The Revengers' Comedies (1998)

What a waste of my time!!!

I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I like this movie, and when I was in the habit of watching films, or sections of them, over and again, this was a favourite of mine to dip into. It has some very good moments, for the reason of being both funny and very well acted. I'd heard the play in a lengthier form on the radio some years before, so I was familiar with the story, and I was pleased to see Steve Coogan in an early film role (he is horribly wonderful as Bruce Tick). However, something about the film has always bothered me, and it actually only occurred to me very recently just what it is. It is that all of the young male leads are in the wrong roles. I just can't believe that Sam Neil would even consider the option of suicide (not a giveaway - this is the beginning of the film). Martin Clunes would have been better as Henry Bell - but it was the central role, and Sam Neil was the bigger name. Helena Bonham-Carter has lots of fun playing the psychotic woman. Utterly convincing, and it's easy to see why poor old Henry gets mixed up with her. The Revengers Comedies (Sweet Revenge is a better title for this movie)is not a classic, but it's better than a lot of recent British comedy films, and is a faint echo of a craft in which we once excelled, a long time ago.

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

This is a waste of 90 minutes, starring some excellent actors. What happened?I think this was intended to be another quirky English comedy. Unfortunately, the supposed humor generally feels mean-spirited. I kept expecting the plot was all about a scam or practical joke, and that the dead folks would pop up and start laughing. No such luck. The ending seems arbitrary 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 droll English humor. Yes, I realize the English tend to have a different sense of humor, but I wouldn't have considered this an example.

If you want to know what people mean when they say the British are superb in creating 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 new meanings to words like ironic, satiric, quaint, bucolic, whimsical and hilarious.The three leads are superb, but watch for the secondary leads, such as the boss who gets the axe by his wife due to his being set up, or the husband who gets shot by accident and everyone is ecstatic or, best of all, the head housekeeper 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 sit around as I am with impatience waiting for the sequel.