It’s nine and a half years since we saw - and liked - the 1990s film ‘You’ve Got Mail’. So we decided it would make a pleasant evening’s viewing to re-watch it. Neither of us had any memories of the story, other than that a correspondence was involved. And anything with Tom Hanks is usually worth seeing more than once.
As the story opens, we learn about an ongoing secretive online conversation between two people who are in good relationships with other people. Kathleen (Meg Ryan) waits until her boyfriend Frank (Greg Kinnear) has gone to work before she sits down at her computer and checks for mail. The film is only twenty years old but the computer part looks very dated as an old-fashioned graphic pops up, saying ‘You’ve got mail!’
The correspondence appears to be quite innocent. Kathleen and Joe met in a chatroom, but they only know each other’s ‘handles’, and that they live in the same city. They talk mostly about trivialities, but there’s also some deeper discussion, of the kind that can happen online more easily than in real life.
We then see Kathleen at work, where she’s the owner of a bookshop. She and her co-workers are hard-working and caring, and spend time doing stories for children and other community activities. They’re a bit worried that a mega-store is going up just over the road, and it’s destroying smaller shops. And then we learn something that Kathleen doesn’t learn until the end of the film: that her secret, caring correspondent is also the hard-nosed businessman who is about to put her out of business.
So the story involves their meeting in real life, and disliking each other intensely at first. Joe is clearly attracted to Kathleen, but puts business and money first, and seems to care nothing for her career, or her shop. And as conflict begins, so their online correspondence goes into deeper levels as she asks her online friend for advice about what to do….
It sounds more complicated than it is. It’s very well done on screen, with some extremely clever timing and great dialogue. Tom Hanks is perfect in the role, and the chemistry between him and Meg Ryan is excellent. Of course the concept is slightly ridiculous, but it doesn’t matter at all; once the premise is accepted, the question has to be: how long can they keep up the two separate relationships without any overlap? And what will happen when either or both of them find out…?
There are some terrific supporting roles: Greg Kinnear as Kathleen’s boyfriend is a reporter, and totally on her side, fighting for her shop to remain open. Jean Stapleton as the elderly shop accountant is also superb, with some great one-liners. There were places where we smiled, and even chuckled once or twice. And one place - when Kathleen locks her bookshop up for the last time - which was almost unbearably poignant.
Although I’m always a tad dubious about hard-nosed businessmen or other dislikeable characters falling in love with nice women, it works so well in this film that I had almost forgotten, by the end, just how unpleasant Joe has been.
The rating is PG, which seems about right. Although there are some innuendos and other hints of ‘adult’ conversation, the few scenes showing a bedroom have the occupants fully clothed in pyjamas. I don’t recall any strong language although there are some milder expletives used. And it’s not the kind of story that would appeal to anyone under the age of about 12 or 13 anyway.
All in all, I thought it an ideal evening’s viewing, an almost perfect ‘rom-com’.
Definitely recommended.
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
From time to time I check my recommendations on Amazon UK, and read reviews of the ones that look interesting. ‘Becoming Jane’ was one of these recommendations, probably based on the fact that I have enjoyed several of the Jane Austen film adaptations. Or possibly because I have liked other films featuring Anne Hathaway.
So, as the reviews were mostly positive, I added the film to my wish list and was given it for my birthday last year. We finally decided to watch it last night, aware that it was a fictionalised story of part of Jane Austen’s life. I knew very little about her life, other than that her father was a minister, and that she didn’t marry. So I didn’t have any preconceived ideas about the film.
The opening sequence was very well done, I thought. Jane is played by Anne Hathaway, with such a flawless British accent that I entirely forgot she was American until we watched one of the extras afterwards. We see her writing - with a quill pen, ideas flowing - and then she decides to play the piano. It’s early in the morning and not only wakes the household but startles one of the household staff significantly.
Jane’s sister Cassandra (Anna Maxwell Martin) is engaged, to a young man who is about to go off to sea. Jane’s mother (Julie Walters) really wants Jane to find someone suitable too. Jane has two admirers: one who is well off, respectable and well-connected, but she does not care for him. The other is dependent on his uncle, and rather wild. Their first meetings are full of conflict, but they quickly fall in love.
I thought the film was very well done, although at first I had a hard time remembering who was whom. Anne Hathaway makes a believable young Jane - aged about twenty - with a great imagination and far more independence and spirit than was normal for girls of her era. James McAvoy is excellent, too, as the young - but not very responsible - lawyer Tom Lefroy, and the chemistry between the two is excellent.
Maggie Smith has a small role as Lady Gresham, aunt to the other young man who aspires to Jane’s hand. And, as we have come to expect with Maggie Smith, she has some wonderful lines; her timing is impeccable.
Indeed, all the characters are believable and mostly distinct in character, and we were quickly drawn into the story. While it’s only loosely based on what’s known about Jane Austen’s life, it feels authentic, and entirely possible. It becomes clear that Jane has already written the book that would eventually be published as ‘Sense and Sensibility’, basing her two main characters on herself and her sister Cassandra. During the course of the film, she starts to write some of the material for what will become Pride and Prejudice. It's based partly on her experiences and also the people she interacts with.
The only parts of the film I disliked are a few scenes at boxing matches. They weren’t too gory, but anything of that nature makes me close my eyes and hope it passes quickly. I was a little surprised to find that the rating of the film is only PG. While there’s no bad language other than one or two mild words, and the only nudity is a few seconds of rear views of young men about to swim, the violent scenes are quite intense, and there is more than one overt hint of marital intimacies.
However, overall we thought it an extremely well-made film.
There are some extras which we watched afterwards related to the making of the film. Although they added a bit of background, and I always find this kind of thing interesting, they weren’t anything special.
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
We wanted something lightweight to watch a couple of evenings ago. The last time we saw ‘Parenthood’ was over ten years ago, so we thought it could be a good one to watch. Steve Martin is always good value. The front of the DVD case shows him holding two children upside down.
We had entirely forgotten the story, though it was obviously about family life. I quickly realised that I had confused it, in my mind, with ‘Cheaper By the Dozen’, which also has Steve Martin as a somewhat harassed father.
In ‘Parenthood’, Steve Martin plays Gil Buckman, who is determined to be a perfect father. In the opening sequence of the film, we see Gil as a boy, rather neglected by his father. So it is quickly clear that he is trying to compensate for a less than perfect childhood.
Gil is married to Karen (Mary Steenburgen) and they have three children. Kevin, the oldest, is having a hard time fitting in anywhere. He’s quiet, and not particularly athletic, and is not helped by Gil’s rather pressurised insistence on coaching their school baseball team and putting Kevin in important positions.
Gil has three siblings. One of them is Helen (Dianne Wiest), who is an uptight single mother. She has an older teenage daughter Julie, and a younger teenage son, Garry. Julie is in a serious relationship with a young man called Tod, whom her mother disapproves of, and Garry keeps sneaking out of the house and behaving in other strange ways.
Susan (Harley Jane Kozak) is another sibling, married to Nathan (Rick Moranis) who is also determined to be a perfect father. They have just one daughter, whom they are raising to be as intellectual as possible. The little girl is quite cute but the story rather over-the-top. Nathan is very rigid in his thinking, and this causes stress with Susan who is more relaxed - or would like to be.
Then there’s Larry (Tom Hulce), the youngest and least responsible sibling, who nobody has heard of for a couple of years. He appears at a family gathering and is welcomed by his long-suffering parents. He has a surprise for them… but he’s unappealing, too much of a manipulator and narcissist.
There isn’t a great deal of plot as such; the film is character-based, and revolves around family get-togethers and other interactions between the siblings. Jason Robards is excellent as the rather grumpy father, who nonetheless loves his children - even if he has a hard time showing it. We had entirely forgotten that there’s a great deal of poignancy to the story, and some quite difficult issues are dealt with: absent fathers, teenage hormones, depression, and more.
There’s some humour too; overall, it’s a light-hearted film. Steve Martin is excellent at comic timing, and there are a few great one-liners that made us chuckle. There are some significant innuendos and discussion of sexual activities, which are what give this a 15 rating in the UK, despite no nudity (other than briefly with a small child), no serious violence, and only the mildest of bad language.
The pace is good, the dialogue mostly excellent, the acting either believable or deliberately caricatured, as appropriate. The children do as well as the adults without being twee or annoying.
Overall we enjoyed this film very much and look forward to seeing it again in another ten years or so.
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
The last time we watched ‘Notting Hill’ (and, indeed, the first time as we had not previously seen it) was in 2007. I vaguely remembered liking it, but nothing at all about the story. So we decided to watch it again last night.
Hugh Grant - rather a young looking Hugh Grant, as this was made in 1999, when he was under 40 - plays William Thacker, a bookshop owner in London. It’s a perfect role for him. William is quiet, likeable, and far too honest to make a good salesman. Indeed, his bookshop (which only sells travel books) is gradually going more and more into debt.
Into William’s shop one day walks the American film star Anna Scott (Julia Roberts). They converse briefly and she buys a book. He does not expect to see her again, but then manages to bump into her on his way back from collecting some drinks from a coffee shop. This sparks a tentative kind of friendship, with William becoming more and more incoherent and Anna intrigued, despite herself.
It’s a character-based film, a couple of hours long but well-paced and enjoyable throughout. William has a mixed bunch of friends, and a quirky young sister called Honey (Emma Chambers - basically playing the same kind of character as her Alice in ‘Vicar of Dibley’). His flat-mate is a rather coarse Welshman called Spike (Rhys Ifans) who provides an amusing contrast to William’s somewhat caricatured self-deprecating Englishman.
The film is a good study in culture clash, and characterisation in general. When William and his friends go around the table talking about who is the saddest, Anna - despite her fame and wealth - is able to point out that her life is no happier than theirs. There are different attitudes to publicity too, which come to a head in one scene which I did remember when it happened, as journalists and photographers converge to try to capture a new story.
There’s a nice blend of humour and poignancy in this film, and an ongoing tension as we wonder whether or not the two main character will get together. I honestly didn’t remember the outcome, but thought it extremely well done. Some of the characters are stereotyped, but others are entirely believable. I particularly liked William’s best friend Max (Tim McInnerny) and his disabled wife (Gina McKee).
The UK rating for ‘Notting Hill’ is 15, which seems a tad on the high side; the US, usually stricter, rates this as PG-13, which feels more appropriate to me. There is an inevitable bedroom scene but it’s tastefully done, with all the action offstage, and plenty of bed coverings afterwards. There are discussions of intimacies in varying forms, and one or two obscenities, but nothing that the average ten-year-old would not have heard already.
However, I can’t imagine it being of the slightest interest to anyone under the age of about fifteen anyway, so perhaps it’s immaterial. To see details, check the parents’ guide link in the imDb ‘Notting Hill’ guide.
Overall, I thought it a wonderful film. I felt uplifted and relaxed at the end. Definitely in the ‘feel-good’ category, and I hope not to leave it so long before watching it again.
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
It’s nearly twelve years since we watched the ITV adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel ‘Emma’ on DVD. I could remember being pleasantly surprised when we first saw it. ‘Emma’ is my least favourite of Austen’s classic books. I don’t much like Emma as a character, and it’s hard to enjoy a book when I dislike the main protagonist.
The film version, however, is excellent. Kate Beckinsale makes an extremely good Emma. She’s selfish and bossy, and wants to make ‘matches’ between various of her friends, whether they want them or not. She is a snob, too, befriending young Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton) in the hope of ‘matching’ her to the vicar: the smarmy Mr Elton (Dominic Rowan). Harriet is in love with a young farmer but Emma persuades her to look higher.
Things start to go wrong when Mr Elton makes it clear that he has no interest in Harriet at all, but thinks that Emma herself would make him a good wife. Emma has not seen the signals, and perhaps that’s the point at which she acknowledges she may not be always right in her matchmaking.
The scenery and photography are excellent, giving an authentic backdrop to what is otherwise purely a character-based series of dialogues, and (if Emma were less serious) something of a comedy of mismatches. Emma’s father (Bernard Hepton) is a querulous old man, who does not like change and doesn’t want anyone to be married. He would be amusing if he were not so caught up in his miseries. It’s not surprising, perhaps, that Emma has turned out to be as selfish as she is - and able to manipulate him too, when she wants to.
I had more-or-less remembered the storyline; I knew who ended up with whom, at any rate, so I was watching for hints - and they were there, albeit quite strongly hidden in some cases. Emma hits rock-bottom when she makes what she thinks is a joke at the expense of a kindly, if garrulous elderly neighbour. Thankfully her friend and mentor Mr Knightley (Mark Strong) tells her off strongly.
The only parts of the film that seemed out of place are the beginning and end, which feature some chickens being stolen. I don’t remember that from the book, although it’s a very long time since I read it.
It’s extremely rare for me to recommend a film above its related book, but for ‘Emma’, I would definitely recommend seeing this film - and then, perhaps, read the book afterwards to fill in some of the detail.
Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:
Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews
