The Roses are portrayed as deeply cruel and unrelatable, driven and immature, with actions that alienate the reader. The story functions as a domestic horror show rooted in the rancorous spirit of the 1970s and the culture wars sparked by second-wave feminism's critiques of heterosexual partnership. A 1989 film adaptation amplified the novel's claustrophobia and cruelty and achieved strong box-office returns. A 2025 adaptation reorients the couple toward universals through casting and chemistry, making the marriage easier to watch but reducing the conflict's intensity and creating a different, less forceful trajectory.
"Why should we care about the Roses? Their actions are so special, they are both so cruel to each other, to their children, we start to back away from them," Corman, himself the author of Kramer vs. Kramer, the 1977 novel about another divorcing couple, wrote. " The War of the Roses, which began with universals, turns into a novel only about the Roses, about two driven, immature people."
"It's true- The War of the Roses, which has now been reissued on the occasion of Jay Roach's new movie adaptation, The Roses, is never sad, never sweet. It's a domestic horror show, channeling the rancorous spirit of the 1970s, when second-wave feminism's critiques of heterosexual partnership sparked epic culture wars over marriage. Most other reviews of the book embraced the novel's spirit, and Danny DeVito's 1989 film adaptation, starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner,"
"The 2025 adaptation, opening this weekend and apparently trying for something a bit more palatable, adjusts the Roses back toward the universal. In casting Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman as the divorcing couple, Roach has made the whole thing much easier to watch. Almost too easy: The two have a palpable chemistry that makes every little fight seem as if it will surely be resolved in the next scene. (And often it is.)"
Collection
[
|
...
]