Here's What Separates The Roses From The War Of The Roses, According To The Director [Exclusive]

"The Roses," the new comedy from "Meet the Parents" and "Austin Powers" director Jay Roach, is a bit of a contradiction. On one hand, it's technically a reimagining of Warren Adler's 1981 novel "The War of the Roses," but I suspect most people who know it's based on something will refer to it as a remake of Danny DeVito's 1989 film adaptation of that novel. Reimagining existing intellectual property is the defining strategy of modern Hollywood, and with recognizable stars like Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman in the lead roles and a script from "Poor Things" and "The Favourite" screenwriter Tony McNamara, it makes sense that this new version would get made. On the other hand, it's also a divorce movie aimed squarely at adults, and any studio film courting that demographic — especially a comedy, and especially one that doesn't coddle its audience — is, unfortunately, a rare thing in 2025, so part of me is surprised this was made on this scale, as a theatrical release.

/Film caught up with Roach and McNamara ahead of the film's release (you'll be able to hear the full interview on the September 3 episode of our /Film Weekly podcast), and the director explained what he thought separated his movie from its predecessor, citing a few classic movies that feel like progenitors of this one in the process:

"You do hope [the two lead characters] get back together [in this version]. It's almost like you think it might be a remarriage comedy, and some of Tony's dialogue is that kind of fast banter that those kind of films like 'The Philadelphia Story' or 'Adam's Rib' [had]. But you're also going for something that's as dramatic as 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?' or something. The script did that. It made you fear for their relationship and realize, 'Wow, this might be doomed,' but then, 'Oh, hold on, they care about each other and they get each other, and how's that going to work out?' And that kind of suspense, I think, is what distinguished it from the original."

Roach is right; I was rooting for Theo (Cumberbatch) and Ivy (Colman) to get back together at various points in "The Roses," but I never had that feeling watching 1989's "The War of the Roses," which charts the dissolution of Oliver (Michael Douglas) and Barbara (Kathleen Turner) Rose's marriage. Personally, I think the biggest difference in the two movies is the speed with which the couple turns against each other in the original, and the ferocity with which they fight each other. The escalation begins far earlier in the original film, and at one point, Barbara gets in a vehicle and basically monster trucks her way over the top of a tiny sports car that has Oliver inside. At various points, it looks like they're legitimately trying to kill or grievously injure each other. "The Roses" isn't as nasty; it's almost playful in comparison.

Douglas, with his history playing the cheating Dan Gallagher in "Fatal Attraction" and "Wall Street" slimeball Gordon Gekko, brought an inherent untrustworthiness to his character, so I didn't buy that he ever wanted to reunite with Barbara for the right reasons. Without the hope that its leads could work things out, "The War of the Roses" becomes a much darker comedic exercise about how far these people are willing to go to hang on to the things they've accumulated. And without giving away the endings of either film, I'll just say that "The War of the Roses" conclusion hits much harder than what happens in "The Roses." Both are good, but to me, it felt like the way "The War of the Roses" embraced the darkness of its premise was a more satisfying exploration of these ideas than the comparatively subdued antics of "The Roses." Maybe that's why the former made it onto our list of the best break-up movies ever made.

"The Roses" is in theaters now.