Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-17 18:57:48

Clever punchy British black comedy

Taking a cue from American ex-pat Patricia Highsmith's Strangers on a Train, playwright Alan Ayckbourn penned the plays on which Sweet Revenge was based, in whith two strangers each agree to bump off the person causing him/her the most misery in their respective lives.Of course Ayckbourn can't duplicate what Highsmith had already brilliantly done, so he starts things off with both parties being suicidal (definitely NOT part of the Highsmith story), then moves in very different directions from Highsmith indeed.Malcolm Mowbray, the talented director of this movie, (he also directed another punchy black comedy, but set in the States, Out Cold--with Teri Garr, John Lithgow and Randy Quaid--highly recommended), has done a great job deftly blending wry British humor with black comedy (very black, indeed) as well as romantic highjinks and some outright guffaws. When you see sparrows blithely flying around a living room, part of a huge mansion in which the younger son rides his motor scooter on a regular basis and the older sister (one of the two parties involved in the revenge pact) changes her appearance in the blink of an artistocratic eye, you can tell there's a lot of fun to be had.And there is. Highsmith's story has no comedy whatsoever, but Ayckbourn is a master of this mesh of comedy and biting stuff, and that comes across beautifully in this film version. The acting by the three leads (Sam Neill, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Helena Bonham Carter) is great, with the definite nod for scene stealer going to Ms. Carter, who seems capable of doing basically anything in front of a camera (see Fight Club and Twelfth Night for radically different and consistently excellent performances).A very nice piece of work. Recommended!

paul2001sw-1 2012-05-17 04:26:39

Jolly but abbreviated

Alan Ackybourn has written some brilliantly black and farcical plays,but in Macolm Mowbray's hands, his 'Revenger's Comedies' come acrossmerely as a jolly romp of little social relevance. The script sparklesin places, and Martin Clunes is very funny in his role, but as a whole,the piece never comes to life: perhaps it needs the intensity oftheatrical staging, where the escalating sequence of events can beunfolded in greater mutual proximity than in a film. But there's also asense I had in watching this that the script had been cut down; I don'tknow if this is true, but if so, it could explain why the script had anemasculated feeling, as if the dialogues between the characters hadbeen reduced to outline form only. In general, I'm a big fan of thiswriter; but if you want to explore his work, you might be betterstarting somewhere else.

ktmphd 2012-05-12 11:15:07

This defines droll.

If you want to know what people mean when they say the British are superb increating droll comedies and you do not know what they are talking about,watch this movie! You also get the benefit of seeing a movie that gives newmeanings to words like ironic, satiric, quaint, bucolic, whimsical andhilarious.The three leads are superb, but watch for the secondary leads, such as theboss who gets the axe by his wife due to his being set up, or the husbandwho gets shot by accident and everyone is ecstatic or, best of all, the headhousekeeper who is taking two or three years to break in her replacement.Get it, rent it, do whatever you need to do to see it and laugh. Then sitaround as I am with impatience waiting for the sequel.

La_Esmeralda 2012-05-11 22:03:00

Thoroughly enjoyable...

A little-known gem I picked up on the other night, this film really isso very, very amusing. Helena Bonham Carter steals the show as acompletely insane upper class psychopath, and is supported with stellarperformances from Sam Neill as her awkward accomplice, Rupert Graves asher odd brother, and Kristin Scott Thomas being the target of hervendetta. Special mentions go to the hilarious Steve Coogan and toMartin Clunes as the obnoxious husband. The storyline is old as day(based on Hitchcock's 'Strangers on a Train'), and yet with itsquintessentially British humour, manages to be highly entertaining. Iwould certainly recommend it; it has the viewer chortling the entireway through, and is short, snappy, and a good laugh on a Sundayafternoon.

2012-05-09 01:47:45

An oh-so-black comedy

This review is from: Sweet Revenge (DVD) I purchased this because of the rave reviews on Amazon and because I loved Aykbourn's brilliant The Norman Conquests. But this film, while it has its moments, is a studiously black comedy that doesn't come off. It works too hard at being completely off the wall, and ultimately disappoints. It's just mayhem, designed to draw laughs. Well, it does, but only occasionally. (Imagine playing Count Basie at the expiration of a villain. That's Mel Brooks country.) Yes, Helena Bonham Carter is an excellent actress. But it's all so contrived, complete with a wink at the camera at the end. Save your money.

2012-05-08 14:16:18

Strangers on a Bridge

As the story begins, Henry (Sam Neill) has lost his job to an unscrupulous co-worker, and has decided to end it all by jumping off Tower Bridge. There he meets eccentric Karen (Helena Bonham Carter) who has just bungled her own suicide attempt (her lover went back to his wife). They start talking about how much they wish their enemies were dead and Karen gleefully suggests they each do the job for the other. Henry assumes she's kidding, of course, but the next morning he finds Karen has gone ahead with the plan.If you think this plot sounds a lot like Hitchcock's thriller, "Strangers on a Train," you're right. The difference is this one's played for big laughs with dark humor that I really enjoyed. Neill is very good as the innocent man who gets caught up in the wacky plot hatched by Bonham Carter's character. She steals the show with her outrageous cheekiness. Kristin Scott Thomas is the lover's haughty wife, and no one plays the disdainful aristocrat better than she does. Comic actor Steve Coogan is hysterical as Henry's nemesis. If you like British comedies, you'll love "Sweet Revenge;" it's fast, funny, and loaded with droll upper-class humor. Excellent!Kona

guyb 2012-05-05 19:07:02

Waste of talent

This movie put me to sleep. Classic example of how you can garner up allthe great talent. But, with no script and bad direction, it just goesdownthe drain. Just keep walking past this one..... I was especiallysurprisedsince this group of actors usually is pretty picky about what they sign upfor.

Deborah 2012-05-05 12:39:28

Bloody good!

This film is a low budget creation of genius. The story had me in stitches throughout, even though it is packed full of black humour. I can't help but be touched, moved and slightly disturbed by this wonderful British film. The cameo role from Steve Coogan is "lovely stuff". Helena Bonham Carter is marvelous she has to be the star of the show as her role of Coogans secretary is black comedy at its best. A superb example of British humour at its finest.

robin-414 2012-05-04 20:09:51

Enjoyable, but miscast

I like this movie, and when I was in the habit of watching films, orsections of them, over and again, this was a favourite of mine to dipinto. It has some very good moments, for the reason of being both funnyand very well acted. I'd heard the play in a lengthier form on theradio some years before, so I was familiar with the story, and I waspleased to see Steve Coogan in an early film role (he is horriblywonderful as Bruce Tick). However, something about the film has alwaysbothered me, and it actually only occurred to me very recently justwhat it is. It is that all of the young male leads are in the wrongroles. I just can't believe that Sam Neil would even consider theoption of suicide (not a giveaway - this is the beginning of the film).Martin Clunes would have been better as Henry Bell - but it was thecentral role, and Sam Neil was the bigger name. Helena Bonham-Carterhas lots of fun playing the psychotic woman. Utterly convincing, andit's easy to see why poor old Henry gets mixed up with her. TheRevengers Comedies (Sweet Revenge is a better title for this movie)isnot a classic, but it's better than a lot of recent British comedyfilms, and is a faint echo of a craft in which we once excelled, a longtime ago.

2012-05-04 08:21:39

Some great moments, but ultimately lacking cohesion

I generally enjoy British comedies and prefer a good, thoughtful snicker over slapstick fun. When I watched this, I wanted to like it. And when I read the reviews after watching it, I'm really trying to like it. But I can't entirely agree with the other reviews...not because they're wrong, just my taste differs. I feel like the movie had so many great elements (including as others have said some excellent acting) and could have been truly hilarious, but it just went a little off kilter somewhere and couldn't quite stay on track. Just as you warmed up to one element, something else would spoil the moment.My initial reaction was "what a crazy movie!" Karen appears to be a complete maniac and Henry is extremely slow to catch on in some ways (i.e., he realizes Karen is quite dangerous from the start but doesn't seem to have any other way of dealing with her than really unitelligent honesty). The brother Oliver is great and there are a lot of small scenes that the film does quite well (when the kippers cause an embarassing stain, the way the young maid Norma is treated, etc).But I disagree that Imogen was affected and arrogant. She responded to the view of Karen (her husband's former mistress) with the cold fury of someone attempting to maintain composure in the face of great strain. If a spouse brought me to an outing with their former "lover", I'd be pretty mad too. Her first comment to Henry is indicative of her frustration and she says it without thinking.But how would anyone like Karen or Imogen find Anthony appealing? I found it farfetched how quickly Imogen fell for Henry and vice versa, upon their second meeting he tries to kiss her. And it seems unlikely that someone who suffered from frequent asthma would not carry their ventilator in their pocket (but maybe I am uninformed on this score).Towards the end, it began lacking a feeling of cohesion and felt more like random funny moments appended to each other. The ending didn't feel like you arrived at a destination, more like it just stopped somewhere when we ran out of time and patched on a quick finish. Anyway, some people liked this so it's definitely got a following, just didn't appeal to me. Maybe it will grow on me in time.

Sacha Van Spall 2012-04-27 07:26:32

Absolute drivel!!!

Anyone who thinks this is a good example of British humour has obviouslyhada humour bypass. A good example of why the British film industry is goingdown the pan!Do not encourage bad films like this...they'll only makemore!

James Hitchcock 2012-04-26 17:19:36

A valiant attempt to adapt Ayckbourn for the screen

Sir Alan Ayckbourn is one of Britain's most successful and prolificplaywrights, but the British film industry, unlike the British theatreand British television, has never taken much interest in his work.Although he has written more than seventy full-length plays, most ofwhich have been performed in London's West End and many of which havebeen adapted for television, the number of feature films based on hiswork can be counted on the fingers of one hand. (Two have been made bythe French director Alain Resnais; the only other one in English isMichael Winner's version of "A Chorus of Disapproval"). "The Revengers' Comedies" is the other British exception to the generalcinematic disregard of Ayckbourn's work, although I must say that itwas a strange choice to adapt for the screen. The original play was nota success when it was put on in the West End in 1991, largely becauseit runs for five hours and was presented in two parts over twosuccessive evenings. Malcolm Mowbray's film makes no attempt to matchthe play in length; indeed, at only 86 minutes it is shorter than mostfilms these days. This means that, inevitably, much of Ayckbourn'soriginal material has to be jettisoned. Mowbray, however, keeps theplural noun "comedies" in the title, which Ayckbourn used to signifythat this was a two-part play. The title is a play on "The Revenger's Tragedy", the Jacobean tragedywhich has been attributed to both Cyril Tourneur and Thomas Middleton.The plot owes something to Alfred Hitchcock's film "Strangers on aTrain". It starts with the two principal characters meeting when theyattempt to commit suicide by jumping from Tower Bridge. (The AlbertBridge in the play). Henry Bell, a middle-aged business executive, hasrecently been sacked from his job. Karen Knightly, the eccentricdaughter of a wealthy country family, has been involved in an unhappylove affair with a married man. When both fail in their suicide bids,they compare stories and agree that each will exact revenge for theirmisfortunes on behalf of the other. Karen will seek revenge on Henry'sunpleasant former boss Bruce Tick while Henry will seek revenge, notagainst Karen's former lover Anthony Staxton-Billing, with whom she isstill in love, but against his wife Imogen whom Karen blames for hermisfortunes. A complication arises, however, when Henry meets Imogenand starts to fall in love with her. The film features a number of well-known names from the British actingprofession, most of whom play their parts very well. I felt that SamNeill perhaps made Henry too staid and conservative compared to GriffRhys Jones' interpretation when he played the part on stage; I feltthat Henry must have had a darker side to his character to have gonealong with Karen's mad scheme in the first place. Helena Bonham Carter,however, was brilliant as Karen, a spoilt, wilful upper-class brat,wildly eccentric to the point of insanity. I felt that Steve Coogan'sTick was insufficiently arrogant and bullying, but Martin Clunes'Anthony was suitably obnoxious, essentially a crude thug in theclothing of an English country gentleman. Kristin Scott Thomas seems toplay upper-class horsey types at regular ten-year intervals; her BrendaLast from 1988's "A Handful of Dust" and her Veronica Whittaker from2008's "Easy Virtue" are, socially speaking, very similar characters tothe one she plays here. Imogen, however, is more sympathetic thaneither Brenda or Veronica; although she initially comes across as ahard-bitten snob, we soon realise that underneath she is a vulnerablefigure, the victim of a selfish, womanising husband.There is a lot of humour in the film; the funniest scenes, I felt, werethose where Karen disguises herself as a frumpy office temp in order toinfiltrate Tick's company and that strange duel between Henry andAnthony. And yet the film as a whole did not work for me quite as wellas the play. (I seem to be not only one of the few people who actuallysaw the 1991 production but also one of the even smaller group ofpeople who liked it). Ayckbourn's success as a dramatist is due not merely to the quality ofhis plots and dialogue but also on matters which transfer less easilyto the cinema screen, such as complexity of structure and his knowledgeof stagecraft. (Besides being a playwright, he is also the artisticdirector of a theatre). By condensing the five hours of his "RevengersComedies" into less than an hour and a half, much of the dramaticmaterial in the plays has had to be sacrificed, and the result issomething less complex and less well-structured than the original play.(The ending in particular is rather disappointing). The film versionalso loses something of the dark quality of Ayckbourn's black comedy.It is a valiant attempt to adapt Ayckbourn for the screen, but itperhaps also indicates why such an attempt is fraught with difficultyand why so few films have been based on his plays. 7/10

2012-04-25 04:25:23

Perfect!!!

I loved every second of this film. I can't imagine how anyone could not like it. It's funny, full of talented actors esp Sam Neill. Thoroughly entertaining!! A great buy.

George Parker 2012-04-25 01:19:02

For lovers of the British wit.

"Sweet Revenge" tells of a suicidal man (Neill) and woman (Carter) whomeeton a London bridge and hatch a plot to dispose of the trouble-maker ineachother's life. The film is a delightful British romp full of stodginess,stuffiness, silliness, and very dry British humor. Those with a taste forBritish wit will likely find this a fun comedy while those with no suchtaste will find it dull.

2012-04-20 13:27:17

What A Difference A 1st Class Playwright Can Make

I used to go to the theater frequently and one playwright I came to adore was Alan Ayckbourn from the UK. He was to comedic plays what playwrights David Mamet and Sam Shepherd were to dramatic ones. Ayckbourn's gift is to hit dead on the essential underpinnings of the British middle and upper classes and set them up for laughter amidst a rollicking good story line. I was absolutely astounded to discover how good Helena Bonham-Carter is doing comedic material. When I first put the disk on the player, hubby saw she was in it and groaned, being convinced she plays nothing other than sullen witches. He was even more astounded than I was by the utterly transformed Bonham-Carter. The basic premise of the comedy is simple. Bonham-Carter will get revenge on Neill's competitor who stole his job. In exchange, Neill will wreck revenge upon the wife of Bonham-Carter's former lover. This leads to one hilarious scene after another with the high point being a duel in the woods, with shotguns, between Neill and the former lover. Only Ayckbourn could come up with 2 Brits using shotguns instead of dueling pistols in the name of honor and make it gently humorous instead of outright Monty Python zaney. If you have never seen an Ayckbourn play or film before, you are in for a treat. Ayckbourn becomes an acquired taste along the way that no other playwright fills quite as well in his little niche British world.

bob the moo 2012-04-19 18:37:38

A generally bland film that will only distract the very undemanding

Henry Bell is at the end of his rope having lost his job to theloathsome Bruce Tick and he heads to a bridge to kill himself. There hefinds Karen Knightly trying to do the same but stuck on the ledge – hehelps her of course and the two go for coffee. They discuss each othersproblems – basically both have been driven to despair by a differentperson each, in Karen's case, the wife of her lover AnthonyStaxton-Billing. Karen hits on the plan that they swap revenges andeach kill the source of the other's pain. Before he knows what ishappening, Henry is put up as a guest at the Staxton-Billing's home andKaren heads to the city to work as Tick's secretary. However, as shemanages to start to pick at her victim's life, Henry finds himselffalling for his.Taking its starting point as the Hitchcock film Strangers on a Train,this comedy goes down a fairly predictable route without doing a greatdeal to make it stick in my mind. The script splits the film down themiddle – on one hand we have the scheming Karen destroying Tick, whileon the other we have Henry battling with Anthony for the love of hiswife. The former is amusing if simple, while the latter is ratherplodding mainly because it has to carry a narrative thread that willgive the film something to end on. While it just about does enough tokeep moving forward and be watchable, it never does anything that well.At no point did I laugh more than one chuckle perhaps, neither was Iengaged by the plot beyond watching it unfold along the lines I knew itwould. Failure to excel in any area whatsoever means that the endresult is rather bland if not actually "bad".The cast match this tone and none of them have much that they can do agreat deal with. Neill is therefore a bit wooden because he has thelesser role; Carter on the other hand enjoys herself and hams it up,providing at least a bit of colour to the role. Scott Thomas is ratherbland and doesn't add a great deal, although Clunes is his enjoyableannoying self. Coogan is amusing but not annoying enough to make uswish for his fate – instead I felt rather sorry for him. Graves is"wacky" but Smith is funny, Wood is OK, Dobson plays the same screamingold tart that she always does although Coleman is cute.Overall, a fairly bland film that doesn't do anything that well. Theplot is predictable but of some value in at least moving the filmforward, but it moves it without providing any drama or laughs toengage the audience. It may provide enough to distract you if you arereally undemanding but it is probably not worth the effort.

DaveZ 2012-04-10 05:02:50

did I miss something?

This is a waste of 90 minutes, starring some excellent actors. Whathappened?I think this was intended to be another quirky English comedy.Unfortunately, the supposed humor generally feels mean-spirited. I keptexpecting the plot was all about a scam or practical joke, and that thedeadfolks would pop up and start laughing. No such luck. The ending seemsarbitrary and abrupt. The narration is pointless (was it intended to "fix"a major re-editing?).The other comments talk about this being a wonderful example of drollEnglish humor. Yes, I realize the English tend to have a different senseofhumor, but I wouldn't have considered this an example.

merklekranz 2012-04-09 14:16:51

Mish-mash misfire......

If you view a great British comedy in the right mood, it can be asplendid evenings entertainment. First you have to get past thedialect, and the faster the lines are delivered, the more challengingthis becomes. However, if the laughs are there they will come throughloud and clear. Unfortunately this is not the case with "SweetRevenge". This totally predictable and uninspired effort, fails onseveral levels. The punchlines are telegraphed well in advance. Thescript is in many places more mean spirited than funny. Do yourself afavor. If you want to see a wonderful, dark, British comedy, seek out"Car Trouble" and skip this one. - MERK

Jelly-4 2012-04-08 00:34:37

Not long enough!

What a refreshing change to see such a witty comedy. The cast wasexcellent,especially Helena Bonham Carter who was outrageously wicked. But my onlycomplaint is that it was too short. I wanted to see Helena's characterworkout the rest of her revenge plot.

NJMoon 2012-04-07 20:12:57

Bitter Sweet

Like Harvey Fierstein's TORCH SONG TRILOGY, this two-part play almostdemanded a name change before lensing, but all except the US marketchose to do so (SWEET REVENGE, to us Yanks). Alan Ayckbourn's cuttingcomic caper concerns two desperate losers who opt for revenge insteadof a midnight dive into the Thames. Fine Britress Helena Bonham Carteris the controlling "she" while sedate Ozian Sam Neil is the duller"he". Stick insect Kristin Scott Thomas replaces the much-missed JoannaLumley from the stage version while a mopey Rupert Graves isserviceable as the wayward brother. This is only one of three Ayckbournplays (out of 69) to make it to the big screen (A CHORUS OF DISAPPROVALand SMOKING/NO SMOKING, the other two) and it's compression proves it'sfailing. The quaint Liz Smith is antic as the doddering maid. In theend, though, the fabric has been sliced and mended till the narrativeis less than satisfying.