Sleepless in Seattle (Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan)

It’s nearly ten years since we acquired and watched the classic romantic comedy film ‘Sleepless in Seattle’. So it was more than time to see it again. We had totally forgotten what it was about, but as we watched, some scenes came back to us.

A young-looking Tom Hanks (this was made in 1993) stars as the recently widowed Sam. He’s grieving for his wife, but doing his best to bring up his eight-year-old son Jonah (Ross Malinger). Jonah decides that his dad needs a new wife, so he calls a radio station with a phone-in to a relationships expert.

The host persuades Jonah to let his dad speak. He’s initially reluctant, but eventually starts to talk about how wonderful his marriage to Maggie was, and how much he misses her. Hundreds of women around the country hear this, and either phone in or write to him, as he sounds like a perfect guy…

One of the people who hears the radio show is Annie (Meg Ryan), who has just become engaged to a pleasant (if a tad predictable) guy called Walter (Bill Pullman). She insists she is very happy with him, and loves him deeply, although odd comments from other people make her begin to have a few doubts. And she can’t get Sam out of her mind.

Jonah is very taken with a letter that Annie writes (though she doesn't intend it to be posted). He is not, however, keen on a woman Bill decides to date for a while, and some of their interactions are amusing, and very well done.

It’s a relationship-based story, and is obvious from early in the film how it’s going to end. But it’s quite tricky getting there. For one thing, Sam and Annie live at opposite ends of the United States. Sam’s nickname on the radio show is ‘Sleepless in Seattle’, because that’s where he lives, in Washington state, on the West coast. Annie is a journalist who lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland, on the East coast. She manages to get an assignment enabling her to fly to Seattle, then gets cold feet when she manages to see Sam…

There’s a lot of low-key humour, mostly relating to minor characters, and some excellent comic timing, as one would expect from Tom Hanks. The child playing Jonah is a delight, and their relationship is very believable with some poignant moments as well as some lighter ones. And there’s some tension towards the end, as it appears that Sam and Annie are destined never to find each other.

The pace is excellent, and we enjoyed it very much. The ending is perhaps clichéd, but done well, and we thought it a great film to watch in the Christmas season. I loved the sound track, with lots of old songs, now classics, presumably from the 1990s. 

The rating is PG, and that seems about right to me. There are references to intimacies, and people seen in bed together but they’re fully clothed and nothing untoward happens. One or two mild profanities, no violence at all, and only the mildest tension as the ending is predictable. Having said that, the story as such wouldn’t be of much interest to young children, but Jonah’s significant role might make it appealing to children of around nine or ten and upwards.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

My Best Friend's Wedding (Julia Roberts)

We were given the DVD of ‘My Best Friend’s Wedding’ for Christmas eleven years ago, after I had put it on my wishlist. I didn’t have any idea what it was about, but Amazon recommended it and the reviews were mostly positive. We watched it in January 2009, and last night decided it was time to see it again.

With a gap of almost eleven years, we had almost entirely forgotten what the film was about. Julia Roberts stars as Julianne, a woman in her twenties who works for a very likeable gay boss called George (Rupert Everett). Out of the blue, she gets a phone call from her best friend Michael (Dermot Mulroney). She was just thinking about him, realising that they had made a jokey promise to marry each other if neither was wed by the time they were 28 - and that date is fast approaching.

However, Michael is ringing to tell Julianne that he is about to get married to someone else. She’s younger than he is, and he’s quite nervous about it and would like his best friend to be there. Julianne realises that she loves him herself, with more than just the affection of close friends. So she flies to the wedding, purportedly to support him and make friends with the beautiful Kimberley (Cameron Diaz) - but hoping to steal Michael for herself.

It’s not the usual storyline, but it’s very well done. Julianne is really quite unpleasant in some of her methods; she tells herself she’s doing them both a favour, that Kimberley is really too young for Michael and won’t deal with his jet-setting lifestyle. She succeeds in making them both increasingly tense, and while much of it’s amusing, I felt almost uncomfortable at times. I could not remember how the film ended; but by the time it was half-way through I was rooting for Kimberley.

Although some of Julianne’s ideas are quite nasty, the film is tinged with humour. There are some clever pieces of dialogue, some great choreography, and a scene where the two women get into a fight… surrounded by other women, cheering them on. It’s not a deep film, and there wasn’t anything much to ponder at the end; but I thought it an enjoyable, relaxing piece of escapism.

One scene that came back to me, as it developed, was the final one - it would be a spoiler to say what happens, but it gave a positive slant to what might have been a bittersweet conclusion.

The rating is 12 (PG-13 in the US) and I’d say that’s about right. There are inevitable sexual references, and one instance of very strong language, but nothing explicit. There are a few shots of people in scanty clothing or underwear, but no nudity, even partial. There’s no real violence, and I would be happy to show this to teenagers of around fourteen or fifteen, if they were interested in this kind of film.

My husband liked it too, and I would certainly recommend it to anyone who enjoys the light romantic comedy genre.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

My Girl (Anna Chlumsky)

Every so often we buy DVDs inexpensively at a church or charity sale, with little idea what they are about. We read the blurb on the back, of course, but that’s not always all that helpful. One such film that we found probably a year or more ago is ‘My Girl’, and we finally sat down to watch it last night.

We were immediately charmed by eleven-year-old Vada (Anna Chlumsky), a confident, friendly girl with what appears to be extreme hypochondria. I had a little trouble understanding her accent at first, but my ears gradually attuned. And I got the gist. She introduces herself by describing several ailments she has suffered, and then tells her father that she’s seriously worried about something else.

Vada’s father Harry (Dan Aykroyd) works as an undertaker and embalmer, and also, apparently, a funeral director. His wife died shortly after Vada was born. In the United States, I gather, coffins are open during the funeral or memorial service, so the person concerned must be made to look good. That includes requiring a make-up expert.

There’s an opening for a new make-up artist, and a young woman called Shelley (Jamie Lee Curtis) applies. She doesn’t at first realise exactly what the job involves, but she’s desperate for work, and takes it on. She lives in a motorhome, and evidently finds Vada’s father quite attractive….

Meanwhile, Vada mostly runs loose outside, cycling or walking with her best friend Thomas J (Macauley Culkin). She doesn’t much like the girls in their class, and puts up with a lot of teasing, but she can take it. She’s the leader in their friendship, but he follows her lead in almost everything. He has quite a protective mother, but he’s allergic to just about everything.

So there are two stories alongside each other, and several other subplots. There’s a growing romance between the adults, and also a maturing in the children’s friendship, although there’s a shocking event which I didn’t see coming. Vada’s hypochondria leads to some amusing scenes, although it reflects some of her deeper fears; she feels a bit neglected by her father, and at first doesn’t like his new relationship.

The acting is excellent, particularly Vada - this was the debut role for Anna Chlumsky, but I would never have guessed. She is perfect in the role. The pace is good, and we found ourselves totally absorbed in the film, sorry when it ended. It’s not a comedy although it’s billed as such; the pivoting event near the end and indeed the setting of the family home rather preclude against it being in that genre. It’s more a coming-of-age story, relationship based, and very moving in places.

It could have been macabre but just falls short of that. I found some of the embalming scenes a tad disturbing, even though not much is seen. And I had to turn my face away during a brief fishing scene. But other than that, I liked the film very much.

It’s rated PG which is about right; there are brief flashes of underwear and a couple of mild innuendoes, but nothing explicit, and no real violence. And as the storyline involves children, it could be seen by older children or teens. Some sensitive children could find it rather upsetting towards the end, however, so it would be best for parents to see it first.

I gather there is a sequel to this, unimaginatively titled 'My Girl 2', so I've put it on my wishlist.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999)

We have watched one or two films based on Shakespeare plays in the past and liked them very much. So when I saw the 1999 film version of ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ at a church sale, it was an easy decision to buy it. We noticed a few well-known actors and actresses listed, and finally watched it yesterday evening.

Rather than being set in the 15th and 16th centuries, the film is set at the start of the 19th century, in Italy. So the clothes and some of the settings are rather more modern than would be expected, in particular several bicycles. But the language is Shakespeare’s.

I don’t know how true to the original play the script is; there may have been additions or deletions, but I certainly recognised many of the more famous speeches or dialogues, and it felt authentic. And as when seeing any Shakespeare production, the text was easy to understand after the first few minutes, once my ears were attuned to the style.

The cast have a slightly odd mixture of English and American accents that jarred a little at first, but we gradually got used to it. The story is well-known, set both in the real world of autocratic fathers and unrequited love, and also the woodland full of fairies and sprites. Two young men, Demetrius (Christian Bale) and Lysander (Dominic West), are both in love with a girl called Hermia (Anna Freil). She loves one, but her father wants her to marry the other. And he threatens her with death or a convent if she fails to do his bidding.

Hermia’s friend Helena (Calista Flockhart) is in love with Demetrius, but he ignores her. And while I found Hermia quite believable, Helena’s histrionics felt exaggerated and fake at times. Perhaps it’s in keeping with a Shakespeare comedy - there’s certainly plenty of exaggeration later - but I didn’t much like Helena. Hermia and Lysander decide to run away into the forest, and their friends follow… only to be caught up in the fairyland world, in particular the mischievous sprite Puck, brilliantly played by Stanley Tucci. I had thought of Puck as a much younger lad, but could almost believe in this one.

Michelle Pfeiffer is excellent as the slighted queen of the fairies, Titania, who is bewitched to fall in love with the weaver known as Bottom (Kevin Kline). Rupert Everett makes a good Oberon too. The real and fairyland worlds weave together very well, fairies shown as mischievous, liking drink and dancing and various kinds of carousing.

The scenery, the magical effects and the acting and directing were all excellent, we thought, even if there was rather more implied intimacy than I had ever seen before in productions of this play. While there’s nothing untoward shown, there are several scenes where it’s obvious that couples are naked, and in at least one of them it is very clear what is about to happen.

Shakespeare’s plays are full of innuendoes and bawdiness, but it was rather more overt in this production than in the live theatre I have seen previously. So I was a little surprised that it was only rated PG, at least in the UK. The US has rated it PG-13 and I feel that would be more appropriate.

That apart, I would recommend this very highly, if you don’t mind a rather different style of production. It was very amusing in places, and we enjoyed it thoroughly.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (Ewan McGregor)

Browsing a box of DVDs on a church bookstall, I spotted ‘Salmon Fishing in the Yemen’. Although it’s not a title that would naturally appeal to me, I had heard good things about the book and even better things about the film adaptation. I thought it well worth 50 cents, and we decided to watch it last night.

Ewan McGregor is the real star of this film, as the somewhat grumpy Alfred (Fred) Jones, an expert on fishing. We meet him almost in passing at first, responding in the negative to a proposal by a wealthy Sheikh (Amr Waked) who wants to introduce salmon fishing in his native country. The idea sounds ridiculous so Fred’s response is not unreasonable, pointing out that salmon need a cool, rainy climate rather than a hot, dry Middle Eastern one.

The project might have disappeared but for the government deciding they need a ‘good news’ story from the Middle East, promoting Anglo-Arab relations, to balance the many negative ones. The Prime Minister’s press secretary, Patricia Maxwell (Kristen Scott Thomas) is a pushy, assertive person who manipulates Fred’s boss into taking the project on. And Fred is inveigled into meeting Harriet (Emily Blunt), a financial consultant who has been employed by the Sheikh.

I found the number of people a tad confusing at first, until I had worked out who the main characters were. Fred’s wife Mary seems quite important at first, but it’s clear that their marriage has lost its sparkle, and they are drifting apart. Harriet embarks on a relationship with a soldier, too, but it’s fuelled by passion rather than anything deeper. And then he is sent to Afghanistan…

The film is shot in three main locations: London, parts of Scotland, and (rather than Yemen) Morocco. It’s very well done, paced exactly right for my tastes, and with a good balance of conversation and action. The Sheikh is a delightful man, probably around the same age as Fred, and their shared interest in fishing sparks an immediate rapport. His reason for wanting the fishing is not for selfish enjoyment, but to bring more life and leisure activities to an arid reason. Unfortunately, not all the locals agree with him, and the project brings some angry - and, eventually violent - protests.

Harriet is a great character too, overwhelmingly positive, determined to overcome all Fred’s possible objections to the project, and with an unexpected flair for languages. There are some interesting conversations about faith, alongside fishing; Fred insists he is a man of science, with no faith, but the Sheikh gently persuades him otherwise.

It’s billed as a comedy, whereas I would have called it a romantic drama; inevitably there’s a romantic thread, although that, too, is extremely well done, with a strong friendship developing before any talk of love. There are certainly some amusing conversations, but they made us smile rather than laughing, and they were interspersed with much more serious, sometimes tragic interludes.

But all in all, we thought it an excellent film, one I would highly recommend. The rating is 12 (PG-13 in the US) which I think is about right. There are instances of fairly mild bad language, with just one or two ‘strong’ words, and there is a fair amount of implied intimacy, but nothing explicit, and no nudity. The violent scenes are brief without gore or too much tension. But the political and sometimes satirical themes are unlikely to appeal to children anyway.

There are a couple of extras; we watched the ‘making of’ extra, with the cast and director explaining how it was made, why the cast were chosen, and how they dealt with some of the filming.

Highly recommended.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mr Holland's Opus (Richard Dreyfuss)

While we’re starting to watch some films for the second time this year, there aren’t many that I want to see for a third time - and already look forward to seeing again some day. But one film that bears multiple viewings is the little-known Mr Holland’s Opus, which we last saw in 2007. I don’t know why we’ve waited so long to see it again, but last night we finally watched it once more.

Richard Dreyfuss is the title character, and he carries the story superbly. We meet him first as a thirty-year-old man about to start his first teaching job at a high school. He’s not particularly keen to teach; he has been working as a travelling musician up to this point. But he wants to be able to spend more time with his wife Iris (Glenne Headley), and also to compose a symphony which he has started working on.

However, he quickly realises that teaching is more than just a nine to four job. He has to arrange appointments before or after school to help students who are struggling with music, and he has to attend school meetings, and organise school choirs, and eventually a marching band. At first Mr Holland is nervous, teaching by the book, and evidently not catching anyone’s interest. Gradually he relaxes, and tries different methods, interacting with his students more directly, and discussing their tastes in music.

Richard Dreyfuss was born in 1947, so when this film was made in 1995 he would have been almost fifty; yet he carries the energy and youthfulness of a much younger man at the start of the film. He also manages to portray a sixty-year-old by the end; perhaps rather older looking than most people his age, but realistically different from how he appeared at the start of the film. His wife, too, looks much older at the end of the film. We were extremely impressed by the skill of the make-up artistes, as well as the acting.

The story is not just about music teaching, however. There are rivalries and friendships amongst the staff; Mr Holland is a likeable, unthreatening man, yet the deputy head (William H Macy) dislikes him from the start. The school head (Olympia Dukakis) is much fairer and more reasonable, and the sports coach (Jay Thomas) becomes a good friend despite their very different subjects and teaching styles.

And there’s another important subplot, that of Mr Holland’s home life. We see their son Cole as a baby, and a toddler; we see, too, the shock and grief that both parents suffer when they realise that Cole has a disability. It’s one that his father finds very difficult to deal with, and the teenage years show them struggling to communicate. Iris decides that Cole needs to be at a special school, so her husband must keep working, and take extra duties in the summer break to pay for it.

There are some light-hearted moments to this film, such as the appalling standard of the school band at first, and the behaviour of some of the students Mr Holland attempts to teach to drive during the summer break. There’s a lot of poignancy, too, in the family and also at the end; and there’s some excellent music as background. Teaching methods are challenged - and change, over the years, as do the students - and the productions become higher quality, more classy.

There’s a low key possible love interest story that kept me on the edge of my seat the first time I saw this, but all was resolved in what was (to me) the best possible way, so on subsequent viewings I was able to appreciate them better. And there’s one very sad scene, too; as with some of the news that’s briefly covered, it cleverly sets the scenes in their time periods without anything too overt.

Once again, I loved the film; I was totally absorbed as we watched, and sorry when it finally ended. Apparently there are quite a few anachronisms and other errors, but I didn’t notice any of them while watching.

Very, very highly recommended. It’s a gentle, moving film with a positive message. The rating is PG, probably due to some mild bad language and some tension, but there’s nothing unsuitable for young children.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Bishop's Wife (Loretta Young and Cary Grant)

I’ve forgotten how we acquired the classic 1940s film ‘The Bishop’s Wife’, but we watched it at the end of 2008, and (on the whole) liked it. It seemed like a good idea to see it again as we had almost entirely forgotten what it was about. We had even forgotten that it was in black-and-white; something that isn’t obvious from the cover.

Loretta Young is Julia, the bishop’s wife of the title. She’s young, loving and somewhat neglected by her ambitious husband Henry (David Niven). He is so busy with his work, including an attempt to raise funds for a new cathedral, that he cancels dates, is regularly late for meals, and often seems to forget that he has a wife and children.

Into their lives appears Dudley (Cary Grant). We see him early in the film, helping a blind man across the street, narrowly avoiding being hit by traffic. Then we see him racing to catch a runaway pram just before disaster happens. And he speaks to Julia… but it isn’t obvious, at first, that he is an angel looking after the neighbourhood, dressed in a suit.

Dudley persuades Bishop Henry that he needs an assistant, and soon endears himself to the household staff by greeting them by name, opening doors for them, and generally treating them far more respectfully than they have come to expect. And since Henry cancels yet another date with his wife, Dudley takes her out instead, and it’s quickly rather evident that they like each other a little too much…

There are some very cleverly done sequences, all the more impressive in an era long before computer animations or graphics. We were amused by a self-tapping typewriter, for instance, and some filing cards that arranged themselves tidily in boxes. There’s some excellent timing, some enjoyable ice skating (about the only part I had remembered from previous viewing) and some clever scripting.

There’s also some poignancy, and parts that are quite thought-provoking. It’s a 1940s film so it’s going to end in a positive, moral way; but not without some heart-searching and bittersweet endings. There are some sections which would have been so much better in colour, such as the way Dudley decorates the Christmas tree, but I found myself caught up in the story for most of it, and almost forgot that it was black-and-white.

The style is inevitably very dated, the accents sound very 1940s, and I doubt if this would appeal to many people nowadays; there are so many modern Christmas films available, rather faster paced and of course in colour. But we enjoyed this, and I would recommend it to anyone who doesn’t mind black-and-white films, and who would like a gentler, slower film with much to think about, and a moral ending (albeit predictable).

Recommended, if you like this kind of thing. But look out for special offers, as it is often very high priced new. The rating is U and there’s nothing in it unsuitable for children; but equally very little that would interest most of them.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Bruce Almighty (Jim Carrey)

It was over twelve years since we first saw ‘Bruce Almighty’, and although we remembered the gist of the plot, we had forgotten most of the detail and humour. So we decided it would make a light evening’s viewing…

Jim Carrey stars as Bruce, a TV reporter who is sent to all kinds of strange locations. He is excellent at interviewing, and making stories out of bizarre situations. But what he really wants is to be a news anchor. He has a beautiful and loving girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston) but they have been having some arguments… and he feels that everything is going wrong.

One day it seems that life is going from bad to worse, and Bruce complains loudly to God. He doesn’t expect a literal answer, but God turns up, in the form of Morgan Freeman. What’s more, God says that he wants a break, so Bruce can take over, since he is convinced he can do the job better.

It’s a surreal and unusual storyline, but it works extremely well. Jim Carrey’s timing is superb, and, accepting the premise of the plot, he is entirely believable as an ambitious, somewhat selfish young man suddenly endowed with the powers to do just about anything.

There’s a lot of humour in the film, much of it involving Bruce and Grace’s dog and its eventual house-training. And, it has to be said, a fair bit of schadenfreude. But it’s also quite thought-provoking. Bruce discovers that answering everyone’s prayers positively can lead to a great deal of discontent. He learns that the world operates according to laws that shouldn’t be broken. And he realises that the one thing that cannot be commanded is love.

The rating is 12, which seems about right; there’s some profanity, though it’s not extreme. There are some passionate scenes of intimacy, although mostly implied rather than with any overt detail. There’s a lot of discussion of sexuality too, and some quite intense scenes. However as it all involves adults, it’s unlikely to be of any interest to children or younger teenagers. I don’t think I’d show it to anyone aged under about fifteen.

Overall, we enjoyed this film very much. Some people might find it rather blasphemous, but it’s done in such a positive way, and with Bruce realising how difficult it is to be God even in one small town, that I thought it well worth seeing. Certainly it’s different from the average rom-com.

Recommended.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Falling in Love (Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro)

In between seeing new films we have been given, we’re watching some we liked and enjoyed about nine or ten years ago. One of these is ‘Falling in Love’, which we first saw in September 2010. I remembered finding it somewhat bittersweet, but had no real memory of the storyline; my husband didn’t remember it at all.

Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro star as Molly and Frank, two happily married people who happen to live not far away from each other. Molly is married to a doctor, and there’s evidently some tension in their relationship; but they seem mostly to be happy. Frank is married to Ann, and they also seem to be well-suited, on the whole, with two delightful sons.

Frank and Molly bump into each other while doing some last-minute Christmas shopping in a bookshop. They drop some gift-wrapped parcels and manage to get two of them mixed, leading to some surprises on Christmas morning. The film follows them separately in their different lives. They both come across as likeable people of integrity; there’s a rather sad subplot involving Molly’s elderly father.

A few months later they happen to be on the same train… and they start chatting. Neither is considering any form of relationship outside of their marriages, but there’s evidently an attraction. At first it seems as if this will be satisfied in a platonic friendship, but as they meet more often it gradually becomes clear that there’s more involved in their mutual feelings.

It’s the two main actors who make this into an excellent film. There’s not a whole lot of plot, and the coincidences are a tad unbelievable. But Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro have excellent on-screen chemistry. Both are somewhat quiet, neither has any intention of cheating on their spouses. But their sense of kinship comes across powerfully, and the growing physical attraction too, something that - it would appear - cannot be ignored.

The first time I saw the film, I hoped that it would go one way, and it didn’t. This time I remembered the outcome, though not exactly why it happened. Either possible ending would have led to heartbreak one way or another, and while I would have preferred my choice, what happened in the film worked extremely well - and showed clearly what difficult choices sometimes have to be made.

We found it poignant, even sad, but it was so well done, with such brilliant acting that we both found it almost mesmerising and were totally drawn into the story as we watched.

Definitely recommended. The rating is PG, which I suppose is about right since the bad language is mostly anatomical, and the one scene of intimacy doesn’t show any detail. But the subject matter isn’t really appropriate to children, and I doubt if anyone under the age of about fifteen or sixteen would find it interesting.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Sidney Poitier)

It was nine years ago that we first saw the film ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’, so it was more than time to watch it again. My husband had entirely forgotten what it was about; I recalled the general theme, but not much more. It was made in 1967 and is thus extremely dated, but still, on the whole, well made and thought-provoking.

Spencer Tracey - who died soon after the film was completed - is excellent as the upright, principled and somewhat irascible Matt. He and his wife Christina (Katharine Hepburn) are a fairly well-off late middle-aged white couple living in San Francisco, in the United States. Christina is the owner of an art gallery, and Matt the editor of a prestigious newspaper.

They have brought up their daughter Joey (Katharine Houghton) to be inclusive, accepting and generously liberal. Racism is clearly still somewhat in evidence in the United States in this era, but Matt has written articles against it. They see themselves as modern, liberal and intelligent adults.

Joey has been on holiday in Hawaii, and has arrived back with a young man, John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) whom she has fallen in love with. He is a highly educated doctor who has worked all around the world. However he is rather older than she is… and he’s also black. For all their liberal principles, this is quite a shock to Joey’s parents.

There’s not a great deal of plot in this film, which takes place in the course of just one day. I imagine it was quite eye-opening fifty years ago, inviting viewers to examine their own hearts, to see whether their beliefs and principles would extend to their own children marrying someone with a different coloured skin. However there is a great deal of discussion and debate, as Joey and John try to convince her parents that they won’t have serious problems if they get married. And they plan to do that soon.

There’s some humour in the situations, some irony, and much that was very serious back in the 1960s in the United States. The person who objects most to the proposed union is the family’s housekeeper and cook Tillie (Isabel Sanford) who is the most racist of all and believes that John is an imposter.  This is nicely balanced by the family friend Monsignor Ryan (Cecil Kellaway) who is wise, and thoughtful, and also - in places - very amusing.

When John’s parents arrive (apparently booking flights at the last moment was much easier than it is nowadays) they find themselves entirely in agreement with Joey’s parents, in another gentle irony.

Inevitably the style of the film is dated, but that isn’t a problem, even if some of the backdrops look rather fake. Harder to accept was that while three of the main characters are ideally suited to their roles, and extremely good, Joey is rather fluffy and unrealistic, making us feel that John could do better for himself! And while the black/white issue is, for the most part, no longer relevant, there are plenty of other modern equivalents, where parents might have idealistic views, but less inclined to approve when one of the parties concerned is their own child.

We had to suspend belief a little at the way everything happened, just in conversation and discussion. At times, towards the end, the film felt a bit like a play with different scenes involving groups of actors talking, and poor Tillie waiting to serve the dinner... but overall we liked the film very much and would recommend it to anyone.

Rated PG, which I imagine is for the racial slurs (though only one instance of the word now considered very bad) and other mild bad language. But it’s unlikely to be of any interest to children anyway.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

About a Boy (Hugh Grant and Nicholas Hoult)

We first saw the film ‘About a Boy’ in 2009, so it seemed like a good idea to watch it again. I remembered that Hugh Grant played a young man, and that the story was about him and a twelve-year-old boy. But that was as far as my memory went.

Grant’s character Will is a young man who likes to be alone, and is mostly self-sufficient in a technological 21st century way. He’s not a hermit, exactly, but believes that, contrary to John Donne’s famous quotation, he is quite happy to live as an island. He enjoys a steady stream of casual romantic relationships, which he breaks off as soon as the woman concerned starts to become too serious.

Will tries to organise his life into half-hour segments, and keeps insisting that he’s very busy. He lives on the royalties from a popular Christmas song that his father wrote many years earlier, and watches a lot of television. He’s unmotivated, and frankly selfish - but also likeable and (deep down) kind-hearted, in a way that Hugh Grant portrays extremely well.

One day Will realises that his ideal short-term partner is a single mother. So, with the dubious aim of infiltrating a group of single parents (mostly mothers) he invents a two-year-old son called Ned. He finds one of the mothers quite attractive, and arranges to meet her, not expecting that she will turn up with twelve-year-old Marcus (Nicholas Hoult), the son of her neighbour (and friend).

By this stage in the film we have also met Marcus, in a separate storyline. He and his mother are radical - almost hippy - vegetarians, and Marcus has never worn trainers, or listened to modern music. He finds school education boring, and is increasingly bullied. His clothes are old-fashioned and geeky, his mother still walks him to school, and he has a strange habit of singing aloud without realising he is doing so.

Marcus also has the burden of knowing that his mother suffers from depressive incidents. He’s old for his years, and an incident that could have been tragic forces Will to become involved with Marcus. Marcus realises that, far from wanting to live alone, he needs more than one person around him. If there are just two people who are everything to each other, he decides, then there’s nobody left if one of them falls out of the picture. So he tries, for a while, to persuade Will to date his mother…

There’s a lot of low-key humour in the film, which contrasts well with the serious themes of bullying, abusive relationships, and clinical depression. Grant is ideal for Will’s character; his facial expressions and sense of timing are excellent. I was less sure about Nicholas Hoult as Marcus, at first, but his character grew on me; perhaps the actor was somewhat typecast at the time (as it would seem from the ‘making of’ documentary that is one of the extras) but he was only twelve when the film was made. He doesn’t have particularly good screen chemistry with anyone, but that suits the role he is playing perfectly.

The other characters are less significant. Marcus’s mother Fiona (Toni Collette) didn’t seem entirely believable to me; but she represents a particular type of person quite well. And since we’re seeing people from Will’s point of view, perhaps this was deliberate. The women are divided into those he finds attractive, and those he doesn’t, in a somewhat caricatured way.

It’s more thoughtful than the average comedy, but more amusing than many films that look at deeper themes. There’s some bad language but mostly used as expletives when someone is surprised or stressed; we didn’t find it excessive. There’s a lot of discussion about sex in general, but without specifics; and there are no scenes of intimacy or nudity at all. The rating of 12 (PG-13 in the United States) is appropriate, given that Marcus himself is 12, although I doubt if anyone under the age of about 14 or 15 would be interested in it.

Recommended.

The film was based on the book ‘About a Boy’ by Nick Hornby.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

First Do No Harm (Meryl Streep and Seth Adkins)

We have decided to re-watch some of the DVDs we last watched around ten years ago. Last night we decided to see ‘First Do No Harm’, which we first saw in May 2009. Meryl Streep stars, so we knew the first time around that it would be worth watching, despite being a free DVD from a relative’s weekend paper.

We remembered, when we put the film on last night, that it was based on a true story. It was made for TV in 1997 as a drama documentary, but it’s so well made, and so moving, that we were totally caught up in the story.

Meryl Streep is Lori, a mother of three children, and happily married to Dave (Fred Ward). They have a teenage daughter, a son of about twelve, and a younger son, Robbie (brilliantly portrayed by Seth Adkins). We see them as a normal, happy American family who have just acquired a horse.

Then Robbie has an unexpected fall at school. Nobody worries too much, but later that day he has a kind of seizure. He’s taken to hospital, and diagnosed with epilepsy. Apparently there was quite a stigma attached to this illness - I still don’t know why - but he is in a private hospital, at first, with helpful doctors who discuss the options with his parents.

Initially Robbie is put on the most commonly used drug but the side effects are terrible, so the hospital switches to something else. Then the parents discover that there’s a problem with the medical insurance; Robbie is moved to a state hospital, where the doctor in charge is not at all warm or friendly.

It’s a terrible indictment on US medical care, and we weren’t very impressed with what we saw in either of the hospitals, although the nurses were all excellent. We were shocked at the way the doctors seemed to be in charge, not giving Robbie’s parents all the relevant information, and expecting them to sign forms for quite dangerous treatment.

Lori is convinced there must be another way… and after extensive reading, she finds anecdotal evidence of the ketogenic diet. This was known as early as the 1920s but was not widely acknowledged. The last part of the film involves Lori’s fight against the medical authorities, trying to take Robbie to this treatment rather than agreeing to brain surgery.

It’s a powerful film, partly due to the subject matter, but also because the main actors are excellent. Seth Adkins was only ten when this film was made but already a professional and competent actor. Robbie is supposed to be younger than that (perhaps six) and changes from being a lively, friendly boy to an angry and boisterous one. He has increasing seizures of different kinds, and at times is shown as unable to do anything much, due to the cocktail of drugs. At no point did the acting seem forced or unrealistic.

It’s a very intense story; I didn’t watch some of the rapid action in the hospital scenes, but for most of the film I was almost glued to the screen, unaware of time and rooting for Robbie.

The only jarring note - so to speak - is a screechy rendition of ‘Somewhere Over the Rainbow’ while Lori is researching epilepsy, day after day, in the library. While the sentiments of the song work well, and a musical interlude makes sense to cover the time spent, where there is no dialogue and no action, the later part of the song was quite painful and distracting.

However it’s a minor gripe in an excellent, thought-provoking and educational film.

The UK rating is PG, which seems right to me; other than mild innuendoes there's nothing that would cause the most prudish to cringe. However it's rated PG-13 in the US, probably due to the intense and possibly disturbing nature of the story. I would not want to show it to anyone under the age of about eleven or twelve for that reason.

Highly recommended, particularly to anyone with any experience of epilepsy, or who would like to know more about the ketogenic diet as a possible treatment.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Yours, Mine and Ours (Dennis Quaid and Rene Russo)

We were fairly tired, and wanted something light-hearted and undemanding to watch. We hadn’t seen ‘Yours, Mine & Ours’ for about ten years. Having checked my previous review, I am puzzled as last time we apparently saw the original 1968 version with Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda. Perhaps we saw it at someone else’s house and then bought the more recent version for ourselves.

The story appears to be the same, although if we previously saw a different version, that would explain why it didn’t feel at all familiar. Dennis Quaid is the rather militant admiral Frank in this version, which was produced in 2006. He was widowed a few years before the story opens, and runs his family - with eight children - in a highly structured naval fashion. They move regularly, and are rather fed up of constant changes, with new accommodation and schools to get used to.

Frank is contrasted with the bohemian designer Helen (Rene Russo) who is also widowed, and has ten children: six of them adopted. Her household is somewhat crazy, but there’s a lot more affection and fun than appears to be the case in Frank’s home.

It turns out that Frank and Helen were high school sweethearts, although they had lost touch many years earlier. They bump into each other when they are both out on dates with other people, and they get together at a high school reunion cruise.

The bulk of the film follows events when the two families move in together, to an abandoned lighthouse which needs a great deal of renovation. There are inevitable clashes; Frank produces schedules and structure, Helen encourages free expression and creativity. The children don’t want new step-siblings but their battles - some of them quite amusing, with cleverly choreographed slapstick scenes - only serve to draw their parents closer to each other, albeit worried about the future.

It’s predictable in an overall sense, of course, but it’s nicely done. It manages to feel a tad dated despite the teenagers having cell phones, but most of the humour is timeless. Some of it is a tad extreme, which is probably why this film has a PG rather than U rating. I didn’t notice any profanities, and there are no scenes of nudity or adult intimacy, other than a little kissing now and then.

There’s nothing deep in this film, and the extras aren’t particularly interesting, but it made a good evening’s undemanding viewing, with a few places where we laughed out loud. We didn't get to know any of the children individually and I had forgotten all their names by the time the film ended; there are four teenagers, and some young twins who are perhaps five, as well as all ages in between.

Recommended if you want to see something light-hearted - and unless you are very particular, there’s nothing unsuitable for children.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Heaven Can Wait (Warren Beatty)

We first watched the film ‘Heaven can wait’ in 2007, and recalled finding it mildly amusing. We had entirely forgotten the storyline, other than knowing it was about someone who was due to go to Heaven…

A rather young-looking Warren Beatty stars as Joe Pendleton. He is a talented sportsman, who is an important team member in his local American football team. He keeps fit, eats well, and plays the saxophone for fun. His trainer Max (Jack Warden) sees a great future ahead of him.

Then, when Joe is out cycling, he is involved in a horrific road accident. We don’t see any details, just hear something in a tunnel; the next moment he is walking in some clouds. He is supposed to board an aeroplane at the end of a queue, and is being told what to do by a rather nervous - and officious - man who says he is Joe’s ‘escort’ to the afterlife.

But Joe does not want to go. He is convinced he is dreaming. So his case is referred upwards to the more experienced Mr Jordan (James Mason). It turns out that an error has been made, and - after much discussion and negotiation - Joe is allowed to continue living, in the body of someone else. He appears to everyone else as a ruthless millionaire tycoon, whose wife and secretary have plotted to murder him.

There’s an inevitable love interest in the British environmental campaigner Betty Logan (a rather young Julie Christie). Joe also reverses some of the decisions he supposedly made in the past. He confuses his household staff by becoming politer, by changing his habits, and - eventually - by buying up an entire American Football team, as he is determined to play despite his different body…

It’s light-hearted, and we would probably have appreciated it more if we had any understanding of how American Football works. There are several scenes revolving around this game, but we had not the faintest idea what was going on, or what the relevance was. Still, we got the general idea. It’s quite a clever idea having someone inhabit the body (but not the mind) of someone else, and there are some mildly amusing scenes when Joe is apparently out of character, or when his staff see him apparently talking to himself, when he is conversing with Mr Jordan (invisible to everyone else).

We had entirely forgotten that it’s not a modern film. Betty Logan speaks in the kind of BBC English that used to be inherent in films from the 1940s and 1950s, and the style in general feels old-fashioned, at least fifty or sixty years out of date (as it’s in colour we assumed it couldn’t be much older than 1960). That’s not to say that it’s a bad thing - there were some excellent films made in that era.

So we were a tad surprised to find, after we had finished watching, that it was made as recently as 1978 - and then shocked to realise that’s still forty years ago!  Warren Beatty must have been forty years old, but managed to pass easily for an athlete in his twenties.

The pace is quite good, once we accepted the decidedly dated style of the film. Other than the American Football scenes, we quite enjoyed it. The rating is given as A in the UK; apparently this is a precursor to the modern PG. There’s some mild bad language, some bedroom scenes (although fully clothed and with nothing other than a cuddle happening), and some deaths, though they all happen off stage. I cannot imagine that anyone under the age of about thirteen would be at all interested in this anyway.

It made a good evening’s viewing, though I wouldn’t recommend it particularly highly. But perhaps we’ll watch it again in another twelve years. It's worth watching if you want something reasonably light, but a bit different, and may be more fun if you understand American football.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Downsizing (Matt Damon)

My husband watched the film ‘Downsizing’ on a transatlantic flight. He liked it so much that he put it on his wishlist, and was given it last Christmas. Our adult son was staying for a couple of weeks so we decided to watch it last night.

The blurb on the back gives an outline of the story - that scientists, trying to find ways to reduce environmental damage and to use less of the earth’s resources, discovered a way to reduce the size of animals and people, to a fraction of their original sizes.

It’s rather slow to get started. We see scientists discovering how to make this idea work, for the first time. Then we see the lecture where eminent scientists describe their discoveries, and also show a group of ‘small’ people, no more than 5 inches high, who are living in a community. It sounds idyllic.

Time moves forward, and increasing numbers of people decide to take this option. They sell up their properties and possessions, because in ‘Leisureland’ money goes a lot further. People living in small apartments as regular people can buy mansions once they’re small. There’s said to be no crime, and no need to work unless people wish to. Big and small folk interact in mostly friendly ways; we see dinners and conferences where they chat, and share ideas, and as time progresses the idea of downsizing becomes well-known all over the world.

The main protagonist of the story, once the scene is set - and it’s a bit of a long-winded opening - is Paul (Matt Damon). He is an occupational therapist who is happily married to Audrey (Kristen Wiig) but they’re living in quite a small apartment. She would love to move to a bigger place, but they can’t get a mortgage. So she’s more and more tempted by the promises of luxurious living in Leisureland, and persuades her husband to opt for downsizing.

So they sell up and make their farewells, and travel to the hospital where the procedures take place. It starts to feel quite worrying by this stage. They have to sign all kinds of disclaimers, and we learn that while in most cases the procedure goes well, it can cause severe injury, even death. Moreover, the procedure is permanent. There is absolutely no going back.

I knew something bad was going to happen, and indeed, it does. Far from being hilarious, as the blurb on the back of the DVD stated, or even humorous, the film becomes desperately sad at this stage. It never really recovers from it. It is a slow-moving film throughout, too. There are scenes from parties that go on and on; scenes of nature that are quite pretty, but, again, continue for far too long. The medical parts were all longer than they should have been, as well. An hour into the film, nothing much had happened.

It got a bit more interesting after that, and the story certainly raises some interesting issues. It provides much to think about too, although the idea of downsizing people in this way is so ludicrous (I hope…) that it’s technically satirical rather than dystopian or sci-fi. But there wasn’t any humour in it. There was just deep sadness. At Paul’s predicament - he soon regrets what he had done - and in the essential humanity that means there are slums outside Leisureland despite all the initial promises. There are also people downsized against their will. Later in the film, we learn of the possibility of people, large and small, will be wiped out entirely.

Other than being far too long (we all agreed the film itself should have been downsized significantly when it was edited) it was well produced. Matt Damon is excellent in his role. Had we known in advance that it was meant to be a futuristic and very sad film, I think I would have appreciated it more. I suppose there were one or two mildly amusing moments; but they mostly involved misunderstandings and poor English from a wonderful but also very distressing Vietnamese refugee with a prosthetic leg (brilliantly played by Hong Chau).

The 15 rating (R in the more cautious United States) is mainly due to rather an excess of bad language - a particular ‘strong’ word is repeated several times near the end. There is some side-view nudity too, but only in a medical setting. There is also some recreational drug usage, although it did not add anything to the film. As the subject matter is so heavy, I wouldn't suggest that anyone younger than fifteen or sixteen should see it anyway.

I think I’m glad I watched this film, as it certainly gave much to think about. But I doubt if I’ll want to see it again.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Calendar Girls (Helen Mirren and Julie Walters)

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

Marvin's Room (Diane Keaton and Meryl Streep)

It's been ten years since we watched the film ‘Marvin’s Room’. Although I recalled very little about the story, I knew we had liked it when we first saw it. It has rather an all-star cast: Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton play two sisters who have not been in touch for close to twenty years. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the moody teenage Hank, and Robert De Niro is Dr Wally. Even I have heard of these four actors.

We meet the sisters separately; indeed it’s not obvious at first that they are sisters. Diane Keaton is Bessie, who has devoted the last twenty years of her life to looking after her invalid father, Marvin (Hume Cronyn). He had a stroke which left him bedridden and unable to speak, and nobody expected him to stay alive all this time.

Marvin’s sister Ruth (Gwen Verdon) lives with them, and helps with his care, but she’s becoming elderly and absent-minded, and is also seriously addicted to soap operas on television. Ruth provides some gentle humour, which works very well alongside the more poignant and darker main storyline. But Bessie has been getting very tired recently. She assumes she has a vitamin deficiency, but Dr Wally wants to run some tests. And the news is not good…

Meanwhile Lee (Meryl Streep) has been training as a beautician while raising her two sons as a single mother. Charlie, the younger son (Hal Scardino) is a likeable nerdy type, but his older brother Hank is very angry, and we meet him when he tears up some family photos and sets light to them…

When Bessie gets in touch with Lee, she and the boys embark on the long journey to visit her, to see if they are able to help with her treatment. Lee and Hank keep aggravating each other; she seems to have little idea how to communicate with a teenager.

The bulk of the story, then, is about what happens when the sisters are reunited, with Bessie meeting her nephews for the first time. This visit is the catalyst for many things, and we found it a gripping film. The acting is excellent - as one would expect with such a talented cast. The pace just right, and the story heart-wrenching in places. I felt the ending was a tad too abrupt; there are hints at what is going to happen in the future, but it’s not as clear as I would have liked.

The rating is 12; I can’t imagine anyone younger would be interested anyway. There’s no serious violence, no nudity or intimacies, and not a lot of bad language, although there is some (including one or two 'strong' words).  However some of the plot and a few of the scenes could be very disturbing to a sensitive child.

All in all, it was a thought-provoking, very well made film and I would recommend it highly.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

You've Got Mail (Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks)

It’s nine and a half years since we saw - and liked - the film ‘You’ve Got Mail’. So we decided it would make a pleasant evening’s viewing to re-watch it. Neither of us had any memories of the story, other than that a correspondence was involved. And anything with Tom Hanks is usually worth seeing more than once.

As the story opens, we learn about an ongoing secretive online conversation between two people who are in good relationships with other people. Kathleen (Meg Ryan) waits until her boyfriend Frank (Greg Kinnear) has gone to work before she sits down at her computer and checks for mail. The film is only twenty years old but the computer part looks very dated as an old-fashioned graphic pops up, saying ‘You’ve got mail!’

The correspondence appears to be quite innocent. Kathleen and Joe met in a chatroom, but they only know each other’s ‘handles’, and that they live in the same city. They talk mostly about trivialities, but there’s also some deeper discussion, of the kind that can happen online more easily than in real life.

We then see Kathleen at work, where she’s the owner of a bookshop. She and her co-workers are hard-working and caring, and spend time doing stories for children and other community activities. They’re a bit worried that a mega-store is going up just over the road, and it’s destroying smaller shops. And then we learn something that Kathleen doesn’t learn until the end of the film: that her secret, caring correspondent is also the hard-nosed businessman who is about to put her out of business.

So the story involves their meeting in real life, and disliking each other intensely at first. Joe is clearly attracted to Kathleen, but puts business and money first, and seems to care nothing for her career, or her shop. And as conflict begins, so their online correspondence goes into deeper levels as she asks her online friend for advice about what to do….

It sounds more complicated than it is. It’s very well done on screen, with some extremely clever timing and great dialogue. Tom Hanks is perfect in the role, and the chemistry between him and Meg Ryan is excellent. Of course the concept is slightly ridiculous, but it doesn’t matter at all; once the premise is accepted, the question has to be: how long can they keep up the two separate relationships without any overlap? And what will happen when either or both of them find out…?

There are some terrific supporting roles: Greg Kinnear as Kathleen’s boyfriend is a reporter, and totally on her side, fighting for her shop to remain open. Jean Stapleton as the elderly shop accountant is also superb, with some great one-liners. There were places where we smiled, and even chuckled once or twice. And one place - when Kathleen locks her bookshop up for the last time - which was almost unbearably poignant.

Although I’m always a tad dubious about hard-nosed businessmen or other dislikeable characters falling in love with nice women, it works so well in this film that I had almost forgotten, by the end, just how unpleasant Joe has been.

The rating is PG, which seems about right. Although there are some innuendos and other hints of ‘adult’ conversation, the few scenes showing a bedroom have the occupants fully clothed in pyjamas. I don’t recall any strong language although there are some milder expletives used. And it’s not the kind of story that would appeal to anyone under the age of about 12 or 13 anyway.

All in all, I thought it an ideal evening’s viewing, an almost perfect ‘rom-com’.

Definitely recommended.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Becoming Jane (Anne Hathaway)

From time to time I check my recommendations on Amazon UK, and read reviews of the ones that look interesting. ‘Becoming Jane’ was one of these recommendations, probably based on the fact that I have enjoyed several of the Jane Austen film adaptations. Or possibly because I have liked other films featuring Anne Hathaway.

So, as the reviews were mostly positive, I added the film to my wish list and was given it for my birthday last year. We finally decided to watch it last night, aware that it was a fictionalised story of part of Jane Austen’s life. I knew very little about her life, other than that her father was a minister, and that she didn’t marry. So I didn’t have any preconceived ideas about the film.

The opening sequence was very well done, I thought; Jane is played by Anne Hathaway, with such a flawless British accent that I entirely forgot she was American until we watched one of the extras afterwards. We see her writing - with a quill pen, ideas flowing - and then she decides to play the piano. It’s early in the morning and not only wakes the household but startles one of the household staff significantly.

Jane’s sister Cassandra (Anna Maxwell Martin) is engaged, to a young man who is about to go off to sea. Jane’s mother (Julie Walters) really wants Jane to find someone suitable. Jane has two admirers: one who is well off, respectable and well-connected, but she does not care for him. The other is dependent on his uncle, and rather wild; their first meetings are full of conflict, but they quickly fall in love.

I thought the film was very well done, although at first I had a hard time remembering who was whom. Anne Hathaway makes a very believable young Jane - aged about twenty - with a great imagination and far more independence and spirit than was normal for girls of her era. James McAvoy is excellent, too, as the young - but not very responsible - lawyer Tom Lefroy, and the chemistry between the two is excellent.

Maggie Smith has a small role as Lady Gresham, aunt to the other young man who aspires to Jane’s hand. And, as we have come to expect with Maggie Smith, she has some wonderful lines; her timing is impeccable.

Indeed, all the characters are believable and mostly distinct in character, and we were quickly drawn into the story. While it’s only loosely based on what’s known about Jane Austen’s life, it feels authentic, and entirely possible. It becomes clear that Jane has already written the book that would eventually be published as ‘Sense and Sensibility’, basing her two main characters on herself and her sister Cassandra. During the course of the film, she starts to write some of the material for what will become Pride and Prejudice; based partly on her experiences and the people she interacts with.

The only parts of the film I disliked are a few scenes at boxing matches; they weren’t too gory, but anything of that nature makes me close my eyes and hope it passes quickly. I was a little surprised to find that the rating of the film is only PG; while there’s no bad language other than one or two mild words, and the only nudity is a few seconds of rear views of young men about to swim, the violent scenes are quite intense, and there is more than one overt hint of marital intimacies.

However, overall we thought it an extremely well-made film.

There are some extras which we watched afterwards related to the making of the film. Although they added a bit of background, and I always find this kind of thing interesting, they weren’t anything special.


Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Parenthood (Steve Martin)

We wanted something lightweight to watch a couple of evenings ago. The last time we saw ‘Parenthood’ was over ten years ago, so we thought it could be a good one to watch. Steve Martin is always good value, the front of the DVD showed him holding two children upside down.

We had entirely forgotten the story, though it was obviously about family life. I quickly realised that I had confused it, in my mind, with ‘Cheaper By the Dozen’, which also has Steve Martin as a somewhat harassed father.

In ‘Parenthood’, Steve Martin plays Gil Buckman, who is determined to be a perfect father. In the opening sequence of the film, we see Gil as a boy, rather neglected by his father. So it is quickly clear that he is trying to compensate for a less than perfect childhood.

Gil is married to Karen (Mary Steenburgen) and they have three children. Kevin, the oldest, is having a hard time fitting in anywhere. He’s quiet, and not particularly athletic, and is not helped by Gil’s rather pressurised insistence on coaching their school baseball team and putting Kevin in important positions.

Gil has three siblings. One of them is Helen (Dianne Wiest), who is an uptight single mother. She has an older teenage daughter Julie, and a younger teenage son, Garry. Julie is in a serious relationship with a young man called Tod, whom her mother disapproves of, and Garry keeps sneaking out of the house and behaving in other strange ways.

Susan (Harley Jane Kozak) is another sibling, married to Nathan (Rick Moranis) who is also determined to be a perfect father. They have just one daughter, whom they are raising to be as intellectual as possible. The little girl is quite cute but the story rather over-the-top. Nathan is very rigid in his thinking, and this causes stress with Susan who is more relaxed - or would like to be.

Then there’s Larry (Tom Hulce), the youngest and least responsible sibling, who nobody has heard of for a couple of years. He appears at a family gathering and is welcomed by his long-suffering parents. He has a surprise for them… but he’s unappealing, too much of a manipulator and narcissist.

There isn’t a great deal of plot as such; the film is character-based, and revolves around family get-togethers and other interactions between the siblings. Jason Robards is excellent as the rather grumpy father, who nonetheless loves his children - even if he has a hard time showing it. We had entirely forgotten that there’s a great deal of poignancy to the story, and some quite difficult issues are dealt with: absent fathers, teenage hormones, depression, and more.

There’s some humour too; overall, it’s a light-hearted film. Steve Martin is excellent at comic timing, and there are a few great one-liners that made us chuckle. There are some significant innuendos and discussion of sexual activities, which are what give this a 15 rating in the UK, despite no nudity (other than briefly with a small child), no serious violence, and only the mildest of bad language.

The pace is good, the dialogue mostly excellent, the acting either believable or deliberately caricatured, as appropriate. The children do as well as the adults without being twee or annoying.

Overall we enjoyed this film very much and look forward to seeing it again in another ten years or so.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Notting Hill (starring Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts)

The last time we watched ‘Notting Hill’ (and, indeed, the first time as we had not previously seen it) was in 2007. I vaguely remembered liking it, but nothing at all about the story. So we decided to watch it again last night.

Hugh Grant - rather a young looking Hugh Grant, as this was made in 1999, when he was under 40 - plays William Thacker, a bookshop owner in London. It’s a perfect role for him. William is quiet, likeable, and far too honest to make a good salesman. Indeed, his bookshop (which only sells travel books) is gradually going more and more into debt.

Into William’s shop one day walks the American film star Anna Scott (Julia Roberts). They converse briefly and she buys a book. He does not expect to see her again, but then manages to bump into her on his way back from collecting some drinks from a coffee shop. This sparks a tentative kind of friendship, with William becoming more and more incoherent and Anna intrigued, despite herself.

It’s a character-based film, a couple of hours long but well-paced and enjoyable throughout. William has a mixed bunch of friends, and a quirky young sister called Honey (Emma Chambers - basically playing the same kind of character as her Alice in ‘Vicar of Dibley’). His flat-mate is a rather coarse Welshman called Spike (Rhys Ifans) who provides an amusing contrast to William’s somewhat caricatured self-deprecating Englishman.

The film is a good study in culture clash, and characterisation in general. When William and his friends go around the table talking about who is the saddest, Anna - despite her fame and wealth - is able to point out that her life is no happier than theirs. There are different attitudes to publicity too, which come to a head in one scene which I did remember when it happened, as journalists and photographers converge to try to capture a new story.

There’s a nice blend of humour and poignancy in this film, and an ongoing tension as we wonder whether or not the two main character will get together. I honestly didn’t remember the outcome, but thought it extremely well done. Some of the characters are stereotyped, but others are entirely believable. I particularly liked William’s best friend Max (Tim McInnerny) and his disabled wife (Gina McKee).

The UK rating for ‘Notting Hill’ is 15, which seems a tad on the high side; the US, usually stricter, rates this as PG-13, which feels more appropriate to me. There is an inevitable bedroom scene but it’s tastefully done, with all the action offstage, and plenty of bed coverings afterwards. There are discussions of intimacies in varying forms, and one or two obscenities, but nothing that the average ten-year-old would not have heard already.

However, I can’t imagine it being of the slightest interest to anyone under the age of about fifteen anyway, so perhaps it’s immaterial. To see details, check the parents’ guide link in the imDb ‘Notting Hill’ guide.

Overall, I thought it a wonderful film. I felt uplifted and relaxed at the end. Definitely in the ‘feel-good’ category, and I hope not to leave it so long before watching it again.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Emma (starring Kate Beckinsale)

It’s nearly twelve years since we watched the ITV adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel ‘Emma’ on DVD. I could remember being pleasantly surprised when we first saw it. ‘Emma’ is my least favourite of Austen’s classic books. I don’t much like Emma as a character, and it’s hard to enjoy a book when I dislike the main protagonist.

The film version, however, is excellent. Kate Beckinsdale makes an extremely good Emma. She’s selfish and bossy, and wants to make ‘matches’ between various of her friends, whether they want them or not. She is a snob, too, befriending young Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton) in the hope of ‘matching’ her to the vicar: the smarmy Mr Elton (Dominic Rowan). Harriet is in love with a young farmer but Emma persuades her to look higher.

Things start to go wrong when Mr Elton makes it clear that he has no interest in Harriet at all, but thinks that Emma herself would make him a good wife. Emma has not seen the signals, and perhaps that’s the point at which she acknowledges she may not be always right in her matchmaking.

The scenery and photography are excellent, giving an authentic backdrop to what is otherwise purely a character-based series of dialogues, and (if Emma were less serious) something of a comedy of mismatches. Emma’s father (Bernard Hepton) is a querulous old man, who does not like change and doesn’t want anyone to be married. He would be amusing if he were not so caught up in his miseries. It’s not surprising, perhaps, that Emma has turned out to be as selfish as she is - and able to manipulate him too, when she wants to.

I had more-or-less remembered the storyline; I knew who ended up with whom, at any rate, so I was watching for hints - and they were there, albeit quite strongly hidden in some cases. Emma hits rock-bottom when she makes what she thinks is a joke at the expense of a kindly, if garrulous elderly neighbour. Thankfully her friend and mentor Mr Knightley (Mark Strong) tells her off strongly.

The only parts of the film that seemed out of place are the beginning and end, which feature some chickens being stolen. I don’t remember that from the book, although it’s a very long time since I read it.

It’s extremely rare for me to recommend a film above its related book, but for ‘Emma’, I would definitely recommend seeing this film - and then, perhaps, read the book afterwards to fill in some of the detail.

Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:

• Sense and Sensibility
• Persuasion (1995 BBC version)
• Pride and Prejudice (BBC series)
• Pride and Prejudice (2005 film)

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

Persuasion (starring Amanda Root)

It had been over ten years since we watched the 1995 BBC adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel ‘Persuasion’. When we last saw it, I had read ‘Persuasion’ just a few years earlier, so was mostly familiar with the story. However I had not re-read it in the intervening years so had almost entirely forgotten the characters and the plot.

Not that there’s a great deal of plot, and very little action. As with most of Austen’s classics, this is a social satire, a character-based story where genuine love triumphs in the end. The main character is Anne Elliot, the quiet, likeable (and rather put upon) middle daughter of an impoverished upper class family. Amanda Root is excellent in this role.

Anne’s father is extravagant, snobbish and selfish. Her sister Elizabeth is similar. Debts force the family to move to Bath for a while, and rent out their huge stately home to a friend’s brother. Anne - whose feelings are rarely considered - has to visit her youngest sister Mary instead. Mary is married with two sons, but she is a hypochondriac, and as selfish as her father.

There are some mildly amusing and brief scenes where Mary, her husband Charles, and his likeable mother and sisters confide in Anne, all hoping she can do something to calm her nephews and persuade her sister to complain less…

Anne herself is nursing a broken heart; at nineteen she turned down an offer of marriage from someone with no prospects and no real background. It’s evident that she was persuaded to do this by well-meaning friends, but wishes she has followed her heart. And the young man, Edward Wentworth (Ciaron Hinds) comes back from the war, and reappears into her life….

I found some of the short scenes at sea a tad confusing. They were not part of the book, but then again, they show the background for a couple of the characters, contrasting their courage and integrity with the selfish Mr Elliot. For modern viewers, particularly those unfamiliar with the novel and perhaps unaware of the history of the era, they add some realism.

‘Persuasion’ is inevitably a bit slow-moving in storyline; it doesn’t have the gorgeous scenery of the adaptations of some of Austen’s other books, but the settings nonetheless seemed authentic. The acting is excellent, and on the whole we enjoyed it.

Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:

• Sense and Sensibility
• Pride and Prejudice (BBC series)
• Pride and Prejudice (2005 film)
• Emma (ITV version)

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Wilde Wedding (starring Glenn Close)

From time to time Amazon recommends films to me, based on what I have previously liked or bought. One such recommendation was ‘The Wilde Wedding’. I assume that’s because this is in the ‘rom-com’ genre and I have enjoyed several films of this kind.

It starts well. The teenage Mackenzie (Grace van Patten) is narrating, and also filming events as her somewhat dysfunctional family members start to arrive for the weekend. She has a good style of delivery, and sets the scene well. She informs us that her grandmother is getting married again, but that she’s absolutely not allowed to refer to her as a grandmother….

Glenn Close stars as Eve Wilde, who is about to get married to her fourth husband, Harold (Patrick Stewart). Her adult children aren’t too sure about this, nor is her favourite ex-husband, Laurence (John Malkovich). But the family, extended family, former family members and friends gradually gather in a huge house where the wedding is to take place.

I found the sheer number of people rather overwhelming; it was hard to keep track of who was whom, as more and more people kept arriving. None of them was particularly memorable. I thought that perhaps this didn’t matter, but then much of the film involves conversations and some rather sordid illicit liaisons. In fact, there’s not much more to the plot which seems to be a farce rather than a comedy, with very little actual romance until towards the end.

The acting was good - and we found ourselves, more than once, reminded of Meryl Streep; Glenn Close is not related to her, as far as we know, but seemed to have her mannerisms and expressions, and even her tone of voice in several places. I don’t know if this was deliberate or not.

But there really isn’t much story. There are a few good lines, and one or two scenes which we found amusing, but on the whole we found it rather trite. We kept watching despite some scenes which we would prefer not to have seen, and, happily, the film was redeemed by the ending.

Perhaps it was trite; perhaps it was predictable. But it was absolutely the right ending, giving a much more positive message than the rest of the film about the importance of friendship and genuine liking and trust in any relationship.

The UK's 15 rating reflects the adult (but not too explicit) nature of the film; the US rates it as R, probably due to the bad language, the sexual content and the use of recreational drugs.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews