The Notebook is a film of a Nicholas Sparks book (which I haven’t read), and it is beautifully and memorably shot. When I say the story is told in moving pictures I mean just that: the scenes are at times very moving. It’s a very powerful love story, with a thread of melancholy running through it.

I don’t know why films that show very happy times viewed in flashback after those times are gone appeal to me, but they do. Perhaps it’s the reason I like Del Amitri songs.

There were a lot of sad-happy flashbacks in The Constant Gardener, which we finally got around to seeing recently. That was an outstanding film, with challenging subject matter.

Also, on the DVD there was a clip of John le Carré talking about his book. He made it sound as if the choice of enemy, in this case “the drug companies”, was almost an afterthought — but in the film it seems so central. They also talked a little bit in the DVD extras about a charity they had set up to help the people in the two main locations where the film was shot.

One good thing about Mission: Impossible II is the “Mission Improbable” short in the DVD extras, with Ben Stiller playing Tom Crooze, a wannabe stunt double. Funny man!

Talking of watching good films again, we got the Mulholland Dr. DVD. Not having seen it since it came out (2001), and having read lots of people’s ideas about what it’s all about, we both thought our second viewing would lead to a deeper understanding of the film. It’s a brilliant film, but I still don’t quite “get” it all — maybe I’m not really meant to. I think I understand a bit more about it, but my main conclusion is: David Lynch makes very interesting things for us to watch. I wonder what Inland Empire is like.

Our latest LoveFilm DVD was You Can Count On Me, a thought-provoking film with Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo. It’s a film about expectation, disappointment, having control and losing control, and about how people are not what other people want them to be, but are just who they are — sometimes in spite of themselves. The acting was great all round, although casting Matthew Broderick as the by-the-book manager who has no idea about staff morale seemed a little odd to me.

What I especially liked was the way each scene had enough in it to tell you what’s going on without spelling everything out. There are lots of places where events or conversations are implied and left to the imagination of the audience. This works particularly well because of the unhurried pace.

• Return To Me (2000) — quite a nice story. Minnie Driver played her character well, and she got to sing as well. Sue seemed to enjoy the film anyway! David Duchovny was surprisingly believable (thinking back to Evolution).
• Scent of a Woman (1992) — we’d been meaning to watch this one for ages, just to see what Al Pacino’s performance was like in it. It was quite good as rites-of-passage films go, but I didn’t really end up warming to the characters as much as I think I was meant to.
• The Lake House (2006) — I always like a good time-travel story. This one was about how (or whether) people can fall in love when they are in different times. Nice twist near the end, but as time-travel stories go I can’t wait for The Time Traveller’s Wife (from the book).
• You, Me and Dupree (2006) — watchable but not really very good. No convincing characters.

Christopher Walken was extremely good in his part as the mad professor-type who gives Adam’s character (Michael) the remote control, and one of my favourite little details was James Earl Jones narrating the commentary to Michael’s life when he pressed the Menu button.

The conclusion is that if they aren’t careful, people can end up living their lives on fast forward, on autopilot, just getting by, waiting for the good bits and missing out on what’s right there in front of them. I wish the film had been a little bit less smulchy and stupid, because I think it’s a good message.

I mean, it wasn’t really awful — in fact, the first hour or so was quite good — but the ending was badly thought out and ultimately disappointing. It was as if we were meant to switch off our brains and just watch the CGI with glazed eyes.

Was the original version like that, and I just don’t remember? In fact, was it even that film I’m thinking of? It was in black and white, and I seem to remember that the machine was tested out using a cigar, or something daft like that.

Best bit: I think the 80s-style pop video takes some beating.

Worst bit: As Jonathan Ross put it, “Cheer up Hugh, it’s only a rom-com.”

Watched Cast Away again this evening on DVD and I think I remembered most of it quite well (which is unusual for me). I love that film, and the way it gets you to appreciate things you might have taken for granted.

“You never know what the tide’ll bring”