Revengers Tragedy (2002) User Reviews

Great Little Movie

[maximumhong · 7/10 · 30 June 2006]

Revenger's Tragedy is a great little movie directed by Alex Cox and starring Christopher Eccleston as the "Revenger." Probably not for young audiences (language, violence), but is timely and full of of quirky, chaotic fun.

"Let the man who seeks revenge remember to dig two graves." This is the message the film begins with. How apt, considering the nature of the film and the state of the world's affairs today.

Christopher Eccleston is a brilliant actor and can tackle any role with a unique and charming fervor. Here, he plays a tortured man on top of his game of seeking revenge for the murder of his bride. He's a 'bone-setter' by trade, and he even carries around his bride's skull and rants and raves with it.

Derek Jacobi plays the villainous, lecherous duke who is the target of revenge. With such a determined performance, one would not believe that the actor was paid little to nothing for his involvement.

Eddie Izzard plays a son of the Duke and the next in line, and a reluctant power junkie. I love the off-casting, because usually Eddie Izzard is the funny man but in this case he is the witty but ultimately corrupt fall guy.

If you've seen Repo Man, Sid and Nancy, and Straight to Hell, take that impression and combine it with a Jacobian revenge tragedy (language unchanged), add Eccleston and Eddie Izzard and Derek Jacobi, with little or no budget, and you have a memorable way to spend 2 hours of your life. This won't be a remembered or highly-sought after film, but then again, the truly unique ones never are.

A real cinematic treat

[mob61uk · 6/10 · 17 July 2002]

A real cinematic treat, this film takes a play published in 1607 and transposes it to a strange modern(ish) world. Cox's direction is brilliantly inventive, giving the film a fast-paced anarchic feel that never becomes just a showy veneer. The stylised langauge and the modern visuals work very well. Christopher Eccleston as the "revenger" is superb, as is Derek Jacobi (as you've never seen him before!). Highly recommended.

What you talking' about?

[autonutter · 7/10 · 11 January 2005]

I thought the film was brilliant, fair enough, some things were slightly questionable, but on the whole, the film was great. Oh and Scouser boy, the script is actually a play, written by Thomas Middleton in 1607, so no use complaining coz the guy who wrote it won't be able to hear you!

Christopher Eccleston is brilliant in the lead role, adding a gritty determined and almost sinister touch to the character; Eddie Izzard is wonderfully camp but never the less remains serious throughout the film. It's colourful and fun (the 'footy' match is inspired lunacy)...well apart from the grim storyline. Don't be looking for realism, instead just revel in Alex Cox's artistic approach to modern storytelling and enjoy the film.

Lots of fun

[McGonigle · 6 December 2004]

Alex Cox brings us a gleefully over-the-top adaptation of a Jacobean revenge play. Where Shakespeare was the high culture of his day, this piece (originally performed anonymously, presumably to shield its author from any repercussions due to its distinctly anti-authoritarian slant) plays out more like a 17th-century Leone movie. In this version, the action has been transferred to a vaguely-defined post-nuclear-war Liverpool, ruled over by an amoral Duke and terrorized by his violent sons.

The cast is great (especially Derek Jacobi and Christopher Eccleston) and the whole film is characterized by an intense spirit of fun. My only problem (as a yank) was that -- in spite of years spent enjoying British TV -- I found the combination of archaic syntax and scouse accents to be incomprehensible at times. Fortunately, the subtitles on the DVD made it much easier to follow the dialogue and plot line.

This certainly won't be to everyone's tastes, but it's a good one.

very good film

[lizzie2763 · 7/10 · 10 May 2005]

i bought this film because it had eddie izzard in it. i was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. eccleston and izzard were great. derek jacobi was brilliant. The plot wasn't too predictable. the idea for the backdrop to be post-apocalyptic Liverpool was an inspiration. worth watching. its a film i would watch more than once. happy to add it to my favourites collection. the speech was sometimes drowned out by the background music which made the film a little hard to follow. but i intend to watch the film again, so I'm sure i will pick up stuff i missed the first time round. and my film doesn't have subtitles which would have helped.

Superb Modernization

[kleist-1 · 10/10 · 12 August 2005]

Clever screen modernizations of classic drama make sense to me. I loved Ethan Hawke in HAMLET, Emma Thompson in MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, Kevin Klein in A MIDSUMMER'S NIGHT DREAM, etc.

This is a masterful adaptation/reformulation of THE REVENGER'S TRAGEDY. It's intelligent, fast-paced, witty, shocking, engaging, and faithful to the spirit of the original.

I intend to use it in conjunction with teaching the original to Advanced Placement English students in a public high school.

As a certain 20th-century poet said, "Don't criticize what you can't understand." This is a nearly flawless production for anyone who loves the history of theater or who loves great cinema.

Fabulous

[josie4 · 9/10 · 24 August 2004]

The acting is tremendous, the dialogue is delivered with such ease and intensity, and where there is caddiness-- it is intentional. This movie is visually beautiful and unapologetic; it does not bore you with tedious dialogue, but challenges the audience to mesh both Jacobean language with a modern day setting. Other movies have tried to accomplish this time fold, attempting to 'modernize' what they consider to be classics, but other movies did not have Christopher Eccleston and Eddie Izzard. There performances deserved more credit than the average moviegoer could afford. See this movie.

terrible

[Scouserboy · 1/10 · 11 January 2004]

i really wanted this to be good as i am from Liverpool where it is set but it truly awful. the acting from everyone involved is cringeworthy the script is terrible absolutly terrible. terrible

Gleeful, Manic Liverpudlian Treat.

[mrsambarlow · 10/10 · 9 March 2003]

A superb turn from the eternal punk, Alex Cox. Excellent performances and production design that never overshadows the rest of the show, despite being constantly inventive and energetic. And a great soundtrack by ChumbaWunmba (never thought I'd see myself saying that :))

Dreadful

[moloko-6 · 2/10 · 25 March 2003]

Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion.

A great mix of dementia, dialogue and dam fine scouse

[meles71 · 13 July 2002]

I have just seen the premier of this film at the Cambridge Film Festival, and it is superb. Christopher Eccleston is demented as the lead role, and Eddie Izzard at last cuts out the buffonery and lives up to his promise. Chumbuwumba provide and excelent soundtrack, and the costume designers have seen too many Adam Ant videos. The scouse touches bring the film down to earth just when it seems to get away. Better performances, and directing, would be difficult to see.

Wonderful! Elizabethan suspense meets "A Clockwork Orange".

[JJSullivan · 10/10 · 22 January 2003]

Wonderful! Elizabethan (or Edwardian) suspense meets "A Clockwork Orange". This production of a play by John Middleton (Shakespeare's contemporary) is cast in a dark punk-futuristic mode. The setting fits the plot so snugly it almost seems like Middleton wrote the play especially for it. Great acting. Highly recommended for anyone willing to make an effort to get the fast-paced 17th century English.

My favorite movie by far

[Dean_Sayers · 10/10 · 8 July 2006]

This movie relates a surrealistic rendition of a 16th century play by Thomas Middleton (sometimes credited to Cyril Tourneur). The movie is set in a feudal European society (Liverpool) in the near future, the opening scene relating a nuclear attack on Europe.

The acting is very good - Christopher Eccleston's emotions are believable and he brings the old English style of the play to life. The actors actually bring the old English to life in a way that Romeo and Juliet failed to. From the hatred of the Duke from the commoners to the expressions of Joy in the wedding sequences, the acting makes one feel as if the emotion is sincere.

The scenery manages to appear a post-apocalyptic impoverished city that is dynamic and pleasing to the eye. The images of the Duke become eerier as the film progresses, representing an authority that s all - encompassing. There is very little nature shown, though the glamorous buildings chosen as sets suggest opulence at the expense of the people, and are beautiful.

The writers modify the language to a degree to make the violent speech sharper and the whole script easier to relate to. The lines that appear in old English but were absent from the play blend in well and supplement the near - futuristic setting well. The whole story is in fact changed to some degree in order to make the futuristic set blend in well with the script.

Politically, there are many references to peoples' struggles. A poster depicting Oscar Romero, a martyr for his support of "Liberation theology" and a quote of his appears near the end of the movie. The original play in fact was released anonymously, probably because it depicts authority as reviled by the disgruntled populace. The play makes the royal family appear corrupt from their abuse of the law to an adulterous, murderous family life. The movie takes this further; dressing the Duke to resemble a vampire and making the heirs to the throne appear childish as well as greedy. The news is symbolized by an eye over a pyramid, the duke appears regularly as if he was Big Brother and even the popular Antonio is corrupt.

Not surprisingly, a leftist musical group, Chumbawamba was chosen to do the whole soundtrack. The music is more than stunning; it's atmospheric, melancholy adds graveness to the movie. In some ways the shows plays like a music video - even when the music fades the beauty of the old English is lyrical and allows the audio to flow seamlessly. Chumbawamba released a new version of "Don't Try this at Home" including bits of audio from the movie; the song appears during the credits and on the soundtrack. The lyrics of the song underline the undoubtedly political intent in the movie, and the original lyrics ironically relate very well to the plot of the movie.

Hamlet meets Romeo and Juliet, King Lear and Batman and Robin.

[karenbennitton · 1/10 · 22 February 2003]

Does anyone care about any of the characters in this film? - Or for that matter what happens to them? - I doubt it. That is the key problem - for a tragedy to work we have to care about at least one of the characters and none of them inspire any sympathy or appear to have any redeeming qualities at all.

What may have worked in the 16th Century, certainly does not work in one can only assume 'post apocalyptic Liverpool' if that was indeed what it was meant to be. The problem is the characters in post apocalyptic Liverpool, whilst still driving around in cars, using mobile phones and watching television, have reverted to speaking in Shakespearian language - with a Liverpudlian dialect. Oh dear! Bad enough you might think - but this often lapsed into pure scouse - with comments such as 'eh lah are you a cockney? And was that a Merseyrail announcement during one of the scenes filmed in the underground? Well the good news is that in Post apocalyptic Liverpool - the trains are still running.

The characters without exception are badly drawn, wooden and more like charicatures on the lines of the Joker/Penguin in Batman and Robin except there is no real storyline to speak of - or if there is - it is one that doesn't work in a modern setting where half the sets are gloomy and 'Blade runnerish' and the other half are fluorescent garish or just 21st century normal. Costumes are also mixed up with half wearing their everyday clothes (Parkers are big in post apocalyptic Liverpool - apparently) and the other half wearing costumes from the leftovers of a fancy dress party?

The film explores the ideas of lust, incest and revenge in the most inane fashion imaginable - the tragedy is that this film was made at all.

A very odd movie

[qv1879 · 9/10 · 8 September 2006]

The basic story is simple; On the day one man is married his new wife is murdered by a gangster because she wouldn't give into his "lust". The husband has to leave the town or be murdered. Ten years later, the husband returns to extract vengeance.

This film is based on Cyril Tourneur's play. The Revenger's Tragedy. The film makers brought the time period (1600)to the present(2002). The dialogue remains in the 17th century and all or most of the actors were from the North of England. That's not altogether a bad thing. The viewer really doesn't need the dialogue to understand the story because of the strong acting abilities of the actors involved. The one performance that made my skin crawl was Derek Jacobi as the Duke. Three actors stood out as carrying the film on their shoulders; Jacobi Christopher Eccleston, and Eddie Izzard, but it was Jacobi that stood out the most.

I do recommend this movie. You might have to watch it a couple of times, but when you are finished, I think you will agree with me that it is a very good movie.

absolutely agree with writer of "Atrocious" review

[lottnewborne · 1/10 · 2 June 2022]

Even worse than Liz and Dick's heavy panting and grunting SHREW, this epic seems determined to obscure any connection to its source material. Twenty years later, timelessly bad,

Excellent movie - but read/watch the play first

[david-davies-1 · 10/10 · 7 April 2006]

This is an excellent adaptation of the play, which penguin classics claims Tourneur wrote, not Middleton, by the way.

Christopher Eccleston is superb in acting Vindice as a fanatically hilarious psychopath, and the modern twists to give it present day significance also work well.

However the language is quite difficult to understand, indeed I would say reading the play is important to gain some perspective into what is actually occurring, and to keep in mind as you watch it, especially th subtle changes, and a more satisfying ending than that given in the play. However it is quite advisable to never question the plausibility of the events in the play actually occurring, in essence it would make little sense, however I recommend you suspend your disbelief and be carried along on this imaginary journey into the surreal and meaningful.

Atrocious

[iainlaurie · 28 March 2003]

This is quite simply one of the WORST films I have ever seen.Alex Cox has made 1 good film(Sid and Nancy)and has been coasting since then on his non-reputation, but enough is enough.Taking Middletons already over the top play and infusing it with dreary 80-s post-punk visuals and dreadfull Derek Jarman style pretension leaves the viewer nauseous and patronised.

Eccleston, usually dependable is AWFUL, and only Izzard acquits himself(amazingly).Avoid this trash at any cost

0/5

Grand stuff..

[boxduty · 9/10 · 18 February 2005]

I agree with all the positive comments that have been made.

It's greatly entertaining, as nearly all revenge films are. (in my opinion anyway...) It's got asides to the audience. (I do like that) It looks gorgeous, never lags, has great casting/acting. (Although I'm not sure if Alex Cox's cameo fits in here this time.....)

And even the plot's good, I reckon.

So...that's my erudite opinion, (albeit a bit spartan!) Give it a chance, it's great.....

Shame there's no commentary on the DVD tho...

To sum up - great film!

Olde Threatre re-imaged.

[Rabh17 · 5/10 · 8 August 2009]

I will say that you have to be prepared for this English retelling of a Middle Age Play.

Forget the SciFi elements. If you think Sci-Fi, you will feel short-changed. If you think pure stage drama with post apocalyptic 21st century props, then you will be ready to sit thru this.

And while the setting is Post-Apocaplytic England, the language and script is wholly Olde English/Elizabethan. So you will quirk an eye-brow and go "Huh?" when you start hearing the 'My Lord's, the 'My Lady's, and long archaic, flowery phrases.

BUT. . .having said that: you can get into the swing of it after 15 minutes and go along for the ride. It IS different.

And because women tend to like all things 'Play-ish', this one is Girlfriend Friendly with extra brownie points for the Guy in her bank-- for purely female reasons.

So be a Good Joe and try to keep your finger OFF the FF button.

This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard ...

[kaaber-2 · 17 July 2019]

Middleton's play, as it is, serves to set off the brilliance of Shakespeare. When hearing the lines in "The Revenger's Tragedy", one is flabbergasted at the thought that this dribble could attract an audience at the Globe and the Blackfriars in between "King Lear", "Macbeth" and "Winter's Tale". All Middleton's characters are utterly one-dimensional, and the villains - of which we have a handful - are so flat that they make Cruella DeVil look like Hedda Gabler by comparison. Dialogue and plot are insipid and inane, playing entirely for shock value as we skip through rape, necrophilia and murder. The dramaturgy is as flat as the characters; we are told the same things over and over, so to say the plot lacks development is in fact a stretch - at times it virtually seems to go backwards, until the final ten minutes when all the characters snuff it - not a minute too soon. Thus much for Middleton's play; this film version doesn't help him one bit. The acting is surprisingly amateurish, even from otherwise great professionals like Eccleston, Quick and Jacobi. "The Revenger's Tragedy" is down there with the razziest works in film history, say, "Reptilicus" and "Plan 9 from Outer Space". And for this reason alone, it's worth a watch. It gives you an opportunity to reflect on what makes a good film good, and why Middleton is no Shakespeare.