Parijat Ghosh 
Expectations are extremely high when Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman co-star in a reimagining of The War of the Roses. Danny DeVito’s original 1989 film was a darkly humorous and at times terrifying look at a marriage gone nuclear.
In 2025, director Tony McNamara (The Favourite, Poor Things) reimagines the story as The Roses. On paper, it sounds like a dream: a contemporary retelling of a timeless story of love turning into hate, two formidable actors, and a scathing screenwriter known for twisted comedy.
The catch here? The performances are praised, but there is disagreement among critics regarding whether the new version accurately conveys the original’s piercing energy. Some find it glossy but emotionally flat, while others think it’s nastily funny and well-staged. Additionally, the ratings, which are in the “mixed” range, demonstrate how divided the response has been.
What the Numbers Say
- Rotten Tomatoes: With a Tomatometer score of 67% based on 43 critic reviews, it is still regarded as fresh and hovers just above the floor.
- Metacritic: Based on 15 critic reviews, Metacritic gave it a score of 59 out of 100, indicating that it is “Mixed or Average.”
What the Critics Say
- According to The Times, it is colder and sharper than the original, but Colman and Cumberbatch’s performances are emotionally rich and sublime.
- The Guardian published that although the marital descent is beautiful on the surface, the images are slick but emotionally detached.
- The Daily Beast is straightforward: excellent performances overshadowed by poor writing and a lacklustre direction.
- According to The Independent, the pair is incredibly entertaining—a dark fairy tale of disgust and desire that is particularly poignant due to McNamara’s incisive writing.
- Collider summarises it as follows: “has some fun with its concept, but never gets as dark as it should.”
What Didn’t Work Out With The Roses?
Why, then, did The Roses fail to hit the mark with critics?
Tone plays a big role. The original War of the Roses was ruthless in its satire; it didn’t hesitate to depict the ugly nature of love. Although clever and well-played, this new version frequently softens that cruelty with a more refined, fashionable approach. Some critics contend that the film lost the raw nastiness that gave the story its bite by relying too much on visual flair and crowd-pleasing humour.
In summary, it’s elegant and clever, but perhaps too safe. Like you are at war with cushions rather than swords.
Conclusion: Should You Watch It?
Supported by two riveting performances, The Roses is a glossy, fashionable look at a messy marriage. However, the general tone occasionally comes across as more light-hearted than sharp. You will find it vibrant without packing a powerful emotional blow.
Want to watch strong acting, clever banter, and a dark comedy that isn’t overly savage? Watch it. Craving the raw ugliness that its 1989 predecessor revelled in, an edge, or a deeper bite? Skip it.
If you have any takes on The Roses, feel free to mention them in the comments below. For more content, stay tuned. As usual, like, subscribe, and share our articles as we here are trying to build a community of people High on Cinema!
