Director: Jay Roach
Writer: Tony McNamara, based on the book by Warren Adler
Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Olivia Colman, Kate McKinnon, Andy Samberg, Ncuti Gatwa, Sunita Mani, Delaney Quinn, Hala Finley, Ollie Robinson, Wells Rappaport, Allison Janney, Zoë Chao, Jamie Demetriou

Love is a fickle thing, ain’t it? The young and inexperienced go into it believing it’s the most important thing, and the older and wiser will tell you it takes a hell of a lot more to keep a relationship going. Either way, arguments and fights will often take place. Sometimes we say how much we want to kill one another. Not seriously, though… but what if it did become that serious? In 1981 Warren Adler’s original novel The War of the Roses was published, then in 1989 we got a terrifically funny yet depressingly sad film adaptation starring Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas. Now, we have Brits Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman stepping into similar shoes. Is this version just as successful in its tragi-comedy, or do the themes and story avoid each other entirely?

Unhappy with their jobs in England, Theo (Cumberbatch) and Ivy (Colman) Rose head to America in search of success and happiness and to raise their children. They each have fairly traditional roles in their marriage: Ivy indulges in cooking at home and tends to the children while Theo, an architect, works on his magnum opus. It’s not long before the roles are reversed and Theo becomes a househusband while Ivy opens a restaurant three days a week that soon becomes very successful, resulting in her working more. While they both do their utmost to remember why they fell in love in the first place, resentment starts to build until love turns to war.

Much like the book, the 1989 film is fairly fun, but though much of the antics between Jonathan and Barbara (Theo and Ivy’s names in the book and original film) are mad and hilarious, there’s a real sadness to it, knowing how a relationship can break down so irrevocably and with such hate. Now, take that kind of thematic storyline and throw in two emotionally repressed Brits and you’ve really got a mess, and a frustrating one at that. Where the Americans are good at laying their cards on the table and wearing their hearts on the sleeves, us Brits are a more stoic and less accessible bunch (something newer generations are trying to work past, I promise). We are however much less dramatic than our American cousins, therefore throughout this adaptation one can’t help but feel that if Theo and Ivy had taken a leaf out of the books of their American friends they could have worked through their troubles using their words and then moved past enemy territory and into a time of peace – they do attempt therapy but fail to take it seriously, because again Brits struggle to take emotions seriously. Alas, we wouldn’t have a film if it followed through with logic, and so we are instead given something that still has a lot of great humour to it (especially the British sarcasm), but loses some things that the 1989 film had, which were a more likeable and believable lead couple that certainly detested each other (mostly) by the end rather than grasping on to a lingering love that no longer made sense, as well as better pacing as the relationship descended into anarchy.

What is interesting is the choice in occupations for both Theo and Ivy, which differ from previous versions. Theo is an architect (Jonathan is a lawyer) and Ivy is a chef (Barbara is too of sorts but she dabbles in catering and hosting rather than restaurants). The designs created for Theo’s buildings provide a commentary on both his state of mind and the state of his relationship with Ivy, and Ivy’s food designs move from representing her husband and family to representing her, showing a shift in her priorities and growing self-absorption. It was also an interesting choice to displace two Brits to the US. It certainly creates a new kind of dynamic due to the differences in cultures and personalities, as previously mentioned, and it does allow both Cumberbatch and Colman to play their characters more authentically.

While Cumberbatch isn’t a stranger to comedy, Colman’s body of work boasts more comedic outings, and in contrast Cumberbatch often veers more towards drama and Colman less so. The Roses allows them both to balance drama and comedy and they both succeed at keeping that balance. Though their comedic chemistry is strong and the back-and-forth they often have is smooth, the romantic chemistry isn’t quite there, making Theo and Ivy’s union come across less as lovers and more as siblings at times. Andy Samberg and Kate McKinnon essentially play the same characters they always play, with McKinnon being particularly grating and unfunny, but Allison Janney’s brief appearance breathes some temporary life into the American side of the comedy. Ncuti Gatwa and Sunita Mani are your typical ‘friends’ of one of the leads, there just to bolster Ivy’s life away from Theo, and Hala Finley and Wells Rappaport offer some relief as the open-minded teen children of Theo and Ivy, who want their parents to split perhaps more than Theo and Ivy do.

While The Roses has some interesting choices that divert from the source material and some great humour and good performances from the leads, it doesn’t hit the highs as the Turner and Douglas film, nor does it pace itself as well as that film did. It takes a slightly more realistic route which then doesn’t really match the insanity of the final act. Cumberbatch and Colman are terrific to watch, even if their believability as a couple wasn’t quite there, and it is clear to see they had tremendous fun making this film. It’s entertaining and still retains the sad reality that the story represents, so if you’re in a relationship, perhaps consider it a lesson in what not to do if you want longevity.