Lover come back (Doris Day)

(Amazon UK link)

We’re still slowly working our way through the DVDs given to us by a friend who was downsizing about a year ago. This time we decided to watch ‘Lover come back’, another one in the Doris Day collection. We had no idea what to expect: the cover photo looks decidedly risqué, but the rating is PG.

I found the first few minutes a little confusing, but gradually realised what was happening, and was drawn into the film. Carol, Doris Day’s character, is a young woman who works in advertising. She’s enthusiastic and has lots of good ideas, and likes to get new accounts after doing a lot of research and hard work. She is contrasted with Jerry (Rock Hudson) who lazes about, and wines and dines his potential clients, taking them to strip clubs and similar.

Carol works hard on a contract she hopes to acquire, spending many hours on a portfolio and coming up with some excellent ideas. She finally goes to see the client, only to discover him rather drunk after a party with lots of drink and scantily clad girls. And he tells her he has given the contract to Jerry. Carol is furious and determined to take Jerry to a tribunal, accused of unethical behaviour. But her witness is persuaded not to testify against him, after yet more unethical bribery on is part….

Jerry really is a most unpleasant character with superficial charm, but no positive qualities. Rock Hudson was a good actor, and he feels quite believable. I really hoped he wouldn’t end up (as was inevitable from the start…) with Carol. 

There’s a serious misunderstanding when Carol mistakenly assumes that Jerry (whom she has never met) is someone else. He goes along with the deception, behaving as if he were rather naive, and allowing her to pay for his accommodation and meals. And then he steals an advertising idea…

The action is fast, and the acting good in an early 1960s style.  There’s some humour, particularly when Jerry pretends he has a new product which doesn’t exist, and others start battling to advertise it. There were a couple of places where we laughed aloud, and for most of it, I felt quite drawn into the story, rooting for Carol and annoyed by Jerry. 

I can see why the rating is PG and no higher. There’s no nudity shown, and no bad language as far as I recall. There’s no violence, and the drinking and cigarette use are appropriate for the era and the story. But there’s a lot implied in Jerry’s life, and one incident showing a ‘morning after’ with a sheet covering a couple who have evidently spent the night together. There are also shows with very scantily clad women; the stripping is not shown (it’s more amusing watching the audience, anyway) but clearly there.  

However it’s not the kind of thing that would appeal to most children or even teens; it’s inevitably somewhat dated, and the story relates to adult life. 

But overall, we thought it a well-made and nicely produced film, with just the right balance of humour and action. The ending is somewhat far-fetched, but then so are many of the incidents in the film - at least, I hope so!

Recommended, on the whole, if you like this era and style of films.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Chariots of fire (Ben Cross, Ian Charleson)

(Amazon UK link)

Last night we decided to watch our DVD of the 1981 film ‘Chariots of fire’. I don’t remember when we last watched it. It’s one of a handful of films that we saw at the cinema when it first came out, and quite enjoyed. We must have acquired the DVD over twenty years ago, and probably watched it with one or both of our sons who were teenagers at the time. 

The film is based on a true story, and the climax, of course, is well known. Eric Liddell is a champion sprinter, due to run in the Olympics. But he’s also a devout Christian, in an era when it was considered wrong to run on a Sunday. And he learns at the last minute that his best chance of a medal - the 100m sprint - is going to be held on a Sunday.

However, the bulk of the film takes place before that, much of it at Cambridge University. Eric (Ian Charleson) is introduced as a mild, generous man who was born to missionary parents in China. He believes that he is called to go back as a missionary himself, but also that God gave him the gift of running fast. And so he wants to honour that by training, and running in the 1924 Olympic Games. 

Early in the film we meet Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish student who has quite a chip on his shoulder. I'd entirely forgotten about his role in the film. He’s evidently experienced some prejudice and negativity, and is naturally annoyed by that. He’s also a very fast sprinter, but a poor loser. He succeeds in something nobody at his college has never done before, but, later in the film, goes into what seems to be a massive sulk when he is beaten in a race.

Harold makes plenty of friends, and is welcomed into the Gilbert and Sullivan society. There are quite a few songs from these comic operettas through the film, which made a pleasant background; other music is the well-known piece by Vangellis and its variations. There are a lot of friends portrayed, some looking rather like each other, and more than once I mistook one of Harold’s friends for Eric himself, which was a tad confusing.

The acting is good, and the story is an interesting one, with issues raised about priorities. Cheryl Campbell makes an excellent Jennie (Eric’s sister) who loved him, but berates him when he’s late for church meetings. He makes quite a moving speech to her about how his calling encompasses his running as well as missionary work in China. 

Harold’s life is quite a contrast to Eric’s; he drinks and smokes, and becomes quite close to a Gilbert and Sullivan singer called Sybil (Alice Krige). Apparently in real life Harold married her, so this wasn’t just a flirtation. Eric tries to keep away from what he considers vices - it wasn’t known, in the 1920s, that smoking was dangerous, and particularly bad for lungs. 

However, despite some human interest, and some realistic acting, I found the film rather slow-moving, and frankly dull in places. There’s inevitably a lot of racing and other sports shown, but instead of quick clips to give an idea, they’re long clips, some of them in slow-motion. I don’t mind a slow-motion recap of a close win, but slowing down an entire race seems to me rather to defeat the object. The only reason we could think of for this was to make the film longer…

Probably the best-known sequences in the film are at the beginning (and end) when a group of runners, including Eric, is shown running along a beach. It could have been generic, but is shot to demonstrate that it’s St Andrews, a place I visited every summer as a child. There’s then a confusing shot of the Ancient and Modern clubhouse in St Andrews, with a sign claiming it’s the Carlton Hotel, although the commentary on the film claims that it’s in Kent. 

I didn’t quite go to sleep while watching this film, but I didn’t find it particularly engaging. Maybe that’s because I have no interest in sports, and the 1920s class culture of top universities felt a bit grating and unreal at times. On the other hand, I can see how a young Jewish man could feel out of place in what was quite a Christian university, with services and ceremonies set in churches with strongly religious overtones.  

I’d recommend this in a low-key way if you like sports, or have heard the story of Eric Liddell and are keen to see the film based on this part of his life. It’s well-made, notwithstanding the many slow-motion sequences, and the story really doesn't feel 100 years old. But it’s not a film that I’m particularly keen to see again - not for another twenty years or so, anyway.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Three to tango (Matthew Perry)

(Amazon UK link)

I had never heard of the 1999 film ‘Three to tango’. But I saw it inexpensively in a charity shop, and thought it sounded interesting, as well as a bit different. We decided to watch it last night. 

The story begins with two rival companies hoping to land a lucrative building contract. The person making the decision is a wealthy, powerful man called Charles (Dylan McDermott). And Charles, we soon learn, has a mistress as well as a wife. Neve Campbell is excellent as Amy, who is well aware of the existence of the wife. And she is still friendly with a lot of other men with whom, it’s implied, she has previously had romantic entanglements.

Each of the two rival architectural companies has two representatives. The first ones are arrogant, convinced they will succeed. The other two are Oscar (Matthew Perry) and Peter (Oliver Platt). They seem somewhat mismatched; Oscar has Scandinavian roots and is quite a womaniser, although he isn’t currently in a relationship. He’s also something of a klutz, forever tripping over or knocking things down. Peter, by contrast, is suave, confident, and also gay. 

The two are good friends, but Charles’ secretary assumes that they are partners in more than one sense. And an amusing conversation between Charles and Oscar leaves Charles with believing that it’s Oscar who is gay, rather than Peter. And since he’s quite a jealous sort, he asks Oscar to keep an eye on Amy at an upcoming exhibition of her glass-blowing artwork. Charles is unable to be there, but he knows that some of his rivals for her affection may well be present.

The film is essentially a comedy of manners, and it’s very well done. Oscar can’t persuade Charles that he is straight, and he also becomes increasingly attracted to Amy. She is very happy to have a male friend whom she believes is not interested in her, and she shares details about her life that she has never mentioned to anyone else. 

The point is made, more than once, that each individual is unique and that people should be treated as individuals, rather than grouped based on their sexuality or gender. Oscar makes an impassioned speech to a reporter, trying to say that builders should be judged on their building proposals and work, and that being gay - or straight - should not be relevant. Unfortunately this leads to front-page headlines which upset his father, and surprise his mother… and which lead to him being asked to accept an award which he has no right to…

It could have been a bit sordid, but it manages to steer clear of that. Oscar is a very likeable man, caught up in the deception, and falling more and more for Amy. He starts to see how women are sometimes objectified, and there’s a great scene where he chats to Amy and her friends about unwanted attention from random strangers. It makes the point extremely well.

Naturally, since it’s a light-hearted film, there are some caricatured characters, who add to the humour. We didn’t laugh aloud, but there are some cleverly choreographed scenes and some amusing one-liners that made us smile. And there’s some poignancy, too.  

The acting is good, and there’s a lot of great musical background which we thought blended in extremely well. We loved the opening title sequence, which was very well done, and I thought Oscar, in particular, was excellent in his characterisation and facial expressions, as well as his general clumsiness. 

All in all, we liked the film very much. It’s rated 12, which reflects the lack of anything explicit. There’s some minor violence (in the form of punches), and some semi-nudity, but nothing that would merit a higher rating. There are some instances of bad language, including one instance of ‘strong’ language, but it wasn’t excessive. And while much of the theme revolves around sexuality, it’s all tastefully done. I can’t imagine it would be of any interest to children or teens anyway, but for broad-minded adults, I would recommend this. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Goodnight Mister Tom (John Shaw, Nick Robinson)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m surprised to find that it’s over twenty-five years since I read Michelle Magorian’s excellent teenage book ‘Goodnight Mister Tom’. It’s rare for me to recall storylines of books I read that long ago, but it remains powerfully in my mind as an example of living through the war years, with some quite difficult issues covered. 

We had acquired the DVD of the 1998 TV adaptation of the book some years ago. We had heard good things about it, but for some reason had never watched it, until last night. We were immediately caught up in the story, and both agreed that it was extremely well-done.

John Thaw stars as the sixty-something and rather cranky Tom Oakley. He lives on his own almost next-door to the parish church in his village. He works mending roofs and furniture, but is something of a hermit. Then war is declared - the year is 1939, and it feels quite authentic. Before long, evacuees come to the village, and Tim is told that it’s his duty to take one of them in. He is given the nervous, malnourished ten-year-old William Beech (Nick Robinson), because there’s a note saying he must be billetted with someone God-fearing, or near a church. 

Tom is shocked to find a belt in William’s scanty belongings, and a note telling him to use it when necessary. He’s even more horrified to find terrible welts over his back. His compassion is triggered, and slowly he and Will become fond of each other. Will doesn’t find life easy; he can’t read or write, so is relegated to the ‘baby’ class at the local school, until Tom manages to teach him. And he makes friends with some of the other evacuees, in particular a Jewish boy called Zach (Thomas Orange).

As the weeks pass, Will starts to flourish, until there’s a letter saying his mother hasn’t been well, and wants him back. And when he’s back in London, life rapidly becomes very traumatic… we don’t discover just how bad it is until a scene which I still recalled from the book, when Tom makes the effort to travel to London himself, hoping to find out why he hasn’t heard from Will.

The acting is excellent. John Thaw is a name I knew, and he plays the part of Tom flawlessly. We see him grumpy, caring, anxious and more - and his growing relationship with William mirrors his slow thawing from a tragic bereavement he experienced many years earlier. Nick Robinson, too, is perfect as Will. I don’t know how the same boy (who would have been about eleven or twelve at the time of filming) manages to be the lively, cheerful Will as well as the nervous, emaciated evacuee in the early part of the film, and the starved, seriously abused child in later scenes. 

Other actors take more of a supporting role, but they are all believable, from the young married school teacher Annie Hartridge (Pauline Turner) to the unstable, violent Mrs Beech (Annabelle Apsion). The pace of the film is perfect, as far as we’re concerned, and some of the country scenery very attractive, contrasting starkly with the horrors of London. 

I don't suppose the film covers every detail of the book, and may even include extra images or scenes that aid the visuals. But as far as I can recall, this is a very good adaptation that captures the people, the story and the emotions of Michelle Magorian's book. Perhaps I should read the book again. 

The backdrop of the war, with bombings and air raid shelters feels entirely realistic. Inevitably there are casualties, and the topic of death is covered sensitively. I was a little surprised that the rating is PG; the evident signs of abuse and the horrific discovery in London could be very disturbing to a sensitive child. I don’t think I would want to show it to anyone younger than about eleven or twelve. 

But for teenagers and adults, this is a moving, somewhat educational and ultimately very satisfying film, and I would recommend it very highly.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Shirley Valentine (Pauline Collins)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m not sure where I first heard of the film ‘Shirley Valentine’. Perhaps Amazon recommended it to me, based on prior purchases and likes. Perhaps someone else suggested that I might like it. Whatever the reason, I put it on my wishlist a couple of years ago and had forgotten about it, so I was pleased to be given it for Christmas by a relative. We decided to watch it earlier in the week.

Pauline Collins stars as Shirley Valentine, who is the main character and who narrates some of the story. Apparently this film was based on a play. It’s set in 1990, and opens with the title character in her kitchen - a typical suburban British kitchen of the era. Shirley is talking - not to herself, as we thought, but to the kitchen wall. And she then turns to the camera, and explains this. It’s an unusual technique, but works extremely well. 

Shirley, we quickly learn, is a full-time housewife in her early forties, married to a somewhat rigid man called Joe (Bernard Hill). He expects his meals at precise times, and specific meals on different days of the week. It’s a Thursday, so he should be having steak and chips. Instead, she’s going to make him egg and chips (or ‘chips and egg’ as she puts it). And there’s then a flashback to a couple of days earlier to explain why. 

Shirley’s neighbour Gillian (Julia McKenzie) is a very upper-crust woman with a large dog. She’s popping to Europe for a couple of days, and asks Shirley to look after the dog… I wasn’t quite sure what was going to happen, and, again, it was very well done. It shows Shirley to be a kind-hearted, accommodating kind of person who thinks well of everyone… and who is also inclined, at times, to act spontaneously with little thought of the consequences.

There are quite a few scenes set in the past, including Shirley at school aged, I suppose, about fourteen. She tries very hard but isn’t particularly bright; then, one day the school head does something so unfair that it triggers her into becoming a teenage rebel. She wishes she could be like the beautiful and intelligent Marjorie. But since she can’t, she’s determined to stand out in other ways.

The second part of the story involves Shirley going for a holiday to Greece with her friend Jane (Alison Steadman). Jane is an ardent feminist, and very independent. But although Shirley has always wanted to travel, she is quite a traditionalist at heart. She’s not sure how to tell Joe, and as the preceding days progress, it becomes more and more difficult for her to explain, and in the end she just leaves a note. I wasn’t sure, for a while, whether or not she would actually get away. 

There’s a lot of humour in the film; not the kind that made us laugh aloud, but some clever one-liners and very well-choreographed interactions between the characters. The character of Shirley is beautifully done, and Pauline Collins holds it together superbly. While there’s another actress playing her as a young teenager, she manages to portray a carefree, newly-married young woman as believably as the tired, traditional housewife. And on her holiday in Greece, she blooms too into someone much more relaxed, appreciating beauty and making new friends. 

Some of the minor characters are caricatured, from the neighbour Geraldine through to some ghastly (though well-meaning) fellow travellers in Greece. There are digs at the reluctance of many Brits to try ‘foreign’ food, seen through Shirley’s eyes as she tries out everything. Including a day out in a yacht with a local who finds her very attractive…

It's quite an all-star cast; in addition to those mentioned, Joanna Lumley has a role as the adult Marjorie, whom Shirley encounters shortly before travelling to Greece. And Tom Conti is excellent as Costas, a Greek waiter who befriends Shirley, insisting that his intentions are honourable. 

I had no idea how it was going to end, and we were kept guessing until the final scenes. We both very much liked the conclusion, and hoped that the changes Shirley had experienced would continue in her future. 

There’s some ‘strong’ language in this film, which is probably why it’s rated 15, although I doubt if anyone under the age of about thirty would have any interest in it anyway. There's also some rear nudity shown when two people go skinny dipping, and one mostly hidden scene of intimacy (as well as a lot of quite explicit conversation). But mostly the 'adult' elements are used either for shock value or for humour. And there’s a lot to think about too. 

All in all, we liked ‘Shirley Valentine’ very much. No extras on our DVD unfortunately, but then thirty-five years ago they were far less common. 

Definitely recommended.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews