Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

I had never heard of this film before I stumbled across it one evening. I am a big fan of Christopher Walken and noticed that Helen Mirren was in it too. Rupert Everett and Natasha Richardson also star - so I assumed (wrongly) this would be worth watching.It's not.Set in Venice, we see a strained relationship between Everett and Richardson as a holidaying couple. They meet Walken one evening as they were looking for a bar, they have some drinks, Walken invites them to stay at his house and there they meet Mirren. I could elaborate more and even give the ending away (an ending that could not come soon enough) but even that would be a waste of time.I cannot even explain the plot because it makes no sense. A bit like the dialogue too. Everett spends the whole time either walking (semi-bounding if you ask me - where did he learn to walk like that?) around with one hand in his pocket looking totally bored with everything or talking cack-handed, pompous rubbish. Richardson looks like she'd rather suck on a bag of lemons than be in this film and as for Mirren and Walken - why they ever signed up at all is beyond me. The dialogue is so bad - it has to be heard to be believed. One such example is Everett asks why Walken was secretly taking pictures of him before they met. Walken answers: "See that Barber Shop. My grandfather went to that Barber shop. My father went to that barber shop. I go to that barber shop." Then he turns to look at an island in the distance and says "See over there? That's Cemetery Island." Does a short snort and walks off screen - scene over. What????This is a waste of time, energy, acting talent, anything else you want to throw in. Not worth watching even if you were given a free giant Pizza and a pint of Peroni to add to the Italian ambiance.I would have given this film 0/10 if there was an option. Unfortunately, there wasn't. 1/10. Avoid like the plague.

A young couple returns to Venice to rekindle their passion, but their fate lies in the hands of an old couple with malice in their hearts ...I've seen this many times and always thought it a great film. The story is adapted from McEwan, but I think he stole it from Don't Look Now, which is based on Du Maurier's short story.Four actors playing their parts brilliantly. Richardson is great as the middle class optimist, Walken is nicely sociopath, and Everett plays the weak narcissist. But the whole thing comes together with Helen Mirren's speech about women's play acting.Score by Badalamenti is amazing. Location amazing. And the ending is so cruel - this is a horror film, because it takes you through the looking glass to a world where malevolence rules and there's nothing you can do about it.

Although the actors do play very well and give a marvellous performance, I can say that was all the good about it. In fact, I decided to buy the movie for their sake: Helen Mirren, Rupert Everett, Natasha Richardson,who are brilliant actors.Unfortunately, in our country ratings are not always accurate and for this one definitely was not.It is not simply a thriller, it is horrifying, and brutal, what is more, sick. I believe viewers should be warned in advance because not everybody has the stomach for it. So now I am spoiling it, understandably, and for a good reason. After all it is not a war movie/ a horror movie where you can expect a few throats cut. And that is exactly what you get, all of a sudden, unexpectedly. Without any good reasoning or a message to tell like in other psychologically much better written thrillers.(e.g. The Devil's Advocate) All you read about " The Comfort of Strangers" is how full it is with lust and reviews concentrate on the British couple's relationship, the chilling ( and boring) music, the wonderfully made images ( again way too boring , like a still of a picture sometimes). No mention of the very violent, direct throat-cutting scene in the end.I actually loved Rupert in it, his character, the way he was willing to do everything for his girl, but I believe he should have put up a good fight at least, not wait for his killing like a lamb. Maybe, we can say it was a nice depiction of British reserve, politeness and endurance, which obviously was in great contrast with the sadistic man's selfish love. But I guess it could have been shown in a different way, in a much better way.Also, I am not happy it was filmed in Venice. The novel didn't even mention the name of the town, as far as I know originally it was just "somewhere in Europe". Well, I have never been to Venice but after watching this film, I don't think I ever will. And not because of the story. Mostly because of the atmosphere and the feelings that the pictures created in me, the colours, the music, the way it was made. If that was the aim of filming it there, (i.e. decrease the number of tourists visiting Venice), I can say it was definitely achieved in my case so you can count one would-be tourist out. At least for a good few years until I can forget this eerie movie experience...And for that I am more than sad.

Christopher Walken is perfectly cast as the enigmatic Robert in Harold Pinter's adaptation of Ian McEwan's novel: The Comfort of Strangers. Like many of Pinter's stage plays, including The Caretaker and The Birthday Party, the script builds slowly and deliberately and is very talky. Walken and wife Helen Mirren as Caroline feign interest in tourists who are at a crossroads in their troubled relationship: Rupert Everett (Colin) and Natasha Richardson (Mary). The couple "happens" upon Walken one night; he finds a late night bar open, and proceeds to mesmerize the couple with stories of his life. At one point, Richardson asks Walken about himself, and he simply looks at her, avoids answering the question, and proceeds as before. The couple are unable to find their way back to their hotel, and Walken profusely apologizes for keeping the couple up so late that he invites them to his house for dinner when he "bumps into them" again. Once at Walken's home, things begin to unravel as Everett and Richardson become ensnared in a wider plan. Are they naive, ignorant, or just too self-absorbed to realize what's unfolding? Walken and Richardson keep the viewer interested in the film. Mirren, although usually interesting, appears miscast here, and Everett doesn't generate enough feeling for Richardson for us to care enough about him or their relationship. Despite the Venetian locale, the film is tedious at times even though Pinter's dialog compels the viewer to watch. The film doesn't give viewers enough time to digest its ending, as it is rather abrupt. As with some of Pinter's writing, some parts are greater than the whole. Due to the last lines Walken has, one gets the idea that Pinter intended to dupe the viewer in the same manner the couple was in the film. **1/2 of 4 stars.