Chocolat (starring Juliette Brinoche)

In between watching new DVDs we have been given, we are re-watching some of the films we haven’t seen for about ten years. Last night we decided to see ‘Chocolat’ again, which we last saw in the spring of 2007. I liked it then - slightly better than the book on which it is based by Joanne Harris, to my surprise - but we didn’t remember much about it although I recalled the overall storyline.

The setting of the film is a small French town, one which is ruled by a somewhat uptight Mayor (Alfred Molina) who lives his life with rigid morality. Everyone in the town knows their place, and their duty. They dress conservatively, and all attend the Catholic church regularly. The new young priest (Hugh O’Connor) finds himself judged by the mayor and his sermons re-written, with an emphasis on denial and sin. This is the part I liked a great deal more than the book, where it's the priest who is rigidly judgemental.

Then Vianne (Juliette Binoche), a single mother with a daughter Anouk (Victoire Thivisol) arrive, blown in by the wind, arrayed in scarlet cloaks. They rent a shop with lodgings from an elderly lady called Armande (Judi Dench) and turn it into a chocolaterie. The mayor is not pleased, since they have arrived at the beginning of Lent, when everyone is supposed to give up sweets…

There are several storylines which I recalled from the book. Vianne claims to be able to find each person’s favourite brand, using psychology and intuition. Armande is estranged from her grandson Luc (Aurelien Parent Koenig) because her daughter Caroline (Carrie-Anne Moss), the Mayor’s secretary, thinks Armande too wild. Vianne brings them together secretly. There’s an abusive husband whose wife is motivated to do something positive by Vianne. There’s another husband, lazy with a tendency to drink rather than anything worse, whose marriage is transformed by a selection of chocolates.

Then Roux (Johnny Depp) arrives on his boat, a traveller whose lifestyle horrifies the townsfolk, especially the mayor...

It’s a story of transformation, of gradual acceptance of new ideas, of moving forward away from tradition and denial. Chocolate is the catalyst for many changes, and there are several scenes showing, briefly, the complex processes by which Vianne makes her chocolates. It’s not a fluffy film, however; there are scenes of violence, albeit fairly brief, and several of the subplots are quite thought-provoking.

The acting is excellent; Judi Dench's character Armande in particular pulled on my heartstrings more than once. Vianne seemed quite believable too, and the Mayor and priest are both excellent. There's some mildly amusing moments, cleverly done, which add a little lightness to what might otherwise be quite a heavy film.

The rating is 12 (PG-13 in the US) which seems about right. There’s implied sensuality but nothing explicit, and I don’t recall any bad language. However there are a couple of quite intense scenes, and some violence, making it an unsuitable film for small children.

Definitely recommended.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews

84 Charing Cross Road (starring Anne Bancroft)

It's nearly twelve years since we watched the film 84 Charing Cross Road, so we decided to see it again. It’s based on the true story of a lengthy correspondence between the American writer and bibliophile Helene Hanff (played brilliantly by Anne Bancroft) and the antiquarian bookseller Frank Doel (Anthony Hopkins).

Apparently there is a play of the same name, with only these two characters involved. But the film also includes some of Helene’s friends in New York, Frank’s wife Nora (Judi Dench) and Frank’s colleagues in the bookshop where he works (at 84 Charing Cross Road).

The film opens with Helene travelling to London for the first time, in the early 1970s, and reaching the empty bookshop. The story then moves back to 1949 and we see her as a much younger woman. Helene is an impoverished writer, living in a single-room apartment, looking for some classic British books. Her local bookshops in New York are unable to source them, so she writes to Marks & co in London, and her letters are dealt with, quite formally at first, by Frank.

It’s not an obvious plot for a film; indeed, there really isn’t much story, although we discover a little background to the lives of some of the characters. We see the years progressing; the main characters deal with this well, but I felt the people who deserved the most recognition are the make-up artists. The film was made in 1987, which is just over thirty years ago when the three main actors were all in their fifties. By the end, they all look as if they’re not far off sixty. But at the start of the film, both Judi Dench as Nora and Anne Bancroft as Helene could easily pass for women in their late twenties or early thirties. Anthony Hopkins as Frank looked older, but then the real Frank Doel was born in 1908, so he would have been forty or so in 1949.

Despite a thin storyline, the film is warm and engaging. There’s some humour in the way the letters are written, and there’s some good cultural contrasts depicting New York and London as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. Rationing was still in place in the UK for some years after the end of World War II, and we see the delight of the bookshop staff on receiving food parcels sent by Helene.

It’s somewhat bittersweet; with a real story, there are not necessarily tidy or happy endings. The first time I saw the film, I kept hoping that Helene and Frank would meet, but was concerned about what it might mean for Frank’s marriage. In a fictional story, that storyline would almost certainly have been explored. But it didn’t happen - as I had remembered - so I was able to relax more and enjoy the film for what it was.

The UK rating is U, the US rating PG, probably because there’s quite a bit of smoking shown, culturally appropriate for the era in both the UK and US. I don’t think there’s anything else that could possibly cause the censors to complain; no bad language, no intimacy, no violence, no hint of anything less than full (and often quite formal) clothing.

It’s hardly likely to be of interest to children or even teenagers, however, unless they, too, love the feel of out-of-print classic books and don't mind a story based around the correspondence of two adults in the middle of last century.

Recommended.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews

Groundhog Day (starring Bill Murray)

It’s at least ten years since we watched ‘Groundhog Day’, a 1993 film which is now considered a classic. Indeed, until this film became popular, the concept of ‘Groundhog Day’ was barely known outside the US. It referred (as we discover at the start of the film) to the superstition regarding a groundhog’s shadow on February 2nd foretelling whether or not winter was due to end.

We first saw this film at the cinema, and liked it very much. So, when we began collecting DVDs, around the year 2000 and later, this was one which I bought when it was on special offer at one of the online sites. We probably watched it around that date, but had not seen it again since then.

The film stars Bill Murray as a somewhat cynical TV weather reporter called Phil. Each year he travels to the small town of Punxsutawney where the groundhog - also called Phil - is consulted by the town dignitaries. Phil isn’t particularly keen on covering this story yet again, but sets off with his producer Rita (Andie McDowell) and the camera operator and driver Larry (Chris Elliot). They make their report, and decide to get back to Pittsburgh that night. But they’re stopped by a blizzard and have to return for another night.

When Phil wakes up the following morning, it’s February 2nd again. Nobody else seems to realise, but he goes through the same procedures, meeting the same people, becoming more and more confused and ending up stopped by the blizzard once more…

It’s no real spoiler to say that this state of affairs continues for some time. The phrase ‘Groundhog Day’ has come into common parlance meaning something like ‘ongoing deja vu’, or events repeating themselves, as a result of this film. Phil is at first mystified, then irritated, then decides he is so frustrated that the only way out is to kill himself. Some of the scenes that follow could be considered disturbing, but are done for comic effect… and each time he wakes up again at 6.00 on February 2nd, to the same music and banter on his clock radio.

He then decides to use this mysterious repetition of his days to learn new things about other people, in particular his producer Rita, whom he finds attractive. She is at first inclined to distrust him, but he gradually learns more about her likes and dislikes, and adjusts his own behaviour and conversation to suit her better. He changes in himself, too, becoming slowly less cynical and more humanitarian in his outlook.

The story of course is entirely surreal, and we never learn why this odd repetition of Groundhog Day keeps happening. But it works well as a story of self-discovery; of being forced to take stock, and to discover what really matters. I had forgotten most of the detail, other than the fact that Phil takes piano lessons, going from total beginner to concert pianist level in what appears to be a short time. But the day was supposed to repeat itself thousands of times, even though we don’t see every detail.

It’s a very well-made film, in my view, showing just enough to understand what is happening without overdoing it. There’s plenty of humour, but it’s mostly understated, and the inevitable slapstick in places isn’t repeated too many times. Phil is at first quite manipulative, once he adjusts to his bizarre repetitive lifestyle, but gradually discovers what really matters in life.

The rating is PG in both the US and UK, and I think that’s about right. There’s only the mildest of language, and a couple of passionate scenes go no further than kissing. The suicide attempts aren’t gratuitously violent but could be disturbing to a young child, or anyone who has lost someone in this way. I don’t think a child would find the film interesting anyway, though it might appeal to teenagers.

All in all, we enjoyed ‘Groundhog Day’ very much, and I look forward to seeing it again in another nine or ten years.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mrs Henderson Presents (starring Judi Dench)

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 with some amusing moments, admittedly, 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 of the 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

Lessons in Love (starring Pierce Brosnan)

Every so often I browse Amazon’s recommendations for DVDs, based on films I have previously liked. About a year ago it suggested ‘Lessons in Love’, and while the reviews were mixed, I thought it could be a pleasant evening’s light viewing, so I added it to my list. I quite like Pierce Brosnan as an actor, which is probably what triggered the recommendation.

I was given it for my birthday a few months ago, and we decided to watch it last night. I found the opening sequences a bit too fast and confusing for my tastes, but it didn’t take long to get the gist. Pierce Brosnan plays a Cambridge University lecturer called Richard, whose speciality is the romantic era of literature. He seems to be quite a good lecturer, appreciated by the students.

However, at night Brosnan’s character changes, as he takes attractive undergraduate students to bed. If this isn’t illegal, it should be; it’s certainly unethical and should have resulted in his being fired. It’s also bizarre, and I had a hard time believing that anyone would have such a split personality.

Richard has an elderly father (Malcolm McDowell), who apparently behaved in similar style when he was a lecturer. He treats his son rudely, and is altogether a dislikable character, apparently on his fourth wife. He doesn’t at all disapprove of Richard being promiscuous, but is highly disapproving of his current girl, an American called Kate (Jessica Alba).

Then Richard meets and is attracted to an older woman called Olivia (Salma Hayek), who turns out to be Kate’s older sister. This, too, is hard to believe as the two have totally different accents; but perhaps they were supposed to be half-sisters. It would be in keeping with the rest of the film, which treats marriage as problematic and temporary.

Much of the action takes place in the United States, with yet more infidelities and promiscuity… it’s so far removed from anything I’ve ever experienced that I felt increasingly bemused. There are some good, even poignant scenes where we see Richard with his young son Jakey (Duncan Joiner). The two have an excellent relationship, and Jakey, of all the cast, was the most believable and likeable. But even these scenes are marred by the regular and unnecessary use of ‘strong’ language.

Other than in the scenes with Jakey, Brosnan’s character is sexist, degrading, and not remotely amusing. Perhaps there is a world where vulnerable women are taken advantage of by older men supposedly in positions of authority. But if so, it shouldn’t be a topic for a (supposedly) humorous film.

On the positive side, the pace is good, some of the scenery attractive, and the ending satisfactory, at least from Jakey’s point of view.

The UK rating is 15, which I suppose is about right; there are some rather direct intimate scenes although they avoid full-frontal nudity and detail. There’s a lot of bad language, too, although almost no violence. The US rating is, unsurprisingly, a more conservative R. Definitely not recommended for anyone under the age of 15 - and although we did watch to the end, mainly because of the excellence of young Jakey, it’s not a film I’d really recommend to anyone.

Note that in the United States, this film is called 'Some Kind of Beautiful', and in Canada 'How to Make Love Like an Englishman'.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews