My Big Fat Greek Wedding II (Nia Vardalos)

We decided we had seen enough Christmas films this month, and wanted something light-weight to see.  ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding II’ seemed to fit the bill. We saw it in April 2017, which is only three and a half years ago, but since we re-watched the original ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’ earlier this year, we thought it would be a good idea to see the sequel before we had forgotten all the characters.

The story takes place a decade or so after the end of the original - and the ending was just a cameo about eight years after the main film.  The actors, almost all the same ones from the first film, look around the right age, which makes sense as this film came out fourteen years after the original. Toula (Nia Vardalos) remains the start - and she was also the inspiration and writer, growing up, as she did, in a Greek-Canadian family. She’s happily married to Ian (John Corbett) although they seem to have lost some of their early intimacy… and he finds her family a bit overwhelming at times.

The most important new actress is Elena Kampouris, who plays Toula and Ian’s seventeen-year-old daughter Paris. She is perfect in the role as a teenager who loves her extended family, but is very frustrated by their extreme involvement in her life, and their determination to marry her off to a nice Greek boy, so she can make nice Greek babies. She’s the only girl in her generation - all her aunts and uncles have produced boys, who are growing up just like their grandparents. 

However the ‘wedding’ of this film isn’t related to Paris, although we’re probably supposed to think that it will be, in an echo of the first film. Part of the storyline involves her increasing bids for autonomy, as she thinks about college applications and a date for her high school prom. In fact the ‘wedding’ part feels almost like an afterthought - it involves a legal anomaly, and while there’s a lot of preparation, and the event itself, it doesn’t feel like the main focus of the film.

The cast all feel realistic, if somewhat caricatured at times; so much so that we’d forgotten that most of them are not Greek. We were reminded when we watched some of the extras including a documentary about the making of the film. They clearly all bonded so well in the first film that they were happy to work together again a decade and a half later.

I love the way that family life is seen as so important in Greek culture, even if exaggerated in its closeness. Marriages are expected to last, families are expected to support each other no matter what. The contrast of cultures is shown in the American desire for independence rather the opposite of the Greek inter-dependence; despite my own Western European background, I found myself feeling more and more drawn to the mutual supportiveness of Toula's extended family, even if she finds them frustrating at times.

There’s plenty of humour as the film cleverly manages to caricature both Greek and American culture and society - not in an unkind way, but as someone seeing both from the inside. Living in a Greek-speaking country as we do, we could appreciate a lot of the side comments and Greek language jokes that might go over the heads of some - but it’s a film that could be enjoyed by anyone.

The rating is 12 in the UK, PG-13 in the US, which surprised me as I would have expected PG in both. There are sexual references, but they’re quite mild; I don’t recall any ‘strong’ language or profanity, and there’s no violence or anything frightening.  The most steamy scene involves a married couple in a car, disturbed before anything much happens. Not that it would be of much interest to children or younger teens anyway. 

Definitely recommended.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Nativity (Martin Freeman)

(Amazon UK link)

Having decided to watch only Christmas-related DVDs during December, our choice fell on ‘Nativity’ last night. We first saw this rather unseasonably in July 2013 and while we recalled the general outline of the story, we had entirely forgotten most of the details.

Martin Freeman is excellent as the primary school teacher Paul Maddens. We see a brief cameo of him in his former life as an actor, with his girlfriend Jennifer (Ashley Jensen) and friend Gordon (Jason Watkins). None of them is enjoying their roles as dancing elves.. So Paul and Gordon retrain as teachers, and Jennifer flies to the United States, as her dream is to become a director or producer. 

The main story takes place a few years later, when Gordon is a rather snooty teacher at a private school, while Paul is at the local state Catholic school. He’s still heartbroken by Jennifer’s defection, but he’s a fairly good teacher, albeit rather uptight and rigid in his classroom persona. Then he’s given two unwelcome surprises by the school head, Mrs Bevan (Pam Ferris). She announces that Mr Maddens is going to produce the school Nativity play that year, and that he’s having a new classroom assistant. 

Paul is horrified at the thought of trying to pull the unruly children into any kind of presentation, and even more appalled when he meets Mr Poppy (Marc Wooten) who is like an overgrown child: full of wild ideas, ready to join in the children’s games and encourage them to ignore their teacher.  It turns out that he’s Mrs Bevan’s nephew, so he can’t be fired. And gradually he and Paul do develop a kind of wary friendship.

The bulk of the story sees the children gradually pull together, with some ideas from Mr Poppy and some from Mr Maddens, and some from the children themselves. This is alongside seeing Graham’s ultra-posh and well-disciplined class determined that their performance will be better than ever.  And there’s also an unfortunate consequence of a lie told by Paul, when he gets angry with Graham’s boasting… a lie that magnifies out of all proportion, as children, parents and staff expect something that’s never going to happen.

Apparently this film was not really scripted - the director had ideas, but gave the cast a lot of freedom to come up with their own lines. Even more surprising, the children are not from a stage school - they’re random children from ordinary backgrounds who auditioned for the roles - and as a result come across as a real, likeable class.

There’s a lot of humour, some of it slapstick as the two schools clash in a snowball fight, and some of it more subtle. Martin Freeman’s expressions are superb, conveying his emotions, at times, without any need for words. Some of Mr Poppy’s ideas are also amusing in their oddness, and some of the dialogue is unexpectedly funny too. 

There’s also an important message about the importance of truthfulness, and the way that a silly lie, told on the spur of the moment, can grow to such an extent that dozens - maybe hundreds - of people can get hurt. We loved the way that the real message of Christmas shines through the glitziness and silliness, and the final performance (unsurprisingly) is extremely well done.

There's a low-key romantic thread too, involving a highly unlikely meeting in Hollywood and another during the school performance. But it doesn't matter. It's a bit schmalzy, but means there's another subplot involving Paul moving from a Scrooge-like hatred of Christmas to embracing it whole-heartedly.

Some of the extras are worth seeing, particularly the ‘deleted’ scenes, one of which is possibly my favourite ever deleted scene, involving the school priest talking to the children about lying. 

Not to be taken seriously, but definitely recommended for light-hearted family viewing at this time of year.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Family Stone

When I was searching online for some Christmas films, one of the recommended ones was ‘The Family Stone’. I knew we had that on our shelves; apparently we watched it in January 2014 after buying it from a UK charity shop. But neither of us had any recollection of the storyline. So we decided it would be a good one to watch last night.

The film takes place over the course of just three days in the run-up to Christmas, with a brief epilogue a year later. At the start of the film, we see adult offspring arriving at the family home. Diane Keaton is, as ever, wonderful as a slightly harassed but very affectionate mother figure (Sybil Stone). Sybil is happily married to Kelly (Craig T Nelson) and they have five very different children. 

Everett (Dermot Mulroney) is the oldest and he’s dressed, at first, like a 1940s American film star, in a suit and tie, looking slightly out of place in his rather bohemian family. He is bringing his girlfriend Meredith (Sarah Jessica Parker) to meet the family for Christmas. She is stressed and uptight, convinced everyone will hate her. She lacks any kind of intuition, tact or empathy, it appears, and continually makes unhelpful comments. It doesn’t help that one of Everett’s sisters, Amy (Rachel McAdams) met Meredith previously, and they did not hit it off at all. 

Everett has another sister, Susanna (Elizabeth Reaser), who is there with her daughter Elizabeth (Savannah Stehlin) who must be about eight. Elizabeth is as lacking in tact as Meredith but in rather different ways.  Their other brothers are Ben (Luke Wilson) who arrives late, dressed very casually, and makes caustic comments, and Thad (Tyrone Giordano), who is both deaf and gay, who comes with his partner Patrick (Brian White). These characters interact in ways that adult siblings might, with a deep underlying bond of affection but also a great deal of teasing. 

Several subplots blend together realistically as we learn more about each of the family members and the dynamics between them. Meredith continues to make herself increasingly disliked, calling her sister in desperation and moving to a local hotel to stay with her. But the sister, Julie (Clare Danes) turns out to be a likeable, attractive person and Everett finds himself liking her increasingly…

There’s not a whole lot of plot as this is a character-based romantic comedy with the romantic element being fairly low-key, and rather muddled at times. But there are some excellent comic moments; the expressions on Kelly’s face are superb, and there’s a brilliantly choreographed (and very messy) scene towards the end which made us laugh - not with schadenfreude, but with the clever way in which one bump or messy surface leads to neatly to a further disaster. 

We loved the way that the middle aged parents are so relaxed, on the whole. They accept their offspring’s love lives and friends and welcome them all, with plenty of food and places to sit, and a generally untidy but friendly appearance to the house. So their feeling that Meredith is the wrong person for Everett is all the more telling. We also loved the way that sign language is part of the way the family communicate with each other - something that would happen naturally when one of them is deaf. 

There’s also a very sad thread intertwining; it would be a spoiler to say what it is (and actually we don’t know many details), meaning that the epilogue scene, a year later, is bittersweet. It’s delightful - with new members of the family, and their determination to carry on - and also very poignant. 

We thoroughly enjoyed ‘The Family Stone’ and also liked seeing some of the ‘extras’ including a few deleted scenes, some  bloopers - mostly when Meredith’s character dissolves into laughter as she’s about to utter one of her tactless comments - as well as some characters discussing their roles, and the film in general.

Rated 12, probably due to several references to intimacy although there’s nothing explicit. Only minor bad language, and minor violence - one character slaps another a few times - but the film is unlikely to be of interest to younger children anyway.

Highly recommended.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Scrooged (Bill Murray)

There are some DVDs on our shelves which we don’t recall buying or acquiring in any other way. Perhaps ‘Scrooged’ was a gift at some point; perhaps we found it on a second-hand stall. We knew it was - inevitably - a modern-day ‘Christmas Carol’, but had not seen it for at least fourteen years. However it seemed like a suitable film to watch on the first Tuesday of Advent. 

As we started watching, I wondered if we were seeing a trailer for another film at first - but it turned out that the first scene is set in a TV studio. The studio boss, Frank Cross (Bill Murray) is being shown trailers for his television’s live Christmas production of ‘A Christmas Carol’. He is very scathing about this, and proposes his own trailer, full of guns and violence, with no relevance at all to the production - but, he is convinced, certain to draw in viewers.

Frank is a bad-tempered person who thinks nothing of working his employees until all hours, ignoring their needs. He even fires someone for disagreeing with him, cancelling his Christmas bonus. He is a typecast modern-day Scrooge. He has a brother who is exaggeratedly fluffy and kind, always inviting Frank for Christmas Day, but he cares nothing for him - telling his secretary to send him (and many other acquaintances) towels for Christmas. 

The film follows the standard ‘Christmas Carol’ outline: Frank is confronted by the zombie-like body of someone who died a few years ago, and is warned that he will see the Ghost of the Christmas Past the following day. He thinks he’s had a nightmare but is disturbed enough that he calls a girl called Claire (Karen Allen) whom - he says - he hasn’t spoken to for fifteen years.

The Ghost (David Johansen), when revealed, is quite a surprise (to watchers as well as to Frank). He’s taken to scenes of his childhood, with neglectful parents, and some happier scenes when he and Claire met and got together. He also sees why they parted, and that his priorities were always work and money rather than people. 

I didn’t much like the Ghost of the Christmas Present (Carol Kane) who appears as a rather violent fairy, showing Frank scenes of other people including his secretary Grace (Alfre Woodard) and her young son Calvin (Nicholas Philips) who is unable to speak due to a trauma some years earlier. 

There are various side-stories through the film, making it more interesting than a straightforward equivalent to the Dickens classic. We see Grace and her family regularly; there are also scenes with Clare, who now works in a homeless shelter. Clearly she and Frank are still attached, but he’s still too materialistic… 

A lot of the film is fast-paced exaggerated action, which contrasts well with the more poignant human interest stories. It was produced in 1988, when there was no CGI; the various ghosts and other special effects were very well done. Bill Murray is good, acting both himself as he is, and as he was when he was rather younger, and - as with most of the cast - is caricatured rather than being a particularly believable character. I think my favourite of all the cast was the young Calvin, who had only a minor role (albeit the equivalent of ‘’Tiny Tim’ in ‘A Christmas Carol). But Nicholas Phillips’ acting ability shone through though he probably wasn’t more than about eight years old at the time. 

It wasn’t the greatest of films, though it was well done and a good one to start the Christmas season.  The rating was originally PG but updated to 12 in 2012, which I think is probably better. There’s not a lot of bad language, and no scenes of intimacy, although there’s a brief image of ‘Kama Sutra’ and women in scantily clad clothing. However there’s a surprising amount violence; some of it clearly meant to be slapstick, but some scenes could be disturbing to a sensitive child. 

Worth seeing for a different take on the Dickens classic, but I wouldn’t count ‘Scrooged’ as a favourite film. 

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Message in a Bottle (Robin Wright)

I was browsing our local thrift store when I spotted a couple of DVDs which I hadn’t seen, and which looked interesting. One of them was the 1999 film  ‘Message in a Bottle’. As the film was on special offer I had to agree that I wouldn’t complain if it was faulty, and paid my 50 cents. We decided to watch it last night - and what an amazing film it turned out to be!

Theresa (Robin Wright) is the main protagonist. She works as a researcher for a newspaper in Chicago, and has a young son though she’s divorced and his father has remarried. I’m not quite sure of the point of the sections involving the son, as they’re not really relevant to the story other than, perhaps, establishing Theresa’s character and situation as a single mother. 

Out for a run along the beach, she comes across a bottle with a message inside. It’s a beautifully written love letter, to someone who has left them, signed just “G”.  Theresa is moved by this, and also intrigued, and she takes it in to work to show some of her colleagues. One of them decides to print it, although she did not want to, and this leads to a huge amount of correspondence, including someone mentioning another letter written in the same style. 

Theresa’s colleagues become more and more interested and involved and eventually track down the person who must be the author of the letters, and Theresa persuades her boss to allow her to fly out to meet him. She finds herself in a boating village, and gets to know Garrett (Kevin Costner), the person who wrote the letters. She learned that his wife Catherine died a year earlier, and that he’s still grieving. He’s also in major conflict with her relatives, who blame him and want some of her paintings…

It’s a beautifully made story, with excellent casting. The two main characters have excellent chemistry, and there’s ongoing tension as Theresa keeps putting off telling Garrett what originally brought her to his village and it’s inevitable that he will find out at some point. But possibly my favourite character is Garrett’s father Dodge (Paul Newman) who is frustrated with his son, but also utterly committed to him - and full of wisdom. There is a very poignant scene between the two. 

It’s not all poignant, however. There are some light-hearted scenes in the newspaper offices, which made us smile. And there are some delightful sequences as Garrett and Theresa realise how much they like each other. I had hopes that it would end happily, but although some issues are solved it was basically a very sad movie, albeit with a hint of encouragement at the end. I understand it was based on a book of the same title by Nicholas Sparks, but the film was so good I don't think I necessarily want to read the book - and that's unusual for me.

We were absolutely gripped by this film, which was thought-provoking, moving, and extremely well-made. The rating is 12 which I feel is right - there’s quite a long scene of intimacy, but it’s implied rather than explicit, and there’s also a very tense, difficult scene to watch in a storm. I don’t think the storyline would appeal to anyone younger than about fourteen or fifteen anyway.

But for adults and older teens who don’t mind a film with a bittersweet ending, I would recommend this very highly.

The only extras on this DVD were some deleted or extended scenes, which were interesting to watch but we agreed that the film was perfect as it was, and these extras would not have added anything.

Review copyright 2021 Sue's DVD Reviews

Quartet (Maggie Smith)

We usually watch a film on DVD about once a week, and as we don’t have any new ones at present, we are currently re-watching films we haven’t seen for six or seven years (or more). We saw the film ‘Quartet’ in 2013, and I had entirely forgotten the storyline, so it was a good choice for yesterday evening’s viewing. We seem to be seeing a lot of films with elderly actors; it only occurred to me yesterday that there are so many of them because as actors grow older they don’t necessarily want to retire, but to continue working. 

This film features a care home for retired musicians. As we learned in one of the extras, most of the minor characters in the home are actually musicians, not actors. Dustin Hoffman directed, and wanted them to be themselves, not trying to play parts.

Having said that, the four members of the quartet which gives its name to the film are well-known actors: Maggie Smith as Jean is really the main character, although she’s not yet at the care home at the start of the film. Tom Courtenay is Reggie, quite an academic and an expert on opera who gives lectures to teenagers on music appreciation. Billy Connolly as Wilf is the third member of the quartet, and Pauline Collins as Cissy is the fourth. Each of them is very different: Wilf is outspoken, full of innuendoes and humour; Cissy is clearly approaching some form of dementia that comes and goes. 

Two other important people in the film are Cedric (Michael Gambon) who likes to take credit for organising everything that goes on, and Dr Cogan (Sheridan Smith) who runs the home as well as being the medical advisor. And they’re all wonderful - the pace is good, the music excellent and while there’s not a whole lot of story, there was definitely enough to keep my attention focussed. 

There’s humour, mostly from Wilf who likes to flirt with all the women, particularly the doctor, but also in the timing and interactions of others of the cast, particularly an elderly duo, one of whom (Trevor Peacock) I recognised from ‘The Vicar of Dibley’.  There are also some quite moving sections.  When Jean arrives at the home, she’s surrounded by admirers; she was once quite a star, although she insists she no longer sings. But Reggie is very upset that she’s there, and it quickly becomes clear that they were once married, although it didn’t last. The way they gradually get to know each other in their old age is beautifully done. 

Most of the story, such as it is, features the lead-up to the annual fund-raising gala concert, and attempts to persuade Jean to sing. It all feels quite believable, and I felt quite engrossed - though even as I watched, I didn’t recall much of what happened. Possibly because there isn’t all that much plot. 

The rating is 12 (PG-13 in the US) which seems fair. There’s no nudity or anything explicit, but a lot of innuendoes, and a few instances of ‘strong’ language. There’s no violence, but there are some very poignant scenes involving Cissy, which could potentially be disturbing. I can’t imagine that a film about people in their seventies and eighties would appeal to anyone below the age of about fifteen anyway.

We both enjoyed the film very much, and watched some of the extras: behind the scenes commentaries, and some outtakes. There are also some deleted scenes although we didn’t see them all.

Review copyright 2021 Sue's DVD Reviews

Educating Rita (Julie Walters)

We were chatting with friends recently about the play Pygmalion, and the related film ‘My Fair Lady’, which were inspired by the classic Greek myth about Pygmalion.  I remembered that the 1983 film ‘Educating Rita’, which we hadn’t watched for about twelve years, was also inspired by the original Greek myth, so we decided to watch it last night. Unfortunately our DVD is quite old and it skipped a few scenes (one of which I later watched on YouTube, which probably wasn’t legal but we do actually own a DVD, albeit faulty). 

The story is well-known. Rita (a very young looking Julie Walters)  is a hairdresser, married to Denny (Malcolm Douglas), who is a traditional working class young man. He really wants them to start a family, but Rita (whose real name is Susan) is determined to get some education - to ‘find herself’, as she puts it. So she enrols in the Open University, and her assigned tutor is called Frank (Michael Caine).

Frank is a lecturer in English literature, but he’s also an alcoholic with spirits hidden around his study. We first meet him when he’s supposedly running a tutorial group, but is quite inebriated, and takes almost no notice of his students. He has no wish to be an Open University tutor, and his first impression of Rita is not positive. He tries to put her off, but she’s outspoken and very determined, and despite himself he comes to like and respect her, although he’s not convinced he can teach her anything useful.

Since the two become friends, and it’s clear that she is a much stronger character, the resemblance to ‘Pygmalion’ is perhaps rather tentative. Rita is not seen as an object  - this is what she makes clear to her husband and family; that she wants to be a person, to expand her knowledge and learn about ideas that are outside her normal world. Frank is perhaps the first person to take her seriously. 

There’s plenty of humour in the film; Julie Walters is superb in the role of Rita, gradually changing from a brash, pushy young woman into a gentler, tasteful woman with considerable knowledge about English literature. Her hair grows longer and softer, her clothes become more casual and somehow more classy.  It’s not about class as such, although the stereotypes are there, it’s about the way that education, at least in some forms, gives choices. Rita probably does want to have a baby one day, but she wants to make that choice herself, because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s what her family expects of her.

It’s rated PG which reflects the total lack of any nudity, violence or intimate scenes, but there are some more adult themes - such as Rita and Denny’s discussions about birth control - and some parents might prefer their children not to see quite so much alcohol being consumed, with the resultant drunkenness, albeit mostly good-natured.  There are a few instances of strong language, too, although mostly used for the sake of making a point. 

I liked the film very much; I’d forgotten a lot of the detail, and look forward already to seeing it again in another decade or so.  But we might get hold of a better quality DVD first. Definitely recommended to older teens and adults.  Apparently it's available not just in a remastered older edition, but in a new, digitally enhanced version produced in 2018.

Review copyright 2021 Sue's DVD Reviews

A Simple Twist of Fate (Steve Martin)

We first saw the film ‘A Simple Twist of Fate’ about nine and a half years ago, so it was definitely time for a re-watch. We had forgotten almost everything about the plot,  other than that a single man (Steve Martin) adopts a small child. But we could see that from the cover. The other thing I recalled was that we had been expecting something amusing, as we thought it was billed as a comedy - only to find that it was quite disturbing in places, and really not the kind of film that could be classed that way.

I had not recalled the opening scenes at all: Michael - played by Steve Martin - is a music teacher. We see him conducting a choir, in stark contrast to the traumatic scene that follows with his wife. The next time we meet him, some years later, he has become a recluse, and something of a miser, in a cabin away from the town. He works with his hands, making furniture, and is evidently quite talented at what he does. 

Meanwhile there’s a political sideline, involving two sleazy brothers, one of whom has an illegitimate child that nobody (other than his brother) knows about. The child’s mother is a drug addict, and when her financial support becomes less and less, she takes drastic action which leads to tragedy.

The main part of the story involves the gradual humanising of Michael, as he figures out ways to look after the toddler Mathilda, some of them quite unconventional. There are one or two light-hearted scenes, a few places where we smiled, and overall a heartwarming storyline, albeit with fighting, drama, theft and a difficult court case. 

Steve Martin carries this story, with a mixture of poignancy and his excellent comic timing that comes through in his facial expressions and some slick movement. It’s not a funny film - I realised that we had been confused because the back of the DVD case refers to Martin as a comedy actor - but it does have some very warm-hearted scenes, and a satisfying ending, even if preceded by a somewhat unlikely climax, given the timing.

Mathilda is played by several young actresses at different ages, but the one with the most to do is Alana Austin, who is Mathilda at ten. She is excellent in this role - believable, passionate, and ultimately very likeable. Her biological father John (Gabriel Byrne) is done well too, as someone easily led, after power and riches; not a bad person, but extremely self-centered. 

I wondered, in the first twenty minutes or so, whether we had made a mistake in choosing this film, but it does get better; the early sections are necessary to set the background for the story, and they’re probably all too realistic, unfortunately. I’m glad we continued watching, as the main part of the story was very watchable, paced just right, and - since we didn’t recall the ending at all - quite tense at times.

Apparently the plot is based on the classic novel ‘Silas Marner’, one I haven’t read. At times it reminded me of the children’s classic novel ‘Heidi’. 

‘A Simple Twist of Fate’ is rated PG in the UK, which I feel is too lenient; the US rating pf PG-13 is more appropriate, as there are some quite unpleasant scenes, and the storyline is not at all appropriate to younger children. 

Recommended to adults and older teens.

Review copyright 2021 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (Dev Patel)

We like re-watching films on DVD that we have not seen for at least six or seven years, since by that stage we have usually forgotten some of the storyline, and most of the details. It’s more than eight years since we watched ‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’, but we recalled enjoying it. So it seemed like a good film to choose for a light evening’s viewing.

We remembered the outline - that a diverse group of people travel to India to stay in a hotel which turns out to be nowhere near as glamorous as it’s advertised. It’s still being refurbished, the rooms are not ready… and there have not even been any previous guests. We remembered, too, the young and enthusiastic Indian owner Sonny (Dev Patel) - but that was about the limit of our recollections.

The film opens with brief scenes in the lives of the people who are going to be travelling. And it’s quite an all-star cast. Judi Dench - excellent as always - plays the recently-widowed Evelyn. She’s spent all her married life trusting her husband, and doing almost nothing independently. Now she’s discovered that he had a lot of debt… and her home must be sold. 

Maggie Smith also features in this - she, too, is superb as the elderly and extremely bigoted Muriel. She needs an operation but would have to wait many months with the NHS, so - somewhat under protest - she is sent to India. Muriel’s gradual healing and transformation - and the apparent shedding of a couple of decades - is one of the highlights of this film. 

Then Bill Nighy and Penelope Wilton play a not-very-happily-married couple, Douglas and Jean, who are looking at retirement homes. Douglas is very much in the style of Nighy’s other characters, but it works well. Jean is a complainer who doesn’t much like doing anything, but is quite outspoken. 

Celia Imrie is Madge, who is fed up with continual childminding for her grandchildren, even though she loves them. I found her character the weakest, not really fitting in with anyone else. She’s a snob, on the lookout for a man (so long as he’s high class, preferably royalty). But I couldn’t quite believe in her.

Finally there are two single men: Norman (Ronald Pickup) who is on the lookout for some intimacy with women, and doesn’t think his age should prevent him, and Graham (Tom Wilkinson) who has just retired as a lawyer, and is the only member of the group who has actually lived in India. 

These folk meet at the airport when their flight to the ‘Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’ is cancelled, and Graham is the one who organises their transport. It’s a stressful journey but they hope for a place of respite when they arrive… only to discover rooms that are full of dust (or worse), some without doors, none of them prepared. And the film is about the way that each of them, in different ways, adjusts - or doesn’t adjust - to the new environment, the sounds and colours in India, and the culture, which is quite alien to most of them.

With such an incredible cast, it’s not surprising that this film works extremely well, focussing on the friendships that gradually build up, and the ways that the people in the group change as their horizons are widened. There’s quite a bit of humour, and it manages to be amusing without being offensive; fun is poked not at Indian culture as such but at the foibles and biases of the English visitors. Dev Patel as Sonny is also extremely funny with excellent timing and expressions, as he works hard to persuade everyone around him to support his vision. 

It’s not just a comedy, though - there’s a romantic thread that looks at the way Indian marriages happen, and there’s a great deal of pathos, as some of the people confront excessive poverty and learn to behave in ways that do not conflict with the values of their hosts.

All in all we thought it an excellent film, and were only disappointed that the one ‘extra’ is extremely short, saying very little. The rating of 12 (UK) or PG-13 (US) seems appropriate; there's nothing explicit, but many sexual references, and some mild violence as well as one or two potentially disturbing scenes. However, a film like this about retired people is unlikely to be of interest to children or younger teens anyway.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Big (Tom Hanks)

(Amazon UK link)

Sometimes when we see a film after a gap of a decade or so, we recall the storyline once it’s started, even if we think we have forgotten. But that was not the case with the 1988 film ‘Big’, which we saw just over ten years ago. I did vaguely remember that it was about a boy who wanted to be bigger, but had the plot confused in my mind with other stories along similar lines. 

Josh (David Moscow) is twelve when this story opens. He and his best friend Billy (Jared Rushton) like to hang out together, and are just starting to take an interest in girls. Josh is particularly keen on one of the older girls at his school, and is waiting in line next to her at a fairground ride… only to be told he’s not tall enough to go on the ride. He’s embarrassed and angry, and at a rather spooky booth he pays twenty-five cents and makes a wish to be bigger.  

His wish is granted rather more drastically than Josh would like. He wakes up the following morning to find that he’s in the body of a thirty-year-old (Tom Hanks). He can’t fit into his clothes, he has hair on his chest and stubble on his chin… and when his mother eventually catches sight of him she is convinced he’s a kidnapper who has taken her son. 

Josh manages to persuade Billy that he really is his friend, and Billy - who is rather more streetwise - takes him to New York City, where he stays in a very run-down motel, hoping it will be for no more than one night. Josh is very much a twelve-year-old on the inside still, and very scared of all the noises outside. He misses his family, too. 

Unfortunately the documentation they need to find the fairground again is going to take six weeks. So Josh applies for a job testing toys - and is given it, possibly because he doesn’t look like (or behave like) any of the other applicants. And in a series of strange incidents, when he’s acting twelve again, he is promoted to a high level where he needs to design and explain new ideas for toys.

There’s a wonderful scene - the one that I did recall - involving Josh and his boss (Robert Loggia) on a huge digital piano on the floor of a toy store; there are also plenty of other amusing moments. Tom Hanks, despite looking so young in this film, has excellent comic timing, and manages to portray a teenage boy (he celebrates his 13th birthday with Billy) in the body of a thirty-year-old man.  

And he also discovers women in ways that are rather unexpected as far as Josh is concerned - and his obsession with one of them causes him to start behaving more like a young man of thirty than an adolescent. The point comes where he has to choose whether to continue in his crazy - but well-paid and luxurious - new life, or see if he can figure out a way to return…

The script is excellent, the acting believable (in the context of a very bizarre storyline) and the whole makes a very enjoyable light comedy which I’d recommend to any adults or teens. There’s nothing overtly sexual or violent, but plenty of kissing, and some implied intimacies. There are also one or two instances of strong language. The rating is PG but it’s unlikely to be of any interest to anyone under the age of about twelve or thirteen.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mean Girls (Lindsay Lohan)

A lot of our DVDs feature recently retired or eldelry people, and none of them felt particularly appealing last night. So we decided to re-watch ‘Mean Girls’, which is set in an American high school. Rather the other extreme, and I recalled finding it a bit strange, despite our son having recommended it. We first saw it in 2009 and I had not seen it since then, so although I remembered the name of the main protagonist, I had forgotten just about everything else.

Lindsay Lohan is very well cast as Cady (said like ‘Katie’ with an American accent). She is sixteen, and going to school for the first time. She’s been homeschooled while her family has been travelling - most recently in Africa - and while her parents are decidedly strange and protective, she seems quite normal and likeable, if a tad naive, when we first meet her. She feels a bit nervous going into a large and noisy high school for the first time, and nobody seems to want to speak to her. 

But eventually two people - Janis (Lizzy Caplan) and Damian (Daniel Franzese) befriend her. They look somewhat gothic, and are part of a clique of artists, or oddities, and they decided that Cady is something of a misfit too. They explain to her that the population of the high school is divided into many different cliques or groups: the sporty ones, the nerdy academics, the Asians… and many other stereotyped groups. In particular they point out the ‘Plastics’ - three attractive girls with lots of make-up who strut around as if they own the place. They’re treated as mascots for the sporty types, and set the trends for clothing. And they always hang out together. 

Then one of the Plastics decides to adopt Cady, inviting her to sit with them at lunch time. They tell her all their rules, which seem quite petty, but when she speaks to her friends they want to use her as a spy, to find out exactly what the Plastics do, and what they talk about. Cady agrees reluctantly. The Plastics are not the brightest of students and she feels that their lives are rather selfish and frivolous. 

She is in fact quite academically inclined and particularly good at maths. She’s working in a 12th grade calculus class behind a rather attractive guy, Aaron (Jonathan Bennett), and realises that in order to persuade him to speak to her, she must pretend to be struggling, and to make some mistakes.  

Apparently these types of clique, albeit caricatured in the film, are actually a normal part of many American high schools. And they form the basis of the story, although the Plastics are the main ones involved. Cady is surprisingly prone to peer pressure, and starts not just dressing like the Plastics but behaving like them too, talking behind their backs, saying unkind things about people she’s come across, and attempting to turn them against each other.

It’s actually quite a thought-provoking film with some important insights into the power of words. It highlights some of the problems that can arise when people lie to each other, or refuse to accept those who are different in any way. Cady is excellent in her part, and her transformation - and the inevitable, eventual realisation of what she’s done - is entirely believable. 

The school staff are shown as quite a mixture: the head and the maths teacher are encouraging and inspiring, although others are rather caricatured and unhelpful. There are some quite amusing moments, though nothing that made us laugh aloud, in addition to the important message underlying the film. 

All in all it made a good light evening’s viewing and I expect to watch it again in another decade or so. Rated PG, and there’s nothing explicit, but rather a lot of scenes of ‘making out’ in various degrees of intimacy, mostly implied. So in practice it’s more suitable for older teenagers, who are the intended audience, as well as adults.

Review copyright 2021 Sue's DVD Reviews

Music of the Heart (Meryl Streep)

We saw the 1999 film ‘Music of the Heart’ back in 2009, and watched it again only four years later. But it was definitely time to re-watch. I recalled finding it a moving and extremely well-done film, and that it was based on a true story. But, as ever, we had both forgotten most of the detail.  We watched it again last night, and enjoyed it just as much - possibly even more, as we had at least a general idea of how it would end.

Meryl Streep stars, brilliantly as ever, as a young woman called Roberta. We meet her when she’s in tears, beginning to realise that her straying husband is not going to return. She has two sons, Nick and Lexy, and they are staying with her mother (Cloris Leachman) temporarily. But that really isn’t working out. Roberta manages to find a job in a shop, and there she meets Brian (Aidan Quinn)  an old school-friend, who says he always liked her but she was never attainable. 

They have coffee together, and talk about what they have been doing. Brian remembers Roberta as an excellent musician, and comes up with the idea of her going to teach violin at a struggling primary school in Harlem. She has to push quite hard to be offered a temporary post, but although the music coordinator is not sympathetic, the school Head (Angela Bassett) is.

It’s a struggle at first, trying to find the right way to relate to a very mixed group of children, many of whom have no knowledge of music, and little interest in playing. Roberta comes up against the prejudice of not just the music coordinator but others of the staff, and some of the parents, too. But gradually she eases her way into the hearts of her students, and even convinces some of the parents of the value of music to their children. There’s a very moving scene when they give their first concert: just simple renditions of well-known pieces, but played beautifully. 

The action then moves forwards ten years. Roberta’s programme has become so popular that there’s a lottery for children who hope to be part of it. And then the school district decides to cut out extra music, to save money. But she’s determined to fight this, and comes up with the idea of a fund-raising concert…

The ending is quite exciting; less stressful than it was for me the first time around, since I knew what was coming, but still I was gripped, caught up in the action, rooting for Roberta and her students, thrilled by the conclusion - and the brief text at the end that explains how the film was based on a true story.

Meryl Streep is the main reason we were so drawn into this film: she doesn’t just act, she becomes the characters she plays, to the extent that we quite forget about the actress during her films. Apparently she spent two months learning to play the violin to this level, working six hours per day, as she did all the playing herself. 

But she’s not the only one: her sons, both as their younger selves and their older teenage selves, played by a different pair of actors, are believable, talented and with great chemistry. And the children Roberta teaches are also excellent. I don’t know where they came from - perhaps some of them were children taught by the real Roberta, or maybe they came from another music school. Wherever they were found, they were superb, not just at playing (initially badly, eventually extremely well) but also in their characterisation and interactions with each other and Roberta.

We thought it a wonderful film, all the more so for seeing it again, and I hope we’ll watch it again in another five or six years. The rating is PG, which seems about right; only mild bad language, only mild violence, and the only implied scene of intimacy shows nothing other than Roberta covered with a sheet in the morning, concerned that her boys might have heard something. 

The romantic threads are very low-key, and there are some light-hearted touches here and there which made us smile. But overall it’s an uplifting, moving and ultimately encouraging film about the power of music in children’s lives, and one ordinary, but determined woman who inspired so many. 

Very highly recommended.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Prince and Me (Julia Stiles)

We saw the 2004 film ‘The Prince and Me’ early in 2013 and had entirely forgotten what it was about. But the box said it was uplifting and ‘feel-good’, so it seemed like a good DVD to re-watch. 

Julia Stiles is Paige, the main protagonist. She’s a hard working college student in the United States, hoping eventually to train as a doctor. She’s taking mostly science classes, and works in a bar to earn a bit of money. She’s more geeky than some of her friends, but likes to have fun too. She comes from a farm, with a loving and welcoming family. 

Luke Mably is Eddy, who just happens to be the Crown Prince of Denmark. He’s a fast-driving womaniser who has little interest in politics or running his country, rather to the despair of his parents (Miranda Richardson and James Fox). He keeps trying different things, determined to ‘find himself’, but ends up in disgrace time and again. 

Eddy happens to see a TV show about a university in the US where women routinely take their tops off - or so it seems. So he tells his parents he wants to study at this university. They agree unwillingly, and he says he will fund himself. Their only requirement is that Soren, his minder (Ben Miller) goes with him.

Eddy and Soren are rather unimpressed with student accommodation, particularly when they learn that they have to share a room with another student. Eddy wants to be incognito and insists that Soren stop addressing him as ‘your majesty’. But Soren keeps calling him ‘sir’, and cooks his breakfast in the room… although for some reason nobody seems to find this anything other than quirky. 

When Eddy and Paige meet, it’s in a conflict scenario, as in traditional light romantic stories, and it takes a while for him to persuade her that he really does like her, and is not such a jerk as he appears. And their romance follows a fairly predictable path until they’re tracked down by the paparazzi….

The two main characters are okay, though I’m not sure I found either of them particularly believable. I didn’t quite understand why Eddy’s parents were so old - or at least late middle-aged, with his father in failing health - when he’s probably meant to be around thirty. My favourite character, however, was Soren. His expressions - mostly deadpan - and lines are excellent, with perfect timing. His role lifted the film out of the average, into something we enjoyed very much.

There’s a slightly strange interlude in the middle of the film where Eddy - whose main talent appears to be mechanical - adapts some lawnmowers to take part in a race. One of the extras on the DVD explains that lawnmower racing is a real thing in many countries. 

There are one or two interesting issues explored in the film, relating to the duties of royalty, and how much personality a person can keep if they are going to become King or Queen. But since that’s not likely to apply to the vast majority of viewers, and the utter discipline and subjugation of the will isn’t necessary for most careers or roles, it’s more of passing interest than anything deep or thought-provoking. Still, the balance of career and romance is nicely done, and Paige is a strong character, a good role model for some of today’s teens. 

Overall we thought it a nicely done light-weight film. It’s PG in rating so entirely clean, with a predictable but satisfying ending. Suitable for all the family, although I doubt if small children would find it very interesting. And while nothing explicit happens, there’s rather a lot of passionate kissing, which would not appeal to many young children or pre-teens.

Still, we enjoyed it, and will probably see it again in another six or seven years.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Room with a View (Helena Bonham-Carter)

We first saw the Oscar-winning film ‘Room with a View’ at the cinema in the 1980s, and I liked it very much. However it was many years before we acquired it on DVD.  We watched it in 2007 and for some reason have not seen it again since then - until last night. We recalled the story, in general terms - it’s based on a book by EM Forster of the same name - but as ever, had forgotten many of the details.

The story is set in the Edwardian period, early in the 20th century. Lucy (a very young looking Helena Bonham Carter) is in a hotel in Florence when we first meet her. She’s accompanied by her rather strait-laced cousin Charlotte, whom we were delighted to realise was played by Maggie Smith. I had remembered that Judi Dench features, as a rather risqué writer (for the era), who was also staying there, but had quite forgotten about Maggie Smith in this rather important role. 

Charlotte is bemoaning the fact that their rooms do not have a good view, although Lucy is trying to keep her quiet. They are overheard by Mr Emerson (Denholm Elliot), who offers - in a rather pushy way - to switch rooms with them, as he and his son, he insists, have no need of a view. Charlotte is horrified and embarrassed at this, but is persuaded by a clergyman friend, Mr Beebe (Simon Callow) who just happens to be there too, that it would be fine to accept the offer. 

Mr Emerson’s son George (Julian Sands) is something of a free spirit, and falls for Lucy. He assists her when she sees an unpleasant fight, and she’s appreciative. But when they go on a drive and he kisses her, she is shocked; Charlotte even more so, when she comes across them. 

The story moves to the UK, where, by a series of coincidences, Mr Emerson and George become neighbours of Lucy and her family. But Lucy has just got engaged to a young man called Cecil (Daniel Day Lewis) although it’s hard to imagine why; he’s brilliantly portrayed as an unbelievably dull and self-centred person who really wants to marry Lucy for his own sake, as she’s young and attractive….

With such a high quality cast, it’s not surprising that the film is very watchable, with an excellent pace and authentic scenery. There’s humour here and there - not just in the caricatured Cecil, but in a scene which we couldn’t possibly forget, in which two young men (and one not-so-young) decide to bathe in a local lake… without any swimwear. 

I remember being a tad surprised that the film is rated PG as there is quite a bit of nudity portrayed in this scene; however it’s all in the context of humour with nothing remotely sexual about it. More concerning is the fight scene early in the film which has a lot of blood, and which causes Lucy to faint (and me to turn my head away). I suspect a rating nowadays would put this at 12 (as it is in several countries). Having said that, there’s no bad language, and not even a hint of a bedroom scene. 

It’s unlikely to appeal to a child anyway; it’s a brilliant production, but there’s not a great deal of plot. So it will only really be of interest to those who like classic period drama, including older teenagers.  It's a comedy of manners, in a refined kind of way, but it's also, essentially, a love story.

‘Room with a View’ is nearly two hours long, but I was fully absorbed and enjoyed it very much. I even laughed aloud a couple of times. I hope we’ll watch it again in another decade or so, or possibly even sooner.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews