Die Rosenschlacht

It's a dark comedy about marriage set from 2011 to 2025, briefly in London, England, but mainly in Mendocino, California. Theo Rose (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a frustrated, idealistic architect who wants his designs to reflect their environment. He meets Ivy (Olivia Colman), who dabbles at gourmet cooking and hankers to move to America. They impulsively marry and move to California, where in ten years Theo starts a flourishing career while Ivy raises their twin children, Hattie (Hala Finney/Delaney Quinn) and Roy (Wells Rappaport/Ollie Robinson). We also meet some friends, such as Barry (Andy Samberg) and Amy (Kate McKinnon). As things are going well, Ivy starts a small seafood restaurant with Theo's support.

Suddenly, in 2021, a major disaster turns their lives upside down--Theo loses his position and takes over raising the kids, while Ivy's restaurant suddenly becomes a major success. Their relationship deteriorates amid acerbic dialogue and conflict avoidance, culminating in an explosive climax.

I like both Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman as actors, and believe they deliver excellent performances in "The Roses," as the script features clever, edgy repartee between their characters, and their chemistry is outstanding. However, the secondary characters don't work as well. The Barry and Amy characters are memorable, but most others are not. The Allison Janney character has her best lines in the trailer.

I was a bit undecided about the rating this film deserves. While it has quite a few impressive aspects, it also suffers from a number of flaws and inconsistencies. The film is actually the second adaptation of Warren Adler's novel The War of the Roses. The first one was released in 1989, directed by Danny DeVito, with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in the lead roles. Now we have a new version, directed by Jay Roach, written by Tony McNamara, and starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman.

As always, both Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman deliver undeniably outstanding performances. Watching them is a great pleasure. However, the two simply don't fit the story. You don't really see them as a couple. One reason is that both actors have distinctive acting styles that tend to overshadow their partners rather than harmonize with them. Secondly, they aren't physically compatible either. Cumberbatch looks more attractive here, and although I don't mean to say Colman looks like his older sister, that's sort of how it comes across. If they were playing siblings, it would actually be more convincing.

Cumberbatch's acting is always captivating - it's like the sound of a magnificent violin. But does he always have to play the smart, extraordinary, charismatic upper-class man? Perhaps such roles fit his personality better, but at this point, Cumberbatch should ask himself whether he's just "playing himself." The real power of an actor lies in portraying what he is not. To be honest, it's Colman's performance that saves the film, not Cumberbatch's. Colman is incredibly disciplined and persistent - she crafts every scene with meticulous care.

The other actors in the film are fine, but the roles written for them - or the performances expected from them - are really poor. The two American couples in the story, for example, are totally unconvincing. Their performances are so off-putting that they weaken the film's comedic tone. (Let me repeat: the actors themselves aren't bad - it's the way their roles are positioned that's problematic.)

Yes, the story is about a British couple living in America. But the cultural contrast is so exaggerated that it goes beyond satire - Americans are practically portrayed as idiots. Even though I personally find British culture more appealing than American culture, the Americans don't deserve to be dragged down this much.

Through the children's roles, the film also tries to inject elements of comedy, but honestly, I found all of these attempts very clumsy. Again, it's not the actors' fault - the director simply fails in these parts. The film is supposed to be a dark comedy, but the comedic side is extremely weak. I can count on one hand the moments that actually made me laugh.

Now, about the LGBTQ+ part. The film includes a gay waiter character as a nod to its liberal perspective. However, instead of supporting representation, it ends up reinforcing the cliché that gay men can only exist as "feminine waiters." The actor playing the waiter is quite good, but the role feels like a conspicuous accessory.

Meanwhile, Cumberbatch's character, Theo, is portrayed as an "environmentalist." Another liberal accessory of the film. But strangely enough, this environmentalist drives a BMW 5 - which, as a hybrid, can only go about 30 miles on electric power.

I wish the director had brought a genuinely fresh perspective to Warren Adler's novel and had chosen to make this film a dramedy rather than a dark comedy. Both Cumberbatch and Colman's performances would have fit much better into that tone.

Writing this review actually helped - I finally figured out what rating the film deserves.

Jay Roach's The Roses is a sharp, stylish, and often brutally honest look at the slow-motion implosion of a marriage. On paper, it has all the makings of a wild, darkly funny ride a modern update of The War of the Roses, with a razor-sharp Tony McNamara script and a powerhouse pairing in Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman. And while the film is undeniably entertaining, it's also a bit of a bait and switch that leaves you wishing it had trusted its chaos sooner.

The film charts the rise and implosion of Theo and Ivy Rose, a seemingly flawless couple whose marriage begins to fray as Theo's career skyrockets. What starts as subtle emotional distance soon becomes an emotional minefield, with small resentments snowballing into a quiet war of neglect, envy, and pride. The early sections of the film, watching them fall in love and build their lives together, are tender and grounded, anchored by the nuanced performances of Cumberbatch and Colman.

And here's where my frustration begins, the marketing for The Roses promises a balls-to-the-wall black comedy where a couple goes to war with each other in increasingly absurd ways. The trailer sells carnage, slapstick, and chaos. But in reality, that level of over-the-top madness doesn't hit until the last 20 minutes and by then, we've already seen most of those "wow" moments in the trailer. The slow build works narratively, adding emotional depth, but it also makes the movie feel like two different films competing for your attention, an incisive marital drama for most of its runtime, and a bonkers satire at the very end.

I can't help but feel a little cheated. If you walked into the theater expecting The Roses to be a wall-to-wall dark comedy, you're likely to leave a little underwhelmed. And that's a shame, because beneath the mismarketing is a smart, well-acted, and deeply cynical look at how success, ambition, and love can combust when left unattended.

The Roses is worth watching for Cumberbatch and Colman alone they elevate the material, turning what could have been a hollow satire into something genuinely compelling. But go in with the right expectations: this isn't the chaotic laugh riot the trailer sold you. It's a slow-burn dissection of a marriage in decay, with just a dash of chaos sprinkled on top.

The film struggles with pacing, as its first half feels sluggish and uninspired, offering little to capture attention. The second half fares no better, unfolding like an elongated trailer. Since nearly all the standout moments are already showcased in the trailer, the movie ultimately lacks real impact.

Sad to say, but these 2 Oscar caliber talents do not hold a candle to the chemistry of Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner from the 1989 version This is one of those comedies where a majority of the funniest moments were displayed in the trailers. Even the highly anticipated dinner scene was unremarkable and underwhelming. "The Roses" pales in comparison to the original, but the starring actors provide just enough entertainment value to make viewers feel like they had a good enough time. For those expecting a harsher dark comedy throughout, you will be sorely disappointed.

The main characters are great actors but the have no chemistry between each other, and I don't think the movie was "funny"

While these are two of the most talented and decorated actors in the business, they cannot match the incredible on-screen chemistry of Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner from the original film. Still, their witty English sarcasm and deadpan line delivery provide some much-needed humorous moments.