We wanted something light-weight to watch, not too long or complex. ‘While you were sleeping’, which we first saw about ten years ago, seemed like a good choice. We had both forgotten what it was about, although as we watched a few incidents did seem familiar.
Sandra Bullock stars as Lucy, a young and not very confident girl who works as a ticket collector. She does her job well, and dreams… until one day she sees someone and feels an instant connection. He barely notices her, and she might never have seen him again, but for a dramatic incident in which she saves his life.
The bulk of the film takes place while he is euphemistically sleeping - in fact in a coma, fighting for his life. He has a family, all delightfully caricatured, who rally round. When they realise that Lucy saved his life, they want to adopt her - and get the mistaken impression that she is his fiancee. She loves being with this talkative, affectionate and quirky family that she can’t quite bring herself to tell them that she doesn’t in fact know him at all.
Then things become even more complicated when she starts to fall for his brother Jack. It’s obvious to the viewer that they find each other attractive, but neither of them realise it at first. Moreover, Jack thinks she’s engaged to his brother and he’s an honourable man. And Lucy feels herself falling further and further into deception…
The pace of the film is excellent, and there’s a nice balance between the two main characters, who become excellent friends before anything else develops. The more minor stereotyped characters are amusing - there are some good lines that made us smile, and also some poignancy in Lucy’s deeply felt need for acceptance. Sandra Bullock is perfectly cast and Bill Pullman is also ideal as Jack. His comatose brother (Peter Gallagher) has a much smaller part to play but also does it well.
We had entirely forgotten how the film ended; it could have gone several ways. We thought it nicely done and entirely satisfying.
This is a good film if you would like a light-weight gentle romantic comedy. It’s rated PG, unusually for this genre, but there’s no violence, only minor bad language, and nothing explicit. There are some innuendoes and sexual references but they would go over the head of most children. Not that a young child would find this particularly interesting.
Definitely recommended.
Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews
Rosamunde Pilcher was one of my favourite writers of the 20th century, and I very much liked her saga novel ‘The Shell Seekers’. After initial reluctance, we acquired the DVD version back in 2006. When I first saw it, I kept comparing it to the book, and inevitably it fell short: there’s no way a 500+ novel can be condensed satisfactorily into a 97 minute film. But it wasn’t just that it missed parts out: it included scenes that didn’t exist - indeed, couldn’t exist - in the book.
When I watched it again, a couple of years later, I tried to see it as a stand-alone film, telling a story that’s ‘based on’ the novel rather than being the same story. And I liked it much more. So it seemed like a good idea to watch it now, nearly twelve years later, and I approached it with an open mind. I hadn’t forgotten that the pivoting - and shocking - incident towards the end of the novel is entirely missing from the film, but I didn’t recall much else about it.
Angela Lansbury stars as 63-year-old Penelope - and there was my first shock. Back in 2008 I was still in my late forties, but now it’s only a few years until I will be Penelope’s age. She looked more like 73 than 63, and considerably frailer than anyone I know in their early 60s. Penelope is a strong character in the book, and that came through. She’s certainly determined, and somewhat bohemian in her outlook. But somehow Angela Lansbury was playing a role that didn’t feel to me like Rosamunde Pilcher’s creation.
Penelope has three children, presumably in their late thirties and early forties. Anna Cartaret plays the insecure, materialistic Nancy and does so extremely well. Noel (Christopher Bowen) is believable as a greedy, manipulative conman; I think he’s rather nicer in the book. I had no sympathy for him at all in the film. And Olivia, Penelope’s youngest, is played perfectly by Patricia Hodge.
The two younger characters, Antonia (Sophie Ward) and Danus (Mark Lewis Jones) fit well with my perceptions from the book, but it was hard to see any real chemistry between them, so the final scenes (not in the book anyway) felt almost contrived. Particularly since Penelope’s children, who objected vociferously to her friendship with these two, appear to forgive them entirely and support them in what they’re doing without any obvious reason to change their minds.
The main story - about art, including a painting which gives the book its title - is there, but in such a short film there’s little time for any development. There are scenes in Cornwall, a place that Rosamunde Pilcher often wrote about, but they’re all too short. The film should really have been longer to allow for more development and a gentler pace, but it was made for TV so no doubt had both budgeting and time constraints.
The book has a lot in flashback, and most of that’s cut out of the film. What there is happens rathertoo fast; I had quite forgotten that one of the people from the past, who died in the war in the book, appears in a highly unlikely coincidence. But I suppose that was a way of filling in the gaps.
The scenery is good, but - from a perspective of thirty years after the film was made - the style feels very old-fashioned. There are a lot of nods and smiles at the ends of conversations which add nothing, and a gentle soft focus on Penelope, at times, which make her look even older.
If you like 1980s gentle films, then there’s nothing wrong with this; it made an enjoyable hour and a half’s viewing, and could make a good introduction to the book. The rating is U, and that seems entirely appropriate. There’s no hint of the affairs that creep into the book; the one scene of a fire is quick and as it’s in one of the flashbacks it’s not too disturbing. There are a couple of shouted arguments, but no real tension - it’s unlikely, in any case, to appeal to children or younger teenagers.
Recommended in a low key way.
Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews
One rom-com film is, in many respects, much like another in the overall plot. We have quite a collection, and since we have forgotten most of the details of those we saw nine or ten years ago, we’re re-watching some of them. The one we picked up last night is ‘Serendipity’, which we saw almost exactly ten years ago. Neither of us had any memory of it - although we did recall one or two scenes as we watched.
It’s the kind of film to watch in or around the Christmas/winter season. It starts just before Christmas, when crowds of people are frantically shopping for last-minute gifts. Two people want the same pair of gloves, the last one in stock. Jon (John Cusack) and Sara (Kate Beckinsale) argue about the gloves - each wanting them, and then wanting the other to have them - and are unexpectedly attracted to each other. They part company, only to bump into each other again later.
They decide their meeting is serendipity - hence the title - and spend the evening together, finding a lot in common, and a deep rapport, which Jon would like to continue. But Sara has a quirky belief in ‘fate’ and decides that if a relationship is meant to happen, then it will. They don’t exchange numbers or addresses; instead they let their details out into the wild, so to speak.
And then they lose touch. Both become involved in other relationships: Sara with a scruffy musician, Jon with a glamorous girl - and when we see them again, he’s about to get married. But he can’t get Sara out of his mind. So he decides to make one last effort to find her, hoping that doing so will enable him to let go so he can enjoy his marriage.
It’s a bit of a comedy of errors at this point; coincidentally Sara has started thinking about Jon, and there are a series of near misses. It almost began to feel as if ‘fate’ was determined to keep them apart despite their best efforts, and I felt a mixture of amusement and frustration. But it’s all very well done, nicely paced, and it didn’t matter too much that reality had to be somewhat suspended.
I did feel sorry for Jon’s bride-to-be, as his search becomes an obsession, and I really couldn’t remember how it ended. Of course it was inevitable that he and Sara would eventually meet, but I had no idea if they would decide to shake hands and move on, or whether they would get together. I’m glad I didn’t know, although of course I had guessed, and I’d certainly forgotten how it happened.
Some romantic comedies are more bittersweet than amusing, and some are short on romance; this is one that succeeds admirably in both, and it made an enjoyable evening’s viewing. The UK rating is PG, the US put it as PG-13, which I feel is more appropriate. There are sexual references and one scene of intimacy, albeit with nothing showing, and a few instances of bad language. But I can’t imagine this kind of story appealing to a child anyway, though a mature teenager of twelve or thirteen might enjoy it for the near misses and the gentle humour.
Recommended.
Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews
It’s just over nine years since we watched ‘Bridget Jones’ Diary’, a film which is sometimes considered a classic. It’s based on a book of the same name by Helen Fielding which I read a year or so after first watching the film, and I wasn’t very impressed with it. However I had entirely forgotten the storyline and most of the characters, so we decided it was time to see it again.
What I had remembered - and which is fairly obvious anyway - is that this story has several nods to Jane Austen’s ‘Pride and Prejudice’. The most obvious one is that early in the book Bridget (Renee Zellweger) meets a handsome but rather aloof young man called Mark Darcy. He’s played by Colin Firth, which of course adds to the connection for those who have seen the BBC adaptation of ‘Pride and Prejudice’.
However the story is quite different. Bridget is not at all like Lizzie Bennett. She’s a heavy smoker and drinker, and eats junk food. She wants to lose weight even though she isn’t particularly overweight, but she could certainly do with developing a healthier lifestyle. And she admits to a crush on her boss Daniel (Hugh Grant) but is well aware that he’s a womaniser and something of a jerk.
The book was all written in diary form, but that isn’t possible in a film. So there are only a few scenes involving the diary, though they include an important one near the end. Most of the film is action-based, albeit rather trite and with a lot more bad language than I’m comfortable with. Bridget has a group of friends who are caricatured and decidedly bizarre, and she wears clothes that attract men but don’t particularly suit her.
Indeed most of the minor characters in the film are exaggerated or caricatured, other than, perhaps, Bridget’s long-suffering father (Jim Broadbent). Her mother (Gemma Jones) isn’t quite as ghastly as Austen’s Mrs Bennett, but is still decidedly weird and materialistic.
The boss Daniel, clearly meant to represent the handsome but unreliable Mr Wickham of Austen’s novel, is quite charming. Hugh Grant was 40 when this film was made (in 2001) but could easily pass for thirty. Unlike his regular roles as a likeable but uncertain gentleman, he manages the smooth, seducing charmer extremely well.
Colin Firth is less believable at first; Bridget doesn’t like the way he dresses, but he’s outspoken and rather rude, too - and while he does become nicer during the story, there was never any real chemistry between him and Bridget, and their inevitable eventual attraction doesn’t feel entirely real.
All of which sounds a bit negative, but overall it’s an enjoyable film, with some humour, and nothing over-taxing for an evening’s light viewing. It’s rated 15, (R in the USA) probably due to the excessive use of ‘strong’ language, mainly by one character, and the amount of smoking. There are bedroom scenes but only one brief one is explicit, and in most cases there’s no nudity. There are a lot of innuendoes there, and plenty of overt sexual discussion. There’s a scene of violence towards the end, too, but it’s not particularly gory.
Recommended for older teens and adults if you don’t mind the crudeness and the lightweight nature of the story, and are looking for something light and (in places) amusing.
Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews
