Okay, so here’s a thing that really grinds my gears. You know when a movie comes out, and it’s just kind of… there? It lands, makes a bit of a splash, or maybe just a ripple, and then poof- it’s gone? Like a ghost in the multiplex. Well, that’s exactly what happened with one of the most delightfully wicked, darkly funny films of 2023, and frankly, we all need to talk about it.

I’m referring, of course, to The Roses. Yeah, that one. The one with Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman- a dream team, right? A couple of the finest actors working today, known for their sharp wit and incredible range. You’d think a film starring those two, especially one that’s a modern reimagining of a cult classic, would be ringing in the box office, or at least sparking some serious water cooler (or, let’s be real, Twitter/X) chatter. But nope. Crickets. It just… vanished. And honestly, it’s a crying shame.

Why Did We All Sleep on This Masterpiece?

It’s a fair question, isn’t it? When you’ve got such stellar talent, and a concept that’s proven its mettle before- I mean, 1989’s The War of the Roses, with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, is iconic for a reason- you’d expect a bit more fanfare. The original, based on Warren Adler’s novel of the same name, basically set the standard for cinematic marital mayhem. It was a brutal, hilarious, no-holds-barred look at divorce turning into a literal warzone. So, adapting that for a contemporary audience, with two genuinely brilliant leads, should’ve been a slam dunk. Here’s where it gets interesting, though.

The Box Office Blues and Beyond

A “disappointing box office debut” is what the official reports said. And, well, they weren’t wrong. It barely made a dent. Now, you might think, “Oh, another one of those critically acclaimed but commercially ignored films.” But The Roses felt different. It wasn’t just ignored; it felt almost actively overlooked. Like it slipped through the cracks of our collective movie-watching consciousness faster than a poorly-timed tweet.

• Point: The marketing was, to put it mildly, kind of abysmal. I barely saw any trailers, and when I did, they didn’t really capture the sheer, acidic glee of the film.
• Insight: Sometimes, even with big names, if the marketing doesn’t hit the right tone- or doesn’t exist- a film can just flounder, regardless of its actual quality. It’s like throwing a brilliant party but forgetting to send out the invitations.

I actually stumbled upon it almost by accident. A friend mentioned it, kind of offhand, raving about a particular scene involving a, shall we say, very expensive light fixture. My curiosity, as it often does, got the better of me. And boy, am I glad it did. What I found was a film brimming with the kind of dark humor and genuine performance synergy you rarely see.

“It’s not just a divorce movie; it’s a commentary on the performative nature of relationships and the terrifying ease with which civility can crumble.”

What Made It So Good, Then?

So, if it flopped, why am I here, banging this drum? Because the film itself is genuinely hilarious and, dare I say, bitingly smart. It takes the premise of the original- a couple, Oliver and Barbara Rose, whose seemingly picture-perfect marriage unravels into a savage battle over their shared home after a divorce- and just twists it a little bit. It’s not a carbon copy; it’s an intelligent reinterpretation.

The Unmatched Chemistry (or Anti-Chemistry)

Cumberbatch and Colman- you just can’t beat that. Their dynamic is just electric, even when the electricity is, like, short-circuiting their entire lives. You see the deep-seated resentment, the petty grievances, the way they weaponize every shared memory. It’s glorious. They don’t just act angry; they embody that specific, suffocating rage that only comes from years of intimate knowledge and betrayal. Colman, especially, is a force- her shifts from simmering indignation to explosive fury are just a masterclass. And Cumberbatch, he brings this sort of bewildered, entitled vulnerability that makes you both hate and pity his character simultaneously. It’s really quite something.

• Point: The humor isn’t just slapstick; it’s derived from the tragic absurdity of their situation, the lengths people will go to out-spite each other.
• Insight: It’s a dark comedy that relies on discomfort as much as it does on witty dialogue. You’re laughing, but there’s a little voice in your head going, “Oh, gosh, this is sad, too.”

The pacing, the dialogue, the sheer audacity of some of the set pieces- remember the cat? Oh my god, the cat- it all just works. It’s a film that isn’t afraid to get ugly, to show the ugliness that can fester beneath the surface of supposedly perfect lives. And in an age where so much content feels focus-grouped to blandness, The Roses felt like a breath of fresh- albeit slightly toxic- air.

Why You Need to Watch It Now

So, here’s my plea: if you skipped The Roses, or like most people, didn’t even know it existed, now’s the time to rectify that. It’s streaming, it’s accessible, and it’s genuinely one of those films that leaves you thinking. Not just about destructive relationships, but also about how taste is marketed, how films find their audience, or simply, how they don’t.

It’s not just a funny movie; it’s a fierce, audacious piece of cinema that deserved so much more than the quiet, unassuming flick of an off switch it received. Go watch it. Laugh. Cringe. And then, maybe, tell a friend. Let’s give this film the retro-active appreciation it absolutely, undoubtedly deserves. Because sometimes, the best films are the ones we have to dig for, aren’t they?