I finally caught up with The Roses last week, and let me tell you, I haven't felt this conflicted since I tried to eat a salad while watching a steak commercial. The 2025 remake of The War of the Roses, directed by Jay Roach, stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Colman as Theo and Ivy, a couple whose divorce makes World War III look like a mild disagreement. Sounds fun, right? Well, apparently not enough people thought so, because the movie's opening weekend was less a box office bang and more a sad little whimper.

the-roses-a-box-office-flop-that-made-me-laugh-for-all-the-wrong-reasons-image-0

According to Deadline, as of Saturday morning, The Roses was projected to end its four-day Labor Day weekend with a measly $7.35 million domestic total. Ouch. To put that in perspective, the original 1989 film, directed by Danny DeVito, opened to $9.5 million over just three days—and that was in December, not exactly prime summer blockbuster season. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $24.3 million, which is more than triple the remake's haul. Yeah, I know, I felt that burn from here.

The Numbers Don't Lie (But They Do Hurt)

Let's break it down, because I love a good table almost as much as I love watching rich people be miserable on screen.

Metric The War of the Roses (1989) The Roses (2025)
Opening Weekend $9.5M (3-day) $7.35M (4-day projected)
Adjusted Opening ~$24.3M ~$7.35M
Domestic Total $86.9M TBD (probably not great)
Rotten Tomatoes 84% (Certified Fresh) 63%
CinemaScore N/A B+
Budget $26M Unknown

I'm no math wizard, but that's not a good look. The original had a multiplier of over 9x, meaning it stuck around like that one relative who never gets the hint. The remake, on the other hand, seems to be heading for a multiplier that's more like a sad shrug.

Why Did It Flop? Let Me Count the Ways

There are several reasons why The Roses wilted at the box office, and I've compiled them here for your reading pleasure (and my own catharsis):

  • Competition: It went up against Caught Stealing, the still-going Weapons, and a re-release of Jaws. Because nothing says "I want to watch a bitter divorce comedy" like a giant shark eating people. 🦈

  • Reviews: A 63% on Rotten Tomatoes is the cinematic equivalent of a lukewarm handshake. The original's 84%? That's a warm hug.

  • Nostalgia: The 1989 version is a beloved classic. Remakes of classics are like trying to reheat a gourmet meal in the microwave—the ingredients are there, but the magic is gone.

  • Timing: Labor Day weekend is a weird time for a dark comedy. People are either at the beach or mourning the end of summer. They don't want to watch a marriage implode.

  • Marketing: Did anyone even know this was coming out? I didn't until I saw the box office report. And I'm a professional movie-goer (okay, I just watch a lot of movies, but still).

the-roses-a-box-office-flop-that-made-me-laugh-for-all-the-wrong-reasons-image-1

My Personal Experience (Because I'm a Professional)

I watched The Roses with my cat, and even she seemed unimpressed. She yawned during the big argument scene, which I think is feline for "I've seen better divorce drama on reality TV." And she's not wrong. The film has its moments—Cumberbatch and Colman are both national treasures, and the supporting cast (Andy Samberg, Kate McKinnon, Allison Janney, etc.) is stacked—but the whole thing feels like a remake nobody asked for.

I went to a Tuesday afternoon screening, and I was literally the only person in the theater. That's not an exaggeration. The usher looked at me with pity. I could have auditioned for a one-man show and no one would have noticed. The movie itself? It's fine. It's not terrible. But it's not the 1989 version, which had a wicked gleefulness that's hard to replicate. Danny DeVito's performance as the husband was a masterclass in petty vengeance. Benedict Cumberbatch is great, but he's too... dignified? I kept expecting him to solve the divorce with a clever deduction and a violin solo.

The Verdict

So where does that leave The Roses? Probably on a streaming service near you, where it will quietly find an audience of people who are curious, bored, or both. And hey, that's okay. Not every movie needs to be a blockbuster. But when you're remaking a film that made nearly $87 million domestic in 1989, you'd hope for a little more roses and a lot less thorny box office disappointment.

As for me, I'll stick with the original. At least Danny DeVito's hair was entertaining. And if you're wondering whether the 2025 version is worth your time, let me put it this way: I'd rather watch a four-hour documentary about paint drying than sit through that opening weekend again. But that's just me. 🎬💸

the-roses-a-box-office-flop-that-made-me-laugh-for-all-the-wrong-reasons-image-2