Sweet William (1980) User Reviews

Costnerian Waterston Torture

[defiler_jr · 4/10 · 14 May 2006]

This could easily have been a passable drama, with the inestimable Jenny Agutter only vaguely evoking fluffier roles.

However, Sam Waterston's rendition of a Scottish accent is among the most gloriously inept ever barely mustered. Perhaps admirably, he decides to under-do it, but to the point of basically forgetting.

It's so laughably bad as to be utterly distracting: you can hardly pay attention for wondering why the story needs his character to be Scottish at all.

I wondered if the jarring incongruity was supposed to be some kind of crap metaphor for, or parallel to, his transparent duplicity, and all the English characters were pretending not to notice for some reason. As it turns out, the English *actors* were pretending not to notice, which ultimately ups the crap stakes considerably.

Maybe there are so few non-native actors who can actually pull it off, casting directors can't concern themselves with such minor details. Or maybe they just have no ear for it, like an A&R rep who thinks Pat Boone's "Enter Sandman" is the original version. And by Metallica.

"She cannat take much morrrrrrre, captain!"

Confessions of a Bigamist

[nsouthern51 · 12 March 2002]

---Warning: This review may contain spoilers!------

Claude Whatham's "Sweet William" is an unpleasant, unmoving, and largely uninteresting piece of tripe about an obnoxious, philandering playwright (Sam Waterston as the title character). William seduces a young British woman named Ann (Jenny Agutter), knocks her up, and abandons her after she gives birth. Along the way, Ann makes a shocking discovery: not only is William already married, but he's feeding lines to both her and his wife, and pitting them against each other.

The picture has two insurmountable problems, both rooted in a flawed script: first, it doesn't ground the viewer in a definite point-of-view. The most likely (though pedestrian) approach would be to assume Ann's clouded perspective about William, conceal his sliminess from the audience, and reveal his dark side to everyone gradually. But this doesn't happen. William is as transparent as glass -- we know he's a scuzzbag from his first few moments onscreen. With his pushy come-on and his pied piper-ish walk, Waterston's character seems about as trustworthy as the piano teacher who rapes Margaux Hemingway in "Lipstick." So, why does Ann fall for him? To answer this question, we must either: 1) Descend to the level of the 'idiot plot,' by regarding Agutter's character as imperceptive, which significantly damages the tone of the script and causes us to lose faith in Ann at a fairly early stage of the film; or 2) retain our faith in Ann at any cost, which destroys the picture's credibility.

The second problem is that the film lacks a concrete mood -- it wavers uncomfortably between Alfie-like farce and movie-of-the-week tragedy.

Agutter delivers a rocky, uneven performance; she's convincing some of the time but bursts into sudden fits of rage at the wrong moments (often without definite motivation), and doesn't deliver strong enough reactions following her shocking discoveries about William. As always, Waterston's presence lifts the film half a notch, but even he can't save this picture. (His confidence must have been shattered after acting in two embarrassing duds -- this and the notorious "Heaven's Gate" --- the same year). The film offers a strong supporting cast of British players, but most are underutilized; we know we're in trouble when the great British actor Arthur Lowe ("O' Lucky Man!") only delivers one line.

Even the visuals in "Sweet William" are grimy -- it paints an interesting 1980ish aesthetic glimpse of working class London, but not exactly an attractive one. It is fascinating to think that a picture like this was actually shot and released to mainstream theatres, in England, circa 1980, because it cries obscurity.

What we have, in the end, is a sallow, gloomy, depressing, and significantly flawed picture. The last image of the film -- Ann gazing out the window, baby in arms, while her flatmate tells her that William is "gone forever" -- may leave viewers with nausea in their stomachs and contempt for all of the characters.

Only watch if you're a man-hater

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 22 October 2017]

If you've never seen Sam Waterston in the movies or television and are thinking of trying him out in Sweet William, try a different movie. Deviating from a career filled with good-guy roles, he takes a rare villainous role in this movie, and it might leave a bad taste in your mouth if you've never seen him before. Then again, if you have seen him play his usual roles, you'll probably think the casting director for this film was cuckoo for casting Sam as a bad guy. Either way, there's really only one good reason to sit through Sweet William.

If you're a man-hater to and through your core, you will want to watch this one. Beryl Bainbridge has written the most jaded, bitter, cynical script I've ever seen; one can only imagine her own heartache that made her feel the need to write something like this. The film reeks of angry estrogen, and if you're not on board with that right away, you're not going to like it.

Jenny Agutter stars as an engaged woman, but the moment her fiancé leaves for America on a business trip, she lets herself get picked up by a total stranger, Sam Waterston, while attending a church recital. It's pretty absurd, especially because he's obviously flaky, careless, and a player, but she falls for him immediately. She even locks her best friend, Geraldine James, in the bathroom when Sam shows up at her apartment in the middle of the night, so they can consummate their budding relationship. He turns her into a pathetic mess, even though she and the audience are continually exposed to his womanizing, hurtful, confusing behavior. He's written out to be everything man-haters hate in men. Anyone who won't cheer and get a little thrill every time Man shows his true colors won't want to watch this movie.

Well worth watching

[David198 · 8/10 · 28 September 2003]

I've just found this again on a video tape and have really enjoyed it. OK it's slightly dated (especially in some of Jenny Agutter's dresses) and it's firmly in the genre of the British 'kitchen-sink' dramas of the early 1960s, but it's well worth watching.

Jenny Agutter does a tour-de-force with some brilliant and totally believable acting (the occasional and far too brief nude scenes are a bonus). Sam Waterston is equally believable as charming rogue William who neglects to tell his various conquests of his various other conquests and wives.

The twist at the very end throws a different light on much of what has gone before (and you have to watch very closely to see it!).

This should be re-released on DVD so that everyone has a chance to give it a second look. It stands the test of time well.