I was a bit undecided about the rating this film deserves. While it has quite a few impressive aspects, it also suffers from a number of flaws and inconsistencies. The film is actually the second adaptation of Warren Adler's novel The War of the Roses. The first one was released in 1989, directed by Danny DeVito, with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in the lead roles. Now we have a new version, directed by Jay Roach, written by Tony McNamara, and starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman.
As always, both Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman deliver undeniably outstanding performances. Watching them is a great pleasure. However, the two simply don't fit the story. You don't really see them as a couple. One reason is that both actors have distinctive acting styles that tend to overshadow their partners rather than harmonize with them. Secondly, they aren't physically compatible either. Cumberbatch looks more attractive here, and although I don't mean to say Colman looks like his older sister, that's sort of how it comes across. If they were playing siblings, it would actually be more convincing.
Cumberbatch's acting is always captivating - it's like the sound of a magnificent violin. But does he always have to play the smart, extraordinary, charismatic upper-class man? Perhaps such roles fit his personality better, but at this point, Cumberbatch should ask himself whether he's just "playing himself." The real power of an actor lies in portraying what he is not. To be honest, it's Colman's performance that saves the film, not Cumberbatch's. Colman is incredibly disciplined and persistent - she crafts every scene with meticulous care.
The other actors in the film are fine, but the roles written for them - or the performances expected from them - are really poor. The two American couples in the story, for example, are totally unconvincing. Their performances are so off-putting that they weaken the film's comedic tone. (Let me repeat: the actors themselves aren't bad - it's the way their roles are positioned that's problematic.)
Yes, the story is about a British couple living in America. But the cultural contrast is so exaggerated that it goes beyond satire - Americans are practically portrayed as idiots. Even though I personally find British culture more appealing than American culture, the Americans don't deserve to be dragged down this much.
Through the children's roles, the film also tries to inject elements of comedy, but honestly, I found all of these attempts very clumsy. Again, it's not the actors' fault - the director simply fails in these parts. The film is supposed to be a dark comedy, but the comedic side is extremely weak. I can count on one hand the moments that actually made me laugh.
Now, about the LGBTQ+ part. The film includes a gay waiter character as a nod to its liberal perspective. However, instead of supporting representation, it ends up reinforcing the cliché that gay men can only exist as "feminine waiters." The actor playing the waiter is quite good, but the role feels like a conspicuous accessory.
Meanwhile, Cumberbatch's character, Theo, is portrayed as an "environmentalist." Another liberal accessory of the film. But strangely enough, this environmentalist drives a BMW 5 - which, as a hybrid, can only go about 30 miles on electric power.
I wish the director had brought a genuinely fresh perspective to Warren Adler's novel and had chosen to make this film a dramedy rather than a dark comedy. Both Cumberbatch and Colman's performances would have fit much better into that tone.
Writing this review actually helped - I finally figured out what rating the film deserves.
