‘The Roses’: Tame adaptation

This film, a modern update, comes roughly 36 years after Danny DeVito’s Michael Douglas-Kathleen Turner-starrer ‘The War of the Roses’ that had set the box office rolling with acerbic wit and incendiary shenanigans. This new adaptation of Warren Adler’s iconic anti-romantic comedy novel goes through the mechanics of turning a comfortable marriage into one of turbulent discomfort, but the lack of chemistry between the stars makes it look rather tame.

Ivy (Colman) and Theo (Cumberbatch) are a couple whose sardonic quips signified a perfect match. But playful banter soon becomes killer putdowns. The fine line between passionate love and venom-dripping hate is charted through this spectacular implosion of a relationship.

The film begins near the end, with their therapist telling them that their marriage is doomed. Then comes the flashback to a more ideal relationship.

Theo is a hotshot architect and Ivy is a chef who has lost her confidence after marriage, and twin children crowded her world. They are portrayed as having an enviable sex life, which papers over their minor differences like non-compatible parenting styles and opposite nature. When his big project collapses, his career takes a downturn. Ivy, on the other hand, manages to come good with Theo’s superficial support. As she gets heady on success, Theo’s jealousy takes root.

Tony McNanarra’s script may be funny, but we never get to see how this ambitious man is impacted by his professional derailment. We never see the couple’s compatibility getting seriously tested either. The change of equation between them is too quick for comfort. It feels as if they were primed to war with each other and go at it like cat and dog. Their banter remains interesting throughout though.

The adaptation fails to connect the dots. Ivy becomes giddy-headed, while Theo, the supportive, stay-at-home parent, now obsesses over turning their children into top-flight runners. The two find their relationship splitting at the seams. In the earlier adaptation, we saw two stars with far greater chemistry battling it out. Cumberbatch and Colman, both gifted comedians, fail to strike enough sparks off each other or lend this picture a dark pitch. The banter feels ‘sitcomy’.

The film opens interestingly but as the narrative spins into reverse play, Roach’s attempt at sugar coating causes the interest to flag. The ending doesn’t distinguish itself either. It’s just not dark enough to suit what came before it. The impact is further dulled by an underutilised supporting cast.