User Reviews (32)

Add a Review

  • blanche-216 September 2013
    I liked this "Scapegoat" from 2012 better than the 1959 version, though they are both good. This one is warmer and I love the message the maid gives John at the end.

    Set in England of 1952 at the time of the Coronation (changed from France) John and Johnny (Matthew Rhys) meet by accident and are both shocked - they look exactly alike. John has been let go from his teaching position and is on a walking tour; Johnny comes from big money and is dreading going home. John gets drunk and when he wakes up in the morning, all his things are gone and in their place are all of Johnny's things. A chauffeur arrives to pick him up and John reluctantly goes along. When he gets to this huge estate, he tries to tell the various people in the house that he's not Johnny, but no one listens. So he becomes Johnny.

    John learns a few things about Johnny. He has a wife (Alice Ewing-Orr) and a child (Eloise Webb). He's sleeping with his sister-in-law (Jodhi May) and a woman in the village (Sylvie Testud); his sister (Sheridan Smith) loathes him; his mother (Eileen Atkins) is a morphine addict and he is to have brought her more; and his brother (Andrew Scott) is in his shadow. And he has been away to settle a contract dispute with their foundry's biggest client.

    John, however, being much more sensitive and sober than Johnny, realizes something else: This is a wonderful family that, like the family's business, is in desperate need of some love and attention. Unfortunately, when Johnny returns under cover of darkness for his own nefarious reasons, he doesn't like it when he realizes that John has completely taken over and decides to re-enter the family and take care of business.

    Wonderful story, well acted by all involved, particularly Matthew Rhys in the dual role as the gentle John and the aggressive Johnny, who is only out for himself. At the end, his mother's nursemaid (Phoebe Nichols) has some words of wisdom. I love the ending.

    Very entertaining. Don't dwell on how unrealistic it is. Lots of things are. Enjoy it for what it is.
  • #1 Look at the other reviews here and take them at face value ; this is a good movie that's worth watching. Although the premise and plot may seem implausible the movie draws you in and the acting, story (Daphne Du Maurier ) and production values make this a worthy film. There is real tenderness shown between the characters and and callousness by the villain. Good story and film making, no gimmicks other than the original story (novel).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Being an admirer of both Daphne Du Maurier and Matthew Rhys was enough to get me to watch "The Scapegoat" (2012). While nothing from either of these two artists is ever second-best, I was unprepared for just how much I enjoyed this film.

    In a sort of dark twist on the "Prince and the Pauper" tale (a connection that is further emphasized by setting the story 1952 England ahead of Queen Elizabeth's coronation rather than France) "The Scapegoat" concerns two men, John Standing, a decent ex-teacher, and Johnny Spence, a dissolute businessman from a wealthy family (both played by Rhys), who, by a strange coincidence, are almost carbon-copies of each other. The happen to meet in London, and after a night of drinking, John finds that Johnny has swapped clothes and run off, leaving John to take his place among his dysfunctional family.

    From the first twenty minutes or so, I expected "The Scapegoat" to be nothing more than a diverting manor-house fish-out-of-water romp. But further in, I was pleasantly surprised to find it instead a very moving, engrossing drama, with an inspiring message to boot. While it has its share of darkness, unlike most modern British dramas, it never got to the point of being oppressive. I also appreciated the comparatively light touch of director/screenwriter Charles Sturridge in regards to the film's language, violence, and sensuality, which have become so overused nowadays in British drama. It was nice to see story and character emphasized over shock value for once.

    The entire cast is superb, but the true standout is Matthew Rhys, who, in the dual roles of John and Johnny, is nothing short of perfect. His mesmerizing stage presence and emotive yet subtle acting style draws you in from his very first scene and helps make even such an unlikely story seem possible. Rather than go into full Jekyll and Hyde mode, Rhys plays his doppelgängers with nuance, using the smallest of gestures, attitude, and inflection to differentiate the two; it really is a performance that has to be seen to be believed.

    While I almost never say this about book-to-film adaptations, this 2012 version of "The Scapegoat" is, in my opinion, much better than Du Maurier's original novel, not to mention the 1959 film with Alec Guinness, which followed the book very closely. Without giving too much away, let me just say that the changes made to the plot give this film a much more fitting and satisfying conclusion. If you enjoy well-acted, entertaining period British drama, then don't hesitate to see this film!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I don't know if it is a spoiler to say that a large group can be fooled by a look alike (or to wishfully go along with it) but that is exactly what happened not only in this film but also for real, in the time of Michel de Montaigne where there was a trial he heard about and journeyed to and attended, to see a man tried for his fakery, who had posed as husband in a home that wasn't his. This promoted Montaigne to write an essay called "Of Liars", 1574. The French film of it is Le Retour de Martin Guerre based on that real life event and the American version is called Sommersby. That is why I don't agree with previous reviews that say it is not possible. It was historically documented as having happened. It continues to be a very compelling idea worth watching and Matthew Rys is wonderful in this movie! Well, a whole cast of very worthy actors makes this a delight! My children and I watched Johdi May in her first movie and who can not appreciate Andrew Scott in Foyle's War, before his Moriarty fame. Great movie idea, great acting all around and thanks to IMDb, great fun to see who's who.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    An excellent performance by Matthew Rhys (both of them) makes it all the more astonishing that he is able to resist the attractions of Alice Orr- Ewing, the wife that he discovers at Knebworth when his double sends him there. Instead, he gets into bed with the drab mistress in the village, who has little to offer except praise for his "gentleness" compared to his double. Eventually, of course, he does succumb: who wouldn't? She is highly orgasmic and satisfied, and it is all the more horrifying when the double reappears and persuades he to allow him to kill her with an overdose of his mother's morphine, thereby securing her fortune for himself and leaving his double to pay. Fortunately, the good guy gets back just in time, saves Frances's life, sees off his opponent, and everyone lives happily ever after. Alright, the part where he persuades he to allow herself to be killed was highly unconvincing, even for a supposed weakling, but we can overlook that because she is so gorgeous- looking in a nightie! This is a charming picture that reminds us of the skills of the lending-library queen, Daphne Du Maurier. Recommended viewing.
  • The premise is, of course, completely absurd. Is it really possible that any two unrelated strangers could look so much alike that not even a mistress, wife, or mother could spot the difference? Well, no. But the feeling here is not of absurdity, but rather whimsy. The story maintains a pose of realism even as it verges into the fantastic.

    So don't expect one of those thrillers with a water-tight plot and gritty realism. This is a story about wish-fulfillment and the freedom of discovering in yourself a whole new set of possibilities. It's also about thinking of your life as it might look from the outside, as viewed by a stranger taking your place; what would he see that you're missing? Count your blessings, you fool!

    Lovely performances by all, but especially Matthew Rhys in the lead role.

    The magic in this movie creeps up on you slowly, and is not fully felt until the very end. The sum of the movie is more than its parts. Director-writer Charles Sturridge has done this before (the Brideshead Revisited original TV series, A Handful of Dust) and here he does it again. Bravo!
  • I enjoyed the movie, it's an interesting plot, well directed and well acted. Unfortunately the closed captions, on which I depend, were many seconds ahead of the scenes they belong to (I watched it on Amazon Prime video).
  • I have read the original novel by Daphne du Maurier and seen the earlier film version (1959) three times, most recently in order to remind myself of what our very dear friend Annabel Bartlett looked like as a child (she played the little girl, her only film role). One thing she told me about Alec Guinness, who played the double-lead roles, was that he became fond of her during the filming and remained in affectionate contact with her for the rest of his life, which says a great deal about his character. This remake by the talented director Charles Sturridge, who also wrote the screenplay, is in my opinion superior to the original film. We are all used to remakes being inferior, and groaning when we hear there is going to be another one (for instance, no remake of du Maurier's classic REBECCA has ever been anything but a travesty of Hitchcock's original film with Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine), but in this case, everyone can be proud of the result. In this version, the setting of the story is shifted from France to the England of 1952/3, which is an effective change, and enabled Sturridge (best known for directing the original TV series of BRIDESHEAD REVISITED, 1981), to exploit his familiarity with aristocratic English settings of the early to mid 20th century. Another innovation in the story is the amusing sub-plot of the insertion into the grand mansion of a newfangled electronic device known as a television, received and treated with great ceremony. The scene where the entire family sit, with their servants standing behind them, watching the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, is impeccably authentic and evocative, as indeed the whole film is. Therefore, the changes made to the story for this screen adaptation are, I believe, entirely successful. A very clever choice for the double-lead was the actor Matthew Rhys. He is not someone you would notice when walking past him on the street, but he is arresting when in action on the screen, and here he does an excellent job of playing two entirely different characters who happen to be identical doppelgängers (or one might today say clones) of one another. The story is a typically romantic mystery tale by du Maurier, of two men who meet by chance one night and realize that they look exactly like one another. This leads to their changing places, so that the recently sacked schoolteacher with no family or attachments is left in the morning with only the clothes and identity of his 'twin', who turns out to be a prominent aristocrat with a mansion, a chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce, a wife, and a substantial squabbling family, even in fact a little girl. All of these the true husband and father abandons, leaving the teacher to assume his role as best he can. Needless to say, his family find him strangely changed, kinder, more considerate, and wonder 'what has come over him'. He has to learn on the hoof who he 'is', how to find his own bedroom, discovers that he has a mistress in the town, is alarmed to discover that he has been having an affair with his brother's wife and finds her difficult to shake off, cloying and demanding as she is. At the same time, the family business is going broke and he is expected to save it. His sister (the wonderfully weird Jodhi May, one of my favourite actresses because she is so unlike other people and seems to emerge from some tormented dimension of another hologram than ours) is estranged from him and takes every opportunity to insult him. His little girl is dejected from lack of his attention. This story is not a naturalistic tale, though it is treated as one, since it is difficult to imagine all of this really happening, even back in those days when identities were not yet shrink-wrapped. But it is an intriguing and captivating romance, with what the trendies at the BBC like to call 'a great deal of edge to it'. One welcome new addition to the screen is the young actress Alice Orr-Ewing, not long out of drama school. She had a minor role in A FANTASTIC FEAR OF EVERYTHING (2012, see my review), but her scenes all ended up on the cutting room floor, so she does not list it in her credits. This is therefore her first significant screen appearance. She glows well on celluloid, and manages to capture the viewer's attention despite playing a feeble character, the lead character's wife Frances, with whom one would normally have very little sympathy, because feeble women are always so annoying. But she makes the character have a deeper dimension, so that we end up liking her rather than being exasperated by her. Also this actress has an after-taste, like a good burgundy. There is no doubt that Alice Orr-Ewing was born to appear in period dramas, as she is an ethereal creature of another era, and has a genuine Joan Fontaine quality about her. Long may she keep her Orr in. The art direction of this film is superb, the costumes are splendid, it all looks luscious, and the improbable tale is strangely gripping. And as Louis B. Mayer might have said, it even has a Western Union, I mean a message, of sorts that is, namely who are we anyway?
  • ttimgents8 April 2023
    Warning: Spoilers
    That people who knew John Spence for a lifetime do not recognize that John standing is not John Spence seems far too preposterous. His mother doesn't? His wife doesn't? His mistress doesn't? Just too hard for me to believe such: I had to discontinue watching this movie early on.

    And that John Standing could not find a way to make his true identity known to the family and to the police and other officials - that just seems unbelievable. Again, too hard for me to go along with.

    Maybe such goings on could be believed by the good part of a 1950s audience. But just seems entirely too difficult for a majority of today's audience members to believe.
  • BlearyI26 July 2013
    Warning: Spoilers
    I've read the original book twice--a big fan of du Maurier--and much as I liked the book, the movie is at least as good. Instead of "based on", it would be more accurate to say "inspired by" the book. It's like being an American in England for the first time ... lots of things seem familiar and then suddenly it's all quite alien.

    So with the book and the movie. I immediately thought of the book and, struggled to make it fit, and failed. Finally I gave myself up to the new story and was enchanted. The movie in the end has to be taken on its own terms, and if so, makes a lovely experience ... well cast, gentle and loving, and utterly unforced. It has a happier ending than the book, yet it fits perfectly.
  • CinemaSerf7 August 2023
    The competent actor that is Matthew Rhys plays his own doppelgänger in this initially intriguing but ultimately rather flat thriller set in the UK just before the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. "Standing" is a teacher who spends a night on the lash with his stunt double "Spence" - a man he had never seen before he bumped into randomly. Awakening next morning with a thick head, he finds "Spence" has fled taking his own identity with him. Before he has much chance to think things through, he finds himself subsumed into the identity of the other man - a wealthy, family man with plenty of skeletons in his closet. Was this all a stitch up? Is he being played? Well "Standing" has no way of knowing unless he immerses himself in his new life and hope that he can get to the truth before he is rumbled. Now I don't know about you, but if my husband came home one evening but he was his own identical twin I like to think I'd still be able to tell the difference? What also makes the premiss of this a bit persistently questionable is the ease with which he manages to impersonate a man about whom he knows nothing. I'm all for thinking on your feet, but this verges a bit too much on the preposterous and as it continued I really did lose interest. It does look good and presents a solid cast including Dame Eileen Atkins, Phoebe Nicholls and the usually reliable Anton Lesser, but for me the story hit the skids of far-fetchedness after about half an hour and left me largely disinterested.
  • phd_travel16 November 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    2 men who look exactly alike, a teacher and a wealthy business man with a complicated personal life and business in trouble meet. The teacher inhabits the life of the business man who disappears. It's quite delightful and perfectly written how he interacts with the family members and romantic entanglements of the wealth man.

    I don't want to go too much into the story because how the story unfolds is the greatest pleasure of this movie. Daphne Du Maurier always has good stories that grab you into the mysteries but I think this movie has some improvements on the original literature on which it is based.

    Matthew Rhys of 'the Americans' is a good actor and it's quaint to hear him speak with a British accent since he is more well know internationally always playing an American.

    It's hard to praise this movie without stating what a feel good wonderful ending this movie has. It's so neat and satisfying. Liked the country house where it was filmed - stately but not too ostentatious.

    An excellent made for TV movie that's better than many feature films.
  • jeapc30 July 2016
    It's just not very good. The premise, as pointed out by another reviewer, is completely absurd. The lead, Matthew Rhys, is fine but not any better or worse than any of the other actors. There is no apparent effort to make him different between the two characters he plays (e.g., change the way he combs his hair, give him a slight limp or manner of speech). The scenery, staging, period pieces (e.g., 1952 television, beautiful cars, period clothing, and sets) are all excellent. It's just not a good story even if you suspend reality. The main premise is that a complete stranger can be an exact fit for someone else. Remove the doppelganger part of the story and you have absurd characters in a boring story.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film begs comparison with the original 1959 version. It turns out that both are outstanding! While I must give the slight nod to the earlier version, I nonetheless admired the more intricate plotting and exemplary performances in the newer film.

    The 1959 film included a rich black-and-white cinematography and beautiful scoring. There was a haunting quality to the film and greater simplicity than the updated version. Above all, the earlier film had the incomparable Alec Guinness.

    Still, Matthew Rhys was solid in the dual roles of John and Johnny, and the English settings were spectacular. In the updated version, there was the clever device of setting the story in the post World War II years at the precise moment of the coronation of Elizabeth II. Additionally, every role seemed perfectly cast. The acting ensemble and details in the scripting made "The Scapegoat" an engaging and memorable film experience.
  • I was without a clue as to what I was gonna stream next on my various subscription sites and free apps as well on Roku. I came across this title on Netflix and I was intrigued as Aileen Atkins was in it and one of the writers was Daphne Dumaurier (sp) so it was 9:30 and it would take me onto 11pm. The premise was interesting and lead actor very good, the story solid an production very fine, now as I write this it is the next day and I am thinking about the film which for me means it was very good. Seldom is anything good enough to think about the next day (well, The Crown and The Irishman are recent exceptions). Anyway, I won't give away the plot, but just say if you decide to watch the film I will go out on a limb and say you won't be disappointed or want your time back. Cheers.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I came across this movie on Netflix streaming and I am glad I did. It is a superb movie with some surprising developments. It has a "Downton Abbey" sensibility to it, a privileged family in post-war England losing its grip on the castle and what it takes to afford it.

    The conceit of the story is that two men, unrelated to each other, meet by accident in a pub, they both notice that the other looks exactly like himself. Just as if they were identical twins.

    Matthew Rhys does an excellent job playing the two men, John the school teacher who had recently lost his job and Johnny the aristocrat who was not well-liked by his own family, and seemed desperate to escape his situation.

    (As an aside of sorts, I have long been fascinated with identical twins, and the studies of identical twins separated at birth growing up in different situations. This is not the case here but my scientific mind had to suspend disbelief because two men who look so similarly that family and friends would not recognize the difference and they could not unless they were identical twins. But, as it turns out the dog and an old friend did notice the difference.)

    So the two men visit and get drunk, the next morning John wakes up to find his clothes and identification missing, Johnny has run away with them. But the car driver, knowing what a reprobate Johnny is, dismisses it all and gives John a ride back to the castle, fully assuming he is Johnny.

    So that is really where the movie takes off, as John gets into the family, struggles to find his way around and discover all the old family politics, and who were lovers in secret. He ends up being a better person that Johnny ever could, becomes a valued family member, helps get the family glass manufacturing business back on track.

    Good movie.

    SPOILERS for my recollection: After John makes progress Johnny resurfaces in secret, he is after his wife's money which he can only get if she gives birth to a male heir, or she dies. He tries, unsuccessfully, to get her to take a lethal morphine dose, but she is saved at the hospital. John and Johnny have an encounter, dastardly Johnny intends to shoot John, dump his body into the furnaces, and return to resume his role in the family. But John gets the jump, Johnny is killed in the fight, his body incinerated. Back at the house John continues to become a family member, and he impregnates Johnny's wife, we can assume it will be a boy.
  • What if you happened to meet someone who looked identical to you, only you don't want to steal their life, you want to give them yours.

    This is a truly slick drama, for my money if is truly superior to the previous version, one I saw many years back, this is hugely atmospheric and sincere, but has an air of warmth to it.

    The acting is sublime throughout, each performance is truly on point.

    Yes it is a bit absurd, and you do need to stretch your imagination a little, you would know surely if you were living with someone different.

    I love the production values, it looks tremendous, superb costumes and location work.

    Excellent, 9/10.
  • rosswylene19 July 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    I was looking for something interesting and bypassed this several times. Quite pleasantly surprised. Excellent movie. The main character was believable in both roles. The ending was superb. I thought he would leave but delighted he stayed in his role. It is possible the ones close to him knew there was subtle differences but chose to ignore them due to his agreeable ways.
  • With most of the current movies today, there is loud background music, which interferes and impedes concentration and clear articulation of each spoken word. Music should be low and background, not foreground. I had to turn off the movie and, therefore, gave it a low rating for annoying and disturbing viewing, and incompletion.
  • Just stumbled upon this and it was fantastic! Great cast but do not want to spoil anything
  • lawnmorgan14 August 2018
    Ok; so it's not a likely scenario, but it's an entertaining movie with lots of twists, turns and tension
  • In lesser hands, this might have been a bit of a flop, but Rhys is such a skilled actor that he manages to turn an implausible plot into a compelling watch, and you're with him every step of the way. I really enjoyed this.
  • Just my type of film. Set England 1952 in large country house.
  • brockfal24 March 2022
    A rather flat and badly cast rendition of an old Daphne De Mourier novel which now seems rather dated. It's certainly not unwatchable and is passably entertaining with excellent production values, however, I found it staid and unconvincing. A better bet might be to watch the late 1950s version made by Ealing studios which starred Alec Guinness and Bette Davis.
  • Some changes from Du Maurier's book, but enjoyable nevertheless.

    Great acting from all cast members (even Sheridan Smith!). Love seeing this era of England, shooting parties, costumes and decor. NB - the actress playing the sister is not included in my comment about the acting - she was very odd and her top lip didn't move, making it difficult to understand what she was saying.

    Cleverly done and very, very enjoyable. I don't recall hearing or seeing this film on its release, and I'm so glad I found it.
An error has occured. Please try again.