Una coppia di sposi prova di tutto per convincere l'altro a lasciare la casa in una feroce battaglia di divorzio.Una coppia di sposi prova di tutto per convincere l'altro a lasciare la casa in una feroce battaglia di divorzio.Una coppia di sposi prova di tutto per convincere l'altro a lasciare la casa in una feroce battaglia di divorzio.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Nominato ai 1 BAFTA Award
- 2 vittorie e 9 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
A classic feature of Danny DeVito's (far too few) works as a director is that they are utterly evil. Cruel. Wicked. Merciless to their characters and merciless to the viewer. Although this is often combined with slight exaggeration, it is exactly what I love about them.
After seeing The War of the Roses the second time after having grown a little older, I still feel that particular satisfaction. But this time, there are a few more things I think about, a few more questions I ask myself. For instance: who is the bad guy in the film? Who is `to blame'? And although it's clear that the Roses both have extremely unmoveable and stubborn characters, which partly leads to the catastrophe, I came to the conclusion that Barbara is the driving force of the whole divorce story. She announces her wish to divorce upon grounds that are not quite convincing. Maybe people who do not like Michael Douglas can sympathize with her but her reasons are not fair. She invariably follows her instinct without paying any respect to other people. Kathleen Turner portrays her most believably in this insufferable phase.
Oliver Rose, on the other hand, is one of those people who are proud of doing everything in a perfectly correct manner. He is therefore very sensitive and easily confronted if one doesn't acknowledge his correct behavior. He then becomes completely helpless and unable to react properly. That makes him an ideal `victim' to Barbara's striking egoism.
I'm mentioning this only because it is a new aspect I found during second viewing, and I am sure it was also DeVito's intention to develop characters like this, so for him, the turbulent divorce story is not just a parable on how stupid people are in general. He of course reserved the best role in the film for himself he is the wise man who tells the parable and who emerges victorious in the end.
The War of the Roses with its merciless cruelness remains one of my favourite comedies of all time.
After seeing The War of the Roses the second time after having grown a little older, I still feel that particular satisfaction. But this time, there are a few more things I think about, a few more questions I ask myself. For instance: who is the bad guy in the film? Who is `to blame'? And although it's clear that the Roses both have extremely unmoveable and stubborn characters, which partly leads to the catastrophe, I came to the conclusion that Barbara is the driving force of the whole divorce story. She announces her wish to divorce upon grounds that are not quite convincing. Maybe people who do not like Michael Douglas can sympathize with her but her reasons are not fair. She invariably follows her instinct without paying any respect to other people. Kathleen Turner portrays her most believably in this insufferable phase.
Oliver Rose, on the other hand, is one of those people who are proud of doing everything in a perfectly correct manner. He is therefore very sensitive and easily confronted if one doesn't acknowledge his correct behavior. He then becomes completely helpless and unable to react properly. That makes him an ideal `victim' to Barbara's striking egoism.
I'm mentioning this only because it is a new aspect I found during second viewing, and I am sure it was also DeVito's intention to develop characters like this, so for him, the turbulent divorce story is not just a parable on how stupid people are in general. He of course reserved the best role in the film for himself he is the wise man who tells the parable and who emerges victorious in the end.
The War of the Roses with its merciless cruelness remains one of my favourite comedies of all time.
First off let me say that Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner were the perfect choices for this movie! They both gave electric powerful performances and really proved themselves as fine artists. They have awesome chemistry too, we first saw that in Romancing the Stone, but their chemistry in The War of the Roses is a very different kind of chemistry. Yeah sure in the first 15 minutes it shows them making passionate love and becoming infatuated with one another, then comes the kiddies, but really this film is not at all about love, this is NOT a romance story. No it's a movie about an extremely bitter married couple going through a divorce. Neither of the two are willing to give up the elegant nice house they live in. So thus the war begins. "The gloves are off" as Douglas's character states at one point in the film. The script is very well written, it doesn't waste any time or drag on, it entertains the entire runtime, there was not a single moment. Danny DeVito is a talented actor and director, he proves that in this film. Both his acting and his directing are both great. The events that happen throughout the film are bitter and full of anger, but it's very interesting to watch. It runs deep in character development, a movie like this would have to in order to be successful. The movie is not one to view for a "feel good" mood or for when you want something sweet and romantic. If you're in the mood for a dramedy starring two fine actors that is interesting and well written, then I suggest The War of the Roses. 8/10.
A deliciously black comedy from three superstars at the height of their powers. Michael Douglas may have actually got better as he's got older, but in 1989 he and co-star Kathleen Turner were hot off romancing stones, and they are ideal in this best-ever directorial effort from DeVito.
A very good movie, one that holds up well after repeated viewings. Even if you're familiar with the story, DeVito's methodical and precise direction makes it thoroughly absorbing all over again. This movie has the directorial perfection of a good Alfred Hitchcock thriller, but it's not either a thriller or a comedy; it's a unique mix of elements from several genres, that does contain some laughs and sardonic humor, but also has serious undertones, mostly thanks to Michael Douglas' three-dimensional character and surprisingly sensitive performance. Strongly recommended.
The premise is simple enough: a moderately wealthy couple—whose last name is Rose—decides to get divorced after many years of marriage. But neither of them wants to give up their house, and both remain living in it, getting on each other's nerves as they deliberately and maliciously annoy and attack each other, each in an attempt to get the other to give up and leave.
It's exactly the sort of film I don't normally enjoy, where two equally detestable parties go back and forth trying to one up each other with ridiculous shenanigans that are rarely funny and never make up for the ninety minutes of wasted time. It reminds me of dumb comedy films like Duplex—which pits neighbor against neighbor—and Are We There Yet?, in which Ice Cube goes up against his new girlfriend's mischievous kids. These sorts of films aren't typically my cup of tea, but it wasn't my turn to pick the movie, so I just sat back and watched.
And then a funny thing occurred. Almost immediately, I got drawn into the story. That wasn't supposed to happen, but it did, and I was pleasantly surprised. I normally don't even care for Danny DeVito as a director, probably due to the fact that he made the awful Duplex, which I mentioned earlier. I mean, I did enjoy Matilda, but that was a family movie that I watched as a kid. War of the Roses was something else entirely, and despite my efforts, I couldn't help but enjoying it.
It tells the story in a different way than others of its kind. Things unfold naturally and totally believably. Sure, some of the stunts that the characters pull reach the same levels of ridiculousness as in those other films that I didn't like, but here we get the impression that it's done for the sake of the story, rather than for just another cheap laugh. Instead of yawning, I was wide sitting wide-eyed on the edge of my seat. It's not just funny; it's also very real and poignant, especially considering the fact that most of us know someone who's had a really tough divorce and it's easy to see how things could go just as bad as they do in War of the Roses.
And, unlike most of these kinds of movies and apart from my expectations, we actually end up caring about the characters, despite their overabundance of flaws. They're both selfish idiots, which makes the story so much better, but they're still believable and very well acted. From moment to moment we find ourselves siding with each one. Neither of them could be called true protagonists, as they constantly antagonize each other, but there's a balance of both deserved animosity and loathsomeness between them that is very well done. They got good actors to play these roles, and they play them so well that we almost don't notice that it could have been much worse in the hands of anyone else.
The whole story is told by Danny DeVito, who plays a divorce attorney who is telling it as a warning to a prospective client who never says a word during the entire film. And the ending is great. I won't spoil it, but trust me, it's a good one. This definitely isn't the best film I've seen, but it's certainly the best of its kind, and makes me reconsider my attitude toward this type of film. I just thought the whole idea was bad, but it turns out that it's often just done very poorly.
It's exactly the sort of film I don't normally enjoy, where two equally detestable parties go back and forth trying to one up each other with ridiculous shenanigans that are rarely funny and never make up for the ninety minutes of wasted time. It reminds me of dumb comedy films like Duplex—which pits neighbor against neighbor—and Are We There Yet?, in which Ice Cube goes up against his new girlfriend's mischievous kids. These sorts of films aren't typically my cup of tea, but it wasn't my turn to pick the movie, so I just sat back and watched.
And then a funny thing occurred. Almost immediately, I got drawn into the story. That wasn't supposed to happen, but it did, and I was pleasantly surprised. I normally don't even care for Danny DeVito as a director, probably due to the fact that he made the awful Duplex, which I mentioned earlier. I mean, I did enjoy Matilda, but that was a family movie that I watched as a kid. War of the Roses was something else entirely, and despite my efforts, I couldn't help but enjoying it.
It tells the story in a different way than others of its kind. Things unfold naturally and totally believably. Sure, some of the stunts that the characters pull reach the same levels of ridiculousness as in those other films that I didn't like, but here we get the impression that it's done for the sake of the story, rather than for just another cheap laugh. Instead of yawning, I was wide sitting wide-eyed on the edge of my seat. It's not just funny; it's also very real and poignant, especially considering the fact that most of us know someone who's had a really tough divorce and it's easy to see how things could go just as bad as they do in War of the Roses.
And, unlike most of these kinds of movies and apart from my expectations, we actually end up caring about the characters, despite their overabundance of flaws. They're both selfish idiots, which makes the story so much better, but they're still believable and very well acted. From moment to moment we find ourselves siding with each one. Neither of them could be called true protagonists, as they constantly antagonize each other, but there's a balance of both deserved animosity and loathsomeness between them that is very well done. They got good actors to play these roles, and they play them so well that we almost don't notice that it could have been much worse in the hands of anyone else.
The whole story is told by Danny DeVito, who plays a divorce attorney who is telling it as a warning to a prospective client who never says a word during the entire film. And the ending is great. I won't spoil it, but trust me, it's a good one. This definitely isn't the best film I've seen, but it's certainly the best of its kind, and makes me reconsider my attitude toward this type of film. I just thought the whole idea was bad, but it turns out that it's often just done very poorly.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizWhile shooting the scene where Michael Douglas (Oliver Rose) and Kathleen Turner (Barbara Rose) are sitting in the chandelier, director Danny DeVito pretended to break for lunch while the two actors were 30 feet above ground.
- BlooperIn the final scene in the chandelier, Barbara goes from being barefoot, to shod, back to barefoot again.
- Citazioni
Oliver Rose: I think you owe me a solid reason. I worked my ass off for you and the kids to have a nice life and you owe me a reason that makes sense. I want to hear it.
Barbara Rose: Because. When I watch you eat. When I see you asleep. When I look at you lately, I just want to smash your face in.
- Curiosità sui creditiThe fanfare in the 20th Century Fox logo at the beginning of the movie segues into the opening theme of the movie.
- Colonne sonoreOnly You (And You Alone)
Written by Buck Ram and Buck Ram (as Ande Rand)
Performed by The Platters
Courtesy of PolyGram Special Projects a division of
PolyGram Records, Inc.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- La guerra de los Roses
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 26.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 86.888.546 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 9.488.794 USD
- 10 dic 1989
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 160.188.546 USD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti