The obvious question you want to know is if The Roses is better or worse than War of the Roses. Well...that really depends on how you feel about watching two people who used to love each other sabotage each other’s lives to get custody of their house. If you were cringing your way through the more than an hour’s worth in War of the Roses and never watched it again, you’ll enjoy The Roses more. If you don’t care about the couple’s relationship and just want to see carnage, you should stop reading now and go watch John Wick. Because The Roses spends maybe ten minutes on the petty vengeance and does so almost apologetically.
Unlike War of the Roses, The Roses is primarily interested in the couple themselves and the evolution of their relationship. Theo Rose (Benedict Cumberbatch) is an architect with strong, sarcastic opinions about other architects’ work. Ivy (Olivia Colman) is a chef with a killer palette and acerbic wit. They have their meet-cute and the film spends some time showing us how much they truly love each other over the next decade. Oh, and they’re British instead of American, which allows both actors to really strut their A+ British stuff.
Living the seemingly idyllic life in America - married with two kids, a house near the coast, and a friend group - Ivy is raising their children and running a low-key crab restaurant while Theo is the breadwinner about to complete his masterpiece (a nautical museum). When a storm upends their lives, roles are reversed. Theo finds himself out of work and raising the kids while Ivy’s restaurant business explodes in popularity and success. Had this film been trying to follow in the 1989 version’s footsteps, the Roses’ relationship would have quickly deteriorated into vitriol and hate...monster trucks and urine.
Instead, it’s a slow burn downhill as the film depicts a much more realistic version of two people falling out of love. Broken promises, missed dates, depression, jealousy, apologies that don’t quite make up for damage caused, fights over little and big things, therapy, and a whale. Ok, maybe the whale isn’t realistic, but...actually, never mind about the whale. It’ll make sense when you see it.
There’s even a last-ditch attempt to save their marriage, this time in the form of Theo designing their dream house. Yeah, the film did decide to keep that aspect of War of the Roses, including the part where they fight over who gets the house in the divorce. But that fighting is just the climax of the film instead of the entire second half. Like I said, the film’s heart isn’t really in this bit of fighting, though it doesn’t shy away from getting creative about it.
I’m glad director Jay Roach and screenwriter Tony McNamara went in that direction. I’m not a fan of watching people behave horribly and spitefully to each other, especially not for extended periods of time. It’s tolerable here because the film earned it, but it’s still really hard to watch. And that’s how I know this was a good film. I wasn’t rooting for either of them to defeat the other because they both were responsible for letting their relationship fall apart. It made me sad to watch them terrorize each other because I know how much they were hurting. And that is definitely not how I felt watching War of the Roses.
While the storytelling was solid and the character development was really good, the performances from Cumberbatch and Colman were fantastic. As much as I enjoy them in any role, the best decision by the filmmakers was to let the two of them go full Union Jack. Not only is the dry wit perfect for the story - and, wow, do they both deliver on that wit, Colman even says at one point that the British are known for repressing their feelings and staying too long in dying relationships. They were so good that I might not have minded a few extra minutes of spite. Especially with their accent.
Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, dollars or pounds.
Posts
