Reviews

It's good in parts and I agree that it starts slow but it's well worth sticking with it for the scenery alone (although that makes it sound as if nothing else is worth watching. I don't mean that, it is)

Actors some New Zealanders know and love, mainly from soaps, feature here which makes it interesting locally and the tension level is maintained by some good cliff-hangers.

I don't agree with another reviewer that the acting is terrible, though some of the script can verge on the corny but who takes this sort of thing entirely seriously anyway?

I have a vested interest in this series though, I own one of the white coffins used in the series :-)

Incredible as it may seem, funding from the very people who should have been supporting this brilliant New Zealand film (from a book by established, best-selling author, Mike Riddell), was not forthcoming but the production team fought for it and their faith has been amply rewarded.

They may not want to thumb their noses at the short-sighted New Zealand Film Commission who ignored them but I'm quite happy to do so ! The Insatiable Moon is an award winner and you missed being part of it. Shame on you.

But if there is a message in this movie it is just that - we don't see the value, the insight and beauty of people who have been labelled mentally ill. We don't see them as people at all but as a problem, preferably ignored, certainly underfunded, usually scorned.

Arthur is convinced he's the second son of God and during the course of the movie, the audience moves from the easy, dismissive laughter at such a claim, to the idea that he just might be right.

Although a New Zealand film - and one of an increasing number of top quality productions from this country - the story will resonate in any society.

In every community there are those whose inability to cope with lifes's mental strains has relegated them to the background, even the scrapheap. But this movie shows that if we have the courage to think outside the square, with insight and perception, we will surely hear and see great truths.

A moving, beautiful, happy film with a message for everyone. Don't be like the New Zealand Film Commission and turn your back on something potentially wonderful. The forgotten people are forgotten no more thanks to The Insatiable Moon. Bravo.

A great film utterly spoiled by the scriptwriters prejudice (or even fetish) about chubbiness. One leading character, thin as a rake was repeatedly referred to as chubby which made about as much sense as referring to her white face as black. Then later, extremely derogatory comments about another fat girl (made by her slob of a father who was twice her size!).

Throughout the film, several assumptions were made that fat women don't find love - what rubbish - so I can only assume that the scriptwriter has a BIG problem, not to say obsession about size, even to the extent of inventing it where it doesn't exist in order to get his prejudice across.

Otherwise a brilliant film.

I'e given this review 3 for the quality of the lighting, design and acting, all of which were superb. What a shame then that the craft of these people was wasted by sloppy directing and writing.

There is a necessary suspension of disbelief when one is faced with a period piece. We weren't there, we didn't live at the time and to a certain extent we value the director's interpretation.

But for heaven's sake, shouldn't some of the film reflect what really went on at the time? Anna Holtz is entirely fictional but as a vehicle to show us what difficulties Beethoven went through, we accept it and I'm not complaining about this contrivance. Though I don't see why she is necessary, there were real, interesting persons in Beethoven's life.

The screenplay was an absolute mish-mash of mistakes and screaming howlers. For instance: Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata was not given that name until after his death, and the expression 'to moon' meaning to bare one's buttocks as an insult, did not come into parlance until 1968. Thus when Beethoven does this, joking that Anna probably likes the Moonlight Sonata best, the whole thing falls to pieces as a stupid parody. A bit like Jesus riding into Jerusalem in a Jeep. (don't laugh, it'll come one day if Hollywood has anything to do with it)

Surely there are more authentic ways of showing that Beethoven was vulgar and rude? Something that at least would have been true to period.

Then, every character talks like a modern American, using copious blashphemies that at the time would have been unthinkable. This often happens in films where the director has taken absolutely no account of the social taboos of the time.

Not so very long since, I saw a movie set in England in 1904 where the upper class characters said, 'Okay' to one another. Even as late as the 1950's English children were being chastised for using such a crass Americanism!

When this sort of sloppiness happens, the viewer sees the cracks in the glass rather than the reflection. It jars and spoils what might otherwise be a rather good story.

I always think, when I see a movie that *could* have been so good and yet for the sake of sloppy research, lack of thought for what they were really creating and a total lack of consideration for the viewer; that those responsible should be sent back to school to learn their craft as penance - and be made to repay every penny they've wasted!

A wonderful movie but the assumption that Lars is the odd one out is quite wrong. To my way of thinking, the guy's quite clearly high-functioning autistic and must have been like this all his life.

But his brother, who grew up with this shy, retiring guy who hates to be touched (and a father with the same tendencies) acts as if Lars has only just gotten this way. And that's the only wrong note in the movie.

The acting is superb from every single member of the cast, the story/script is exceptional, the atmosphere perfect.

This is a gentle, funny movie about being different and how it freaks people out. If only we were more accepting......

If you like gentle, 'it could happen anywhere' movies then Together will give you the soft fuzzies.

A peasant father, who comes across as s bit of an idiot at the beginning, takes his son,Chun, a violin prodigy, to Beijing with the idea of increasing his skills so he has a crack at fame and fortune.

The first teacher is a dreamer, living in the past and mourning a lost love, the second a hard-nosed charlatan, very rich on the proceeds of his famous pupils.

When an international competition is scheduled, there are two students vying for the chance to play and our boy is chosen. The other student, a girl who has been very jealous of Chun, proves that their teacher is manipulative and less than honest. The teacher too has a secret to reveal and this changes everything for Chun.

It's a movie which looks at love in a real and non-soppy sense. Where there is sentimentality it means something.

What I liked is the way the peasant father, by just being himself, endears you to him so that your mind changes and you stop thinking of him as an idiot get to love him.

Highly recommended.

Apart from Rene Zellweger and her unfortunately pursing and pouting mouth being absolutely the wrong actor for this role, the movie itself did Miss Potter no favours.

Beatrix Potter was a well-respected scientist(though not always by the scientific men who thought women should stay in the kitchen and not dabble in such things)who proved that lichens were a symbiotic link between fungus and algae. Her minute observations of nature were her major interest and she was famous throughout England for her scientific papers on these subjects.

Not one hint of this in the movie, or her remarkable personality which lifted her above her peers.

Potter and Millie Warne were intelligent "blustockings", women with innovative brains who felt there was a better life than being shackled to a man as his domestic slave and bringing up children (a very revolutionary idea at that time) and yet were portrayed in the film as a bored and boring old maids pretending they did not want to marry because no one suitable had asked them! What an insult to both women and women in general.

This is a nice film with all that such a word implies. Inspid and bland (not Pigling, who along with many of Potter's other famous characters is never mentioned) and lacking in the fire and verve which made up such an interesting and clever woman.

Lovely, brooding scenery of the north country and the animation is a nice touch, showing us how real the characters were to Beatrix.

But the filmmakers sold the incredible Miss Potter short.

And one last curmudgeonly comment: not since the invention of Panstick, which users often applied up to, but not beyond, the jawline, giving them a pink face and a white neck, have I seen such appalling makeup - what were they thinking of?

Goes without saying that Helen Mirren was THE star here.

Never was there better proof that the Royals live in a totally different and insulated world from the rest of us. "I find all problems can be solved after a long walk." Tells you she has no idea what real life or problems are like. Real people don't have problems that can be solved by a walk.

Prince Phillip's answer to two little boys grief at the death of their beloved mother (something he cannot understand) is "cured" by taking them out walking. Good grief!

The Queen and her family have been brought up to observe a rigid set of rules which simply do not apply to ordinary people. Thus, when you or I would mourn, or love or show sympathy, Elizabeth et al are not allowed this luxury and simply don't know how to feel, so repressed have they been all their lives.

The Monarch, as some people already know, is given lessons on how not to cough, cry, sneeze, break wind or show any emotion in public. (So common dear) Such rigid adherence to unnatural rules is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to protocol. So Diana, who didn't grow up in that world and wanted to show her love and fear and betrayal, was anathema from the beginning. The Royals manipulated their son into a loveless marriage with a suitable girl - and everyone paid the price.

'The Queen' explains all this without ever saying so in words and the impact is stunning.

I am an anti-royalist but even I couldn't blame Elizabeth for wanting it all to go her way, after all, that's how she's lived for 80 years, how could she change?

That she had to climb down and give in to the pressure from the tabloids must have hit hard and Helen Mirren perfectly portrays this controlled and bitter anger at being beaten. No one tells the Queen what to do, not even her PM, and here were some horribly common people forcing her to fly a flag, give in to a royal funeral and more.

I bet she still has nightmares about it!

Thank goodness the day are gone when a monarch could say 'Off with his head'. Blair wouldn't have lasted long.

A superb film with a million hidden hints and subtle suggestions which most British people would pick up. I particularly liked the still of Diana looking sideways with such hatred - a master stroke.

You know the difference between your Mom's home made, hand-made-with-love cookies and the mass produced things in the supermarket? Well Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont is a hand-made-with-love movie.

I can't imagine anyone not being moved by this story of a friendship between and elderly (and still beautiful) lady and a sensitive young man of 26.

For me (not much younger than Mrs Palfrey) this was a double treat as the film contains so many wonderful old actors, people who have been in the business, excelling at their art for decades. It must have been daunting for the younger ones to be on set with all these gems.

Particularly nice to see Georgina Hale, who has the most unusual speech delivery which perfectly comes out as an 'elderly foible' in the movie but is, in fact, the way she talks all the time - wonderful! Dear old Robert Lang died shortly after the movie finished shooting, so it was dedicated to him - a fine tribute for a great actor.

There was just one tiny thing I would have liked - the backstory. It's not until 3/4 way through the movie that we realise why this obviously well-heeled lady (you have to be to afford full board in an hotel in Langham Place!) chose to move to London. Ostensibly it is to be near her grandson but he clearly has no time for her and never did. She's moved from Scotland but would have been better off in a village, a small community, not in the soulless city. So that's a bit of a problem, she simply doesn't have enough reason for such a radical change of scene.

But I'm being picky and the film deserves every plaudit - doesn't need Oscars, leave them for the glitzy trash, this is way, way above Oscar level. This is genius and near perfection.

There has been some criticism that it's too sugary, that a young man would never befriend an old lady but this is ridiculous. Though Taylor's Ludo was not quite as open-hearted as the character played so equisitely by Rupert Friend, I know from personal experience that such friendships are not only possible but frequent.

So, if you want to see some of Britain's real stars, home-made goodies every one, acting with sensitivity, humour and considerable charm, this is the film to see - take someone you love. Take hankies too.

Almost everything's been said by the excellent commentators here. I will just add that Jude Law's Alfie would not have gotten a 2nd date from any of these women.

He showed no liking for them, let alone romance, didn't even bother to get undressed in the sex scenes! Alfie, Version 1, Michael Caine, had it all his own way, because women in those days did think they were lucky to get such a charmer. Today, if he did not treat them with at least a modicum of respect and affection it would go no further.

Secondly, Alfie #2 finds an older man as mentor (an actor with as much personality on screen as the scarf Jude Law occasionally wore round his neck) - why on earth didn't they use Michael Caine?

This movie was one of intense and striking contrasts. Unless you live in the Pilbara, it must be a huge contrast to your own environment and the stunning photography brings out all the very best in the landscape.

It is certainly a totally different experience for the Japanese businessman, uptight in his culture and schooled from birth not to show emotion. His delight in the huge outpouring of tons of rock and the explosion in the quarry showed the inner man he was always seeking to control.

The contrast between the big, blonde, raw-boned, loud Aussie sheila and the precise, meticulous, dark and mostly silent Japanese man, was quite incredible to watch. You could not imagine them ever having anything in common.

Though we see very little of their sexual encounter, it is much easier to imagine Sandy in wild abandon, laughing with pleasure, than quietly conforming to his rules. But it works perfectly (though I couldn't help but cringe at the idea of that zip and hairs, every time she moved!)

When his doll-like wife arrives, you wonder how their love-making would have been accomplished, in the same ultra-correct way they presented business cards?

Toni Collette is a superb actor, there is no doubt about that and Go's buttoned-down performance, perfect for the theme of the movie, was like a quiet rage.

It's a thinker of a movie, it stays in your head and you want to watch it again. It's a fooler too, you're sure you know what's going to happen and it doesn't.

I don't wonder it got so many awards, it deserved every one - and should never, ever be compared to the genre of movies which give brash, fast stories with car chases.

It's a direct contrast to such cheap shallowness.

Bob Hoskins without a London accent? Has he got away from the stereotyping at last? I hope so because he's a fine actor. Judi Dench, looking more like the late Queen Mother (and that's not necessarily a good thing) than ever, sparkles as the unconventional Mrs Henderson.

One glitch no one seems to have picked up on. Mrs Henderson is arguing with Van Damm and says, 'There's no excuse for bad grammar' but then later on says, 'They are as normal as you and I.' Which of course a stickler for English grammar would never had said, it being 'you and me' in this case.

Documentary shots of the war fit nicely in with movie fiction and the costumes (not just on stage, Mrs H wears an embroidered black satin coat I craved) were sensational.

Most of all you got the authentic feel of back stage, you could almost smell the greasepaint. The nervousness of the players, the cramped quarters and dark corridors, much more interesting to see everything from this side of the tabs.

My favourite scene was when Mrs H walked into the theatre to find everyone: Van Damm, stage hands and cast entirely naked. Her eyebrows only slightly raised in surprise she looks at the entrepreneur: 'Ah, Mr Van Damm, so you *are* Jewish.' Priceless.

A small private amusement was provided for me having just reviewed the book 'Darling Judi' a 70th birthday tribute to the Dame. In that, Billy Connolly tells the story that when a director was to interview Judi for the role of Queen Victoria, he put him up to a practical joke.

'Tell Judi she was the 2nd one to be considered for the role,' Billy advised, 'and when she asks who was your first choice, say "Bob Hoskin".' The director did this with predictably hilarious results.

A short history of the Windmill and Mrs Henderson's role in it can be found here: http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Archive/Feb2003/Page2.htm

Yes, that's what the title really means. It's nothing to do with what they wear, in spite of the movie posters. It harks back to the days when people used to lay away linen or other fabrics in lavender to prevent moths and mildew. So what this film was saying was - these ladies have been in storage a while, forgotten - and only when the young Polish guy comes into their lives do they flicker back to life.

The usual superb performances from Judi and Maggie, what makes them so good, in Judi Dench's case particularly, is that you can *see* what they are thinking before they even speak.

Superb fingering on the violin from an actor who, prior to this movie, had never touched one - you'd swear he was really playing.

The movie was particularly poignant for me as I lived for many years in Cornwall and recognised a lot of the scenery. I can, incidentally, assure the critic who claimed a "mistake" by saying Starry-gazey pie is confined to Moushole, that this he/she totally wrong.

It may have been originally a Mousehole speciality, but like Yorkshire pudding, has long since spread to other areas.

Ladies in Lavender is one of those British films which will become a classic for its gentle theme, fantastic setting (inside and out) superb lighting and sound - and a good, strong story line.

For a slice of life (or larger than life) in the Samoan community, Sione's Wedding is a perfect vehicle. Of course it's over the top, but in all caricatures there are some truths.

Four guys, well past their sell-by date, habitually spoil community celebrations with their drunken bad manners. The minister of the Samoan church tells them they are banned from the next wedding, (Sione's) unless they can bring partners - women being considered to have a calming influence on Samoan men. Ha!

And the film is about the various ways they try to find dates. The old double-standard applies of course: Michael can sleep with a different girl every night (some of them married) and be regarded as a bloke to look up to. When a Samoan girl arrives from the Islands and shows the same sort of tendencies, Hello! She's a tramp.

There's the guy whose drinking is spoiling his relationship with his live-in, and the hopeless dreamer who haunts the personal ads for his "ideal girl", and the "wimp" (who does not come across as wimpy at all) scared of women and living with his Mama well into his 30's.

If you watched this and the movie "No2" you'll get the impression Pacific Islands people are into power-control, macho and alcohol (not that it is confined to PI, but this is what these films highlighted) so it's a shame that in Sione's Wedding, they did not balance that, (as in No.2) with some of the more positive aspects of PI life.

There was the obligatory derogatory reference to a fat person (the way most bad films get a cheap laugh these days) In this case one of the guys took a plump girl to bed and a thin chick later said, 'Euw, you slept with Sasquatch?' Great stuff.

However, one of the funniest lines from the movie (and this will give you the level of humour it relied upon) was with the same big girl,

'You told me you were a Size 14.'

'I am.' '

'Your feet maybe.'

This portrays Samoans the way 'Once Were Warriors' portrayed Maori. In other words there is a *grain* of truth in it but the characters are so stereotyped as to be laughable - where laughter isn't appropriate. And sad where it is.

I've given it such high marks because there is such a rich pattern in the movie, it has so much between the lines, it's the kind of film you think about later and notice lots of underlying themes and messages which don't, at first, strike you. So it's well worth the dollars.

As a foreigner, I have not been brainwashed into thinking Diane Lane is gorgeous, so found the reaction of males in this movie rather odd. She is no more than a passably attractive woman at best, and at worst(as a troubled divorcée escaping from life)haggard and unkempt and yet the men have to act as if she's beautiful!! In one case, 3 Italian men leave their work to follow her - a disheveled 40+ American tourist? Gimme a break! It's rather like someone pretending that Woody Allen is drop-dead gorgeous :-) (Of course, who would DARE disagree???)

In the personal interviews afterwards, Lane looked at least 10 years younger and a lot more attractive, which makes one wonder why they had to 'witch her up' for the role of a woman who was supposed to be pretty.

I've never seen any of these actors before but Sandra Oh stole the movie beyond any doubt. Her natural style (Lane was far too mannered and aware of herself)and easy delivery did what every actor aspires to do - make the viewer think they are looking at a slice of life, rather than at people who have learned lines and are acting out a part.

We have gotten used to the Hollywood style of head-shaking, gazing into the distance, biting lip when *portraying emotion* - it is every bit as corny and false as the old Olivier-style declaming was in the 1940's.

People then thought this was the last word in fine acting - now we think it's hilarious. Some of the time, Lane's performance was in this league and coupled with the fact that she looked every one of her forty years and more - and therefore WAY too old for the handsome young guys who were supposed to be lusting after her, made this element of the movie an unrealistic farce. Mrs Robinson rides again?

I have to say though that the movie itself was great. The idea of women leading successful, happy lives after the breakup of a relationship (albeit heading straight into another, as if women alone simply can't be happy) is a good theme and was well portrayed here. The contrast between jaded Frances and Katherine and the innocent Chiara, who will doubtless find that life with Pavel is not the dream she believes, was beautifully crafted.

I expected to find more than just a single-sentence reference to the way foreigners (Brits, Germans and Americans especially) are so deeply resented in Tuscany and wonder why, "You greedy Americans" was included at all when it didn't really make the point. Nor was the movie much like the book it was said to represent. I have to wonder why a producer, who read the book and thought 'This would make a great movie' did not then actually make a movie like the book? Read the book, it's brilliant.

The quiet, sexy Vincent Riotta and Sandra Oh redeemed the film of any faults completely and I shall be looking for movies starring them in future.

If you can sit through the first mindlessly boring half hour of dancing crowd scene (and stomach a few others; this director really gets his moneysworth from the extras) then you may find a spark of interest in P&P.

Not though if you know anything at all about the manners and traditions of 18th century England.

The whole premise of Austen's writing was based on certain elements which are totally lacking in this movie. For instance, the Bennetts were a respectable, well-heeled family of good stock but in that society, riddled with class awareness and false values, far below anything Mr Darcy could have been expected to marry into.....unless the object of his affections was so totally captivating that he couldn't help himself.

It was Elizabeth Bennett's unusual charm and unconventional ways which totally captured him and made him flout what were the very, very strong conventions of the day.

However, what we were given were Bennetts who looked little better than street people (uncombed hair, shaving stubble, no periwig when company called, and a dress code which bordered on the barbaric)with no manners whatsoever (and manners were everything in Austen's day).

Elizabeth was far from charming with virtually nothing to recommend her to the hide-bound Darcy - and a mouth so full of teeth it was a wonder they didn't all fall out on the floor when she smiled.

So where was the winsomeness? Where the prejudice or the pride for that matter, except that exhibited by the wonderfully tart Lady Catherine (Judi Dench).

Close your eyes and listen to Keira Knightley in this role and you'll hear Princess Diana; Mr Bingley could double for Jamie Oliver (complete with weird hair) and am I the only one in the whole world who does not see Keira as "stunningly beautiful"? She is, as Darcy first states, 'tolerable' but only just. Forever-open, pouting mouth (which, in Austen's society would have spoken of abject stupidity) and constantly scruffy appearance betrayed absolutely the smart, funny, and witty Miss Bennett Jane Austen portrayed.

There was so much wrong with this movie that it hard to remember that it was made for fun and entertainment and not meant to be (like the book) a dissertation on 18th century manners, just a wildly inaccurate bit of froth for the overseas market (Americans will love it I suspect)which made little or no attempt to stick to what Austen intended.

Yes, I'm a grumpy old curmugeon but I went into the movie expecting some attempt at least would be made to show us what P & P was all about and how love can conquer even the most rigid and iron-clad tradition. Alas, the disappointment and hence the grumpiness.

I went to see this movie not only with someone who knew Burt's family but whose mother also used to ride an Indian! Burt rode an Indian Scout, she rode and Indian Chief bike and never aspired to break records but we had some expectations (and criticism at the ready) when we walked into the cinema, not least of which was 'why didn't they pick a Kiwi actor for this role?'

We walked out having seen a slice of life as we knew it and with cheers on our lips for a good old Kiwi bloke who loved speed, loved the ladies and showed what it was like to dream dreams.

We wondered how Anthony Hopkins would tackle the difficult Kiwi accent, most actors end up sounding like Aussies, which is a totally different accent but he managed it just fine, even with a slight Scottish burr which many Southlanders have.

He's an absolute master, an expert in his field - as Burt was in his and Mr Hopkins' understated rendition (how did he know we Kiwi's are so laid back about our achievements?) was first class, so we felt the casting director was justified after all!

In spite of what the world believes, WE Kiwis were the first to fly more than 1km - Richard Pearse flew almost a year before the Wright Bross. WE split the atom and we've been first past the post in many other technological and scientific achievements...we just don't crow about it and this film exactly captured the way someone like Burt Munro broke records which haven't been bettered 40 years on and yet is relatively unknown, even in Aotearoa. (Incidentally, Hopkins/Burt said 'Aotearoa' wrong in the movie, but many New Zealanders do that anyway so it was probably an accurate mistake!)

Not only did Anthony Hopkins do a darned good job for us in portraying an innovative Kiwi, he captured the spirit as well.

A wonderful movie, inspiration and superbly low-key.

I loved this movie for the very different cinematic treatment and special effects (not the usual whizz-bang stuff, just very clever animation and more) and the visual angles but I was puzzled by it too.

It may have been edited and therefore lost some vital information but how come this newly bereaved family move from a northern terraced house into a flash detached, with no apparent change in the income capacity of the family? They move to the stockbroker belt, the kids go to posh schools but nowhere is it explained how this could happen. Nor how they got away with changing such huge amounts of money (and giving it out at school) without someone tumbling to it earlier.

The new woman in Dad's life always looked rather spooky to me, was this the devil in disguise? Maybe it was just too many close ups of her hugely smiling face (not unlike the Duchess of York's) which gave me the creeps. Didn't trust her for a minute and read sinister motives into everything on screen, including her voice coming from a rubbish bin.

Amusing though to see the Saints with human foibles and Mormons acting in a *very* un-Mormon-like way. Of course, being a sentimental old fool I got teary-eyed when the dead mother (Saint Maureen) appeared, especially when she explain how she'd achieved sainthood (you have to do a miracle to get that tag).

One of those movies you should see with friends and then discuss afterwards, if only to try and work out why there were to many loose ends.

Daniel Auteuil is always good value. One of France's top actors he is the master of understatement, telling us more by facial expression and body language than words ever could. However, I think he was sold short by this movie where the other characters, with one exception, were poorly drawn. Without spoiling - he rescues a man about to hang himself because his girlfriend has left him, and becomes entangled in this man's life. But there was nothing about either the guy or his girlfriend which merited someone going out of their way to help. Both totally lacked charisma, Blanche particularly was one of those women you simply want to shake in an effort to get some sort of personality into her.

Louis needed a smart punch in the mouth and frankly, when Antoine finally got to the end of his tether with the guy's stupidity and weaknesses, I was looking forward to that as the high spot of the movie.

Nothing could have upstaged the marvellous André Tainsy though, who died only a few months after this film was released, aged 93. She was une trésor absolue, carrying off her role with finesse, incredible humour, so understated - and total aplomb.

It is a funny film (and if you know Fawlty Towers, it's in that vein) in an excruciatingly painful way where you just know everything is going to go wrong and there are a couple of laugh-aloud moments but given the mood throughout, it has the unlikeliest ending you could imagine.

Brilliant music by Camille Bazbaz all the way through and if nothing else his 'Papa Tango Charlie' should have been a massive hit.

Jane Fonda is undoubtedly a good actress but this film did her no favors. When Viola enters a room and someone says, 'She looks sensational' - the cinema audience laughed out loud because frankly she looked appalling.

Uglybone thin to the point of emaciation, elderly skin with vertical wrinkles on a face that should never, never have a close up (and got way too many) all added up to an awareness of age which spoiled every shot she was in. If someone set out to make Fonda look like an old bag, they certainly succeeded.

By contrast, Wanda Sykes and the amazing Elaine Stritch (why didn't we see more of her, what a waste) only served to make Fonda look even more like a harridan. Ruby's (Sykes) lines were smart little comebacks showing she was in control of this long-term relationship but there was not a spark of electricity between Fonda and JLo.

Vartan has as much personality as the tripe Fonda falls asleep in, looking non-plussed from one woman to the other as if hoping someone would remind him of his lines.

As he was supposed to be one of the USA's top surgeons, I fear for his patients, he came across as a sap.

The star was undoubtedly Ruby, assistant to Viola, but when Viola physically attacks her in the kitchen the plot lost any credibility it may have had in its failed attempt at slapstick...it was cringe time.

More use could have been made of the 'imaginings' of the two protagonists, Viola shoving Jlo's face into cake, Jlo bashing the old girl with a frying pan - if you wanted slapstick, that was it.

Whilst the Brahmins of US society may be shallow, tasteless, vituperative and crass, they rarely do about-turns when their children bring street kids home to marry. JLo was supposed to be talented but what we saw was someone whose only ambition was to walk dogs and wait tables (oh, and of course marry rich). No way would the aristocracy accept her...so even that wasn't credible.

It could have worked. With a far more feisty Lopez, with a soft-focus Fonda (or better yet, a Fonda who didn't demand close-ups and lines which made her look pathetic) a leading man with credibility as a surgeon and scion of top family...but these days films are not crafted to work, only to bring in the dollars. This will - but it doesn't deserve to.

Now you would expect after all that sarcasm and put-down that I didn't enjoy the movie but strangely enough, once I'd stopped shuddering at Fonda's appearance - I did. It was a no-brain fluff of a movie and filled 90 minutes with inoffensive clutter (the sets, even the garden were chockablock)and color. Go see it on a wet day with friends and you'll enjoy it.