Nostalgia blinds. The War of the Roses (1989) was a re-teaming of a popular pair from earlier in the ’80s, Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, based on the Warren Adler novel of the same name. Danny DeVito, the third star from their 1984 and 1985 outings, Romancing the Stone and its sequel, The Jewel of the Nile, directed The War of the Roses and inserted himself in the middle of the movie as the frame story’s narrator (an element absent from the book).
But an award-winning movie with beloved actors at the time does not mean the movie holds up well today. That is why it is a very, very good thing that The Roses (2025) is more of a total reimagining than it is a remake. The War of the Roses is famous for its dark comedic take on a romance gone terribly wrong. Oliver (Michael Douglas) and Barbara Rose (Kathleen Turner) met one stormy night on Nantucket, light flirting quickly turning to a passionate night in bed. One joke and a dissolve later, the couple is married with two kids.
Get BWT in your inbox!
Get BWT in your inbox!
The Roses, directed by Jay Roach and written by Tony McNamara, has a similar start. Instead of a frame story featuring a third character, Ivy (Olivia Colman) and Theo Rose (Benedict Cumberbatch) begin their strife in media res at couples therapy gone wrong before flashing back to when they met. The two Brits similarly meet by chance, silver tongues on them both leading to a ruckus in cold storage at Ivy’s place of work, and we’re off to the races.
The Roses changes more than just the setting.
There are two stark differences between the Roses of 1989 and 2025, besides their places of birth, where they come to live, and what work they do. First, the contempt between the ’89 Roses is much more profound from the start. Their first scene together after jumping ahead in time ends with Barbara outright digging into Oliver without remorse. The ’25 Roses get their digs in, but they always turn to one another and vocalize their regret before laughing it off, like the ’89ers do.
The second major difference is that Barbara and Oliver are not equals at the onset of The War of the Roses. Oliver talks over Barbara and patronizes her passion for cooking when she says she’s making a business of it. Ivy, on the contrary, is already a highly skilled baker and chef when she meets Theo. And while Theo is a powerful and wealthy architect when The Roses begins, Ivy’s stay-at-home motherhood isn’t diminishing her character. It’s a part of her passion.
There is a clear mutual respect between Theo and Ivy for the roles they play in their families. Yes, it feeds Theo’s ego to be the breadwinner, and yes, it stokes Ivy’s jealousy that she doesn’t get to work. But when Theo buys Ivy a plot to turn into a crab shack, it’s out of love and an agreement that they both deserve to pursue things that bring them joy and meaning.
All of the animosity begins with Barbara in the original—in the remake, Theo and Ivy are equals in their rage.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that Barbara Rose isn’t a powerful and independent character on her own. She most certainly is. But from a screenwriting perspective, it’s nearly to a fault. The hatred brewing between the ’89 Roses is depicted as having a single source.
Barbara detests some of Oliver’s characteristics, but instead of discussing them out loud, she lashes out. She dives into her homesteading with full force and excludes Oliver from her inner thoughts entirely. When Barbara finally brings everything to bear for the first time, it feels like a total blindsiding for Oliver.
The ’25 Roses are more equal partners in their spiral. They both crack snide comments about one another from the onset, claimed as banter (something that their being British makes all the more believable), but hiding clear contempt. True hatred doesn’t begin to arise until Ivy and Theo swap household roles. When it does, there’s a casus belli on both sides of the marriage.
Theo becomes extra indignant because he loses his job and his dignity, but at the same time, Ivy becomes detached from the family and their needs as she pursues her new career. The just cause for ire is never lopsided in the remake like it is in the original movie.
The War of the Roses is lopsided but The Roses is an even match.
The setups of both are starkly different, but by halfway through, they may as well be two completely different movies. There’s a reason why The Roses drops the “War” from its title. The War of the Roses hits the breaking point halfway through. The buildup to their divorce is brisk, and much of Barbara’s contempt is spoken in monologue rather than shown on screen.
The 1989 movie is, from this point on, most memorable for being a battle between scorned lovers. Despite the divorce rate having declined substantially over the course of the ’80s, the original movie offered catharsis to anybody watching who could relate even a scintilla to either Barbara or Oliver’s side of the story.
But it always places Oliver in the driver’s seat. It’s Oliver who’s being blamed or who is to blame. It’s Oliver who keeps having scenes with his lawyer (Danny DeVito) plotting his revenge, which he repeatedly notes is something women will always be better at than men.
This, even though most of the things Oliver is shown doing wrong aren’t really his fault or are the result of being well-intended but dense. It’s not to say Oliver isn’t at fault for some things, but he is painted as much more of a victim than his wife.
The War of the Roses had an axe to grind about divorce, while The Roses is just having fun.
This is The War of the Roses’ golden folly and why The Roses is so much better off for having forsaken most of the original. The 1989 movie feels like it has an axe to grind. It’s just as well that viewers can empathize more with either Barbara or Oliver, depending on their own disposition. But textually, The War of the Roses seems to clearly feel that women are cruel and unfair to their husbands and demand too much of them in marriage and in divorce.
Kathleen Turner’s greatest power as Barbara is how she subtly conveys guilt to the camera, but never lets Oliver see it. Meanwhile, Ivy and Theo are constantly trying their best to express to each other what is wrong. They’re just not very good at it, and perhaps their differences are truly irreconcilable anyway.
In the original, Barbara’s guilt and the lopsided cause for marital strife make you sort of want the Roses to work it out and stay together. In the remake, it’s more of a relief when they finally realize they may be better off separated. But the slight, monumental difference in how the two movies end proves why it’s good that the narratives diverge so much.
The War of the Roses is a thriller, not a true comedy like The Roses.
The War of the Roses, in retrospect, is hardly a comedy at all. It’s really a thriller. The scenario is ironic, but there aren’t laugh-out-loud moments like The Roses is genuinely filled with. The Roses is filled with intentional laugh lines, but it’s also designed as a romance. The last hour of the 1989 movie is dark, dire, and violent. The Roses is brightly colored, even while filled with vitriolic language. It only turns violent at the bitter end, where the original movie makes its turn by halfway through.
Instead, The Roses spends most of its runtime building out Theo and Ivy’s lives. They have inner and outer existences. Friends and coworkers are regularly part of the story to add humor and act as foils for the Roses’ relationships. The children are actual characters in the new movie, too. They play into the family dynamic more deeply than just a few short and pointed scenes.
By the time The Roses hits its peak, we understand intimately what is driving both of them and what it would take to fix things, if they could just have a sincere conversation for once. By comparison, the ’89 Roses have no way out, because Barbara descends into madness from which there will clearly be no return. Her attacks are cruel and horrible. Oliver’s are meek by comparison.
The Roses could never work as a violent thriller akin to The War of the Roses.
The Roses could never work as a violent thriller akin to The War of the Roses. To start, audiences could never tolerate in 2025 the way Barbara and Oliver treat their pets. But mainly, a movie that posits its male lead as the victim of a wife gone mad would likely be a disaster. The remake needed to switch tones to be sharply funny and root everything in the foolhardy quest to rekindle lost love that the 1989 movie only espouses in its epilogue.
For these choices, The Roses is rewarded handily. It’s very funny, the characters are all memorable, and it’s questions about love, communication, masculinity, and ego are all explored consummately. This isn’t to discredit what The War of the Roses was to audiences in 1989.
The movie was a triumph for many precisely because it was the antithesis of everything romance movies were at the time. Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner having been in plenty of them themselves. The thrill of its unexpected turns was unique, and what it had to say was different than the family dramas or thrillers that came before it.
The Roses elevate some of the original’s themes into far greater comedy and commentary.
But today, there have been countless movies subverting both comedy and romance. Doing it again in a direct remake of a movie that did it right and did it first would feel hollow. Subverting the original movie by rewiring it against its misogyny and loveless nature is perfect. It lets the two movies stand on their own. The Roses doesn’t rely on nostalgia for the original movie or its themes to work, like so many remakes do.
Instead, The Roses elevates some of The War of the Roses’ underplayed elements into moments of far greater comedy, namely the sharp name-calling, the awkward dinner parties, and the dynamics with their children. It builds up the resentment equally between both Roses and lets both characters stand on their own. There’s no clear right or wrong party. Both are at fault, both could be doing better by one another, and the lessons you can derive from either side are equally valid and meaningful.
Thank goodness The Roses isn’t a remake of The War of the Roses. It’s a far more interesting and successful movie for it. Audiences now have two different versions of the story in two very different genres, visual styles, and character types to choose between. Or, not choose at all. Thanks to the complete reimagining that is The Roses, both can be enjoyed completely divorced from one another.
The Roses is playing now in theaters everywhere.
