I'm not sure we can accurately call The Roses a remake of the 1989 comedy The War of the Roses, which was itself based on a 1981 novel of the same name. It's more like a film influenced by both, as it veers pretty heavily from that source material.
I thought the 1989 final was serviceable but not particularly funny, and really held together by Kathleen Turner's performance. The Roses is an improvement, but I have to say that once again the movie is held together by the woman playing Mrs. Rose.
Olivia Colman is Ivy, who meets architect Theo Rose (Benedict Cumberbatch) when she's working as a sous-chef in London. In short order they fall in love, move to the States, and have two kids. When Theo faces a career set-back, Ivy is given the opportunity to open her own restaurant. Success soon follows, which Theo has a hard time dealing with, until he's given the opportunity to pursue his own path once again.
But soon bitterness and resentment become the dominant forces in their marriage, and Ivy and Theo face divorce. The movie does a good job of not really favoring one side over the other. You can totally understand why Theo may despise Ivy, and why Ivy wants to be rid of Theo. The comedy in their mutual destruction is certainly dark, but it's lightened a bit by Andy Samberg and Kate McKinnon as Barry and Amy, friends of the Roses who have found a way to deal with their own marriage issues (letting Amy lust after Theo seems to be one part of it; McKinnon basically steals every scene she's in),
But Olivia Colman is the movie's biggest asset, and I came out of the film realizing how much I love her work, particularly her comedic roles. In The Roses, she's a goddamn delight, whether she's in her restaurant basking in the glory of her success, or threatening her husband with imminent death, she's just a joy to watch, and is the primary reason I will be definitely be returning to this film more than once.
I think I've known for a long time that the films of Darren Aronofsky just aren't for me. My love for Black Swan kind of threw a wrench into that theory, until I came to realize that my love of ballet (especially ballet + horror; see also the original Suspiria), is the primary reason why I like that film.
But I will admit I was intrigued by the trailer for Caught Stealing. I wanted to see what he'd do with a crime comedy, and once I checked that the cat featured so heavily in the ads does in fact survive, I accepted an invite to a screening.
My friends, believe me when I tell you this is not a comedy. I guess Aronofsky is just incapable of it, even when all the pieces are right there for the taking. And Caught Stealing certainly starts out as one. Austin Butler and Zoe Kravitz are Hank and Yvonne, hot young lovers living and working in the Lower East Side of Manhattan in 1998. When Hank's neighbor Russ (a mohawked Matt Smith) asks him to watch his cat Bud while he returns to London for a family emergency, Hank finds himself entangled with different organized crime factions who are after Russ.
Caught Stealing is like a Guy Ritchie drained of humor, full of pain and death that seems to be there just to prove that yes, this movie can go dark. The cat does not die, but it does get hurt, and that's where the movie started to lose me. But it lost me completely shortly thereafter when it takes a turn it absolutely never recovers from, leaving me resentful that I had to sit there for another hour.
There's a car accident that plays a big part in the plot, and an image of a car crashing head-on into a pole in slow motion is taken directly from the 2001 video for Madonna's song "What It Feels Like for a Girl," a violent and funny video that was, incidentally, directed by Guy Ritchie. Do yourself a favor, skip Caught Stealing and just watch it instead.