamara has added some interesting nuances, such as swapping the traditional gender roles and making parenting styles a bigger point of contention. Colman and Cumberbatch don't engage in the same kind of grandiose scenery chewing as Turner and Douglas, but I like them together onscreen, and I bought them as a couple. Their comedic sensibilities are strong enough that the shift to more physical farce in the last act mostly worked, but not without a lot of bumps and setbacks along the way.
Jay Roach is better known for straight comedies, and it's curious that the comedy is probably the least effective part of this movie. I love Kate McKinnon, but she sticks out like a sore thumb here. Sandberg gets by, mostly by playing it straight. I think part of the issue might be that the British leads are so much drier than the usual comics that Roach has worked with, and it's tough at times for the audience to know when they should be laughing. Some of the tonal shifts are rough, and it's not until very, very late in the movie that it feels like we're finally watching a comedy. I ended up enjoying "The Roses" more for the poignant drama than the laughs, and I expect that anyone looking for more humor will have their patience tested by the first two thirds of the film.
But all that said, I like "The Roses." I like its ambition and its willingness to get uncomfortably blunt about the difficulties of marriage. I like the pains that were taken to update the material, and the character work that keeps Theo and Ivy from coming across like caricatures when they start behaving badly. I'm sure you could have made a much simpler, sillier film just covering the divorce portions of "The Roses." It certainly would have been cheaper. However, it wouldn't have been as interesting or as memorable.
---