The Roses review: A fun but frustratingly toothless ride

In essence, the issue with “The Roses” is that the characters are overly likable in their day-to-day lives, which makes it challenging for audiences to believe they could inhabit a realm filled with resentment, accusations, and cruelty.

In a different phrasing, both Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch have acted in roles that required them to portray unappealing characters on their resumes. However, director Jay Roach has chosen to present the story as if it’s starting anew with characters who are likable and intelligent, mirroring the stars’ charismatic personas often displayed during talk shows and award ceremonies.

It seems the purpose might be to make the audience feel more impact when the loving couple eventually betray each other, but the intensity gets toned down due to the use of mild comedy and an excessive number of humorous quips.

Theo and Ivy Rose are prosperous British expats, with Theo being an acclaimed architect recognized worldwide, and Ivy possessing exceptional culinary skills and a flair for creativity. Yet, when an unexpected storm devastates one of Theo’s buildings, damaging his reputation, Ivy takes on the role of the primary income earner.

This switch requires them to adapt their parental responsibilities differently, but disagreements about child-rearing are minor compared to conflicts ignited by power struggles, pursuit of fame, accumulation of wealth, or personal egos.

In simpler terms, when both parties agree to separate, the question of who gets what becomes crucial during the divorce proceedings, focusing mainly on a high-end California coastal home that Theo constructed but Ivy financed.

In this situation, the parties involved have taken their stands, and what follows is a playful yet somewhat humorous exchange, characterized by retaliatory actions such as:

1. A spouse being confined to a room while a grindcore band, Napalm Death, plays loudly from the house’s built-in sound system.
2. The burning of costly imported moss. (Yes, you read that correctly, moss.)
3. The demolition of a former television personality’s antique stove.

This escalating series of actions reflects a tense and amusing back-and-forth between the parties.

While this remake is enjoyable, it’s worth noting that it doesn’t quite capture the intensity present in Warren Adler’s original novel, “The War of the Roses,” as portrayed by Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in the 1989 film adaptation. In that version, their characters were notably vicious towards each other.

As a film enthusiast, I find myself drawn to a duo who are portrayed as perfect individuals from the get-go but somehow fail to escape their squeaky clean image. At certain moments, Olivia Colman’s posh, melodious accent verges on an exaggeration that feels like she’s been binge-watching Joyce Grenfell skits.

Tony McNamara’s script appears to be perfectly suited for its British actors, brimming with Wildean wit that frequently gives off an air of traditional play performances in drawing rooms, primarily intended as comedic material for supporting stars Andy Samberg and Kate McKinnon to enjoy the humor derived from British mannerisms and foreign quirks.

As their dearest friends of the Roses, they’re likely included in the storyline to portray an alternative form of troubled matrimony that somehow manages to endure – McKinnon delivers convincingly, given the limited material available for her character.

Simultaneously, Allison Janney adds a comical sophistication to her role as Ivy’s lawyer, portraying a character with a relentlessly tough demeanor – a side of Colman’s character we don’t get to see exhibited convincingly.

Despite the impressive lineup with notable stars appearing further down in the credits, “The Roses” primarily revolves around two characters, embodying the concept of seemingly good individuals being compelled to perform underhanded tactics and villainous acts.

All individuals, notably Colman and Cumberbatch, seem to be enjoying themselves immensely as they satirically portray situations that are usually distressing in reality; laughter prevailing over genuine cruelty.

This movie isn’t terrible at all, but it fails to deliver the impact it could have, often lacking the bite it should have had; it falls short of being truly dark and humorous.