The Miracle Club (Maggie Smith)

(Amazon UK link)

I think this film was suggested to me by Amazon because I had previously bought or liked others with the late Maggie Smith. I had never heard of ‘The miracle club’, a film that was made in 2023 although apparently it had been planned for a long time. I was given it for a recent birthday, and last night we decided to watch it. 

Supposedly the genre was comedy-drama, but it was not a light-hearted or amusing film. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and there are one or two lighter moments; but basically it’s quite a thought-provoking and sombre film. It’s very watchable, nonetheless. I was engrossed almost from the start. I had a moment's difficulty tuning into the Irish accents, but they aren't too strong and I don't think I missed anything. 

The date is 1967, and everything seems entirely authentic for the era. The first scenes are confusing, at least to someone like me who has a hard time keeping track of film plots and characters. We meet a lot of people, all from a small Irish town. There’s Lily (Maggie Smith), who looks very elderly but is evidently a strong character Maggie Smith would have been 89 at the time. Lily is still grieving for her son, who died four decades earlier, and regularly visits the place where he drowned. She’s married to Tommy, and they’re still very fond of each other. 

Then there’s Eileen (Kathy Bates), a middle-aged woman married to the rather grumpy and controlling Frank (Stephen Rea). They have six children, all living at home, from teenagers down to younger ones. And there’s Dolly (Agnes O’Casey) a young woman married to George, and struggling to cope with their two children. The older, Daniel (Eric Smith), is about five, and has never spoken. While it’s not stated, I assume from the way he behaved that he is supposed to be autistic. 

There’s a strong Catholic church locally, run by the likeable, forward-thinking Father Dermot (Mark O’Halloran). And as the film begins, everyone is preparing for a talent contest. The first prize is tickets to Lourdes, site (supposedly) of miracles. Lily, Eileen and Dolly form a singing trio and hope to win. Dolly wants to take Daniel there, and Eileen would like to go as she has just discovered a suspicious lump... 

As we also learn at the start of the film, Lily’s closest friend Maureen has recently died. What nobody expects is that Maureen’s daughter Chrissie (Laura Linney) will appear. She has been living in the United States for the past forty years, and left under a cloud. Nobody has heard from her, and nobody welcomes her back, other than Father Dermot. 

The second half of the film, roughly, covers the trip to Lourdes. None of the husbands want their wives to go - it’s a very chauvinist society - but with a little deceit and manipulation, they manage it. And while they are in the town, awaiting their turn in the baths, there’s a lot of talk; memories of the past are invoked, and confessions are made. All are hoping for miracles, convinced that they have only to bathe in the holy water for their problems to be solved.

But the water is cold, and it turns out that miracles are extremely rare… 

The acting is excellent, with all the cast believable. To me, Maggie Smith - despite her age - is the star, although all the main actors are very good. The pace, I felt, was just right with a blend of activity and heart-searching that worked well to keep me hooked. I found it quite emotionally draining, as relationships suffer, and people berate each other out of disappointment and anger. And yet the characters all learn important things about each other, and start to accept that they can’t change the past. 

One of the important themes of this film is that of forgiveness - both divine and human, and acceptance of other people’s grief. Faith is also significant, although several questions are raised. And despite the lack of any dramatic miracles, changes do happen. Overall, I thought the ending was encouraging. It left me wanting more, wondering what would happen to each of the characters in future.

The rating is 12A. I’m a bit surprised that it’s as high as it is. There’s no nudity or anything explicit, no violence, and nothing scary. There are a few instances of ‘strong’ language, and some discussions about unpleasant happenings in the past, but many of them would go over the head of a child. 

However, given the nature of the film, and the fact that all the main characters are adults, it’s not something I would show to a child, or even a younger teen.  And my only real 'gripe' with the film is that it's advertised as being a comedy, with quite a light-hearted cover; yet it's a very serious drama, with only a few lighter moments. 

Definitely recommended. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Meet the Fockers (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

I had heard of the 2004 film ‘Meet the Fockers’ several times in the past couple of decades. But for some reason I had not thought to acquire it. Perhaps the title was off-putting - I’m not sure. However, when I saw it inexpensively in a local thrift store a couple of weeks ago, I thought it would be interesting to see. If we didn’t like it, I thought, we could always donate it back.

It opens with a hospital scene. Greg (Ben Stiller) is a nurse assisting at a birth. He can’t get a doctor, so delivers the baby himself. We then see him at home, and his fiancée Pam (Teri Polo). They are preparing to go on a visit which evidently allows his parents to meet hers, so they can get to know each other before the wedding. Greg is clearly rather concerned about this. 

I had not realised until a few minutes ago that this film is in fact a sequel to another film, ‘Meet the parents’, in which Greg and Pam meet each other’s parents for the first time. I think that could be interesting to watch, so I will look out for it. But it isn’t necessary to have seen it first. ‘Meet the Fockers’ stands alone and doesn’t feel as if anything is missing. 

Pam’s parents Jack (Robert de Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner) are quite traditional in outlook. Jack used to work for the CIA, but doesn’t want Greg’s parents to know. And he’s acquired a huge luxurious motorhome in which the four of them are planning to drive to Greg’s parents’ home. Plus their cat, who has been taught to use (and even flush) the toilet.

And then there’s Little Jack, a total cutie who must be around a year old. He is played by the identical twins Spencer and Bradley Pickren, and he, to my mind, is one of the best characters in the film. He is competent in baby sign language, but until half-way through the film has not said a single word. However he toddles around like a child of fifteen months or so. I guess his age doesn’t much matter. He is Jack and Dina’s grandson, and they’re looking after him while their other daughter is away. Jack is trying to teach him new signs, and also introduce the so-called ‘Ferber method’ of sleep-training. 

Jack is also highly competitive in everything he does. Greg’s parents, by contrast, are relaxed, bohemian and very loving. They never expected Greg to be perfect, but honoured him in every achievement, no matter how minor. This goes a bit overboard and Greg finds it embarrassing, but I liked his parents very much Dustin Hoffman is wonderful as his father Bernie, and Barbra Streisand also excellent as his mother Roz. Greg has told his future in-laws that Roz is a doctor, but not that she works as a sex therapist..

The contrast of the two sets of parents is very cleverly done; perhaps it’s an advantage of not having seen the earlier film in that I had no idea what to expect. There are some very amusing scenes, some of them involving Little Jack, some exploring the contrast between Pam’s rather uptight parents and Greg’s very huggy, talkative and relaxed parents. 

The pace is perfect; the film is nearly two hours long but I don’t think I looked at the clock even once. It didn’t feel long at all. There’s a lot of humour and also some interesting insights into different relationships. There’s some great choreography and scenes that could almost be considered slapstick, but they are extremely well done. I didn’t much like Bernie and Roz’s small and annoying dog that tries to ‘hump’ everything it sees, but other than that I thought all the characters were well portrayed, believable, and - at least deep down - very likeable. 

It’s perhaps a bit predictable, but that doesn’t matter too much in this ‘rom-com’ film which really does manage to combine romance with some very amusing scenes. 

Rated 12A in the UK, and PG-13 in the US, which I think is about right. There’s no real violence, other than a couple of incidents that lead to a nose bleed, and there’s very little bad language, none of it ‘strong’, as far as I can recall, although of course Greg’s family’s surname does sound similar to a ‘strong’ word. But although there’s no real nudity or anything explicit, there’s a lot of talk about sexuality, and plenty of innuendoes and discussion of people’s intimate lives. So it’s not a film I would show to children, or even younger teens.

But for adults who want something light-hearted and amusing, without anything too serious, I would recommend this. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

My Old Lady (Kevin Kline)

(Amazon UK link)

I had seen several recommendations for the DVD ‘My Old Lady’ on Amazon. Since Maggie Smith was listed as one of the main characters in it, and reviews were mostly positive, I added it to my wishlist and was given it for my recent birthday. Last night, we decided to watch it. We didn’t know what to expect, and liked it very much. 

Apparently the film is based on a play, and was directed by the play’s author who was in his mid seventies at the time. We thought he did an excellent job. There are just three main characters, and a handful of others who stand out; that’s typical of a stage production, and it works very well as a film.

The whole story is set in Paris, filmed on location. But one of the main characters is an American: Mathias (Kevin Kline) is a man in his sixties who has learned from a lawyer that he has inherited his father’s house. He has been having some financial problems, and has spent his last money on his flight.  

We quickly learn that Mathias didn’t have a good relationship with his father, and that he hasn’t inherited any money from him - that was all given to charity. However, he assumes he can sell the house in Paris which is reputed to be worth quite a lot due to its size and location.

What he doesn’t expect is that even this house comes with a sting in the tail: it was bought inexpensively under a French system known as ‘viager’. That meant that the house was occupied by an elderly lady called Mme Girard (Maggie Smith), the former owner of the house, and she would continue to live there until she died. Worse, Mathias must continue to make payments to her every month for as long as she lives.

He then discovers that Mme Girard’s daughter Chloe (Kristin Scott Thomas) also lives there, and she is very antagonistic to him…

There’s a lot in the film, which has some beautiful shots of Paris, some acerbic, perfectly timed humour (mostly from Maggie Smith’s character) and some deeply poignant reminiscences of childhood. Both Mathias and Chloe are lonely people, and while their lives have been very different, they discover that they have much in common.

The three main characters are so believable that I felt entirely drawn into the story. The supporting cast are realistic too, and it felt at times as if I knew the cast. Their screen chemistry and acting is impeccable. Maggie Smith (who was 80 when this film was made) plays a woman of 92 as well as she has all her many other superb roles over the year. 

The overall plot is perhaps a bit predictable, but that doesn’t much matter; it’s a character study as much as anything, a story about discoveries, and family loyalties, and the effects of infidelity. We were mesmerised. I had expected it to be more amusing than it turned out to be, based on the front cover: instead the humorous moments nicely balanced the deeper, more heart-wrenching sections of the film.

All in all, we liked it very much and were glad we watched it. The rating is 12A in the UK, PG-13 in the US. It’s not a film that would be of any interest to children - or teenagers, for that matter, as the main characters are in their sixties. But I’m surprised the censors didn’t rate it PG as there are no scenes of intimacy or nudity, almost no bad language, and no violence. 

The only ‘extra’ on this DVD is an interview with the author of the original play, who directed the film; it’s not too long and was very interesting.

Definitely recommended.

  Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

We recently re-watched the first four Harry Potter films, so it was evidently time for the fifth. We last saw our DVD of ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix’ in 2015. However, I have read the book four times, the last time being in 2019 so I was familiar with the storyline. 

The previous film (and book) are much darker than the earlier ones, more suitable for older children and teens than younger ones. It’s not surprising that the film rating is 12A rather than PG (like the previous ones), as there’s a lot of anger and violence in this. 

The book is the longest of the series, with over 700 pages, so it’s not surprising that the film is significantly abridged. I think it was done well, although inevitably there’s so much more in the books. It opens, not with Harry anxiously watching the news to find out whether Lord Voldemort is having an effect in the regular (‘muggle’) world, but with an encounter in a children’s playground with his cousin Dudley. 

A dementor attack in an alleyway forces Harry to use his ‘patronus’ charm to save his life, and that of his cousin. This is witnessed by a neighbour who - to Harry’s astonishment - recognises his wand, knows who he is, and saw the dementors. However it’s also noted by the Ministry of Magic, and Harry receives a letter telling him he has been expelled.

Several friends managed to rescue him although he has to undergo a stressful court hearing. He’s with his friends again, but they clearly have secrets and nobody will tell him what’s going on…

Harry does the teenage angst believably, more and more stressed by lack of understanding, worry about his godfather Sirius, and increasing dreams that are very realistic, evidently of Lord Voldemort trying to get inside Harry’s head. Indeed, all the actors are so good, realistic in their roles, that I was entirely caught up in the film, feeling some of Harry’s emotion, rooting for those who believe in him. 

It’s quite a stressful film to watch. The Ministry of Magic doesn’t believe that Voldemort has returned, and Hogwarts has a new, sadistic teacher called Dolores Umbridge, one of the nastiest of JK Rowling’s creations in my view. Her insistence that the students learn theory without doing any magic is, I’m sure, a dig at educational systems insisting on more and more theory without practice. But whereas, in the book, there is time for a bit of light relief in places, and amusing one-liners, the film is fast-paced and stark. 

However, the basic story is well covered with plenty of visual effects, and it’s certainly worth seeing. But for anyone wondering if there’s more to the story, or feeling they didn’t quite understand all the implications, I would highly recommend reading the book too. It’s also a good idea to have seen at least the fourth DVD (‘..the Goblet of Fire’) before this one; ideally all of them in sequence.

We have a single-DVD edition of this film, so there were no 'extras' for us to watch.

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

Must Love Dogs (Diane Lane)

(Amazon UK link)

We wanted something light and undemanding to watch, so we decided to see ‘Must Love Dogs’. We saw it ten years ago, but had entirely forgotten the storyline. We’re not dog-lovers ourselves but storylines involving dogs are usually good value, often with some canine humour thrown in.

Dogs don’t, in fact, feature all that highly. It’s the story of two people who are single and really don’t have any wish to start dating again. Sarah (Diane Lane) is a preschool teacher of around 40 who has been recently divorced. She’s quite close to her siblings, who are determined to match her up with someone. But their attempts, although mildly amusing, are not at all successful.

Meanwhile Jake (John Cusack) is also recently divorced, but has little interest in starting a new relationship. He loves building boats from scratch, but his best friend tries to match-make and he goes along with it, although without a great deal of enthusiasm.

One of Sarah’s siblings signs her up for a dating website, giving her an exaggerated description, including the fact that a potential ‘match’ must love dogs. Not that Sarah owns a dog herself, but she’s looking after her brother’s. This is how she comes to meet Jake, in a park, with a borrowed dog.

The two do not hit it off, and there’s a side story where Sarah is really quite attracted by the father of one of her young students. He’s clearly keen on her but she’s concerned about the ethics of dating a parent of one of the children in her care, even though it’s a child she finds quite appealing. So for a while it’s not certain which way the story is going to go - neither of us could remember.

I suppose it’s not a particularly memorable film, but it has some good lines, and more humour than some ‘rom-com’ movies. An added bonus is Christopher Plummer as Sarah’s father, who’s quite elderly but also rather a womaniser. It’s probably due to this that the film is rated 12; we didn’t notice any violence or bad language, but there are many references to sexual actvities (though nothing explicit).

It made a good light evening’s viewing, and no doubt we’ll watch it again in another decade or so, when, once again, we will have completely forgotten the story.

Review copyright 2022 Sue's DVD Reviews

Hope Springs (Colin Firth)

(Amazon UK link)

A couple of months ago we watched one of our DVDs with the title ‘Hope Springs’, and last night we watched the other one. Both are billed as romantic comedies, both are about relationships and are mildly amusing in places rather than hilarious - but there the similarity ends.

It’s a long time since we first saw the second ‘Hope Springs’, which stars Colin Firth as a young man called, appropriately, Colin. He is a talented artist visiting the United States, and we quickly learn that he’s nursing a broken heart. His fiancee Vera (Minnie Driver) has behaved quite callously, and he wants to forget her.

He stays at a motel managed by Mr and Mrs Fisher (Frank Collison and Mary Steenburgen) who are responsible for much of the humour. Fisher has a most unusual and expressive face, and is one of the first people Colin draws. Mrs Fisher introduces him to Mandy (Heather Graham) who is supposedly a grief therapist. But she is rather a confused person, and she and Colin are quickly attracted to each other…

The story is something of a classic love triangle - inevitably Vera arrives and Colin is caught between her and Mandy, both wanting him, while he isn’t entirely sure what he wants, and tries to hide things from each of them, which naturally enough causes them both to become upset with him.

There are some other interesting characters in the film - the mayor (Oliver Platt) who is smug and entirely self-centered, quite amusingly so when he meets Colin and has his portrait drawn. And there are shopkeepers who take an inordinate interest in Colin…this is small-town America at its best.

There’s nothing deep in the film, and much that is shallow, but the acting is good the chemistry between Colin and both the leading ladies is excellent, and we learned in the ‘making of’ extra that in fact Colin Firth and Minnie Driver had been close friends for years, something that came across well in the film.

Colin’s comic timing is excellent and while in places I winced rather than chuckling, we did smile several times, and I found some of the dialogue quite amusing.

Rated 12A which seems about right, though I might have opted for 15. There’s quite a bit of implied sex, though nothing explicit, and I don’t recall any strong language. It’s certainly not suitable for children; unlikely to be of any interest to younger teenagers either. But for us, it made a good evening’s light viewing.

Recommended.

Review copyright 2022 Sue's DVD Reviews

Sweet Home Alabama (Reese Witherspoon)

(Amazon UK link)

Although we have had the film ‘Sweet Home Alabama’ on our shelves for many years, I had not watched it until we chose it as a light evening’s viewing last night. I had no idea what it was about, but the blurb on the back suggested a light, feel-good kind of story.

Reese Witherspoon stars as Amanda, a talented and ambitious young woman who works in New York as a clothes designer. She is in a relationship with a wealthy businessman called Andrew (Patrick Dempsey) and somewhat startled when he asks her to marry him. His mother Kate (Candice Bergan) is the Mayor, and rather unimpressed that he’s marrying someone she doesn’t approve of.

Amanda, as we quickly learn, is not exactly who she claims to be. There was a brief prologue showing her as a child with her best friend Jake, but it’s not until she returns to Alabama, purportedly to tell her parents face-to-face that she is engaged, that we learn exactly what happened with Jake, and what kind of relationship she has with him now.

There’s not much more I can say about the plot without giving spoilers; suffice it to say it’s really a relationship-based film, contrasting Amanda’s high-powered life in New York with her very different background, growing up in a loving but low-income family whom she hasn’t seen in seven years.

I expect the scenes in the Alabama bars and homes were somewhat caricatured, showing lots of drinking, smoking, playing pool and dancing with drawling farmers and glamorous but unintelligent women. But Amanda’s gradual realisation about what really mattered to her was very well done. Her old friends and acquaintances greet her warmly enough but see her as stuck-up and condescending. As she begins to see the value in her former way of life, her accent becomes more Southern too.

The adult Jake (Josh Lucas) is a likeable person, but then so are most of the cast; there are no ‘bad’ guys, and the conflict is in Amanda’s two selves, as she tries to reconcile them while continuing to tell lies so that her friends in New York don’t realise who she is.

I didn’t know how the film was going to end; I thought it was going one way, then it looked as though I was wrong. Inevitably one of the main characters was going to be disappointed, and I thought it very well done. Of course it’s not a story with much depth; it’s a rom-com that’s above average due to the quality of the acting. We enjoyed it, and will no doubt watch it again in another five or six years.

The DVD back said it contained deleted scenes and other extras, but in fact the only extra we could find was a brief explanation about an alternative ending that was filmed but not used. There were also some trailers for other films.

Recommended if you like lively light romantic films that don’t require much thought. There were a few amusing moments that made us smile, but it wasn’t a comedy as such. The rating is 12A in the UK (PG-13 in the US) which I suppose is about right; there’s no nudity or anything overtly sexual, and only fairly mild bad language. But the storyline is unlikely to be of any interest to children or younger teens.

Review copyright 2022 Sue's DVD Reviews

Hope Springs (Meryl Streep)

(Amazon UK link)

We have two films called ‘Hope Springs’, with entirely different storylines. We decided to watch the one featuring Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones as a married couple, which we first saw in August 2014. We couldn’t remember much about it, although I had a vague recollection of the couple sitting on a couch in a therapist’s office.

It turns out that a significant part of the film includes this particular scene - or, rather, scenes - although the therapist is a marriage enrichment expert rather than a therapist as such. But the concept is similar.

Meryl Streep is, as one would expect, superb. Her character is the middle-aged Kay who is going through a bit of a mid-life crisis. That’s not to downplay it in any way. She and her husband Arnold (Tommy Lee Jones) have a daily routine that involves her getting up early, making his breakfast, watching him eat it, then when he’s left for work she tidies up the kitchen and goes to her own work in a boutique.

In the evenings he usually watches TV and drops off to sleep… and then they go up to bed, in separate bedrooms. It’s clear that all intimacy and romance have gone from the marriage, although they coexist amicably enough. Kay decides that something needs to change, and Arnold is persuaded, entirely against his wishes, to attend a marriage enrichment seminar with Dr Feld (Steve Carell). It’s very well done, and the chemistry between the two main characters - both positive and negative - is realistic.

There’s not a great deal of plot, although the ending could have gone various ways: we weren’t sure if the ‘enrichment’ would help Kay and Arnold rekindle some of their earlier feelings, or whether it would drive them apart. Or, indeed, they could have returned home and continued their life as it was previously. But plot doesn’t matter; it’s character-based, exploring emotions and the reasons some marriages grow stale without any serious problems arising. There’s a great deal that’s thought-provoking, and also several humorous moments. Once or twice we even laughed aloud at the clever scripting or timing.

We had not remembered just how explicit some of the conversations are, as Dr Feld probes more deeply into what has gone wrong, and what used to be good about the marriage and the couple’s sex life. It’s well done; it could have felt intrusive but just manages to avoid that, while asking some decidedly pointed questions. There are no bedroom scenes or nudity, and not a great deal of bad language, which is probably why the film is given a 12A rating - but I would not be comfortable with a twelve-year-old seeing this film. We would have rated it at least 15. However, since the main characters are in their fifties, it’s unlikely to appeal to anyone under the age of at least thirty.

We enjoyed watching it again, and would recommend it to any couple who have been together for at least ten years or so, whether or not they are feeling any stress or monotony in their relationship.

There are quite a few 'extras' with our DVD; we watched most of them, including some repeated scenes, some background into the making of the film, and one deleted scene.

Review copyright 2022 Sue's DVD Reviews

Life as we know it (Katherine Heigl, Josh Duhamel)

(Amazon UK link)

I don’t remember where ‘Life as we know it’ was recommended to me; perhaps Amazon thought I would like it based on films I have previously enjoyed. Anyway, I had it on my wishlist, and was given it for Christmas last year. We watched with no idea what to expect, although the style of the DVD cover suggested a light rom-com. I don’t usually read the blurb so as not to spoil any surprises.

We found the start of the film a bit confusing, with several young people all speaking very rapidly with strong American accents. Gradually we worked out that there were four main characters: a couple with a baby called Sophie, and their two closest friends who are the baby’s godparents. The only problem is that the godparents - Holly (Katherine Heigl) and Messer (Josh Duhamel) really, really don’t like each other.

Something unexpected and terrible happens, which results in Holly and Messer having to share looking after Sophie, who is just past her first birthday. They both love her, but have no idea how to look after a baby: there are some mildly amusing scenes as they attempt to feed her, change nappies, and so on. It’s quite cute, mainly because Sophie is an absolute delight. Unfortunately there are no extras to this, other than some deleted scenes, as we would have liked a documentary explaining how this worked so very well. However, according to IMDb, baby Sophie was played by triplet sisters, Alexis, Brooke and Brynn Clagett.

The plot is somewhat predictable - gradually the two become more adept at looking after Sophie, excited by her reaching various milestones, and gradually they realise that actually they do rather like each other. There are stresses as they try to juggle their careers and private lives, and some quite amusing scenes involving a social worker Janine (Sarah Burns) who tries to figure out whether or not they should have the care of Sophie - and who is clearly rooting for them, reassuring them that many cases are much more difficult, and that her role is to ensure whatever is best for Sophie.

Overall we thought it well done, made special by the baby. The script works at a good pace, and although there are some irritating parts (from the one-night stands through to trying to feed a year-old toddler blended fruit rather than regular food) it’s mostly a mixture of poignancy and fun. It’s not particularly deep or thought-provoking, and I couldn’t keep track of  everyone’s names (other than Sophie’s) - but it made a good evening’s light viewing. Some of the comic timing was excellent.

The deleted scenes were worth watching - there are quite a few of them, and while a couple are somewhat gross, others add rather nicely to the film; it’s probably right that they weren’t included, but they rounded it out well after seeing the whole.

I expect we’ll watch this again in another five or six years, by which time we’ll have forgotten pretty much everything about it.

The rating is 12 which I think is about right; the intimacies are implied rather than explicit, and there’s not too much bad language. But the theme wouldn’t be of much interest to anyone below the age of about sixteen.

Recommended in a low key way if you want something light with a touch of poignancy.

Review copyright 2022 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Holiday (Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s eight years since we saw ‘The Holiday’, and we had both entirely forgotten the plot. Even as the end approached, we couldn’t remember the conclusion, although we did both have a sudden recall of particular scenes as they were shown.

It’s a Christmas film, really, although we’ve now seen it twice in the middle of the year. But while it ends on New Year’s Eve and is set over the festive season, it doesn’t particularly matter. The story involves two rather depressed (though very different) women. Cameron Diaz plays the rather over-excitable and impetuous Amanda, who lives in California. She owns a film trailer making company and lives in a large house with a pool. We meet her when she’s having a row with her boyfriend, and ends up throwing him out.

Kate Winslet is the other young woman - Iris, who lives in Surrey in the UK in a small but pretty cottage. She’s been in love with one of her colleagues for years. They were an item at one point, but he was unfaithful with another colleague. But he insists he needs her at work, and she keeps hoping he’ll see the light and go back to her…

Amanda decides she needs a real break, so she scrolls through holiday lets online, and picks on Iris’s cottage. They have a brief online chat, and agree to switch houses for two weeks. It all happens rather too easily - the details are ignored in the film - and within 24 hours each is on her way to the other side of the world. Iris is overwhelmed by the magnificence of her accommodation, complete with swimming pool, indoor gym, and enormous flatscreen TV.

Amanda is less impressed with hers, with its old-fashioned bath rather than a shower, a tiny TV, and nothing working by remote controls. Indeed, she’s all set to fly back when Iris’s brother Graham (Jude Law) arrives, hoping to crash on the sofa after an evening at the pub. Amanda is instantly attracted to him, and makes a somewhat shocking suggestion…

Iris, meanwhile, is getting to know her neighbours, in particular the elderly Arthur who used to be a film writer. He feels rather sorry for himself, struggling to get anywhere, convinced the world has forgotten him. With Iris’s help, he becomes a little fitter, and even does a presentation, talking about his career. Iris gets friendly, too, with some of Amanda’s colleagues...

The stories run alongside each other, as Amanda and Graham become closer, and she decides to stay for the full two weeks, although neither of them has any idea where the relationship is going. He has an unexpected secret which she discovers almost by chance, something which, again, we had entirely forgotten about.

Of course everything happens in a very short time-span, some of the things (such as Arthur’s increased mobility) happening with astonishing rapidity. But reality has to be suspended somewhat. There are some continuity errors and goofs - but, again, it really doesn’t matter. This is escapism at its sentimental, schmalzy best.

There’s quite a bit of humour in this film, as well as the relationship issues. It’s nicely paced and very well done - not surprisingly, with the high quality actors involved. There are deeper issues than simple romance too: loneliness, and how far to trust someone who has cheated, and when to decide to move on.

The rating is 12, which is probably due to the relatively small amount of bad language, and the lack of anything too explicit. Having said that, there are a lot of sexual references and implications, with some scenes before and after, so I wouldn’t recommend this to anyone below the age of about fifteen.

But for older teens and adults wanting an enjoyable light evening’s viewing, with an entirely satisfactory (if contrived) ending, I’d recommend this highly. Maybe one day we’ll even watch it over the Christmas period.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Back-Up Plan (Jennifer Lopez)

(Amazon UK link)

Sometimes Amazon recommends a film to me that sounds very appealing, so I add it to my wishlist. That was the case with ‘The Back-up Plan’, and it was given to me by a relative for Christmas. It looked like a light-hearted rom-com, ideal for a relaxing evening’s viewing.

Jennifer Lopez stars as Zoe, a young and fashionable woman who’s surprisingly insecure. We learn early on that her mother died when she was a child, and her father wasn’t in the picture, so she was brought up by her grandmother (Linda Lavin). She is very independent and finds it difficult to trust anyone.

We meet her first in a hospital, where she is being inseminated artificially; she has decided that she’s not going to wait any longer for the right man. Instead she will have a baby with a donor whom she won’t meet. She feels very positive about this, and jumps into a taxi at the same time as Stan (Alex O’Loughlin). They argue briefly over whose taxi it is, and then both get out at the same time…

Zoe has no interest in a new relationship but Stan is quite taken with her, and they keep bumping into each other. They decide to be friends, but there’s a mutual attraction. She doesn’t expect her first attempt at insemination to be positive, but to her amazement, she finds that she is pregnant. All is going well with Stan, if a bit rapidly, until she decides that she must let him know about her baby…

It’s obvious where the story is going, but the way it gets there is both poignant and, at times, amusing. There’s great chemistry between the two principals, but also some disasters. At times it seems as if their relationship is doomed, as things keep going wrong. Zoe’s pregnancy causes her to be very hungry, and there are some scenes that would have been rather gross if they hadn’t also been amusingly done.

The script is clever, the pace is good, and the supporting cast are excellent. There’s a side story involving Zoe’s grandmother and her elderly fiancé of over twenty years, and there are some interludes with Zoe’s best friend Mona (Michaela Watkins) who has four extremely riotous children. There are more serious moments, albeit tinged with humour too, in a playground, where Anthony Anderson provides some good advice to a worried Stan.

There are also some amusing scenes with a very earnest single mothers’ group, who are exaggeratedly into natural childbirth and supporting each other in their femininity. It poked fun, somewhat, at women who prefer to keep everything natural - but they are warm and friendly women, and I thought it was done well.

The rating is 12A (PG-13 in the US) which seems about right to me. There’s some ‘strong’ language, but it’s not too excessive. There’s plenty of discussion about sexual matters, and we see the aftermath of intimate scenes, but the only nudity - or partial nudity - is connected with childbirth.

The ending is a tad cheesy - almost literally so, as it happens in a cheese showroom - but that’s not a problem. I like a happy ending. And while there’s nothing to make the film stand out amongst other romantic comedies, it’s certainly one we’ll watch again at some point.

There are some amusing outtakes over the end credits, and a brief documentary about the making of the film.

Definitely recommended to adults and older teenagers who don’t mind a story about pregnancy and childbirth.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mona Lisa Smile (Julia Roberts)

(Amazon UK link)

I had never heard of the film ‘Mona Lisa Smile’. But when I saw it - at 50 cents - in a church sale, I decided to buy it. Julia Roberts is usually good value and the story sounded interesting. We watched it last night, and thought it a very good film, with plenty to think about.

The film is set in the 1950s. Roberts plays the main character, a young woman called Katherine Watson. We meet her when she is about to take up a post as lecturer in History of Art at a very conservative all-girls American university. She’s a little nervous, but this has been her dream for a long time - partly because she hopes to introduce some new ideas to the students.

There are quite a number of characters, but the most important students soon emerge with their different personalities. Betty, who is soon to be married, is very condescending. Her parents are wealthy, and care for appearances above everything else. Her friend Joan would quite like to study law, but is more interested in getting married. And in those days having a career was not compatible with marriage, in most cases.

Then there’s Giselle, who is somewhat promiscuous but also very kind-hearted, and there’s Connie who’s rather insecure. These four girls are some of the first to answer questions in Katherine’s first lecture, and they share an apartment. Katherine lives in a house with the elocution and poise lecturer, Nancy, who seems to spend her spare time in front of the television.

It’s an interesting setup. Katherine is at first treated with scorn by the students, who have read all their course text books and know all the ‘answers’. It appears at first that there is nothing left to teach. So Katherine introduces some new ideas - modern art, and questions where the girls have to think for themselves, and decide what it is that makes something ‘art’.

Unfortunately, in doing this she comes up against the authorities, who want her to stick to the syllabus - after all, the girls are just biding their time until they can get married….

Julia Roberts is great as Katherine. She’s her usual self, looking very young, as this film was made in 2003. It’s never really possible to forget who she is as an actress, but it doesn’t much matter as she fits very well in this role. The younger woman who play the various students are good too, albeit rather caricatured.

It all feels very old-fashioned, which isn’t surprising as it’s set seventy years ago. Some of the customs of the university seem extremely strict and sexist; perhaps US colleges really were like that in the 1950s. I gather there were some ‘goofs’ and inconsistencies, but they don’t deter from the story,, which is, in essence about someone trying to make a difference, only to realise that perhaps not everyone wants to be changed.

Rated 12A in the UK, PG-13 in the US. There isn’t anything explicit, although there are lots of innuendoes and implications. There’s some bad language, but not an excessive amount, and no violence or gore. However I can’t imagine that this film would be of any interest to children anyway.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Julie and Julia (Amy Adams, Meryl Streep)

(Amazon UK link)

We watched the film ‘Julie and Julia’ nearly nine years ago, and liked it very much. So we decided to watch it again last night. I had forgotten the plot, but did recall that it was based on a true story, and also that it was about cooking.

What we had not remembered, until it got going, is that it’s actually based on two true stories. One is that of Julia Child, who was an American living in France in the 1940s. In the film, played brilliantly by the wonderful Meryl Streep, she is quite an outspoken woman who adores French cooking.

Julia's husband Paul (Stanley Tucci) is a diplomat who is regularly posted in different places, but Julia doesn’t like to be inactive. So she decides to take cookery classes, and ends up amongst a group of men training in Cordon Bleu. And when - eventually - she finishes, she determines to write a book that will help American women learn to cook in the French way.

It’s a long and complex journey to publication, but the end of the film sees her holding in her hands a copy of ‘Mastering the Art of French Cooking’. It’s not a spoiler to say this because the other storyline, running concurrently through the film, is that of a young woman called Julie (Amy Adams), in 2002, who is persuaded by her husband Eric (Chris Messina) to start a blog. For her theme, she determines to work her way through every one of the recipes in Julia’s book in the course of a year.

In a sense there isn’t much plot. We know that Julia’s book is eventually going to be published, and we assume that Julie is going to succeed in her challenge. But there’s a great deal of characterisation, and many little subplots, laced with some humour and also some poignancy. Julia’s relationship with Paul is contrasted subtly with Julie’s relationship with Eric. Both are strong, loving marriages, but Julie’s inevitably has a different kind of balance; for one thing she’s working full-time as well as learning to cook.

There’s also a huge contrast in the large house where Julia and Paul live, versus the small flat with a tiny kitchen where Julie and Eric find themselves. And Julia is a much stronger personality, while Julie is sensitive and easily upset. They have friends; Julie does a lot of entertaining with the dishes she produces, and Julia collaborates with various people over her book.

But the four main characters carry most of the story.  And they’re all excellent, but of course Meryl Streep still stands out; she IS Julia. Stanley Tucci is great as her husband, and the two have quite a believable chemistry. But he’s still Stanley Tucci, and I was reminded, several times, of other roles I’ve seen him in. I didn’t recognise the younger couple at all, so they were easy enough to believe in. But Meryl Streep is unique. We’ve seen her in many, many roles but each one is entirely different. Other than a few facial expressions and a characteristic eye roll, we kept forgetting that it was an actress, let alone one we’ve seen in many other parts.

The ending is a little strange and abrupt, but generally encouraging. And there’s a ‘making of’ documentary with our DVD which was watched, and found very interesting. 

Rated 12A, which seems a little high; there's some bad language but it's not excessive, and nothing explicit. The only bit I really didn't like in the film was a scene involving a live lobster (shudder). Overall, I would recommend this to anyone with any interest in cooking, or who would like to see something rather different from most films. 

 However it's not likely to be of interest to children anyway.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Terms of Endearment (Shirley MacLaine, Debra Winger)

(Amazon UK link)

We were ready to watch a film a little earlier than usual last night, so decided to opt for one of the slightly longer ones in our ‘to-watch’ drawer: ‘Terms of Endearment’. This drawer contains some films we have not yet seen, and some which we haven’t seen for at least nine or ten years. Neither of us could recall having seen this before, but as we watched it, some scenes were familiar. I later discovered that we first saw the film towards the end of 2011.

‘Terms of Endearment’ was produced in 1983, although it feels rather older. Shirley MacLaine is wonderful as the rather uptight Aurora, who worries about many things and has a hard time expressing any emotions. The first part of the film sees her panicking that her infant daughter Emma has stopped breathing, something which apparently happens every night. She’s happier when she manages to wake her daughter, and then hears her crying.

The scene is done in an exaggerated way to show that it’s light-hearted but it’s bittersweet; the worst could have happened, after all. And the next scene shows the aftermath of the funeral of Aurora’s husband, when Emma is perhaps eight or nine. We fast forward to Emma’s student years, and then to the eve of her marriage to a young man with the bizarre name of Flap (Jeff Daniels), who is a teacher. Emma (Debra Winger) is very close to her friend Patsy (Lisa Hart Carroll), apparently in a romantic sense; but both plan to marry men and to have babies.

Aurora doesn’t approve of Flap, and feels that the marriage will be a disaster; she is quite possessive as a mother, and phones Emma every morning. She’s horrified when she learns she’s going to be a grandmother...

It’s entirely a character-based film spanning three decades, although the majority of the action (such as it is) takes place after Emma and Flap are married. Aurora has a string of devoted admirers, including her next-door-neighbour, a very sleazy former astronaut called Garrett (Jack Nicholson) and also Vernon (Danny deVito) who seems to be there purely for the humour he’s able to inject into what’s sometimes quite a poignant story.

There are some amusing scenes and some clever dialogue; there are also many different demonstrations of family dynamics, and the difficulties of communication between men and women, and between the generations. There’s a very sad ending to the film which we had both entirely forgotten about, and some interactions that I found quite moving.

The whole was beautifully done. I was totally caught up in the story and it didn’t feel as if it were too long at all. I almost wish it could have lasted longer. The cast members were all perfect in their roles and the pace was just right for a gentle character-based film.

The UK rating is 12A which I think is about right. There’s nothing explicit but quite a few implicit references and scenes. The bad language is mostly mild but there are some ‘strong’ words used, and the storyline is not one to appeal to children or even younger teens.

Highly recommended to all who like this genre.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Calendar Girls (Helen Mirren, Julie Walters)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s ten years since we saw the now classic film ‘Calendar Girls’. We remembered liking it, and of course we remembered the basic outline of the story. But we had forgotten all the detail, so it was more than time to see it again.

The opening scenes show a respectable village, with a thriving Women’s Institute. At every meeting the group sings the song ‘Jerusalem’, accompanied on the piano. The women involved take part in village fairs, and cake-baking contests, and other traditional WI activities.

But two women, good friends, stand out a little from the crowd. They don't really fit in, and they find some of the ceremonies and practises a tad ridiculous. Julie Walters plays Annie, who is worried because her beloved husband is very ill. And Helen Mirren plays Chris, who is something of a rebel. She doesn’t bake, or do anything traditionally associated with the WI. She only belongs to the group as a way to socialise.

Annie’s husband dies, and she wants to do something constructive to raise money for a sofa for the local hospital. A calendar is suggested. The rather dull WI chair has proposed a thematic calendar with local churches. Chris spots a playboy type calendar in a local garage, and suggests that perhaps some of the WI could do something similar, albeit more tastefully. This was the part of the story we remembered and is the main focus of the film.

There’s a lot of humour; Helen Mirren and Julie Walters work well together, with excellent give-and-take. Both are talented actresses, and these roles are very different from others where they are perhaps better known. Despite the sad catalyst for the calendar, the women who agree to be photographed have a lot of fun together. The photographer helps them by suggesting suitable poses, and it all works well. Then they must publicise it, and try to sell at least a thousand in order to break even…

The acting is excellent, the timing is great, and the script is superb. There are some poignant moments early in the story, and also when Chris’s teenage son becomes embarrassed at what’s going on. Then her husband is very tolerant but their business selling flowers is starting to suffer. There were places where we chuckled, several places where we smiled, and more than one place where I felt quite choked up.

All in all we thought it an excellent film. It’s the kind of thing which would perhaps be considered ridiculous… except for the fact that it was based on a true story. One of the ‘extras’ includes interviews with some of the original ‘Calendar Girls’, which we thought was very interesting, and added to the enjoyment of the film.

Definitely recommended. The rating is 12A in the UK, PG-13 in the US. Given that there’s partial nudity (though entirely non-sexual) and some minor bad language, that seems about right. It’s unlikely to be of interest to children or younger teens anyway.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Lady in the Van (starring Maggie Smith and Alex Jennings)

(Amazon UK link)

I watched ‘The Lady in the Van’ nearly three years ago when staying with my father. I thought it extremely well done, and eventually added it to my wishlist a few months ago, thinking my husband would enjoy it, and that I would like seeing it again. I was given it for Christmas, and we watched it last night.

While I remembered the overall story - an elderly woman living out of a van comes to stay in the driveway belonging to a writer, in the 1960s - I had forgotten most of the detail. My main reason for wanting to see it again, and share it, was the brilliance of Maggie Smith as the elderly Miss Shepherd.

The make-up artistes were also excellent; at the start of the film we see the ‘lady’ dressed fairly smartly, probably no more than about fifty. When we get to know her, parking in different places in a suburban London street, she is in her early sixties, and quite scruffy. By the time the film ends, she is almost eighty, and could pass for ninety or more.

It’s a character-based film, based on a true story written by Alan Bennett himself after Miss Shepherd dies. Or rather, on a ‘mostly-true’ story, as it becomes plain in the film that some poetic license has been taken. There’s a clever plot device meaning that there are two Alan Bennetts (ably played by Alex Jennings): one who lives life, and the other who sits at his typewriter, writing. They have a lot of interaction and dialogue, and one of the ‘extra’ features explains how this apparent doubling is done.

It’s not a film that would appear to have a lot of special visual effects (other than a somewhat surreal final scene). But as one of the graphics staff explains in the 'extra' feature, having two apparently natural instances of the same person was remarkably complex and painstaking to create.

I probably enjoyed this more the second time around, aware of the story and inevitable outcome, also aware of the underlying tensions in Bennet’s life: his own lifestyle was not something generally accepted at the time. I could also appreciate more the tension he felt between trying to care for his elderly - and increasingly confused - mother, while also fending off the feisty, often rude Miss Shepherd.

The acting is excellent, the pace just right, the locations authentic. It helped, I'm sure, that the crew were able to film in the actual house and front yard where the action happened. The way that Miss Shepherd's past life unfolds slowly - almost reluctantly at times - is beautifully and sensitively done.

We watched all the extras - none of them are particularly long and we both like seeing a few insights from directors and cast members. The real Alan Bennett, who was very involved in the script, gives insights too - in particular how much he appreciated Alex Jennings’ portrayal of him, originally in the theatre production based on his book. If he and Maggie Smith not been available or willing to make the film, it would not have gone ahead.

There are one or two instances of strong language, but they’re not gratuitous. There are strong hints of a violent incident, and also implications about Alan Bennett’s orientation and lifestyle, but nothing that would be considered explicit. The rating in the UK is 12A and in the US PG-13, and that seems about right to me. It wouldn’t be of much interest to anyone younger anyway.

Definitely recommended if you want something a bit different and like ‘mostly true’ stories.

You can read more about this film at the IMDb site: The Lady in the Van.   

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mrs Henderson Presents (Judi Dench)

(Amazon UK link)

Judi Dench is one of my favourite actresses, and Amazon regularly recommend her films to me. One of these was ‘Mrs Henderson Presents’, so I put it on my wishlist, and was given it for my birthday six months ago. We decided to watch it last night, with little idea what it was about other than - as was evident from the front cover - something to do with show business.

The DVD claims to be a ‘deliciously charming comedy’. But we’ve learned from experience that films labelled in this way tend to be dramas. They might have some amusing moments, but just as much that is poignant or even tragic. That’s certainly the case for ‘Mrs Henderson Presents, which is set in wartime London and is based on a true story.

Judi Dench plays the title role, as Laura Henderson, a recently-widowed society woman with a great deal of wealth. She really has little idea what she’s going to do, now she no longer has a role as wife. So her friend Margot suggests some nice activities for elderly widows. Some light and amusing scenes follow, as Laura tries various clubs or hobbies. She then decides to follow her friend’s final suggestion - to buy things. But instead of purchasing clothes or jewellery, she buys a run-down theatre.

Mr Van Damm (Bob Hoskins) is proposed as her new manager, once the Windmill Theatre is ready to be used. Their working relationship begins in a stormy way, but he is hired anyway, as Laura wants someone who is willing to stand up for what he believes to be right. She wants to run musical theatre reviews; he suggests a suitable name, and also running continually through the day, rather than just a matinee and evening performance, as run by other theatres.

This is a success at first, but other theatres decide to copy… and when Van Damm is concerned about closure, with dwindling audiences and low takings, Laura comes up with a radical, shocking idea…

A fair amount of the action takes place on stage or in the theatre itself. Inevitably, set in the 1940s, there’s a wartime background to the story, with inevitable disasters and some tragedies. There are some black-and-white scenes of air raids and the destruction of buildings. I found myself caught up in the story, understanding something of what it might have been like to live through the war as someone working in a theatre, in a way I hadn’t really thought about before.

The acting is excellent, the sparks between Van Damm and Laura Henderson feel real, and the pace is just right. I had not previously heard of The Windmill or the people involved, but I’m not likely to forget them in the future.

Definitely recommended. It’s rated 12A in the UK, which slightly surprised me as there’s a fair amount of nudity, albeit in the context of art. However there’s only one instance of ‘strong’ language, and the only violence is that shown in the historical context, with nothing close up or gory. The stricter US rating is R. I would personally have suggested 15 as a suitable rating, but doubt if anyone under the age of about 18 would be interested in the content.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Time of their Lives (Joan Collins, Pauline Collins)

(Amazon UK link)

This is another film which Amazon recommended to me, and which I thought sounded interesting. So I put ‘The Time of their Lives’ on my wishlist, and was given it for my birthday, earlier in the year. After a long trip out of Cyprus, where we didn’t see any DVDs at all, we decided to watch this one. We had no idea what it would be like, but the case proclaimed that it was a ‘hilarious feel-good film’. So it seemed like a good one to watch.

Joan Collins stars as Helen, a former film star, who now walks with a stick and has fallen on hard times. She looks glamorous in an exaggerated style, and is very demanding. A chance meeting with Priscilla (Pauline Collins - who I assume is not related to Joan Collins) leads to the two of them embarking on a journey to France. Helen wants to attend the funeral of someone she used to be close to. She also hopes for the opportunity to find some more work as an actress.

Priscilla is a far more interesting character than Helen, in my view. She’s in a rather depressing marriage, oppressed by her husband and a rather demanding adult daughter. Her decision to accompany Helen on her trip is made spontaneously, with some apprehension. She soon discovers that Helen is just as domineering as her husband - and artificial, too. I didn’t like Helen much, while feeling some sympathy for her as we gradually learn more about her history.

There are some quite poignant scenes once the two arrive in France, and we found the film, on the whole, more depressing than amusing. There are some light-hearted moments in the journey, admittedly, and an unlikely meeting with a millionaire but that leads to something quite shocking, and a dramatic turn in the story.

It’s hard to say much more without giving spoilers. There’s really not much plot, as the film is character-based primarily. It focuses on the contrast between the two women and their gradual realisation that they do have some things in common. I never quite believed in their growing friendship, however; Helen is too self-centred, it seemed to me, ever to be a real friend to anyone.

Having said all that, the film is very well made, with some pleasant scenery, and we could believe in most of the characters. The more amusing scenes were nicely done with good timing, and the poignant ones made a clear contrast. We were quite engrossed in the storyline and a bit surprised when it ended quite abruptly.

Had it been billed as a drama, or a bittersweet story of friendship, we might have appreciated it more. It wasn’t really a feel-good film at all, in our view, and certainly not ‘hilarious’. But it wasn’t a bad film, and we may well watch it again one day.

The rating is 12A and I think that's probably right. There's very little bad language, some non-frontal nudity, and the end of a clearly intimate scene. But since the film features women whom I assume were meant to be in their sixties, it's unlikely to appeal to children or teenagers.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

A week ago we finally watched part 1 of ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’. It was very well done, but I felt there was too much fast action filled with special effects, and too little of the storyline. However, having seen it, we decided to watch part 2 last night.

The action is less rapid in this film, and I only had to close my eyes a couple of times. Most of the story takes place in or near Hogwarts, where Harry is certain one of the final horcruxes must be hidden. He has little clue what it might be, what it is, or how he will destroy it.

Moreover, the school is now in the charge of Professor Snape, with new and harsh regimes. Dementors and death-eaters patrol outside, and the students must toe the line or be punished harshly. The students who support Harry are thrilled to see him Harry when he arrives with his friends Ron and Hermione. But he has no plan.

Events move towards the climax in dramatic ways, with a lot of magical violence, as well as some new revelations and discoveries. Other students play their part, some losing their lives as a result. But Harry alone has to face Voldemort in an encounter which has been inevitable since he started to discover his destiny in the first book.

This film was more thoughtful than the first, and I was almost mesmerised for much of it. There are some very moving scenes, and one or two surprises for those who have not read the book. The theme of good vs evil comes through very clearly, but this is no clichéd story. The series was meticulously plotted and written, with all the threads drawing together in this final part of the story.

I remembered much of the ending from the book - a magnificent ending, in my view - but had forgotten the details. I don’t know how true the film was to the novel, but I don’t recall any major omissions. The epilogue at the end gives the audience a chance to relax and see into the future, tying up some loose ends. It felt a tad out of place in the book, and similarly in the movie. Yet I’m glad it was there, providing closure as this incredible series comes to its end.

The acting is excellent, the pace exactly right, in my view. There are even one or two humorous moments, providing momentary relief in the tension of the story. This is a superb film to end the series, and while it doesn’t stand alone, I would recommend it highly to anyone who has seen the others, but has not yet seen this one.

The rating, as with part 1, is 12 (PG-13 in the US). I assume this is due to the magical and indeed physical violence, which is extreme. While the shots of violence are fairly brief and rapid, there are a lot of bodies, and a great deal of destruction and disaster. The point is made that this happens when evil holds sway, but it’s not appropriate for young children. There’s some minor bad language, too, but it’s almost unnoticeable alongside the wholesale destruction and violence.

Reviews of the other Harry Potter films:

• Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (part 1)

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews