The decoy bride (Kelly Macdonald)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s over ten years since we first watched the 2011 film ‘The decoy bride’, and we had entirely forgotten the storyline. We wanted something light and possibly amusing to watch, so decided this would probably be a good choice.

The story opens with the press gathered, cameras and microphones ready, at the door of a large hotel. Out comes someone dressed in white, with a veil covering her head. We - and the press - assume she’s the bride they are waiting for. Then someone else emerges, also with a veil covering her head, albeit not in white. And then someone else…

It’s clear that there’s a major society wedding about to take place, and that the happy couple are trying to avoid the press. This is probably a vain hope, since the bride is a famous and very beautiful actress called Lara (Alice Eve). There has been much speculation about who she might marry on the front covers of magazines. But she’s finally made her choice in James (David Tennant) who is a writer with a recent publishing success, a kind of travel guide to some of the Hebridean islands.

Unfortunately the wedding is halted when an intrusive member of the press is found hiding. Marco (Frederico Castellucio) has been stalking Lara, and somehow manages to find out where she is, no matter where she hides. Not that she’s in any danger from him, but she is fed up of his persistence. 

Sense and Sensibility (Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s many years since we acquired and first watched the DVD of ‘Sense and Sensibility’, which was produced in 1995 with an all-star cast. I remembered it being an excellent adaptation, but not much more. When we decided to watch it on Monday night, I had a good recall of both the story and characters, as I re-read the book ‘Sense and Sensibility’ just a few months ago.

I’m not always a fan of films made on books, but most of those based on Jane Austen’s novels have been excellent. With one or two notable exceptions, admittedly. But ‘Sense and Sensibility’ ranks very highly, in my view. 

It’s the story of two sisters, Elinor and Marianne, played respectively by Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. While the latter was only around twenty years old when this film was made, Emma Thompson was in her mid thirties. Yet the two manage to portray, entirely believably, the sisters who were just 17 and 16 in the book.

Margaret, their younger sister, is fifteen in the book and feels mostly extraneous. But in the film, she is nearly twelve. She’s ‘bookish’ and also likes to climb trees. I thought this change an excellent one; Margaret (Emilie François) is lively and provides some light humour in her outspoken innocence.

The story begins with the loss of their father, and thus of the family home. The laws of inheritance ruled that this mansion must be left, along with the bulk of their father’s fortune, to his only son, John Dashwood. John (James Fleet) is half-brother to the three girls, and rather too easily guided by his materialistic and unpleasant wife Fanny (Harriet Walter). The girls and their mother go to a ‘cottage’ owned by her cousin Sir John Middleton (Robert Hardy) who lives with his mother-in-law Mrs Jennings (wonderfully portrayed by the late Elizabeth Spriggs).

The theme of the story is the contrast between the ‘Sensible’ Elinor and the ‘Sensitive’ Marianne. Each falls in love; each suffers betrayal. But the ways they handle their losses are very different. I’m not sure I entirely believed in the late Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon - Rickman was too often cast as villains, and although he plays Brandon perfectly, it was hard not to see him as Severus Snape. Edward Ferrars is a rather young-looking Hugh Grant (although he would have been 35 at the time the film was produced) - and Grant plays him as his usual slightly bumbling very English man, albeit in 18th century costume. As for Mr Willoughby, played by Greg Wise, I found him somewhat overdone; perhaps deliberately.

While inevitably a film is different from a book, with less introspection and more visuals, I felt that this adaptation was very faithful to the original. My husband hasn’t read the book, but enjoyed the film, vaguely recalling the first time we saw it. There were one or two places where we chuckled, mostly at the wonderfully ironic and brilliantly timed asides from Mr Palmer, perfectly cast as Hugh Laurie.

The rating is U (PG in the US). As befits an upper-class film of this era, there is no violence, no bad language, and no intimate scenes. The prudish might blink at the amount of cleavage shown from time to time, and the story requires mention of illegitimacy and libertines. But if young children were interested in the story (unlikely), these references would go over their heads.

Recommended highly to anyone who likes character-based historical fiction, and to all fans of Jane Austen. It would be well worth watching, too, by anyone studying ‘Sense and Sensibility’ at high school or university.

Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:

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

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews

Four Weddings and a Funeral (Hugh Grant)

(Amazon UK link)

We saw this film at the cinema, back in the early 1990s when it was first made. We thought it very well done, but shocking in places, although quite thought-provoking in others. I remembered it as amusing but bitter-sweet. And when we first started collecting DVDs, around twelve years ago, I saw that ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ was considered a classic. It was on special offer, so we bought it.

My husband and our teenage sons watched it, shortly afterwards, but I don’t think I saw it at the time. Perhaps I felt uncomfortable with teenagers around, although both were over 15. In any case, it’s been sitting on our shelves for many years, until I decided it would be good to see it again on Sunday afternoon. We sat down with our 20-something son, who also hadn’t seen it for some years.

The style is immediately dated, but suggests a light-hearted story. However, I’d forgotten that after setting the scene rather cleverly, seeing people arriving for a society wedding, the first speech is a series of expletives. What would be listed as ‘strong’ language is uttered because the hero, Charles (Hugh Grant, looking remarkably young) oversleeps on a morning when he’s supposed to be Best Man. He and his sister Scarlett (Charlotte Coleman) make it to the wedding just in time, but then he realises he’s forgotten the rings….

Charles and Scarlett, we quickly discover, are close friends with a diverse group of people, all of whom are single. They regularly attend weddings but are more inclined to casual relationships than commitment. Charles, in particular, seems commitment-phobic, although he’s very attracted to Carrie (Andie McDowell) whom he meets at the wedding.

The story really does encompass little more than four weddings and a funeral, not quite in that order. The second wedding is an unexpected result of the first one and follows a similar pattern…. except that Carrie has some news that shocks Charles to the core.

It’s a relationship-based story, a series of sub-plots and interactions rather than a single plot, with Charles as the main character, everything seen from his perspective. Hugh Grant manages this part to perfection, in an almost Bertie Wooster style of an upper-middle class well-meaning but often bumbling Englishman. It’s the role which put him in the public eye, and which probably spawned many of his later and better-known roles.

Other characters are rather more stereotyped, particularly the participants in the second wedding; that didn’t matter too much, and the caricatured roles of some of Charles’ friends helped me to keep them separate in my mind. We particularly enjoyed the lively and highly eccentric Gareth (Simon Callow), and the cameo role for Rowan Atkinson as a new and very nervous priest.

The one slight disappointment in the casting is Carrie herself, supposedly the romantic lead, but with little to recommend her other than her looks. She doesn’t feel quite real; she’s hardly a role model (she admits to being highly promiscuous, not to mention materialistic). Yet she’s not a humorous exaggerated American, but the female romantic lead. The chemistry - and growing friendship - really doesn’t work.

There’s a great deal of humour in the film, most of it understated but cleverly done. The comic timing is perfect, and we found ourselves chuckling more than once. It makes the shocking parts stand out all the more; and the recital of a poem at the one funeral is extremely moving. I recall finding that (or what it implied) rather shocking when I first saw the film over 20 years ago; it was a theme that wasn’t explored nearly so often as it is today. It made an excellent point about love - real love - transcending all boundaries and cultural expectations.

The 15 rating is still appropriate; the ‘strong’ language is there for effect, and it might well be down-rated to a 12 by today’s standards if that were all. But there are several rather overt scenes of intimacy; no nudity as such, but several scenes that lead little to the imagination. It’s rated R in the United States.

Overall, we enjoyed it very much and I would recommend it in general to older teens and adults. But if you’re offended by strong language or overt sexuality, this is probably one to avoid.

Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews<

The Vicar of Dibley complete series (Dawn French)

(Amazon UK link)

While we're not really television watchers in general, there are some sitcom series from previous years where we caught a few episodes and very much liked them. 'The Vicar of Dibley' is one such series, made mostly in the 1990s. And when, visiting our son abroad, he was given this series - most of which he had not seen previously - we watched it together over a couple of weeks.

The story is well-known. Dawn French stars as the lively Geraldine, appointed as Vicar in a small parish. The series starts at the beginning when she must face prejudice against her gender, and moves through typical (or stereo-typical) situations in the life of a parish church.

There's lots of humour in the characterisation and circumstances. What we particularly like about this series is that it doesn't poke fun at the church as such, nor at Christian ministers. Geraldine is portrayed as a lively, caring and - in the end - faithful and responsible lady, for whom problems arise. What we particularly appreciated is that God is usually the winner, in a gentle kind of way.

This series is rated 12 in the UK, probably due to some sexual implications and innuendoes, which sometimes border on the vulgar. However, there is nothing explicit, and no violence to speak of. The US does not have a rating for this series.

Definitely recommended for adults and teenagers, if you don't mind the strange mixture of humour, which does sometimes border on the adolescent.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews