A little more of the same

Even now, when it is obvious that Hollywood, the "Factory of Dreams", is in a big crisis - above all in a crisis of ideas - it is difficult without him. Because, of course, everything has already been seen, at least everything that is considered commercial and communicative. The key is not the artistic vision, but the profit, so filmmakers most often decide to stay in the middle of the road, not to risk too much, which leads us to endless variations and reworking of the existing, without the true freshness needed for an essential difference from what has already been seen. However, not every film has to be revolutionary - experience teaches us that you can enjoy the familiar. When ideas run out (and this is a chronic condition in Hollywood - and not only in Hollywood), salvation (read: easy money) is sought in old, proven titles. So we also got in the repertoire Rose's, a new film adaptation The Rose War, a book by Warren Adler from the early eighties, which in 1989 was already turned into a successful and beloved film directed by Danny DeWitt, starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner. So why the new version? Because something has to be recorded and watched.

...

With all that in mind, Roses are quite a decent movie. To begin with, a really high-quality team was employed. Let's start with the main actors: Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch are an interesting choice. As expected, the two are in To the Roses they are great, but at the same time they are quite an unexpected choice for a love story, even a dark one. Olivia Colman is known for her ability to carry the film and nuance emotions - here she balances between hidden aggression and razor-sharp humor, and Cumberbatch brings to the story an energy and intensity reminiscent of his previous collaborations with great directors, such as Wes Anderson, Jane Campion or Steven Spielberg. Their pairing is, one would say, somewhat unexpected, but also refreshing: two different sensibilities that, when intertwined, can create a force strong enough to carry the audience through layers of emotion, irony and dark humor. There is no mistake with them.

The film was directed by Jay Roach, famous for his comedies Austin Powers (he worked on all three parts), Her parents, Meet the Fokkers, Dinner for idiots, Vote for me., as well as biographical dramas Trampo i They are bombs. His style is recognizable by the combination of comedy and detailed characters, as well as the ability to keep the audience interested in the fate of each actor, even in satirical situations. The screenplay of the new film is signed by Tony McNamara, screenwriter of Lanthimos' acclaimed and award-winning works Poor creatures i Favorites (which earned Olivia Colman the Oscar for Best Actress). McNamara knows how to weave dark humor and absurdity into film stories that manage to be critical of social norms, especially when it comes to the themes of love and trust, and at the same time have a drinkability that appeals to a wider audience outside the festival circles.

The supporting cast is truly sumptuous and made up of proven comedians: there are, first of all, Andy Samberg (in the role of a lawyer played by Devito in the first adaptation) and Kate McKinnon (who over time grew from an extremely irritating appearance into an interesting comedian), as well as Allison Janney - another Oscar winner - here to some extent wasted in a role that does not give her enough space to show what she can do. Their scenes and those of other episodic actors, and the gallery of characters is rich, often act as mini-stories within a larger narrative structure, and provide the audience with moments of relaxation, but also surprise, which is important in black humor films of this type.

Thus… Roses they are certainly not without trump cards. Coleman and Cumberbatch are a dream duo, the film is funny, at least at times, and it's refreshing to see a title aimed at an adult audience in an era where multiplexes are filled with superheroes and computer-generated creatures. The film is, of course, "updated" and adapted to the sensibilities of 2025. This means more sarcasm, more irony, more references to "open" marriages and, of course, more political correctness. Is that why the impression is better compared to the first adaptation? Not at all. Devitt's version is juicier and more potent, with an ending that - which is especially commendable - reached the point of tragedy.

Roach's version of the swings seems forced and, as it progresses, it slowly loses gas. It is not, therefore, a bad film, far from it, but it is essentially unnecessary, we could do without it, as well as several other titles that are currently in the repertoire (Besson's Dracula: Eternal love, Blair Toxic Avenger). But, if we're being honest, the same can be said for 90 percent of the offerings in today's cinemas. Hollywood spins in circles, like a dog chasing its own tail, and the coffers are finally filled just enough to justify the next recycling project. In this case, perhaps the most interesting thing is how Roses reflect modern Hollywood. The film shows, almost unintentionally, how stuck the industry is in recycling and how ideas are often driven more by business logic than by creative necessity. New adaptations of old classics, remakes and sequels are no longer rare - they are now the norm. The audience, again, is caught between nostalgia and the need to see something new, and films like The Roses trying to satisfy both the old fans and the new generation. Sitting on two chairs is not easy at all.