"Roses", new comedy from director "Meet Parents" and "Austin Powers" Jayei Roachis a little contradiction. On one side, it's technically Review Warren Adler's novel in 1981 "War of Roses", but I suspect that most people who know they are based on something will refer to how the remake of Danny Devito's film adaptation in 1989 on that novel. Renaming existing intellectual property is a definitive strategy of contemporary Hollywood, and with recognizable Starswells such as Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Coleman in the lead roles and the script of "the poor" and "favorite" screenwriter Tony McNamara. On the other hand, it is also an adult divorce film, and any studio film is waving that demographic - especially comedy, and especially the one who does not codes its audience - unfortunately, is a rare thing in 2025, so part of me is Surprised this is done on this scale, as a theater edition.

/Movie caught with Roach and McNamara before the release of the film (you will be able to hear the full interview for the episode on September 3 Our /movie weekly podcast), and the director explained what he thought he had separated his film from his predecessor, citing several classic films that felt like the progenitors of this in the process:

"You hope (the two leading characters) to come back together (in this version). It's almost like thinking it could be a comedy for marriage, and some of Tony's dialogue is such a fast -paced Bantric that such films as" Philadelphia Story "or" Adam Rib "(had). But you also go for something that is dramatic like "Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?" Or something. And, I think that kind of uncertainty is what distinguished it from the original. "

Roach is right; I was rooted for Theo (Cumberbatch) and Ivy (Coleman) to return together at different points in the "roses", but I have never had the feeling watching the 1989 "war of the roses", which shows Rose's marriage in 1989. Personally, I think the biggest difference in both films is the speed at which the couple turns against each other in the original and the fierce they fight each other. Escalation begins far earlier in the original film, and at one point, Barbara enters a vehicle and basically a monster guarantees the road to the top of a small sports car that Oliver has inside. At different points, they seem to be legitimately trying to kill or seriously hurt each other. "Roses" are not so nasty; It's almost playful compared.

Douglas, with his history playing the Dan Gallagher in "Fatal Attraction" and "Wall Street" Slimbol Gordon Gecko, brought a characteristic mistrust of his characterSo I didn't buy that he once wanted to unite with Barbara for the real reasons. Without hope that its waters can work out, the "war of roses" becomes a much darker comic exercise on how far these people are ready to go to socialize the things they have accumulated. And without giving up the ends of any movie, I will just say that the "War of Roses" conclusion reaches much harder than what is happening in "roses". Both are good, but for me, she felt the way the "war of roses" accepted the darkness of her premise was a more satisfying exploration of these ideas than the relatively subdued "roses" antiques. Maybe that's why the former did it on our list of The best films to break up ever made.

"Roses" are now in cinemas.