A very good movie, one that holds up well after repeated viewings. Even if you're familiar with the story, DeVito's methodical and precise direction makes it thoroughly absorbing all over again. This movie has the directorial perfection of a good Alfred Hitchcock thriller, but it's not either a thriller or a comedy; it's a unique mix of elements from several genres, that does contain some laughs and sardonic humor, but also has serious undertones, mostly thanks to Michael Douglas' three-dimensional character and surprisingly sensitive performance. Strongly recommended.
Add a Review
-
gridoon7 June 2000
-
rmax3048234 September 2004Give Danny DeVito the right story and he clicks. He does it here.
What do a tornado, a hurricane, and an ex-wife have in common? They all get the house. Except when the husband's lawyer manages to dig up some rule that allows the husband to stay in the house as long as he and his wife lead separate lives.
The husband is Douglas, the wife is Turner, and the lawyer and mediator is DeVito. There's also a housekeeper and two not especially lovable children (thank heavens for small favors) but they're probably less important than the husband's dog and the wife's cat.
So how do two rich yuppies lead separate lives in their mansion? Simple. First they ignore and curse each other while passing on the stairs. "Filthy slut," mutters Douglas. "Bastard," murmurs Turner. Finally Douglas proudly shows DeVito a plan that he has worked out with Turner. It is a blueprint of the house, divided into red, green, and yellow sections. Douglas explains that the red sections belong to him, the green sections are hers, and the yellow rooms are neutral. "I had a little trouble with the kitchen," he says, "but we worked out alternative hours." DeVito is aghast.
"This seems -- RATIONAL to you?" Douglas: "I'm gonna win this." DeVito: "Oliver, nobody WINS anything here. There are only degrees of losing." And Douglas leans forward conspiratorially, grins insanely, and whispers: "I got MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE."
It's Douglas's best performance, I think. He's not a simple outraged bourgeois, as in "Fatal Attraction" or "Basic Flaw" or whatever it was. And his character has more dimensions than his Gordon Gekko, and almost as good a name. The couple eat at opposite ends of a long empty table, like Charles Foster Kane and Emily. Douglas is waiting for an important phone call and is a bit anxious. He pays no attention to his wife sitting motionless and silently, staring at him. He stabs at the food on his plate and slices it viciously. And watch the half-demonic expressions that play across his face as he attacks and eats his food. The scene is an almost perfect embodiment of black comedy because, in context, it is outrageously funny -- but it could have been yanked straight out of a horror movie without changing a thing.
It's a fine script and DeVito does well by it. I guess it gets a little tiresome by the time they're chasing one another around the darkened half-ruined mansion, nailing boards over windows and unloosening nuts, and throwing plates. And when in the midst of their hatred, Turner serves the pleasantly surprised Douglas her superlative pate and then claims it was made of Benny's liver, I could have done without the quick shot of the living Benny in the bushes outside. But those are relatively small acnestes bracketed in a very funny movie.
There is a crazy logic to the story too. The couple begin by loving one another but are then separated by, well, THINGS. Douglas works very hard to make enough money so that his wife can find and furnish a perfect home for him. A little tritely, Turner discovers that she has grown not only to dislike the distracted Douglas but to hate him, so she wants her independence. Initially, the little frictions are minor. With a table full of dinner guests that Douglas is trying to impress, he asks Turner to explain how they happened to acquire the Baccarat wine glasses they're using. Nervously, she begins with a trip to Paris but so many dependent clauses intrude themselves that her narrative begins to resemble a 19th-century German sentence. So Douglas cuts her off: "To make a long story short.....", and wraps it up in two declaratives. (I can't emphasize too strongly how deftly DeVito handles this scene. Absolutely none of the irritation is spelled out except by the actors and the camera and editing, and yet we are left with a full understanding of the little disaster that's just taken place and the empty anger that follows.) The gathering enmity shows up in tiny ways. "I just wanted to push you," Douglas says to his wife's back, trying to explain some rudeness. "After all, everybody needs a little PUSH once in a while." (He picks up her cat and flings it aside.) And after his big dinner with his superiors, the couple are in bed and Douglas worries a little. "I hope they didn't notice what a jerk I was." Turner: "They never seem to." Douglas is so smug that the barb sails completely over his head. It's like Neal Simon, if Simon had become delicate.
The humor, if that's what it is, grows more physical and in some ways less funny. Douglas, drunk, urinates on some fish while Turner is giving HER big dinner for potential customers. In turn, while the assembled guests watch open-mouthed from the doorway, she revs up her two-million horsepower SUV with the big knobby tires and the 20 mm cannon on top and noisily smashes into his tiny classic Morgan convertible. Then she backs up and drives completely over it with Douglas inside. Douglas emerges shakily from the compressed car and says, sounding perfectly reasonable, "Look, I don't want to create a scene. I mean, I live in this neighborhood too."
See this movie if you have a chance. I would recommend it even if it weren't so good, simply on the basis of the last scene between the Roses. They have fallen 30 feet on a chandelier and lie dying next to one another. With his last bit of energy, Douglas manages to move his hand lovingly on her shoulder. And just before she dies, without being able to look at what she's doing, Turner reaches slowly out, puts her hand over his, and flips it away. -
You know a movie is funny when you're by yourself and laughing out loud. This is a hilarious saga of a divorcing couple, both of whom refuse to leave their house. "The gloves are off," Michael Douglas announces to wife Kathleen Turner, although for the viewer, they had been off for some time. Both stop at nothing to drive the other out.
It's a strange film in a way because it starts out as a love story and slowly builds, as little signs that all is not well in paradise begin to emerge. Once the ugliness starts, there's no stopping it, and the film rapidly becomes a very black comedy.
Turner and Douglas receive able support from a very funny Danny Devito, who also directed, and the wonderful Marianne Sagebrecht, who provides a gentle presence amidst the chaos. -
Mr-Fusion25 November 2016There isn't a plethora of funny lines in "The War of the Roses" (it's just not that kind of comedy), but the blistering cynicism about marriage makes them stand out all the same (the stabbing victim in the hospital claimed most of these). If you want to call this a cautionary tale of divorce, I'm just fine with that. Watching these people bitterly drift apart is uncomfortable, and the filmmakers know this because the whole third act is the literal destruction of everything they've labored so long to build. The absurdity is almost a salve.
It's a comedy, but also dark as hell. The dialogue, on the other hand, that's fantastic.
7/10 -
Jalow54712 May 2017The premise is simple enough: a moderately wealthy couple—whose last name is Rose—decides to get divorced after many years of marriage. But neither of them wants to give up their house, and both remain living in it, getting on each other's nerves as they deliberately and maliciously annoy and attack each other, each in an attempt to get the other to give up and leave.
It's exactly the sort of film I don't normally enjoy, where two equally detestable parties go back and forth trying to one up each other with ridiculous shenanigans that are rarely funny and never make up for the ninety minutes of wasted time. It reminds me of dumb comedy films like Duplex—which pits neighbor against neighbor—and Are We There Yet?, in which Ice Cube goes up against his new girlfriend's mischievous kids. These sorts of films aren't typically my cup of tea, but it wasn't my turn to pick the movie, so I just sat back and watched.
And then a funny thing occurred. Almost immediately, I got drawn into the story. That wasn't supposed to happen, but it did, and I was pleasantly surprised. I normally don't even care for Danny DeVito as a director, probably due to the fact that he made the awful Duplex, which I mentioned earlier. I mean, I did enjoy Matilda, but that was a family movie that I watched as a kid. War of the Roses was something else entirely, and despite my efforts, I couldn't help but enjoying it.
It tells the story in a different way than others of its kind. Things unfold naturally and totally believably. Sure, some of the stunts that the characters pull reach the same levels of ridiculousness as in those other films that I didn't like, but here we get the impression that it's done for the sake of the story, rather than for just another cheap laugh. Instead of yawning, I was wide sitting wide-eyed on the edge of my seat. It's not just funny; it's also very real and poignant, especially considering the fact that most of us know someone who's had a really tough divorce and it's easy to see how things could go just as bad as they do in War of the Roses.
And, unlike most of these kinds of movies and apart from my expectations, we actually end up caring about the characters, despite their overabundance of flaws. They're both selfish idiots, which makes the story so much better, but they're still believable and very well acted. From moment to moment we find ourselves siding with each one. Neither of them could be called true protagonists, as they constantly antagonize each other, but there's a balance of both deserved animosity and loathsomeness between them that is very well done. They got good actors to play these roles, and they play them so well that we almost don't notice that it could have been much worse in the hands of anyone else.
The whole story is told by Danny DeVito, who plays a divorce attorney who is telling it as a warning to a prospective client who never says a word during the entire film. And the ending is great. I won't spoil it, but trust me, it's a good one. This definitely isn't the best film I've seen, but it's certainly the best of its kind, and makes me reconsider my attitude toward this type of film. I just thought the whole idea was bad, but it turns out that it's often just done very poorly. -
"The War Of The Roses", a biting, darkly comic look at what happens when two people forget about why they're together in the first place.
Having forgotten about when they met, fell in love, shared their thoughts & dreams with each other and made those great plans for a life together. (Kind of quoting Danny DeVito at the end of the film).
Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner were superb in the transformation of the young lovers that turn into everything they never thought they could become. Danny DeVito is great as the friend and go between.
The couple go from young,idealistic, romantic couple to completely dull white collar sell outs with all the material possessions that come with it. Douglas was scary and menacing and Turner as well
The only problem I had with the movie was....the ending.
Now, don't get me wrong here ladies and gentlemen, I really did like this movie. That is, at least, until it's big downer of an ending. I could not believe that in the end these two people are snuffed out.
To kill them off at the end really was not the best choice. I'm not saying have the typical Hollywood storybook-happy ending but at the very least, just give them broken limbs and give a possibility these two can mend their fences enough, to at least go through the divorce without so much malice and feel true regret.
Too obvious by that point that reconciliation is out of the question, despite trying to save each other before the big fall.
I will say this about that ending, it's the perfect metaphor for what happened when the 1980's themselves came to a much similar end.
The money grubbing, corporate world, materialistic decade of all flash and no feeling was over. Appropriately enough,it was the last movie I saw in 1989.
7 Srars for the bulk of the movie . (END) -
MovieAddict201624 October 2005DeVito is a hit-and-miss director. He's turned out some very good films and some very bad ones. Sometimes his satire just falls short ("Death to Smoochy," for example); however, "War of the Roses" is his strongest directorial effort to date.
It's got everything - a clever script, great interaction between its two stars, exciting thrills, funny gags (without ever resorting to unnecessary crudity), and to top it all off, the direction is very effective - DeVito is heavily influenced by Hitchcock and that is very clear in the final sequence, which is reminiscent of "Vertigo" and "Rear Window." Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner play the Rose couple - two once-happily-married people who are now, after many years together, bitter and at the end of their frustration. Deciding upon a divorce, they begin to split apart; however, negotiations regarding belongings begin to go awry as Oliver Rose (Douglas) demands more from his wife, claiming it's his money that purchased their enormous house and all objects inside.
DeVito turns in a performance as the narrator, and Oliver's lawyer, who tells us at the start we are about to watch a sad tale about divorce. By the time the film has ended we've seen events spiral totally out of control - beginning with absolute believability and ending in absolute absurdity.
That's the crucial part of all this. Black comedy relies on whether the dramatic arc of the content - the leap from reality to lunacy - can be believable. Many times in DeVito's film, it isn't. "Smoochy," for example, was clever satire at first, and fairly reminiscent of real-life people and events; then it turned into an over-the-top revenge rampage.
"War of the Roses" is more careful, and the arc is subtler. It's believable because the characters are given such room to grow and their conflict blossoms throughout the picture.
I'd classify "War of the Roses" as one of the funniest, cleverest and most underrated black comedies of the 1980s - it's one of my personal favorite movies and never fails to crack me up. A cult film? Maybe; but I think many more people would enjoy it if they gave it a chance. -
Red-Barracuda30 March 2011A middle-aged affluent couple hit marital problems and start fighting over the ownership of their mansion. This leads to increasing levels of antagonism and borderline sociopathic behaviour.
The War of the Roses is very 80's, very loud and kind of fun. If you want a subtle study of marital breakdown then seek it somewhere else because this most certainly is not it. Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner play the warring couple. We follow their story from their first meeting, through the happy early days to the outright marital war that constitutes the end of their relationship. Douglas and Turner are basically let loose on this film to chew the scenery and go cartoonishly over-the-top. And for the most part it's a great deal of fun seeing them do this, as both are very capable actors who can play mildly deranged very convincingly. I felt, however, that the film lost a bit of steam in its final section. As the pair went increasingly berserk in their antics, the film lost me a bit. Having said that, it is a funny film at times and it's quite a bit of fun watching both principal actors going hell for leather. It's probably a film that people going through a divorce can relate to best. It most probably will give them a few ideas. -
rupie2 June 1999Director Danny Devito and the writers are to be credited for following this story's dark premise straight to its grim conclusion, and not opting for a cop-out 'happy ending'. Maybe that accounts for the movie's relatively low user rating. Whatever. Turner and Douglas are superb here. I saw Douglas on the Carson show after the movie came out, relating how, after a day's shoot, he and Turner would get together to remind each other that they were still friends. Seeing the movie shows why they had to do this.
Note how the movie begins in the openness and light of Nantucket in summer and gets progressively darker, ending in the claustrophobic closeness of the nailed-up house. Note how Kathleen Turner's hair changes from sleek at the start to straw at the end. Note the role the Baccarat crystal plays. Note the frequent emphasis on the chandelier throughout. All masterful touches.
A classic black comedy for grownups. Don't watch this one with your spouse unless you are on really good terms. -
gwnightscream18 November 2013Danny DeVito directs and co-stars in this 1989 comedy starring Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner and Dan Castellaneta based on the novel. This takes place in Washington, D.C. where we meet attorney, Gavin D'Amato (DeVito) who tells the story of ill-fated, married couple, Oliver (Douglas) and Barbara (Turner) Rose to a new client (Castellaneta). He begins with when they first meet to their troubled 18-year marriage ending in a tragic battle over their house. Oliver was a Lawyer, Barbara owned her own catering company and they had 2 children. Douglas, Turner & DeVito are terrific in this and David Newman's score is great as usual. I recommend this great comedy.
-
Mort-3116 October 2002A classic feature of Danny DeVito's (far too few) works as a director is that they are utterly evil. Cruel. Wicked. Merciless to their characters and merciless to the viewer. Although this is often combined with slight exaggeration, it is exactly what I love about them.
After seeing The War of the Roses the second time after having grown a little older, I still feel that particular satisfaction. But this time, there are a few more things I think about, a few more questions I ask myself. For instance: who is the bad guy in the film? Who is `to blame'? And although it's clear that the Roses both have extremely unmoveable and stubborn characters, which partly leads to the catastrophe, I came to the conclusion that Barbara is the driving force of the whole divorce story. She announces her wish to divorce upon grounds that are not quite convincing. Maybe people who do not like Michael Douglas can sympathize with her but her reasons are not fair. She invariably follows her instinct without paying any respect to other people. Kathleen Turner portrays her most believably in this insufferable phase.
Oliver Rose, on the other hand, is one of those people who are proud of doing everything in a perfectly correct manner. He is therefore very sensitive and easily confronted if one doesn't acknowledge his correct behavior. He then becomes completely helpless and unable to react properly. That makes him an ideal `victim' to Barbara's striking egoism.
I'm mentioning this only because it is a new aspect I found during second viewing, and I am sure it was also DeVito's intention to develop characters like this, so for him, the turbulent divorce story is not just a parable on how stupid people are in general. He of course reserved the best role in the film for himself he is the wise man who tells the parable and who emerges victorious in the end.
The War of the Roses with its merciless cruelness remains one of my favourite comedies of all time. -
tfrizzell6 July 2002Romance turns sour in this somewhat odd motion picture from Danny DeVito. Flashbacks show a loving relationship between husband Michael Douglas and wife Kathleen Turner turn into a snake's pit. A crazed divorce goes from being down right nasty and then gets even worse. DeVito is the family attorney who gets to see the couple destroy themselves slowly but surely. An odd tone sinks "The War of the Roses". A really sad separation of a once happy family is dealt with in a sometimes comical way that feels forced. At times you laugh through clenched teeth as it is realized that tragedy is being viewed. A film that probably tries to do a little too much. Another could-have-been-production that just never does accomplish its lofty goals. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
-
Danny DeVito directs this black comedy about a pretty messy divorce. He plays the divorce lawyer who is humurously cautioning his new client about what he is about to embark upon by telling him the story of the Roses, divorcees played by Kathleen Turner ("Barbara") and Michael Douglas ("Oliver").
The Roses seem to have a pretty miserable marriage. Typical material about rich people, they never even seemed like they wanted to get married in the first place, especially Barabara. But they did, and they built a home and a family. But, things just seem to be unbearable between the two, and Barbara wants a divorce. Oliver finds a loophole in the property laws that allows the couple to live in the same house during the divorce. Barbara is adamant on getting the house, but that is something Oliver will fight her on (more so than custody of the kids), although at times, it seems like he is only doing whatever he can to get her to call off the whole thing and pretend to be in love with him again.
Being in the same house leads to a lot of comic disasters with both Barbara and Oliver trying to get on each others nerves so much that Oliver will agree to leave and, hopefully, give up the house as well. For example, during Barbara's dinner party, Oliver stumbles in drunk, insults the guest and urinates in the soup. Barbara meanwhile crushes Oliver's restored classic car with her monster truck. The finale appears to be a fight to the death over this house.
The story operates on typical material and stereotypes of rich couples, those driven by material possessions and lack of emotional connection between one another. The Rose's kids in fact (Heather Fairfield and Sean Astin), appear to be more of an accessory to their wealth rather than a product of love. There is nothing admirable about the Rose's, but you do get eerily drawn in to their confrontation which sometimes draws laughter, but mostly just awe. -
utgard1417 June 2017Well-made but not much fun. This is a dark comedy starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner as a couple whose relationship takes an ugly turn when she wants a divorce. Danny DeVito co-stars and also directs. It's a very interesting movie, although not particularly enjoyable for my tastes. The characters aren't that likable despite the actors' charms. There's also some mean-spiritedness that made me wish the eventual fate of these two would happen an hour sooner than it does. Large parts of the movie, particularly in the first half, feel a bit like a stage play filmed on old-fashioned sets. There's something quaint about that I like but it's also a little distracting. I can certainly understand why others would like, if not love, this movie. I don't regret watching it but it's something I'll probably never watch again.
-
tieman6410 March 2012"My fee is $450 an hour, and when a man who makes $450 wants to tell you something for free, you should listen." So says Gavin D'Amato, played by Danny DeVito, a high priced lawyer who kicks off "War of the Roses" by offering a cautionary tale to a man considering divorce. This cautionary tale, of course, is the film we're about to watch. As he is also the director of "War of the Roses", DeVito functions as both the narrator inside and outside of the film.
D'Amato's tale is about acquisitions, possessions and the power of money, so the lawyer's early mentioning of cash is significant. In offering his advice for free, however, D'Amato sets himself up as being morally apart from the world he is about to describe. He is a voice of reason, or so he would like us to think.
D'Amato's tale? Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas play The Roses, a wealthy couple who first meet at an auction (this meeting place is fitting; the duo battle over objects from the onset). With marriage then comes riches, happiness, big houses, and many garish possessions, the film painting a now familiar Utopian image of late 1980s Reganism. When the passion of romance fades, however, the couple instigate a bitter, violent divorce. From here on, the film becomes a dark comedy, a demented version of "Citizen Kane", each self-obsessed partner blaming the other for their psychoses, and each becoming maddeningly preoccupied with acquisitions, possessions, inventories, objects and artifacts, to the complete exclusion of everything else. As the marriage crumbles, the couple become so obsessed with surfaces (the film takes place at "Christmas", man's festive ode to consumerism) that they conduct a literal, and quite violent, war in their own opulent mansion. Set in Washington DC (military-looking helicopters constantly fly over apocalyptic, DC skylines), the militaristic tone of the movie has obvious, larger ramifications. The capital of the United States is capital. Nothing else matters. Cue much violence and possessiveness, culminating, fittingly, in DeVito directing a biopic of trade unionist Jimmy Hoffa three years later.
It's a very good film, handsomely directed by DeVito, whose love for Hitchcock is apparent throughout. Douglas and Turner also do well, chewing scenery left, right and centre. Both have always been drawn to dark roles. Here they satirise their romantic unions in the "Romancing the Stone" movies, in which their both starred, and also a number of their previous films, in which Douglas is typically a yuppie careerist, a greedy scoundrel, a man who's consumed by dangerous women and exhibits drives toward power and success through money, while Turner is typically a femme-fatalle or marginalised woman driven to further exclusion. In "War of the Roses" the duo both play toward these now familiar roles, whilst also laying bare the crassness behind them. The shock of the movie is not that the Rose's rosy marriage fails, or even that the couple are willing to kill to keep their possessions, but ultimately that their marriage was always itself all about acquisition.
The film then ends with a dying Douglas putting his hand on a dying Turner. We perceive this as an act of affection, but she clearly views it as an act of possession. Her dying act is to push him away, her body passing unclaimed.
7.9/10 – Good but too long. For a more intellectual take on this material, see Olivier Assayas' "Summer Hours". Worth two viewings. -
This is some sort of cult classic from the 1980s. After all, the title itself has been parodied in countless TV shows (THE SIMPSONS, AMERICAN DAD, WILL AND GRACE, THE GOLDBERGS), it's probably the most famous of the three movies Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner did together (and they even referenced it in their TV show THE KOMINSKY METHOD) and has been aired lots of times. I finally saw it some months ago and, while I liked it, I found it good but nothing more.
Gavin (Danny De Vito) is a lawyer that has a case of a man (Dan Castellaneta) determined to divorce. Seeing his desperation, Gavin tells the story of two of his previous clients: Oliver and Barbara Rose (Douglas and Turner). Oliver and Barbara met when he was a student in law and she was a ginnast: they fall in love instantly, marry and have kids. At first they love and their life is perfect. After a while they start to have some issues; Barbara can't stand Oliver's behaviour anymore and when he ends in hospital for a hiatal hernia (that was mistaken for a stroke) but is soon released she didn't come to the hospital because her idea of the husband dead made her happy. From now on, it starts a war between them when they kill their pets, crash dinners, smash services until their death.
As I previously said, it certainly isn't a classic but there were some funny moments (such as when Oliver is drunk and ruins the dinner of Barbara's colleagues, or when Barbara prepares a stew and makes Oliver think that she did it with their dog's meat) and nice performances by Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner. Danny de Vito directs nicely, and the movie seems to say the message 'If you are not ready for marriage, don't marry'.
Overall, one of those movies seen mostly for its reputation but it has also a deeper meaning than given credit for. -
SnoopyStyle18 June 2014Gavin D'Amato (Danny DeVito) is an expert divorce attorney as he recounts the case that drove him to restart smoking. Oliver Rose (Michael Douglas) met Barbara (Kathleen Turner) as they battle over an antique Japanese carving in the rainy last day of the season in Nantucket. They get together that day. They get married. They have a couple of kids. He becomes a successful lawyer. She gets her dream house. However they slowly drift apart. Little irritants creep into their relationship. He works too much. She gets tired of her empty life. She's angry at him and he doesn't know why. Their fairy tale marriage deteriorates into an acrimonious divorce. Through a loophole, he forces his way back into the house.
This is a dark comedy walking a fine line. I'm not sure if it doesn't stray over the line. It is so dark at times that it becomes uncomfortably unfunny. Then it snaps back with big laughs once in awhile. Danny DeVito is pushing hard visually to create something interesting and dark. The second half of the movie is where the couple starts on a course of tit for tat. It hits some dark comedic tones. The two angry combatants are so serious that it's hard to laugh at them. It is really better to see this as a dark cautionary tale rather than a funny comedy. -
room1029 October 2015I've seen this movie many times before, but not in a very long time. This is a black comedy about a couple, from the moment they meet, through the little stuff that make them start hate each other and up to a complete war that grows worse and worse.
This movie is much darker than I remembered, but it's still very funny - and while it obviously fabricates and exaggerates certain situations, it actually shows how awful a divorce process can be, how two people who loved each other come to hate each other and how the process makes them hurt each other as much as possible. It may be fiction, but it's not very far from real life (in fact, there are WORSE divorce situations in real life).
Beautiful cinematography by the great Stephen H. Burum (Brian De Palma's regular DP). -
First off let me say that Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner were the perfect choices for this movie! They both gave electric powerful performances and really proved themselves as fine artists. They have awesome chemistry too, we first saw that in Romancing the Stone, but their chemistry in The War of the Roses is a very different kind of chemistry. Yeah sure in the first 15 minutes it shows them making passionate love and becoming infatuated with one another, then comes the kiddies, but really this film is not at all about love, this is NOT a romance story. No it's a movie about an extremely bitter married couple going through a divorce. Neither of the two are willing to give up the elegant nice house they live in. So thus the war begins. "The gloves are off" as Douglas's character states at one point in the film. The script is very well written, it doesn't waste any time or drag on, it entertains the entire runtime, there was not a single moment. Danny DeVito is a talented actor and director, he proves that in this film. Both his acting and his directing are both great. The events that happen throughout the film are bitter and full of anger, but it's very interesting to watch. It runs deep in character development, a movie like this would have to in order to be successful. The movie is not one to view for a "feel good" mood or for when you want something sweet and romantic. If you're in the mood for a dramedy starring two fine actors that is interesting and well written, then I suggest The War of the Roses. 8/10.
-
staciarose2015 March 2021I watched this years ago, but watching it recently it seems so different. Barbara is truly cruel to him. He was the sole income for years. Yes, he didn't support her on everything, but he never demanded for her to quit her business. Not showing up when he was in the hospital was just low down. You don't do that after 20 years of marriage and two kids. I think she's more unhappy with herself than with him and vice versa.
-
There's no stopping the hatred for Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner once the gloves are off in this deliciously sinister black comedy that leaves no prisoners alive. Their initially ideal marriage sours just as their children are leaving the nest, a growing sense of disappointment and hatred that has been growing for years unbeknownst to them. The hatred that hatches out of love is a hatred that can never be given a truce, showing how adults when pushed to the brink can act more like children than children.
There's no pointing the finger to either Douglas or Turner as to who is at fault. Each of them has their reasons for their actions, and even though Douglas claims that he still loves Turner, his little humiliations of her in front of guests and slighting neglects are passive/aggressively imbedded in her mind. A health crisis for him brings out all her inner feelings of hatred towards him, and from there, the venom is deadlier than any viper.
The superb script and direction helps this become a fantastic black comedy that is like a rollercoaster, tiltowhirl and bumper car combined, speeding quicker than traffic on any California freeway. Through the eyes of attorney Danny De Vito, the story is told as a warning, not favoring either spouse, and certainly not misogynistic or misandrist in any way. It is an equal opportunity hater towards a marriage that is till death do we both part, a study of what happens when neither person in a relationship is willing to give. -
nicholas.rhodes27 July 2007I do not criticize the film for having been made ; indeed the subject matter is most original therefore the Director must be commended on an artistic level for having produced it. But really, cinema is here to make us dream and fell good. With this film you CANNOT feel good, there is so much hate and evil that it is frankly disgusting. I am sure that situations such as the one depicted in the film actually do exist in real life - that is enough, and painful as it is, without having to see them re-enacted during a film. I see people describing this as a black comedy but regrettably find nothing comic about the work at all. I do enjoy true black comedy about death, cripples et alia but here there is not an iota of anything vaguely comic. Though tribute must be paid to the main actors for their magnificent performances. However the film has left me with a negative prejudice about Kathleen Turner, who, to me at least, inspired more hatred than Michael Douglas. Indeed the film has the dangerous singularity of inspiring hatred and is far from resembling anything comic
-
I just saw this on telly again after a long time, and, having quickly browsed through user comments, I realise pretty much everything has been said about this film - in some cases to nauseating detail too - including all sorts of social and psychological analysis of the "battle of the sexes", etc etc....what people forget is that this is essentially a story about how love turns into blinding hate and that everything else that goes on is completely incidental, including the characters' backgrounds, sexes, social status, the milieu they live in, or the current sign of the times. From that point of view this is primarily a study of characters (and a fascinating one too) rather than anything else.
Turner and Douglas wrap up a brilliant script and a sparkling dialogue with what seems to be considerable ease and an impressive attention to detail, no doubt guided along by De Vito, whose direction is firm and playful at the same time, and in many instances even inspiring - he gets the mood just right, the tone constantly on an uncomfortable edge between a mordantly funny comedy and an ugly human conflict. In fact, the whole length of the film film ticks exceptionally well - slowed here and there, possibly, by the lack of strength of secondary characters - Sagerbrecht is a bit uneasy in this, at least to my liking, and the kids are completely bypassed -the scenes involving them are perhaps the weakest. The ending moral finger-wagging given by De Vito's character is also a bit heavy handed - but then this is Hollywood after all. It could have easily been much worse, we could have been fed a happy ending, god forbid. Instead, De Vito calls his own sweet wife and says he's coming home. Well, I can live with that, although some European director would have just left Oliver and Barbara laying there smashed under the chandelier and that would have been it. But I shouldn't complain....
Overall very funny and enjoyable. Check it out. -
jeremy33 April 2007A movie where Danny DeVito is the good guy. Hard to believe. This movie is basically about passive-aggressive relationships. Mrs. Rose (Turner) gives it her all to make her household livable. Mr. Rose (Douglas) is a mild mannered man, but one who only cares about career/financial success. The Roses' are snobs of the worst order, thinking only about their possessions. They represent the 80s. However, Mrs. Rose is the most unhappy. She is stuck in the house. Her husband doesn't seem to care or appreciate anything she does. He only cares about his career goals in his law firm. It is hard to completely blame Mr. Rose. The law firm demands everything from him. He always has to be fit and at their beck and command. Mrs. Rose's depression at her state finally reaches a boiling point when her two children leave for college. That's when the war begins. Mr. Rose hires his buddy (Devito) to be his lawyer. Devito regrets it, realizing that he has to be the go-between two crazy people. Neither of the Roses' sees the silliness and pettiness over fighting over a simple house. The house, however, represents their egos, and their entire self-worth. In the end, they both die, but not before understanding that they really did love each other all along. The sadness is that this didn't stop them for fighting over material gain. I guess the message is that the Roses' represent the values of the 80s, money and power over love.
-
scottdort20 November 2005This movie was so bad. Please only watch it if you wish to torture yourself. It has been on my top 10 worst movie list for years! My god! Look at the train wreak that has been Kathleen Turner's career since then! Oh wait, I forgot how great V.I. Warshawski was!! How many ways can Kathleen Turner kick a man in the crotch anyways? OK the first time it's funny but after that? Please.... What I most resent is the cartoon violence against men in this movie. If the roles were reversed, women's groups would have protested this film. Now that I think about it, has Danny DeVito really made anything since? He is a funny character actor but his creative skill are not really the best in my opinion.