After briefly seeing disillusioned architect Theo (Cumberbatch) and ambitious chef Ivy (Colman) first meet, the film skips us forward a decade to the now-married pair having abandoned their native UK to live their dream life in America. Theo is on the verge of revealing his architectural masterpiece while Ivy is cooking outrageously elaborate cakes in her role as stay-at-home mum to their two children. A freak storm ends up flipping their lives around and Ivy's chef career hits the big time while Theo holds down the fort at home and resentments slowly accumulate over the years as Ivy fully embraces her new status and Theo moulds the children into disciplined, ambitious workaholics.
This is a slower, more nuanced take on a relationship breakdown than the Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner starring original. While they quickly escalated to outright hostility, our lead couple here are, on the surface at least, trying their best to make things work for the vast majority of the runtime, with all the antagonistic prank-pulling that made up a lot of the trailers reserved for the last portion of the film. What we have instead is, fittingly, a much more British take on hostility, as the pair undercut their cheery outward personas with sly putdowns and barbed platitudes. It's hilariously entertaining and culminates in one of the most deliciously awkward dinner scenes you'll ever see. Witnessing Colman and Cumberbatch exchange withering glances and cold comments is like watching prime Borg and McEnroe go back and forth over the net. The writing cleverly factors in the performers backgrounds (Colman comes from a more overtly comedic background, while Cumberbatch is more of a dramedy guy) into the character, with Ivy's "silliness" one of the things that increasingly grates on Theo and his comedy coming from repressed frustration.
It's good that the central performances are so strong since the film's success hinges on both parties being sympathetic enough for neither to be seen as the villain. We skip over the time when Ivy is sacrificing her career for the family so she appears to be the one mostly getting what she wants, but she is also the one who makes the most effort to sustain the marriage. From that perspective, sulky Theo may be less sympathetic but it's clear his antagonism is born of frustration not malice. It's possible some people will identify more with one or the other, but the script does a good job of representing both points of view without making either of them wishy-washy.
There is a strong supporting cast, including a cheery but bleak Andy Samberg and sexed up Kate McKinnon as the couple's friends, whose own relationship seems outwardly even more dysfunctional than the Roses. Both have some very funny moments and the relationship lends to some fish out of water comedy as the Brits and the Americans hang out. Theo and Ivy are unnerved at a visit to a shooting range as their liberal companions try to downplay how much they love guns and some American friends try to replicate the British duo's "playful" banter, with hilariously blunt results.
The main complaints against The Roses are likely to come from viewers who wanted more of the outright physical antagonism shown in the trailers, or those who identified strongly with a particular spouse, making them actively dislike the other. While these are perfectly valid personal responses, they shouldn't overshadow a fantastically crafted and performed satire of the innate disappointment of marriage and parenthood that is also one of the funniest films of the year.
8 perfectly safe flags on 10 buildings.
Comments
Post a Comment