Keeping Mum (Rowan Atkinson)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m not entirely sure why Amazon recommended ‘Keeping Mum’ to me. For a while I ignored the suggestion as the reviews suggested very dark humour, but eventually I noticed that Maggie Smith is one of the cast, and she’s always good value. So I decided to add the film to my wishlist. I was given it at Christmas by a relative, and we watched it last night.

The opening - a kind of prologue - puzzled us somewhat, as it didn’t seem even slightly amusing. It tells us that the event happened 43 years earlier; it involves a young pregnant woman (Emilia Fox) on a train, with a trunk that turns out to have very unpleasant contents. And she’s put in jail. Then the action switches to the present - that of around 2004 when the film was made - and we don’t learn until rather later in the film what the relevance of the first scenes is.

Most of the film happens in a small village called Little Wallop. Rowan Atkinson, best known as ‘Mr Bean’, is excellent in his role as Walter, a vicar who takes his duties seriously but is somewhat forgetful. He has been neglecting his wife Gloria (superbly played by Kristin Scott Thomas) and she’s feeling very frustrated. Meanwhile their 17-year-old daughter Holly (Tamsin Egerton) has turned into a nymphomaniac, with a different boyfriend almost every day, and Holly’s brother Petey (Toby Parkes), who is about ten, is the target of bullies at school.

Gloria has been taking private golf lessons with an American pro called Lance (Patrick Swayze). He’s rather sleazy - indeed, his actions today would be considered well beyond the pale, as he gives inappropriate touches, makes suggestive comments, and clearly lusts after Gloria’s daughter too. Gloria is quite tempted to have an affair with him, as she’s so frustrated in her marriage…

Into their lives comes a new housekeeper, Grace. Maggie Smith seems at first like a late middle-aged Mary Poppins. She gives helpful advice to Walter, deals with Petey’s bullies, and produces wonderful food, transforming the cluttered kitchen into a relaxing workplace. However there’s something a bit off about her… Maggie Smith’s expressions are amazing, and the musical background alerts us to her not being all she seems.

There’s quite a bit of humour in this film, which was extremely well made with a cast who worked together so well we could believe in them as a family, even if Grace is a dodgy housekeeper and Lance a most unpleasant character. Some of the humour comes from an elderly member of the congregation, Mrs Parker (Liz Smith) who perpetually wants the Vicar to have a chat about tensions amongst the flower-arranging committee. 

Rowan Atkinson’s comic timing and facial expressions are wonderful; just the lift of an eyebrow or a sideways glance made us smile at times, and there’s a wonderful scene where he demonstrates his extreme incompetence as a football goalie.

And yet the film is also very dark - some of what happens is horrific, even if explained in a matter-of-fact way, in the context of black humour. It could have been extremely disturbing although for some reason it wasn’t; possibly because of the light-hearted touch, and the excellence of the actors.

The rating is 15, probably due to some ‘strong’ language, the off-screen violence and some sex scenes; nothing too explicit, but a lot is implied and discussed. I think that’s probably right though I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had been rated 12. I’m also not surprised that the US, with its more prudish censors, has rated this as R. It’s unlikely to be of much interest to children anyway as the main characters are in their forties.

There are quite a few ‘extras’ on our DVD: deleted scenes, an alternative opening, some outtakes and a general ‘making of..’ feature, with the cast, writer and producer being interviewed. It was interesting, but I don’t know that it added very much other than some information about the choice of location, actors, etc.

On the whole we did enjoy the film and will no doubt watch it again. I hesitate to recommend it too strongly as I know some people would be quite offended or even upset by the very dark humour that permeates the story. I admit it quite disturbing that the film seems to gloss over criminal behaviour and violence... so it's best not to think too hard about it, and to avoid taking it seriously.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Furry Vengeance (Brendan Fraser)

(Amazon UK link)

I had never heard of the 2010 film ‘Furry Vengeance’. But someone recommended it to my husband, and he thought it sounded intriguing, so put it on his wishlist. He was given it for Christmas, and we decided to watch it last night. I hadn’t even read the blurb so had no idea what it was about…

The basic story is that Dan (Brendan Fraser), a property developer. has moved to a new location in the US. He has dragged his wife Tammy (Brooke Shields) and teenage son Tyler (Matt Prokop) with him, promising that they’re there for no more than a year. He has contractors digging and building, and trying to get rid of some of the wildlife, despite the fact that he’s supposed to be working for a green, eco-friendly company.

Reality then has to be suspended, because some of the local wildlife start fighting to defend their territory. Racoons, rabbits, squirrels, even a bear. They fight not just by eating plants and making messes, but by organised attacks on cars, subtle nibbling of hose pipes, even removing plugs from sockets to try to make life more difficult.

It all seemed rather silly in the first half hour or so, with a lot of slapstick that I didn’t find funny at all. We both assumed that the animals were all created via CGI although when we watched the ‘extras’ at the end, we learned that in most of the film, real animals were used, along with their trainers and a lot of treats. I wish I’d known that before I started watching, as I think I would have appreciated it rather more.

After half an hour I was quite tempted to give up, but decided I keep watching to the end, in case it got better. The story about the planned development was at least slightly interesting, and the meetings Dan has with his boss, Neil Lyman (Ken Jeong) are mildly amusing, if one ignores the fact that it portrays greedy capitalists not just after money but trying to make themselves look ecologically minded even though they are not.

The script isn’t great, but the actors do a good job - Brendan Fraser in particular seems to be up for anything, so we see him in all kinds of awkward situations: with wet trousers, wearing his wife’s jogging clothes, stuck in a porta-loo, covered in tomato juice… and more. The story gets increasingly ridiculous as the battle wages, and there isn’t much chemistry between Dan and Tammy, although they’re supposedly close. There’s a sideline story involving Tyler meeting a girl at the library, which works well - and there’s a lot more chemistry there - but unfortunately it’s left a bit open at the end of the film.

I have to admit that, in the last half hour, I did smile a couple of times at some of the timing of the increasingly ridiculous slapstick. I found myself wondering what age-group the film is intended for; it’s rated PG, probably because there’s a fair bit of mild violence shown. It’s mostly intended to be humorous, I think, although I dislike slapstick in general and found some of it made me wince. I suspect children of around eight or nine, going through the ‘toilet humour’ stage, might appreciate it, although I don’t know how far they would follow the underlying story and the conversations (and a few ironies) relating to the eco-movement.

I did like the title sequence at the end of the film, involving the cast dancing, dressed as if they were in other well-known films. Brooke Shields is particularly impressive in this. But it’s a bit sad when the most enjoyable part of any film is the end title sequence.

The extras are worth seeing, particularly the one about working with animals. Obviously there’s some CGI involved but it’s done so seamlessly that we really didn’t guess there were real animals and birds involved too. We did notice the times when puppets were used, however...

Not something I plan on seeing again, unless one of my grandchildren wants to see it with me.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

About Time (Domhnall Geeson)

(Amazon UK link)

We had never heard of the film ‘About Time’ when we spotted it in a UK charity shop a month or so ago. The cover looked interesting - and we’ve liked other films with Rachel McAdams - and the blurb on the back sounded intriguing. A light romance with a time travel element could have been decidedly weird, but we thought it worth a pound.

We watched it last night, and found it quite enthralling. Rachel McAdams is excellent as the young, attractive but quite shy Mary. However the star is undoubtedly Domhnall Gleeson, who is perfect as 21-year-old Tim. Tim is a likeable young man, from a family that’s quite secure if a tad odd. His mother (Lindsay Duncan) is bohemian, open-minded, and very caring. His father (Bill Nighy) finds it hard to express emotion but is clearly very fond of his son. And his sister KitKat (Lydia Wilson) is into yoga and New Age.

Tim himself is a bit lanky, red-haired and somewhat socially inept. He would really like a girlfriend but doesn’t quite know how to behave with girls, becoming awkward when around attractive girls. We see him at the family New Year’s Eve party, trying to socialise but not getting beyond a smile and handshake.

Then Tim’s father tells him a family secret.  All the males of the family are able to travel in time, within their own life, to re-live (and possibly change) any specific incident or longer period, as they choose. It’s all a bit bizarre and Tim thinks it’s an elaborate joke but he follows the somewhat unlikely instructions… and is able to relive the New Year’s Eve party with slightly more success.

The rest of the film sees him experimenting with going back in time, mostly for brief periods, to make changes in things he wished he had done. But he quickly realises that it’s not as straightforward as he thinks… trying to help one person means that he loses a contact he made in a previous incident. Altering the past can have many ripples in present reality - as he discovers a couple of years later, when trying to prevent a nasty accident to a family member.

Romance blossoms, eventually, thanks to some of the changes and due to a mutual attraction, initially based on friendship and shared interest although it very quickly turns into a more physical relationship with scenes that I would have thought would merit a 15 rating rather than 12. There’s no frontal nudity, and nothing explicit, but a lot is implied. There’s also quite a bit of ‘strong’ language. I wouldn’t want a younger teenager seeing this - some older ones would find it embarrassing too. Apparently it’s rated R in the more prudish United States.

But even that didn’t detract from excellent acting, with some cleverly written scenes that were amusing, even if we didn’t laugh aloud, and others that were quite poignant. I was completely drawn into the story, and surprised to find, when it ended, that it had run for nearly two hours. The time travel element makes this romantic comedy unusual, and much more interesting than many. There are plot holes and inconsistencies of course - it's inevitable with time travel - but they didn't detract from the enjoyment of the film.

There are also some quite thought-provoking comments about family life in general, and the importance of appreciating our loved ones and enjoying each day as it comes. Perhaps a tad schmaltzy at the end, but that wasn’t a problem for us. We thought it an excellent film, and look forward to seeing it again in a few years. Highly recommended, if you like this kind of thing.

There are no extras on our DVD, but it didn’t really need them.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Lake House (Sandra Bullock, Keanu Reeves)

(Amazon UK link)

When I’m in the UK, I love perusing charity shops, and nearly always find at least one or two DVDs which I haven’t seen, and which look interesting. One of them on a recent visit was ‘The Lake House’, a film we hadn’t even heard of although it was made in 2006. Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves star, and the storyline sounded rather unusual…

We watched it last night, and, on the whole, liked it very much. It was a bit confusing at first, with short scenes and quite a few different characters, but gradually it started falling into place. Perhaps this initial confusion was meant to recollect how the two main protagonists feel at first until they figure out what’s going on.

Sandra Bullock is excellent as Kate, a young doctor who’s extremely busy after just taking on a post at a large hospital. Keanu Reeves is also extremely good as Alex, a young architect who is in the process of moving into a rather run-down ‘lake house’ - a building overlooking a lake. When he looks in the mailbox, he finds a note from the previous owner, asking him to forward her mail to her new apartment. But he knows that the house has been empty for a while…

He replies, leaving a note in the mailbox and a correspondence begins; I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that the two quickly realise that they are somehow living in two separate time-frames, with the mailbox behaving like a kind of portal. This foray into science fiction (or fantasy, perhaps) is never explained, and the two seem rather unfazed by it, although they would really l like to meet. They try all kinds of things - Kate telling Alex about things that happened in her past (he is apparently living two years earlier than she is) and he finding the Kate of two years earlier in his timeframe.

This means that Kate’s character appears in both 2004 and 2006, but it’s easy to distinguish which is which by her hairstyle. She wears her hair long and flowing in 2004, but has it short in 2006 when she’s working as a doctor. Even so I found myself puzzled at times about how something was happening; there are so many potential plot holes in a time-warp story that one simply has to accept that this is how it’s written. And that yes, one person can affect the past, even though it’s already happened…

I had guessed fairly early on what had happened to Alex, meaning that he didn’t follow up on planned phone calls or meetings in Kate’s timeframe, but it wasn’t explained until near the end, which is tense, and ultimately satisfying, albeit a tad unrealistic (even given the nature of the film).

Christopher Plummer is a wonderfully irritable and self-centered father who doesn’t want anything much to do with Alex, or his brother Henry (Ebon Moss-Bachrach). There are other minor characters - Kate’s boyfriend and Alex’s girlfriend, for instance, and Kate’s mother - who flesh out the storyline. Jack, a dog who seems to exist in both timelines and wants to live in the Lake House is a delightful addition to the film, although it’s not entirely clear whether the dog is male or female.

Reality has to be suspended while watching this film, and I suspect that future viewings may not make the timeframes any clearer, but overall we liked ‘The Lake House’ very much indeed, probably due to the excellence of the acting and helped by the attractive locations.

The rating on our DVD is 12, but apparently it’s PG in both the US and UK, so I’m not sure where the 12 comes from. There’s some strong language but it’s not excessive, and a nasty accident, but not too much gore is shown. Refreshingly, I don’t recall any incidents that were sexual in nature, nor any nudity.  However it’s not the kind of film likely to appeal to children anyway, given the nature of the story.

Recommended, if you don’t mind a bit of fantasy thrown into a romantic film.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews