I watched ‘The Lady in the Van’ nearly three years ago when staying with my father. I thought it extremely well done, and eventually added it to my wishlist a few months ago, thinking my husband would enjoy it, and that I would like seeing it again. I was given it for Christmas, and we watched it last night.
While I remembered the overall story - an elderly woman living out of a van comes to stay in the driveway belonging to a writer, in the 1960s - I had forgotten most of the detail. My main reason for wanting to see it again, and share it, was the brilliance of Maggie Smith as the elderly Miss Shepherd.
The make-up artistes were also excellent; at the start of the film we see the ‘lady’ dressed fairly smartly, probably no more than about fifty. When we get to know her, parking in different places in a suburban London street, she is in her early sixties, and quite scruffy. By the time the film ends, she is almost eighty, and could pass for ninety or more.
It’s a character-based film, based on a true story written by Alan Bennett himself after Miss Shepherd dies. Or rather, on a ‘mostly-true’ story, as it becomes plain in the film that some poetic license has been taken. There’s a clever plot device meaning that there are two Alan Bennetts (ably played by Alex Jennings): one who lives life, and the other who sits at his typewriter, writing. They have a lot of interaction and dialogue, and one of the ‘extra’ features explains how this apparent doubling is done.
It’s not a film that would appear to have a lot of special visual effects (other than a somewhat surreal final scene). But as one of the graphics staff explains in the 'extra' feature, having two apparently natural instances of the same person was remarkably complex and painstaking to create.
I probably enjoyed this more the second time around, aware of the story and inevitable outcome, also aware of the underlying tensions in Bennet’s life: his own lifestyle was not something generally accepted at the time. I could also appreciate more the tension he felt between trying to care for his elderly - and increasingly confused - mother, while also fending off the feisty, often rude Miss Shepherd.
The acting is excellent, the pace just right, the locations authentic. It helped, I'm sure, that the crew were able to film in the actual house and front yard where the action happened. The way that Miss Shepherd's past life unfolds slowly - almost reluctantly at times - is beautifully and sensitively done.
We watched all the extras - none of them are particularly long and we both like seeing a few insights from directors and cast members. The real Alan Bennett, who was very involved in the script, gives insights too - in particular how much he appreciated Alex Jennings’ portrayal of him, originally in the theatre production based on his book. If he and Maggie Smith not been available or willing to make the film, it would not have gone ahead.
There are one or two instances of strong language, but they’re not gratuitous. There are strong hints of a violent incident, and also implications about Alan Bennett’s orientation and lifestyle, but nothing that would be considered explicit. The rating in the UK is 12A and in the US PG-13, and that seems about right to me. It wouldn’t be of much interest to anyone younger anyway.
Definitely recommended if you want something a bit different and like ‘mostly true’ stories.
In general, I read reviews before putting DVDs on my wishlist. There are many which look appealing at first glance, or which Amazon recommends to me, which I realise I would not like at all once I have read a few reviews. I look at the negative ones primarily. Sometimes a poor review can actually convince me that I would like a film. And in most cases I’ve chosen appropriately.
However, sometimes I browse the DVD shelves of a charity shop or church fair. Then I pick out a few that look interesting, based on the look of the cover, the actors listed on the front, and the blurb on the back. The results are typically somewhat mixed. Last week we watched the excellent film ‘Doubt’, for instance, which I had bought under these circumstances. It was well worth seeing.
Another DVD I picked up at the same church book stall is ‘Imagine me and you’. It was billed as ‘the best British rom-com since Notting Hill’. Made in 2005, it does not have any names I recognised on the front. However it features photos two young women and two young men. The blurb tells me that a newly married couple are settling down when the wife meets someone who turns her life upside down. The story, we’re told, is poignant and hilarious (words that don’t usually go together, in my view).
It starts well. Rachel (Piper Perabo) is about to get married to her best friend and lover Hector (Matthew Goode), whose name is bizarrely abbreviated to ‘Heck’. Heck’s best man Cooper (Darren Boyd) is evidently a promiscuous womaniser, and has no desire to settle down. Cooper is rather attracted to Lucy (Lena Headey) who is employed as the florist for the wedding. She is also, a little confusingly, involved in the wedding party - meeting people, having a drink, even dancing.
Rachel and Heck think Cooper and Lucy would make a nice couple; Rachel feels a strong kinship with Lucy as soon as she meets her and hopes they can be friends. Then they learn something about Lucy that turns everything upside down… that part of the blurb, at least, is correct.
There are some amusing moments in the film. Rachel’s young sister H (Boo Jackson) is full of intelligent questions, albeit rather caricatured ones, and some of the responses or interactions following are quite humorous. Rachel’s parents, too, have an exaggerated love-hate relationship. Her mother Tessa (Celia Imrie - one of the few names I recognised) is excellent. Rachel’s father Ned (Anthony Head) makes a good straight man, clearly fond of his daughters and letting his wife’s constant criticisms go over his head. Tessa and Ned’s relationship provides one of the poignant parts of the film, too.
However, although the film is well made and the actors excellent, on the whole, I really didn’t like the storyline. I found it disturbing - not for what might seem obvious reasons, if you have seen it, but because of the idea that ‘falling in love’ in an instant can - and should - trump years of growing love and closeness. It also suggests that promises and commitments mean nothing, if one partner decides that somebody else is more attractive.
So although it’s a well-made film, I really wouldn’t recommend it. Particularly, for reasons which I won't give as they would be spoilers, I don't recommend it to fundamentalists of any religion. If you want to know why, a quick glance at Amazon reviews (or elsewhere) would tell you.
The rating is 12A in the UK, which I think is about right, though I might have opted for 15; I doubt it would be of much interest to younger teens anyway. There’s some ‘strong’ language, though not a great deal, and plenty of discussion about sex, but nothing shown beyond some kissing. I don’t recall anything remotely violent. However the US censors, perhaps due to the occasional ‘strong’ language, or possibly the nature of the story, have rated this as R.
I'm pretty sure I won't be watching this again - but at least it only cost me a euro!
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
I had not previously heard of the film ‘Doubt’, which I spotted in a box of second-hand DVDs next to a church book sale. Since it featured Meryl Streep, and indeed three other well-known actors, I thought it was probably well worth the euro it cost me. A few days later we decided to see it.
I knew from the blurb on the back of the box that there was a disturbing theme to the story, and I began to regret having picked the DVD up at first. But it didn’t take long to get into the story. Meryl Streep is a nun, Sister Aloysius, who is headmistress of a Catholic school in New York in the early 1960s. As in every part I have seen her, Streep is superb, becoming the character in a way that most actors cannot do. Sister Aloysius is rigid in her outlook, quick to pass judgement, stern in her punishments of every infraction amongst the children.
One of the staff, Sister James (Amy Adams), is young and enthusiastic, and wants to inspire the children in her class rather than rule them by coercion. However she is quite concerned about Desmond (Joseph Foster), the only black child in the school, who is also an altar boy at the connected church. Desmond is quite a loner, and it seems that the priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), is taking rather too much interest in him…
Sister James reports her concerns to Sister Aloysius. Then much of the film involves verbal battles between her and Father Flynn, who comes across as a caring, gentle person on the whole. We hear parts of some of his sermons, which are quite thought-provoking. Indeed, the contrast between this gentle priest and the rigid nun is quite marked. Their dialogues are extremely well done, the timing perfect, and the on-screen chemistry, albeit of a rather different variety from many movies, works superbly.
There is also an extremely moving scene involving Desmond’s mother, beautifully portrayed by Viola Davis. She and Sister Aloysius have a lengthy dialogue about Desmond; it’s a pivotal scene, and I found myself drawn into it, suddenly realising that the situation being discussed was far less cut-and-dried than it might appear.
As well as these interactions the film covers quite a bit of the life of the school, too. There’s some music sung by choirboys and girls too - the school is a mixed one. A particularly poignant moment includes the singing of ‘Deus Caritas…’ - of which the translated words are, ‘Where there is love and care, there God is’. All in all, we thought it beautifully made, and were totally caught up in the story.
Never at any point is it determined whether or not Sister Aloysius’s convictions about Father Flynn are true or not. In one of the extras, we learned that this story was based on play which involved just the four main characters. As Meryl Streep points out in an interview, live theatre often leaves questions and storylines open for the viewers’ own interpretations. This is less common in films, and this one was quite controversial in following the storyline of the play, and leaving the main plot unresolved.
Made in 2008, allegations such as those in this film were all too common, even though the story was set forty or more years earlier. I found it a very powerful film, leaving open many questions, not just whether or not the priest was innocent of the allegations made.
It’s rated 15 in the UK, which I think is about right given the nature of the story, although there is nothing overt that could cause the censors to give it a strict rating. There is no nudity or anything explicit, almost no bad language, and only mild violence.
Perhaps this is why the US rating, which is often higher than that in the UK, is a milder PG-13. I would not want a young child to see this, but reasonably mature teenagers might find it thought-provoking. I would recommend it highly to anyone wanting a well-made film with a somewhat unusual storyline.
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
'Lost in Austen' is a DVD - or rather a DVD set, as there are two discs in the box - which I think I must have bought on special offer, or even at a charity shop some time ago. It has been in our to-be-watched drawer for some years, but we finally decided to watch it on Monday. We did not realise at first that it was in four episodes originally shown on independent television in the UK. The whole is three hours in length. So we watched the final episode the following evening.
The star of this drama is a young woman called Amanda (Jemima Rooper) who is obsessed with Jane Austen books. She loves ‘Pride and Prejudice’ best of all. So when, one day, she discovers Elizabeth Bennett (Gemma Arterton) in her bathroom, she thinks she must be dreaming…
However, a portal has appeared which enables Amanda to enter the world of the Bennets two hundred years earlier, leaving Lizzie to cope with the 21st century…
On the whole, we thought it very well done. The Bennett sisters are well cast, as are their parents. Hugh Bonneville makes a delightfully acerbic (but kind-hearted) Mr Bennett, and Alex Kingston is wonderful as a rather younger, considerably slimmer and less fluffy Mrs Bennett than I am used to. It took me until the end of the first episode to realise why she looked so familiar. Mrs Bennett is really nothing like Doctor Who’s ‘River Song’ where I first came across the actress.
The whole is somewhat surreal. It's even more so than ‘normal’ time-travel stories, since ‘Pride and Prejudice’ is, of course, entirely fictional. So when Amanda’s appearance starts to mess up the expected relationships and storyline of her favourite book, she tries to put things right. Inevitably things go wrong...
It’s a light-hearted story, and somewhat crude in places. But there’s plenty that’s amusing too, and we found ourselves smiling more than once. Amanda begins to realise that things are not as idyllic in the late 18th century as her imagination suggested. And while she attempts to fit in with the period and culture, she makes rather a lot of mistakes, which don’t quite fit with her being such a fan of the books.
We had no idea where the story was going to go, and thought the fourth episode particularly well done. There are some excellent scenes when we finally learn how Lizzie has got on in the 21st century, and some romantic tension as Amanda struggles to know what to do for the best.
On the whole we thought it very enjoyable. The rating of 12 seems about right to me. There are plenty of innuendoes, some which are decidedly not Austen, but nothing overt. However this would not make much sense to anyone who has not read (or at least seen the films of) Jane Austen’s books.
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
We wanted to watch something light, and not too long. Browsing through DVDs we have not watched for about ten years, we decided on ‘Music and Lyrics’. We first saw it in December 2007, and had forgotten almost everything about it. My sole memory was that a girl watering Hugh Grant’s plants ended up writing some lyrics for him…
That is, in fact, the essence of the plot. But there’s a whole lot of characterisation, interaction and storyline that I had entirely forgotten. The film opens with somewhat cheesy 1980s style pop music videos, with Hugh Grant (and others) dressed in the relevant style, made up to look as if they were in their twenties. It’s very impressively done.
The main action, however, takes place in the 21st century. Grant plays Alex Fletcher, a somewhat washed-up musician who used to be part of a successful band. However his songwriting partner went solo, successfully, while Alex found his career drifting downhill. Now he’s limited to a few faithful fans - in their forties - and gigs set in theme parks, or country clubs. He’s considering taking part in a corny TV series about 1980s has-beens…
Then his agent Colin (Scott Porter) tells him there’s a great opportunity for him, as the current teen idol Cora (Haley Bennett) wants Alex to write a new song for her. Cora is into Eastern mysticism, combined with seductive dancing, and Alex tends towards 1980s romantic songs, but he agrees to try, even though he has just three or four days to produce an entire new song.
Unfortunately, Alex can only write music, not lyrics. And Sophie (a very ditzy Drew Barrymore) who has appeared to water his plants, turns out to have a surprising talent for suitable lyrics…
Alex and Sophie don’t work together easily; she needs to be fed regularly, and wants to work on a chair close to the piano. Alex wants to work through the night, and keep his distance. The chemistry between them is excellent, and it’s inevitable that they’re going to fall for each other, but this is kept hanging for quite a while. Indeed,Sophie’s older sister Rhonda (Kristen Johnston) is much more excited about being around Alex, as she is an enormous fan.
There’s a great deal of humour, much of it in one-liners from the straight-faced Alex. He is a character ideally suited to Hugh Grant’s style of acting. The fast-paced dialogue between Alex and Sophie works well, and there are some amusing side scenes, too. Several times we found ourselves chuckling.
We watched some of the extras after seeing the film, and were not surprised to learn that both Grant and Barrymore did all their own vocals; more unexpected was that neither of them considers themselves musical. Hugh Grant had done very little dancing prior to this film, and was in his fifties when it was made. He not only learned to sing and dance, but took some piano lessons for the first time.
All in all, I enjoyed ‘Music and Lyrics’ very much. The overall romance might be predictable, but the way it happens is very well done.
The rating is PG (PG-13 in the US); there’s only minor bad language and one non-gory slightly violent scene. The inevitable ‘bed’ scene is only shown as having taken place, with hints of nudity but nothing explicit. The scenes with Cora are sensuous with young women in revealing clothing. However the film is unlikely to have much appeal to children anyway. But it's excellent one for older teens and adults, particularly for those of us who were young in the 1980s and remember the kinds of music videos that were popular.
Highly recommended, if you want to see something lightweight and amusing.
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
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:
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
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) arrives. They are 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
