'The Best of Me' is a film my husband put on his wish-list, thinking we might like to watch it together. He was given it on a recent birthday, and we saw it within a few days. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. I’d read some very mixed reviews about it. On the whole I thought it was quite a good film.
Early in the movie there’s an unpleasant scene on an oil rig with lots of fast action and noise, where I had to hide my eyes. I don’t deal at all well with that kind of thing. There are a few other scenes in the film of a similar nature, including a dramatic and horrific one near the end. However, the majority of the story is much more relaxed. It’s a love story, essentially, but takes place in two different time periods.
Amanda (Liano Liberato) and Dawson (Luke Bracey) fall in love as teenagers. Dawson is from a very troubled home, and Amanda’s father really doesn’t want her associating with him, despite recognising that Dawson himself is unlike the rest of his family. But they are determined to be together… until a horrific incident happens.
However, the majority of the story takes place twenty-five years later, when they meet (now played by Michelle Monaghan and James Marsden) due to the wishes of an old friend who has just died. They both have a lot of anger and find it hard to forgive each other; Amanda is married with a son, although Dawson has remained unattached. Reluctant at first, they find that they have a lot to talk about - and the story gradually unfolds, with flashbacks to the past, interspersed with the things that have to be sorted out in the present.
Other than the violent scenes - and some of them really are very unpleasant - we thought it very well-made. The younger actors playing the main roles are excellent, and worked closely with the two main actors, to make the parts seem consistent. The settings are typically American, but work well; I struggled at the start to understand all the accents, but that gradually became easier.
The ending was predictable but, frankly, unbelievable - and not at all pleasant. However, when we looked at the extras we discovered an alternate ending, which we watched in full, and thought considerably better. I wish there was some way we could make that into the correct ending, connected with the rest of the story.
There were also some short interviews with each pair of characters and Nicholas Sparks, who wrote the original novel on which this film is based.
It’s rated 12A in the UK, PG-13 in the US, which - given the amount of violence - seems rather low to me. I’d rather have seen a 15 rating. However I suppose this is because there’s not a vast amount of bad language, no nudity, and only hints of intimacy other than one brief scene where little is left to the imagination.
I'm glad we saw it; it was a bit different, and quite an interesting story. But I'd have preferred it with a great deal less violence.
Review by Sue F copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews
Although I’ve very much enjoyed the dramatised biographical films I’ve seen in the past few years, I was a bit reluctant to watch this particular one. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man, and I have enormous respect both for his incredible mind and for the way he’s kept going, fighting against the odds of motor neuron disease. But I thought it might be depressing to watch someone develop a terrible disease that took away his dignity and control. I was also aware that he’s well-known as an outspoken atheist.
However, my husband put ‘The Theory of Everything’ on his wishlist, and was given the blu-ray for a recent birthday. He sat down to watch it with our adult son. After a bit of persuasion, I agreed to watch the first few minutes….
I was almost immediately hooked. We first meet Stephen Hawking, brilliantly played by the actor Eddie Redmayne, when he’s at university. He looks decidedly geeky, and is evidently brilliant. But he has a casual attitude towards studying and time-keeping. There are odd moments of clumsiness, too, which foreshadow the disease he’s soon to develop.
Jane (Felicity Jones) is an attractive English student who finds herself drawn to Stephen. She doesn’t understand everything he talks about, but is still able to engage him in intellectual discussion and banter, and they quickly become close.
Stephen’s descent into motor neuron disease happens suddenly and dramatically, and is very well done. His prognosis of no more than two more years to live is ironic to those of us watching the film. He has lived for more than fifty years with the illness. He has managed in that time to write books and give lectures with the help of artificial speech and writing implements. They have advanced in their capabilities as the real Hawking’s illness has become worse.
The scientific side of Stephen’s life, and his astounding theories are presented clearly, yet without becoming jargon-ridden or impossible to understand. We also follow his personal life, which I knew almost nothing about. He has to cope from day to day with his increasing limitations, testing his wife’s patience and endurance to the full. She knew what she was embarking on when she married him, but not that he would live so long or become so incapacitated. And her gradual change from confidence and love to stress and worry is movingly done.
It’s a powerful story, and an extremely well produced film. One of the extras on the blu-ray gives insights into the research that the two main characters did, in order to portray the real Stephen and Jane. It was an incredible amount of work, done partly in conjunction with the two real people themselves.
What struck me most, I think, was Stephen's dry sense of humour. This remained with him despite his suffering. I was also very taken with his family life and the relationship with his children. All in all, I thought it a wonderful film; thought-provoking, moving, and bittersweet.
Rated 12 due to mild bad language and low-key suggestive scenes. Unlikely to be of any interest to a younger child in any case.
Highly recommended.
Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews
We very much enjoyed ‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’ when we watched it a couple of years ago; I wasn’t sure I would like the sequel, but our son put it on his wishlist and was given it for a recent birthday. We decided to watch it together on Saturday evening.
‘The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’ features many of the same characters as the first film, now living quite happily in the hotel for retired/senior citizens. At the start, Sonny (Dev Patel) and Muriel (Maggie Dench) have flown to the United States to apply for sponsorship by a large company as they hope to expand the hotel business. They are told that a hotel inspector might visit..
Most of the film then follows the residents, and two new visitors, as they go about their varying daily lives and businesses. Evelyn (Judi Dench) is startled to be offered a job, despite being almost 80; not only that, but she’s been courted, in a low-key kind of way, by Douglas (Bill Nighy) who is now separated from his wife (Penelope Witten). Judi Dench is excellent in her role, and while Bill Nighy’s character is similar to those he plays in other films, their growing friendship works well.
The plot, such as it is, weaves around the different characters, giving insights into their lives and (in a low key way) that of Indian culture. There are some amusing and also poignant sections, although I found the scenes with Madge (Celia Imrie) and Carol (Diana Hardcastle) to be a little confusing and mostly tedious; neither seemed realistic, even in a caricatured way.
However they were more than compensated for by Evelyn’s story, and also that of Sonny. Dev Patel is excellent as the overly-enthusiastic hotel founder and owner, engaged to be married to Sunaina (Tina Desai) but worried that she’s spending too much time with her brother’s best friend. He is also absolutely convinced he knows who the hotel inspector is…
It’s nicely made, with the bonus of some enjoyable dance scenes, culminating in a celebration which has its own poignancy alongside the tremendous joy and enthusiasm of most of those involved. I’m not sure I liked it quite as much as the first, and am glad to know that there won’t be a third; this one tied off several threads quite neatly, and any more would be too much.
Rated PG which I’d say is about right, although it’s unlikely to be of any interest to children or young teenagers. There’s no violence or anything explicit, but there’s a sprinkling of bad language and plenty of suggestive references.
Recommended, but not as a standalone; the first film gives so much background into the people and situations that this one, I think, would be highly confusing to see without having seen the original.
Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews
We saw this film at the cinema, back in the early 1990s when it was first made. We thought it very well done, but shocking in places, although quite thought-provoking in others. I remembered it as amusing but bitter-sweet. And when we first started collecting DVDs, around twelve years ago, I saw that ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ was considered a classic. It was on special offer, so we bought it.
My husband and our teenage sons watched it, shortly afterwards, but I don’t think I saw it at the time. Perhaps I felt uncomfortable with teenagers around, although both were over 15. In any case, it’s been sitting on our shelves for many years, until I decided it would be good to see it again on Sunday afternoon. We sat down with our 20-something son, who also hadn’t seen it for some years.
The style is immediately dated, but suggests a light-hearted story. However, I’d forgotten that after setting the scene rather cleverly, seeing people arriving for a society wedding, the first speech is a series of expletives. What would be listed as ‘strong’ language is uttered because the hero, Charles (Hugh Grant, looking remarkably young) oversleeps on a morning when he’s supposed to be Best Man. He and his sister Scarlett (Charlotte Coleman) make it to the wedding just in time, but then he realises he’s forgotten the rings….
Charles and Scarlett, we quickly discover, are close friends with a diverse group of people, all of whom are single. They regularly attend weddings but are more inclined to casual relationships than commitment. Charles, in particular, seems commitment-phobic, although he’s very attracted to Carrie (Andie McDowell) whom he meets at the wedding.
The story really does encompass little more than four weddings and a funeral, not quite in that order. The second wedding is an unexpected result of the first one and follows a similar pattern…. except that Carrie has some news that shocks Charles to the core.
It’s a relationship-based story, a series of sub-plots and interactions rather than a single plot, with Charles as the main character, everything seen from his perspective. Hugh Grant manages this part to perfection, in an almost Bertie Wooster style of an upper-middle class well-meaning but often bumbling Englishman. It’s the role which put him in the public eye, and which probably spawned many of his later and better-known roles.
Other characters are rather more stereotyped, particularly the participants in the second wedding; that didn’t matter too much, and the caricatured roles of some of Charles’ friends helped me to keep them separate in my mind. We particularly enjoyed the lively and highly eccentric Gareth (Simon Callow), and the cameo role for Rowan Atkinson as a new and very nervous priest.
The one slight disappointment in the casting is Carrie herself, supposedly the romantic lead, but with little to recommend her other than her looks. She doesn’t feel quite real; she’s hardly a role model (she admits to being highly promiscuous, not to mention materialistic). Yet she’s not a humorous exaggerated American, but the female romantic lead. The chemistry - and growing friendship - really doesn’t work.
There’s a great deal of humour in the film, most of it understated but cleverly done. The comic timing is perfect, and we found ourselves chuckling more than once. It makes the shocking parts stand out all the more; and the recital of a poem at the one funeral is extremely moving. I recall finding that (or what it implied) rather shocking when I first saw the film over 20 years ago; it was a theme that wasn’t explored nearly so often as it is today. It made an excellent point about love - real love - transcending all boundaries and cultural expectations.
The 15 rating is still appropriate; the ‘strong’ language is there for effect, and it might well be down-rated to a 12 by today’s standards if that were all. But there are several rather overt scenes of intimacy; no nudity as such, but several scenes that lead little to the imagination. It’s rated R in the United States.
Overall, we enjoyed it very much and I would recommend it in general to older teens and adults. But if you’re offended by strong language or overt sexuality, this is probably one to avoid.
Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews<
I had never heard of this film, and it’s not one that would naturally have been recommended to me. However I happened to read a review of it on a consumer site, and my interest was piqued. It went on my wish-list and I was delighted to be given it for a recent birthday. We decided to watch it last night simply because it was the shortest of the ones remaining in our to-be-watched drawer.
‘Midnight in Paris’ starts with some very nice scenery and some rather too loud jazzy music. I quite like jazz in its place, and when I thought this was going to be the background to opening titles, I didn’t mind it at all. But no titles appeared, and the music became louder as the images of Paris continued for much longer than we’d have expected as an opening sequence. We had to turn the sound down at one point as the high notes were almost screechingly loud.
Then the story starts. We meet an American family who are visiting Paris. The parents - caricatured materialistic types - are there for business. Their daughter Inez (Rachel McAdams) decided to tag along, as did her fiancé Gil (Owen Wilson). Right from the start they seem like an ill-matched pair. He’s evidently a romantic, who loves the nostalgic feel of Paris, and the beauty of the buildings. He wonders if they could live there after they’re married. But Inez doesn’t want to live anywhere other than the United States.
Gil is a successful Hollywood scriptwriter, and Inez appears to care more for his success and wealth than for him as a person. She’s rather scathing about his current project of writing a novel, although he’s easy-going and seems to brush off her negativity. Still, when she decides to go dancing with some old friends, he says he’d rather go for a walk, as Paris is so romantic at night. He manages to get himself lost, and sits down for a rest just before the clock strikes midnight…
...at which point an old-fashioned car arrives and he’s persuaded to get inside. The situation gradually becomes surreal, as he finds himself amongst people whose novels he has admired… apparently he’s gone back in time to the 1920s, an era he believes reflects the glories of literature. I thought this was supposed to be a dream sequence at first, but he repeats the experience the following day, meeting famous artists as well as writers, and a very attractive girl…
I had to accept that, essentially, it’s a semi-fantasy plot, which includes time travel but without any worries about the potential problems. Whether or not these forays into the past were a dream, or a subconscious wish, or reality (so to speak) is left open. But the contrast is made between Gil’s romantic nature and Inez’s materialistic side. As he becomes more inspired to write, given advice by people who care, and begins to fall for the girl in the 1920s, his relationship with Inez deteriorates rapidly. And thank goodness for that. Right from the start I was hoping they would break up.
There’s an underlying message or theme to the film: being contented with one’s own era, taking life as it comes, going with one’s heart. There’s some humour, nicely mixed in with the story; once or twice we even chuckled aloud. The scenery and filming are gorgeous, the costumes stunning, and despite the oddness of the storyline, I was left feeling both nostalgic and uplifted.
Rated 12; basically due to several sexual references, although there’s nothing explicit, no violence, and no nudity. Mild language. Unlikely to be of interest to anyone under the age of about fifteen or sixteen anyway; it’s necessary to know the names of at least some of the best-known artists and writers from the 1920s in order to get the point of the forays into the past.
Recommended, if you like character-driven stories that are light, slow moving and somewhat thought-provoking. It's only 90 minutes long, but quite intense; the length felt exactly right.
Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews
This is probably one of those movies that Amazon recommended to me - or perhaps I read a review of it elsewhere. In any case, I put it on my wishlist and was given it for my birthday a few months ago. We sat down to watch it with our twenty-something son on Sunday.
‘Little Man Tate’ is about a small boy called Fred (Adam Hann-Byrd) who is nearly seven when the story begins, and is already a highly gifted pianist, mathematician and artist. He lives with his single mother Dede (Jodie Foster) and they’re very close; however he is excessively bored in school and struggles to make any friends. His mother doesn’t understand his giftedness and wants him to be an ordinary little boy; she loves him very much but is resistant to ‘gifted and talented’ style testing.
However, she eventually allows him to take some tests and attend interviews, pending some enrichment courses and spending time with other prodigies. The psychologist Jane (Dianne West) becomes almost another mother figure to him… until he realises that gifted children are no pleasanter than regular ones, and that Jane may be able to offer him a great deal in terms of academic challenge, but she has no idea how to be a parent…
Fred is not portrayed as having Asperger’s Syndrome or any other learning disability; he’s affectionate and friendly, and quite capable of pretending to do things wrong so as not to stand out. Some of his teachers (and, indeed, the psychologist Jane) are portrayed as caricatures, condescending to their charges and with no real connection to them at all, which gave a light-hearted touch to what could have been a very heavy story.
Jodie Foster directs the film as well as playing Fred’s mother, and we thought she did it well, sensitively and with a good pace. Overall, we loved the story; the way it’s told, with the different viewpoints and the struggles to help a child who is ‘different’ as well as the tensions between those who value academic excellence above everything else, and those who don’t.
However…
The soundtrack on the DVD was very badly mixed. The music was too intrusive, often drowning out the speech entirely. My husband did all he could to increase the sound of the dialogue while reducing the music but by about half way through we had to switch on the subtitles in order to catch what was going on. I struggled with the strong accents in any case, but Fred and Dede in particular spoke very quietly and it was important to know what they were saying.
We also thought that, while the young actor did well, he was never quite believable as a gifted prodigy. And it was a pity that none of the serious academics or psychologists were portrayed as believable or indeed likeable.
The rating is PG which we thought about right; there's some strong language, and minor violence, but nothing explicit. Unlikely to appeal much to small children anyway.
While I was browsing around on Amazon, as you do, I was recommended this film. It sounded pleasant, it starred Drew Barrymore, and it was rated PG. Reviews were mostly positive so it went on my wishlist and I was given it a couple of years ago. It’s taken until this long to decide to watch it.
However, last night we wanted something light and relaxing, so curled up in the air conditioning to watch ‘Ever After’. Billed as a ‘Cinderella’ story, that’s exactly what it was - with a difference. There’s no fairy godmother in this, no pumpkin turning into a carriage. Indeed, special effects are noticeable by their absence.
Instead, it’s topped and tailed by a discussion between an elderly monarch and a couple of writers. The monarch wants them to know the ‘truth’ about the story of Cinderella, which, she says, happened to one of her ancestors.
The majority of the film is then set in Mediaeval times - probably around 1500, since one of the significant characters is the elderly artist Leonardo da Vinci. We first meet young Danielle, aged ten, looking forward to her father returning home after a lengthy trip, bringing a new wife and her two daughters. The meeting is a little awkward, but the sisters are far from ugly. It’s Danielle herself who, as a complete tomboy, appears covered in mud after having been chasing her friend across the fields.
Danielle’s father dies suddenly, shocking his family, and the story then moves forward some years. Danielle (Drew Barrymore) and her stepsisters are now in their late teens, and while Danielle isn’t exactly abused or locked in cupboards, she’s treated very much like a servant, expected to fetch and carry for her stepmother and sisters. Even so, the younger of the sisters - Georgina - is quite kind-hearted.
Danielle remains unspoilt and quite outspoken, and manages to attract the attention of Prince Henry in various ways, long before the ball at which he plans to announce his betrothal. There are twists and turns to the story which, in context, make a whole lot more sense than the traditional fairytale.
My only real problem with the film is that there isn’t much chemistry between Danielle and the Prince. She seems at times like a naive child, and he is remarkably self-centred. It made sense that he appreciates her outspokenness and intellectual abilities, and is captivated by her looks, and their friendship certainly works. But the sudden 'falling in love' and kisses never feel entirely real.
The settings and costumes are excellent, with Mediaeval life well portrayed, and the snootiness of Danielle’s stepmother, a wonderful caricature, is quite amusing. Overall it made an enjoyable evening’s viewing.
The rating is PG which seems right: there’s no nudity, only the mildest of bad language, and the kisses are never anything other than chaste. However there are some traumatic scenes that could disturb some children, and a fair amount of violence, as well as threats, although there is no real gore.
Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews
