Nothing like the holidays (Freddy Rodríguez)

(Amazon UK link)

In the last couple of years we’ve watched four or five Christmas films during December, so in the summer when I was in the UK I decided to order a few more, inexpensively, from World of Books online. One of them - which seemed to be well recommended - was ‘Nothing like the holidays’. Billed as a romance/comedy/drama, it sounded like a good one for a relaxing evening, so we watched it last night.

The story features a Puerto Rican family who live in Chicago, in the United States, and who are gathering for Christmas. Alfred Molina is excellent as the father, Edy, married to Anna (Elizabeth Pena). They are particularly excited to see their son Jesse (Freddie Rodriguez) returning from a lengthy stint in the army, based in Iraq. He has been injured and is quite traumatised by some of what he’s seen, and it’s hard for them to know how to deal with him.  There’s a huge ‘welcome home’ banner which we see right at the start of the film, then the action changes to Jesse at the airport, then met by some friends. 

Jesse’s brother Mauricio (John Leguizamo) is a suited businessman, married to the highflying Sarah (Debra Messing). She’s the only non-Puerto Rican in the family, and is still adjusting to the culture. She’s had some clashes with Anna, but she’s trying hard: she’s even learned some Spanish. But she and John have no desire to start a family any time soon, and she finds the pressure from Edy and Anna very stressful. 

Then there’s their sister Roxanna (Vanessa Ferlito). She works in Hollywood, but is struggling to find any work, although her family are convinced she’s a huge star, or about to become one. 

As far as I could work out, all the other characters who eat with the family, or hang out with them, are friends - or possibly cousins. It was hard to tell, and perhaps it doesn’t matter. The picture is of a huge, extended family who sit down to a huge meal… and then Anna announces something, almost casually, that shatters any hint of Christmas spirit or community. 

It’s possible that, if we were familiar with Puerto Rican culture, we would have found the film amusing in places, although most of the themes are sad - they include illness and relationship breakups as well as the horrors of war. There’s also a theme of revenge which didn’t entirely make sense and didn’t seem to be related to the rest of the film. There are some scenes of different men in the family attempting in vain to cut down a large tree, but even that is more poignant than amusing, and when someone takes a chainsaw without knowing how to operate it, I looked away, worried that disaster would happen.

The acting is mostly good - I found the main family members believable, their tensions and simultaneous affection quite realistic. But the storyline was really quite depressing - some resolution is reached in some of the issues, but there’s no ‘happy ever after’. Christmas is the setting, and there’s a scene of carol singing in the streets, but it’s not really a Christmas film. I’m not sure what it is, or who it would appeal to. It’s not suitable for children despite the PG rating. There’s a fair amount of bad language, some violence, several sexual references, and some tense scenes too. 

There were places when I found the accents too strong to understand. There were English subtitles for important parts that were in Spanish; I could have done with subtitles for some of the conversations which were in English too! 

It’s not (in my opinion) humorous, despite what the blurb says on the back, and it’s not really heart-warming. I think I’d have liked it better if it had been billed as a tense family drama covering serious issues; that way, the lighter scenes would have provided some light relief, but we wouldn’t have been expecting any humour, so wouldn’t have been disappointed.

We did watch to the end, but think it’s unlikely we’ll choose to watch it again. I don’t really recommend it. Still, it’s highly reviewed on many sites, so don’t necessarily follow my opinion. 

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

As Time Goes By (Series 4)

(Amazon UK link)

We started watching ‘As Time Goes By’ in March this year. We had DVDs of the first two seasons and liked them so much that, when I was in the UK in the Summer, I ordered the third and fourth season as well. We watched the third season in the autumn, and have just finished watching Series Four. Geoffrey Palmer and Judi Dench star as Lionel and Jean, separated by the Korean war, and reunited after thirty years. 

The first few episodes of Season Four revolve around Lionel writing the script for a mini-series commissioned by some people in the United States. He’s finding it very difficult to write about poignant memories, and is not helped by the loquacious though well-meaning Mrs Flack (Vivienne Martin). The background to these first few episodes also involves Lionel attempting to get used to living with Jean in a household that not only includes her twice-divorced daughter Judy (Moira Brooker) but Jean’s secretary Sandy (Jenny Funnell), who has broken up with her boyfriend.

Another episode involves Jean’s sister-in-law Penny (Moyra Fraser) being convinced her husband is having an affair, when it turns out that he’s trying to arrange a surprise party. Meanwhile Lionel and Jean decide that they really should get married, and Lionel’s father Rocky (Frank Middlemass) tells them he is giving them his house in the country. 

Later episodes - there are ten in the series - involve wedding jitters, the wedding itself, the end of the honeymoon, filming for the mini-series, and a discussion about whether or not Jean is going to retire. 

We watched one episode per week, and felt quite involved in the storylines which managed to offer something new each time. The acting is excellent, the stories well-done, with no bad language, no nudity, no violence… the humour is in the script and the timing, and the chemistry of the actors with each other. There’s much that’s poignant as well as several places where we smiled. We even laughed aloud a few times. 

I hope we’ll watch this series again in a few years, but - a tad perversely, perhaps - we’ve decided not to get hold of the later series. Apparently there were nine seasons of ‘As Time Goes By’, although the later ones had just six or seven episodes in each. I did glance at the storylines, summarised online elsewhere, and they looked rather less appealing, with Jean and Lionel starting to show signs of age, and the younger generation having trouble with their love-lives. I think it’s better to stop while we’re still enjoying the series, now that Jean and Lionel are happily married, and have made some decisions about where to live, and what they will be doing.

You probably have to be at least in your fifties to appreciate this series fully. I did see a few episodes on TV when I was much younger, and liked them, which is why I acquired the first two seasons on DVD when they were available. But we didn't watch them until this year. It was much better being around the ages of Jean and Lionel. 

It’s an undemanding show, with not a great deal happening and just a handful of characters who recur in most episodes. It doesn’t have the rather brash humour of some American sitcoms, nor any slapstick or canned laughter. It’s gentle, amusing, and heartwarming and I thoroughly recommend it if clean 1990s  UK sitcoms appeal to you.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Christmas Miracle of Jonathan Toomey (Luke Ward-Wilkinson)

(Amazon UK link)

In the UK early in December last year, I was browsing in a charity shop when I found some Christmas films I had never heard of, costing one pound each. I checked the blurb on the back, and chose three of them. One of them was ‘The Christmas Miracle of Jonathan Toomey’, which we didn’t watch a year ago so waited until the 2023 Christmas season. We finally watched it last night. 

What a wonderful, heartwarming film it is. It’s set over 100 years ago, in the United States, so we were surprised to learn, seeing the credits at the end, that it was made in the UK. Moreover, the majority of the actors were British rather than American, which probably explains why some of the accents didn’t feel entirely authentic. 

But that’s my only (very minor) gripe with the film, which is beautifully portrayed, a mixture of poignancy and redemption, with a little low-key humour here and there in some of the interactions. The undoubted star of the film is a ten-year-old boy called Thomas (Luke Ward-Wilkinson) who lives in a city (I don’t think it’s stated which city) with his family who are evidently quite well off. His father has to go away to fight in World War I but writes a letter to Thomas, and promises to be back soon.

Then tragedy strikes; Thomas and his mother Susan (Joely Richardson) have to move to the country to stay with her sister Joan (Lia Williams). Thomas is not only heartbroken about his father, he must leave behind his grandfather (Ronald Pickup) and their beloved housekeeper Mrs Hickey (Jenny O’Hara). And almost worst of all, he loses his father’s carved Nativity set, which the two of them set up together every Christmas. 

Thomas is not happy in the country; one of the local boys taunts him, and he doesn’t much like having to feed chickens. He’s also a bit scared of a reclusive hermit living in a shack in the forest, a man called Jonathan Toomey (Tom Beringer). Mr Toomey is a skilled wood carver, but he arrived there out of the blue and nobody knows anything about him. So terrible rumours have arisen. But Thomas’s mother sees some of his work, and wonders if he might possibly carve a new Nativity set…

The scenery, the conversation and the sets are all beautifully done. The pace is excellent, and young Thomas is a typical grieving child, sometimes almost in tears, sometimes behaving like the lively young boy he used to be. He’s loyal, likeable and very confused. I could believe in him entirely, and empathised with his pain, and his longings, and his envy when other children’s fathers return from the war. 

Mr Toomey is also a very believable person; we, as viewers, know what has caused his hermit-like behaviour and dour attitude, as we see him imagining the past at the start of the film. His gradual thawing as he relates to Thomas and his mother works well, but the directors didn’t make the mistake of turning this into a romance or a ‘happy ever after’ story. There’s a positive outcome at the end, but the future is inconclusive. 

It’s hard to express how much we liked and appreciated this beautifully made film, one of the best Christmas films we’ve seen, and one which we certainly hope to see again in a few years. It’s suitable for all the family. The rating is U, which reflects the lack of anything ‘adult’.  There is one minor fight shown (but without any gore), and the initial theme is of war and tragedy, but there’s no bad language, nothing remotely sexual, and nothing really disturbing. 

Very highly recommended if you want an engrossing and moving Christmas film.  

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

A Christmas Carol goes wrong

(Amazon UK link)

For Christmas last year, one of our sons gave us two DVDs we had not previously heard of, in the ‘Goes Wrong’ series. We watched ‘Peter Pan goes wrong’ back in March, and thought it very amusing, if a tad silly in places, and with some scenes that I didn’t like so much. But we decided to keep the other one, ‘A Christmas Carol goes wrong’ for the Christmas season.

Last night we watched it - and were surprised to learn that it’s less than an hour long. These were made for TV rather than as films, so perhaps it’s not so unexpected. I had more of an idea what might happen, after recalling the events of the ‘Peter Pan’ film, so we were expecting some light-hearted chaos.

We were not disappointed. The opening scenes are of the classic Dickens story as expected, but then things start to go wrong. I’m not sure I entirely followed what was happening, as I wasn’t familiar with any of the cast of the (supposed) amateur dramatic society who are performing the play for television. Derek Jacobi appears both as himself and as Scrooge, but Scrooge is also - and mainly - played by someone called Chris in the company (Henry Shields). In addition, there’s an ongoing attempt to injure him by the man known as Robert (Henry Lewis) who would also like to play Scrooge.

The play goes ahead, complete with the various ghosts. Backstage crew appear now and then, and just about everything that might go wrong does. It’s cleverly done, with slick choreography and there were places where we chuckled aloud. I thought the most amusing lines, however, were those by Dennis (Jonathan Sayer) who is playing Bob Cratchett. He is so nervous about forgetting his lines that he has them printed in all kinds of random places, which leads to some very humorous asides.

Even though I know the story of ‘A Christmas Carol’ well, it was sometimes hard to keep track of what was going on. It didn’t help that several of the actors and actresses played multiple roles; in particular Charlie Russell as Sandra, who is not just Mrs Cratchett, but several other women’s parts too. I have a hard enough time keeping track of people when they all look different…

It becomes even more surreal towards the end when the entire cast venture out into London, into a supermarket so that Scrooge, now reformed, can buy something for the Cratchetts’ Christmas lunch. It all gets a bit silly then, particularly when they dance around half-singing bits of Christmas carols, and then can’t get back into the BBC building. If I tried to think about what was going on, I got lost. It probably didn’t matter. 

Overall, it was good fun, cleverly done, and with plenty that we found funny, mixed in with the silliness. We watched the ‘extra’ - some commentary from three of the cast members, explaining the background to some of the story, which did take the whole to over an hour.

Recommended in a low-key way if you like this kind of thing, and are familiar with the classic story. But don’t expect anything too deep. Rated U which seems about right - the violence is slap-stick, it's obvious nobody is hurt, and I don't recall any bad language. 

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Dog who Saved Christmas (Gary Valentine)

(Amazon UK link)

We like watching Christmas films at this time of year, even if most of them are rather predictable and schmaltzy. I acquired several new Christmas films (new to us, that is) at charity shops last year, and last night we decided to watch ‘The dog that saved Christmas’. We had already seen a trailer for this on the film we watched last week (‘The Christmas proposal’) so had a good idea what to expect…

The film is mainly set in the large and luxurious home of the Bannister family. George (Gary Valentine) is the likeable, genial father who is married to Belinda (Elisa Donovan). They have a teenage son Ben (Charlie Stewart) and a daughter who must be about eight, Cara (Sierra McCormick). Cara is still a firm believer in Santa Claus, and the main part of the film opens with George and Belinda trying to secrete a large number of parcels upstairs without the children noticing. 

It sets the scene for a well choreographed light-weight film with a clear Christmas theme. Belinda is the practical one of the family, and she is concerned about their lack of security. The children want a dog, as does George… and when he goes to the pound, his choice falls on Zeus, a golden labrador who was previously a police dog. Zeus, he is told, is very clever. However he appears to be unable to bark. 

Belinda is not happy at the dog’s arrival, and even less so when she discovers his lack of barking. We hear Zeus’s thoughts narrated through the film by Mario Lopez; he’s a very loving dog, and means well, but his enthusiasm sometimes gets him into trouble. This happens several times, leading Belinda to insist that he be returned to the pound, so they can have a dog who is better at deterring burglars.

It’s no surprise that, when the family go to visit Grandma (Mindy Sterling), two rather bumbling burglars attempt to break in. Zeus takes action against them and there’s a lot of chaos - and some mild tension - as well as a fair bit of humour before the inevitable happens. 

The title of the film is a spoiler and it was all rather predictable, but we thought it very well done, if caricatured. Slapstick isn’t our favourite form of comedy, but when it happens it’s appropriate, and I found myself smiling several times. Zeus’s actions are far more intelligent and anthropomorphised than would be possible for a dog, but they add to the amusement. 

There’s a cameo role from a neighbour, reputed to hate dogs (Adrienne Barbeau) and a low-key message about not judging people (or dogs) based on rumours or appearance.  There are carols in the background (or foreground, once or twice) and the whole thing is entirely suitable for all the family. Ideal for curling up on a cold day with blankets and hot drinks. 

After the film there are a few brief outtakes, mostly involving characters unable to stop laughing. The only 'extra', other than a trailer, is a brief cameo showing Mario Lopez doing the voice of Zeus. 

Recommended, if you like predictable, slushy but overall uplifting Christmas films.  Apparently there are several others featuring the same family, and they can sometimes be bought as boxed sets. But I think just this one is enough for us. 

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

A Christmas Proposal (David O'Donnell)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s that time of year, when more and more people start watching random Christmas films. In the past year or so ago I've bought a few that were new to us from charity shops, and second-hand online stores. Although it isn’t quite December, we decided to start our Christmas film-watching last night. ‘A Christmas Proposal’, set in the United States, sounded as if it might have a bit more substance than some of them…

David O’Donnell stars as Rick, a lawyer who works in the city for an unscrupulous boss called Malone (Tom Arnold). Malone tells him to go to a small town called Fillmore, in the mountains, and convince the people to sell their properties so he can build a new, fancy ski resort. Rick doesn’t want to, as it’s the town where he grew up, but Malone won’t listen to any excuses. And Rick wants to marry his boss’s daughter Reagan… 

Reagan (Sarah Thompson) is entirely a city girl who has no wish to accompany Rick to his childhood home, but she, too, does what her father says. However she’s quite rude about Fillmore and its people, and isn’t even interested in meeting Rick’s mother Maggie (Patty McCormack). And then they discover that the lawyer representing the people of Fillmore, Lisa (Nicole Eggert) is an old flame of Rick’s. The two have some quite heated arguments during a meeting to determine the future of the town. 

Maggie would love them to stay a bit longer but Rick has plans for a romantic proposal, which are abruptly postponed when his car breaks down. And although his old best friend Andy (David DeLuise) is a mechanic - the only one in the town - it looks like it might take some days before it can be fixed…

It’s all a bit predictable, and not as Christmassy as I’d have liked although it’s set in December and there are a fair number of decorations up. The acting is a bit cheesy in places (worse in others), although I quite liked Rick. I found Reagan’s rudeness quite disturbing - but then the people of Fillmore aren’t very nice to her. It seemed particularly odd that none of them seem to know how to pronounce her name, and regularly call her ‘Reegan’ - despite it having been the surname of one of their recent Presidents. 

We kept watching - we weren’t expecting any great acting or memorable storyline, after all, and it wasn’t a terrible film. It gives some idea of what a small town in the mountains of the US might be like, and the threat posed by property developers. The background music (or that which I noticed) mostly consisted of variations on ‘Jingle Bells’, including some really awful singing on a stage - but even that made us smile a little even as we cringed.  At the end there were a few outtakes, not as ‘extras’ but tacked on the end of the film and mildly amusing. 

I don’t know that I’d recommend ‘A Christmas Proposal’ particularly, as there are much better Christmas films available. But it was pleasant enough, and I didn't pay much for it.  We might even watch it again in another decade or so.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2 (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

So we came to the end of our two-month re-watching of the eight Harry Potter films. We saw the first part of ‘..Deathly Hallows’ last week, and the second part this week.  We hadn’t seen it since 2018, although I re-read the book a year later. I was, of course, familiar with the story and knew what the outcome would be. But it was still quite a tense film.

The action starts where the first part left off: Lord Voldemort has found the legendary ‘elder wand’, known to be the most powerful wand in existence. So he thinks he is invincible. He knows he will have to fight Harry Potter but with this wand he is certain that the outcome will be in his favour. 

Harry and his friends Ron and Hermione, in the meantime, are still on their quest to destroy horcruxes - the pieces into which Voldemort split his soul, to give him the highest chance of survival. Harry is certain that at least one of them is at Hogwarts, so they make the very risky journey to the school. They are greeted with delight by their former friends and classmates, who are under a new, harsh regime without Dumbledore as head, and are longing for freedom. 

There are a lot of special effects in this film, as the staff cast spells to protect the school, and are later involved in serious magical battles. It’s not quite as rapid action as the earlier film and I didn’t shut my eyes quite so often, but the eventual - inevitable - battle of Hogwarts is full of destruction, with people running, hiding, casting hexes, and often falling.  There are some sad losses though not as many as might be expected.

And then Harry is summoned to his doom. As a person of integrity, he has no option but to face Voldemort, in the expectation of losing his life to save others. It’s a strongly Christological metaphor in a series which has more than a few Christian allusions.  Not that it’s pushed at all: the author of the books professes faith, and belongs to a church, but in a fairly low-key way. 

Most viewers of the film will know how it ends, but I won’t give spoilers. The first time I read the book, I knew what I hoped would happen, but really wasn’t certain that it would. And, for a while, it seemed as if I was going to be disappointed.  

This final film is - in my opinion - an excellent production, the story close to that of the book, albeit with some parts missed out, and a lot of the subtleties lost. It’s not appropriate for younger children with the amount of violence and tension, and the rating of 12 is reasonable. Not that there’s any but the mildest of bad language, and no hint of nudity or sexuality beyond a few passionate kisses. 

I wasn’t sure I would want to see these films a second time, but I’m glad I did. Seeing them all in the space of two months has made it easy to follow the whole story, and not worry over-much about the parts (some of them significant) which were omitted. 

The acting is superb, I was moved in particular by that of Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith).  All the characters are complex, and the chemistry between the principals flawless. The pace is just right, too, and the visual effects stunning. 

Definitely recommended if you’ve seen the rest of the series, particularly the first part of ‘Deathly Hallows’. Or if you’ve read the books. But don’t come to this on its own as it would make no sense without knowing the full story. 

While this DVD can be bought on its own, it's much better value to buy it with the first part, or in a box set of the entire series. 

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 1 (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

Our re-watching of the Harry Potter DVDs is coming to a close, as we embarked on the first of the ‘Deathly Hallows’ films last night. It’s dark, it’s action-packed, and it’s stressful. I had forgotten quite how much, though it’s less than six years since we first saw ‘Deathly Hallows part 1’. 

The plot follows the story in the book fairly closely; the fact that it was turned into two films rather than one allows for most of the book to be included. And it’s rather a bleak story. Harry, Ron and Hermione know that they’re not going back to Hogwarts this year. They also know their families may be in danger. Harry in particular must be protected, and one of the early sequences sees a race to get him from his relatives’ home in London to the safety of the Weasleys’ home. 

There are injuries and a loss, but everyone has to prepare for a wedding. It goes ahead, with a brief interlude where Harry, Ron and Hermione are each given a slightly puzzling bequest from Professor Dumbledore. Bill Nighy is excellent as the new Minister for Magic, Rufus Scrimgeour. Not that he has much of a role after this; the wedding is interrupted by the news that Voldemort has taken over the Ministry of Magic. 

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends know they have to set out to hunt for the remaining horcruxes, all of which have to be destroyed. It’s not explained in this film what horcruxes are; it’s expected that viewers will have seen the earlier films, or at least the sixth, ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’. Although each book (and film) stands along to some extent, there’s a huge story arc that runs from start to finish, and it’s much better, in my view, to read or see them in order. 

The friendship of the three is tried many times as they embark on what appears, at times, to be an impossible quest. They escape potential assassins, and manage to get hold of one known horcrux but have no idea how to destroy it. And keeping it with them leads them, one at a time, to become very grumpy.  Hermione (Emma Watson) is highly organised, and keeps their locations secret, but Harry gets more and more fed up, and Ron becomes jealous. Rupert Grint as Ron has a wonderfully expressive face. 

There are battles, and escapes, and fear… there are also some more poignant moments of injuries, and a very sad loss near the end of the film. It’s all extremely well done, in my view, with the pace about right. It doesn’t rush through, but it also doesn’t pause for a long time for scenic shots. I found the fast-action scenes too stressful to watch, so closed my eyes; I probably avoided watching about a quarter or even a third of the film, just listening for the spells and sound effects. 

As for the 'deathly hallows' of the title, those are briefly explained in this film, as three legendary items that formed part of a children's story.  Possessing all three would enable the owner to defeat death entirely. Most people, apparently, did not realise that they were real.

It’s a good thing I’m familiar with the storyline or I would have found it quite confusing. But today’s teenagers (and those who first saw it when it was first made n 2010) are more used to rapid action, in modern films and computer games. I did wonder, a couple of times, if I should stop watching and skim the book again instead; but I kept sitting there, reminding myself that although this is just part one, and it ends on a dramatic and worrying scene, there’s part two still to come.

The rating of 12 is appropriate; the violence and some gore would be very disturbing to a sensitive child, and while the bad language is mild, there’s one scene, as part of a hallucination, that has implied nudity. I’m not sure I’d recommend this film as I think the book is so much better, but for those who prefer not to read, and who have seen the earlier films, this (and its sequel) form a worthy conclusion to the series. 

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

We didn’t watch a film last week, but last night decided to watch ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’, to continue our re-watching of these DVDs in our collection. We first saw this in 2017 although I re-read the book a couple of years later, so I was reasonably familiar with the plot. 

It’s the darkest of the series so far, with a rating of 12: this is due to quite a bit of violence and some very disturbing scenes. But then Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are 17 now, in the sixth year at Hogwarts: what we would call Year 12 (or Lower Sixth) in muggle schools in the UK. 

The film opens with scenes of carnage around London; it’s clearly shown as random violence, for no purpose other than to create devastation and to let the world know that something terrible is happening. Lord Voldemort is back; even the official Ministry of Magic have acknowledged this now. Everyone is urged to be cautious, and to be careful whom they trust. 

Harry is spending his summer travelling around on trains, and attracting the interest of a local girl - however this is interrupted when Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) appears and whisks Harry off to visit his old friend Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent). Professor Slughorn was a former teacher at Hogwarts, and apparently rather a good teacher; but he had his favourites, which included Harry’s mother. Dumbledore wants to persuade Slughorn to return to Hogwarts…

Harry then spends a few days with the Weasley family, only to have terror striking there too. And even on the journey back to Hogwarts, he finds himself in trouble, and almost ends up back in London. 

We don’t see much going on in the classrooms in this film, other than Harry’s discovery of an old text-book which has a note in the front saying it belongs to the half-blood prince. It enables him to do very well in one topic, but it doesn’t really have the significance that it has in the book. 

Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) has been asked to do something dangerous but we don’t know what it is until towards the end of the film, and Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) has promised to look after Draco, and assist him in what he needs to do. We see more of Draco than in previous books, with a much greater depth of character as he works to establish what needs to be done, but also finds himself torn, and very stressed. 

There’s lots of fast action - I had to shut my eyes a few times - and some distressing scenes towards the end when Harry has to follow orders in a disturbing way. We knew what was coming in the final climax, of course, but it’s still poignant. 

There’s some light relief to contrast the dark themes, with growing love interests amongst Harry’s classmates, and an amusing scene (which turns very dark) involving a large dose of love potion. A few other students have larger roles than before, and the acting throughout is excellent.

‘Harry Potter and the half-blood prince’ is not one of my favourites of the series, either the book or the film. But it’s a necessary episode in the ongoing saga, and the end leads on to the beginning of the seventh book and film. It is worth seeing if you’re watching the films, but it wouldn’t stand alone: it’s quite confusing with so much rapid action and visuals rather than explanations, and would be all the more so for anyone who had not seen the earlier films (or read the books).

And, as with all these films, in my opinion it’s well worth reading the books too as there’s so much more in them; characters are fleshed out, other storylines are included, and there’s a lot more discussion about morality, ethics, and the unconditional love that caused Harry to survive the attack on his life when he was a baby.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

We recently re-watched the first four Harry Potter films, so it was evidently time for the fifth. We last saw our DVD of ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix’ in 2015. However, I have read the book four times, the last time being in 2019 so I was familiar with the storyline. 

The previous film (and book) are much darker than the earlier ones, more suitable for older children and teens than younger ones. It’s not surprising that the film rating is 12A rather than PG (like the previous ones), as there’s a lot of anger and violence in this. 

The book is the longest of the series, with over 700 pages, so it’s not surprising that the film is significantly abridged. I think it was done well, although inevitably there’s so much more in the books. It opens, not with Harry anxiously watching the news to find out whether Lord Voldemort is having an effect in the regular (‘muggle’) world, but with an encounter in a children’s playground with his cousin Dudley. 

A dementor attack in an alleyway forces Harry to use his ‘patronus’ charm to save his life, and that of his cousin. This is witnessed by a neighbour who - to Harry’s astonishment - recognises his wand, knows who he is, and saw the dementors. However it’s also noted by the Ministry of Magic, and Harry receives a letter telling him he has been expelled.

Several friends managed to rescue him although he has to undergo a stressful court hearing. He’s with his friends again, but they clearly have secrets and nobody will tell him what’s going on…

Harry does the teenage angst believably, more and more stressed by lack of understanding, worry about his godfather Sirius, and increasing dreams that are very realistic, evidently of Lord Voldemort trying to get inside Harry’s head. Indeed, all the actors are so good, realistic in their roles, that I was entirely caught up in the film, feeling some of Harry’s emotion, rooting for those who believe in him. 

It’s quite a stressful film to watch. The Ministry of Magic doesn’t believe that Voldemort has returned, and Hogwarts has a new, sadistic teacher called Dolores Umbridge, one of the nastiest of JK Rowling’s creations in my view. Her insistence that the students learn theory without doing any magic is, I’m sure, a dig at educational systems insisting on more and more theory without practice. But whereas, in the book, there is time for a bit of light relief in places, and amusing one-liners, the film is fast-paced and stark. 

However, the basic story is well covered with plenty of visual effects, and it’s certainly worth seeing. But for anyone wondering if there’s more to the story, or feeling they didn’t quite understand all the implications, I would highly recommend reading the book too. It’s also a good idea to have seen at least the fourth DVD (‘..the Goblet of Fire’) before this one; ideally all of them in sequence.

We have a single-DVD edition of this film, so there were no 'extras' for us to watch.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

We decided to continue with our weekly re-watching of the Harry Potter films yesterday evening. A week earlier we saw ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’, so last night we watched ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’, which we had not seen since 2012. 

The book on which it’s based was my least favourite of the series when I first read it. However  it’s important in the sequence, and when I have re-read it, I liked it better. But it’s not for young children; Harry and friends are fourteen now, in their fourth year at Hogwarts. I find much of the book quite tense, and still really dislike the climactic scene. 

It’s also an extremely long book, so inevitably some sections had to be cut out entirely to fit the story into a two-and-a-half hour film. I understand why they cut out the early chapters with Harry at his appalling relatives’ home, although in the book it gives welcome light relief to the tension of the horrible dream Harry has at the beginning. 

The scenes at the Quidditch World Cup didn’t much interest me in the book, so I didn’t mind that they were somewhat cut short; but I was sorry that there were no house elves. One of the significant story-lines of the ‘Goblet of Fire’ book, and one of its best features, in my view, is Hermione’s passionate defence of the house elves, many of whom are enslaved by unpleasant families. But we don’t even see Dobby in the film, so his current career remains unknown to those who see the films but haven’t read the books. 

However I can see that it’s a side story. It is helpful in understanding Hermione's character butter, but it isn’t so necessary for the ongoing story. As a film in its own right, it's very well done. The main storyline involves the goblet of fire, and the tri-wizard tournament with visiting students from two other wizarding schools in Europe. Three exceptional older students and Harry have to undertake some dangerous tasks, and I found Harry’s encounter with a dragon very tense. I had to hide my eyes in places.

As the final task began, with the four tri-wizard competitors entering a maze filled with dangers, I knew I didn’t want to watch what happened, or the dark scene that follows, forming the climax of the book (and film). So I moved to another room until I could hear the closing, poignant and deeply moving scenes at the end. 

Of course this film is worth seeing as part of the series, if you don’t read the books. It’s well-made, with a rapid pace, and despite missing out so much of the book, it’s not difficult to follow the main story. The acting is superb (even if I still have a bit of cognitive dissonance when I see David Tennant as an evil supporter of Lord Voldemort). 

The graphics work brilliantly, the CGI scarily believable. But although it could stand alone, it’s not an enjoyable film, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who’s easily disturbed by visual violence or rapid chase scenes. It's rated 12, rather than PG (which was the rating for the first three films) and I think that's correct. While there's no more swearing, and only the faintest hints of teenage hormones, there is much more violence and gore in this film, and many more extremely tense scenes. 

Our edition of this has a second DVD which has some interesting extras: there are games which didn't appeal to us, but also some deleted scenes, and some extensive interviews with the three main characters.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

As Time Goes By (Series 3)

(Amazon UK link)

We watched the first two seasons of the 1990s sitcom ‘As time goes by’ earlier in the year, and liked it so much that I ordered second-hand editions of the third and fourth seasons. We started watching Season Three in July; there are ten episodes, but we didn’t manage to see one every week, so it’s lasted us until now. We watched the final episode of the season last night.

I had wondered if it would start to feel a bit tired or samey, but that hasn’t happened yet. The first episode of this season followed on directly from the last one of Season Two, with Jean (Judi Dench) and Lionel (Jeffrey Palmer) in a hotel in Paris. It’s something they had dreamed of doing for years, but - unsurprisingly - it’s not at all what they expected, and arguments ensue.  

The second episode was one of my favourites. Lionel’s 85-year-old quirky father Rocky (Frank Middlemass) gets married to Madge (Joan Sims). Lionel, grumpy as ever, feels they’re being silly at their time of life, but eventually realises that they’re making the most of the time they have left, and that they really do love each other.  

Subsequent episodes see Lionel and Jean deciding to move in together, with the inevitable confusion as lack of communication means that they haven’t agreed WHERE they will live. This leads to them taking a break in their relationships, only to be thrown together again by Jean’s rather irritating former sister-in-law Penny and her tediously dull husband Stephen. 

Then the last few episodes involve yet more subplots: Jean’s business is so successful that she opens up a new branch, but nobody much likes the person hired to run it. And Lionel is asked to write a mini-series for American television about his romance with Jean, broken off when they lost touch, and resumed thirty years later. But during a visit to the United States, it becomes apparent that the producers want to make something that bears almost no relation to the reality…

There are many more storylines running alongside these broad outlines; Jean’s daughter Judith (Moira Brooker) and Lionel’s always-positive agent Alistair (Philip Bretherton) continue to add humour and a younger viewpoint; Jean’s secretary Sandy (Jenny Funnell) also takes a bigger role than she did in the first two series, and becomes established as close friends with Judith.  

It’s the character interactions that make this so enjoyable, particularly contrasting Jean’s mostly upbeat personality with Lionel’s perpetual grouchiness, which is partly due to lack of self-esteem. But there are some moments of deep thinking and tenderness, and the chemistry between the two is excellent.  

There were many times when we smiled and a few when we laughed. There were also moments when we felt poignancy; although some situations are caricatured, there’s a lot of realism in this sitcom from the 1990s, and the acting is impeccable. 

We’re looking forward to series 4, but although we have been liking this very much, I suspect one more series will be sufficient. At least for now.

Rated PG as there's no violence, nudity or bad language - but the theme and characters are unlikely to be of any interest to children or, indeed, teenagers. Very highly recommended if you like gentle - and genuinely amusing - sitcoms with middle-aged protagonists from the end of last century.

(Note: The Amazon link above is to the DVD of Series 3 on its own, but you can find better deals with combined series of this show, or indeed second-hand on one of the many excellent sites providing used DVDs. )

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

Although I have read the third book in JK Rowling's Harry Potter series, ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban’ several times, and it remains one of my favourites, we’ve only seen the film once, in 2012. Having embarked on a re-watch of the series, with ‘...the Philosopher's Stone’ a couple of weeks ago, and ‘...the Chamber of Secrets’ last week, it was an easy decision to watch our DVD of  ‘...the Prisoner of Azkaban’ last night. 

I remembered that I didn’t like this film as much as the earlier two, not because of the story or even the acting, but because it’s further away from the book. Apparently the director changed with this film.  I could appreciate the scenery, which is stunning at times, and the focus more on outside scenes than inside ones.  I was also impressed with Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson in their starring roles as Harry, Ron and Hermione. 

Now thirteen, in the story, Harry’s voice is deeper and they’re all taller than they were; Ron, in particular, seems to have grown since the previous film. There are odd moments when they begin to be aware of each other in different ways, too: awkwardness after a hug, or when two of them find themselves holding hands. Harry is becoming a bit more outspoken, too. In the opening scenes, when he’s still with his awful Dursley relatives, he no longer holds his tongue, but does some illegal magic to make fun of his uncle’s aunt. 

The main focus of the story is the escape of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) from the wizard prison, Azkaban. Rumour has it that he’s very dangerous; Harry learns that Black was a friend of his parents who apparently betrayed them. The authorities believe Harry is in serious danger.  And that’s where this film really doesn’t work: there really wasn’t much tension. Yes, I knew the outcome, but that was true when we re-watched the two earlier films; yet I found them tense, at times wanting to avert my eyes as Harry and his friends are in danger.

With this film, however, there’s so little dialogue and such a rapid pace that there’s little time to feel any fear, or to become immersed in the film. If I had not been familiar with the story, I doubt if I would have understood what was going on. And while I understand the need to cut out some of the school scenes that don’t add a lot to the plot, I didn’t see why there needed to be such lengthy sequences of (for instance) Harry flying on a Hippogriff for the first time. 

Worst of all, after the climactic scenes, which were done reasonably faithfully to the book, there’s no final heart-to-heart between Harry and Dumbledore. Without that, the ending feels abrupt, and we don’t see Harry’s increased understanding about what he has done. 

Still, as a standalone film, it’s extremely well done. There's an impressive list of well-known actors, some of them taking fairly minor roles: Dawn French as the 'Fat lady' in the portrait is superb; Robert Hardy makes an excellent Cornelius Fudge, and I hadn't even recognised Emma Thompson as the exaggeratedly dramatic Professor Trelawney.  In addition, Alan Rickman continues to play the dark, brooding Professor Snape, Maggie Smith is a wonderful Professor McGonagall, and Michael Gambon takes over as Dumbledore, similar enough to Richard Harris who played the role until his death in 2002, that the transition seems flawless. 

I expect most people would understand the basic story. But as part of the sequence, it’s lacking the depth of the books. I would recommend watching it anyway; the scenery is well done and it was good to see more of the Hogwarts grounds. But after watching, if you have any interest in the overall story, it is definitely worth reading the book.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

Since we re-watched ‘Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone’ last week, it made sense to watch the second in the series, ‘Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets’ this week. Although we hadn’t watched it since 2012, I had re-read the book (for the fourth time!) in 2019. So I was quite familiar with the plot.

Inevitably a movie can’t cover everything that’s in a book, but I thought this was an excellent film, with some of the humour and a lot of the tension from the original story. The Dursley family - Harry’s only living relatives - are as exaggeratedly dreadful as ever, with Harry a prisoner in his room, forbidden ever to return to Hogwarts…

The house elf Dobby is introduced early in the film. He appears in Harry’s bedroom, obsequious but determined that he’s going to save Harry’s life. And he also doesn’t want him to return to school. I find Dobby a bit sad, yet oddly likeable for all his self-abasement. Inevitably Harry is rescued from his room; he is taken to the Weasley family’s home, which he loves. It’s his first experience of real family life. 

Having been watching some of the ‘Father Brown’ series over the past year or so it was interesting to see Mark Williams as Mr Weasley - an entirely different character, yet every so often there was a recognisable expression. There are other well-known actors in these films, of course. Even I had heard of Julie Walters (Mrs Weasley), Richard Harris (Professor Dumbledore), Maggie Smith (Professor McGonnagall) and Alan Rickman (Professor Snape). Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) were the stars, of course, as children and teens, and although they are now well-known names were mostly unknown prior to these movies.

There are a couple of concerning incidents in Diagon Alley, where Harry goes with the Weasleys to buy his school supplies. On a lighter note, he also meets Professor Lockhart (Kenneth Branagh) who is considered a heartthrob by many of the otherwise sensible witches (including Hermione and Mrs Weasley). He boasts of his achievements, advertises all his own books widely, and is the school’s new Defence against the Dark Arts Professor.

And so to school, although Harry and Ron have to make the journey in a decidedly unconventional way which has long-term repercussions. We see glimpses into lessons, the common rooms and the dining hall, as well as another dramatic game of Quidditch. And all the time there’s a theme of impending danger. Harry hears strange whispers and the school is shocked by finding different people ‘petrified’.

As with the first book, there’s another dramatic ending when Harry goes on a dangerous quest, and has another meeting that points to the future. I’m not sure I would have understood all the implications and connections if I were not so familiar with the books, but others are better at grasping the subtleties of films than I am. 

It’s a long film - about two and a half hours - but despite being familiar with the story, and knowing what was coming, I found myself gripped. It’s really very well done, in my opinion, and makes an excellent sequel to the first film. Definitely better to have read the books first - or perhaps subsequently, since the book has so much more in it. Rated PG, I assume due to the dramatic tension at the end, and some minor violence; possibly also due to a few instances of minor bad language, implied in the books but expressed in the films.

Highly recommended to people who like exciting films with good characterisation; suitable for anyone of about nine or ten and older.. 

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Daniel Radcliffe)

(Amazon UK link)

We’ve watched a lot of fairly light films recently, some better than others, mostly somewhat predictable in their outcome. My husband felt the need for something with a bit more action, and suggested that we spend the next eight weeks re-watching the Harry Potter films. We haven’t seen them in quite a while; indeed it’s over eleven years since we saw the DVD of ‘Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone’, and that was  eleven years after we saw the film at the cinema. 

We’re both familiar with the story, of course. I’ve read the book several times, the last time being in 2019. But the film is a different experience, inevitably with some scenes cut and slightly different dialogue. The plot is well-known: young Harry is bundled up and left with his ‘Muggle’ aunt and uncle after his parents are killed by the evil Lord Voldemort. 

We don’t see much of Harry’s childhood (or, indeed, the reaction of his relatives on discovering their charge on their doorstep) but it’s clear, as his eleventh birthday approaches, that he’s seriously neglected, treated as a servant and expected to kowtow to his spoiled, overweight and selfish cousin Dudley. Then the owls start arriving with letters… increasing in numbers in an amusing scene that drives Harry’s uncle almost to distraction. 

On a small, deserted island, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) recalls that it’s his birthday - and as midnight arrives, so does Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the large man who deposited Harry on the doorstep all those years earlier. And then Harry undergoes a Cinderella-like transformation into the world of wizarding, and the school of Hogwarts.

This book mainly involves his making friends (and enemies), discovering that he has an unexpected skill in flying, and getting into a battle of wits, towards the end. He has befriended Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), the red-headed boy with several older siblings in the school, and the two of them, a bit reluctantly, have also become friendly with Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). Hermione is very intelligent and eager to share her knowledge in rather an obnoxious way at first; her gradual maturing over the course of the film works extremely well, in my view. 

Albus Dumbledore (Richard Harris), the Hogwarts head, is wise and friendly, and exerts a positive influence over most of his students, even if a few despise him.  The head of Harry’s house, Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith) is wonderful; an excellent deputy for Dumbledore. She’s outspoken, and sometimes abrupt, but always fair. 

There aren’t as many classroom scenes in the film as there are in the book, probably because they don’t really add to the plot. They’re good to read about, establishing the characters of some of the staff and also showing a wide selection of the courses taught in the school. But we see those that are relevant, and I think it works well. There’s an underlying positive theme which comes out towards the end, and the general understanding prevalent in UK school stories that a certain amount of rule-breaking is acceptable, so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody, and is (mostly) done for a good cause. 

The first time I saw the film I was quite shocked at some bad language - nothing extreme, but mild expletives which, I was sure, were not in the book. When I checked the passages in question, the text said something like ‘Ron swore’... to be true to the book then, and Ron’s character, there had to be a few mild expletives. That’s probably why the film is rated PG - that and some quite tense moments towards the end. And yes, even knowing how it was going to end, I still found sections of the film to be quite stressful.

A film is not the same medium as a book, but I’m not a purist; I thought this film was extremely well-made, with great casting, good acting, suitable music (not that I was aware of it most of the time) and superb scenery and costumes.  Definitely recommended, whether or not you have read the books. 

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Raising Helen (Kate Hudson)

(Amazon UK link)

We wanted something light to watch, so we decided on ‘Raising Helen’, a film which we first saw in 2014. My husband had forgotten it entirely; I remembered just an early scene around a dinner table with three sisters, one of whom was going to have a tragic accident. It’s no spoiler to say this, as the whole premise of the film is a young, single career-minded woman suddenly having to raise three children.

However I had entirely forgotten the opening sequences of the film. These are where we see the young woman (Kate Hudson) involved in the world of fashion, where she works as a successful agent, often flying around the country and working many late nights. I was also slightly puzzled that Kate Hudson’s character is called Helen, yet I was pretty sure she was the one who was going to end up doing the raising…

The bulk of the film involves Helen doing what she can to balance work and full-time parenting, something for which she does not feel at all ready. Fourteen-year-old Audrey (Hayden Panettiere) already has a fake ID and hangs out with unsuitable friends; Helen has been her ally up to now, so it’s a bit of a shock to both of them when Helen suddenly becomes an authority figure.

Henry (Spencer Breslin) is the second child, apparently quite stolid, caring more about his turtle than anything else. But while he’s always been keen on sport, in particular basketball, he suddenly refuses to join in anything. And then there’s little Sarah (Abigal Breslin) who believes her parents have just gone away for a while… and appears to be coping but little things can send her into tears of despair.

The children are an absolute delight; we were particularly impressed at Sarah, who is only supposed to to five although apparently the actress was a couple of years older when the film was made, and has gone on to be a popular and talented star. Her facial expressions and moods feel entirely believable and she delivers her lines perfectly. 

There’s a low-key romantic thread too, involving a friendly Lutheran Pastor called Dan (John Corbett - we couldn’t think where we had seen him before and had to look it up afterwards, with a ‘duh’ moment when we discovered that he was the male lead in ‘My Big Greek Fat Wedding’. Helen meets Dan when she enquires about a smaller, friendlier school that the children can all go to as they don’t want to be separated. I liked the low-key Christian thread, and a pastor shown as intelligent, caring, red-blooded and very human with a quirky sense of humour. 

I also very much appreciated that although this film is made for adults, it’s entirely clean. Rated PG, with a warning that some children might be traumatised by the idea of parents dying suddenly, there’s nothing that would offend any but the most prudish of parents. Having said that, there are many scantily-clad women in the fashion scenes; Audrey also likes to wear revealing clothes. There are some scenes that become a bit intense, with some yelling, but there’s no violence or extreme anger.  However there are no scenes of intimacy, or even innuendos.  I don’t recall any bad language, either. 

It’s really not a film for children, even though two of the main cast are children; it’s about Helen and the way she changes - helped in part by her older sister Jenny (Joan Cusack) who is quite uptight and very organised, and also a very strong woman. 

We both enjoyed the film very much and appreciated the ‘bloopers’ and ‘deleted scenes’ that were on the DVD as extras. Definitely recommended.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Invisible Child (Tushka Bergen)

(Amazon UK link)

A few months ago I bought four DVDs from a local charity shop, and we finally watched the last of them, a film made in 1999 called ‘Invisible Child’. The title sounds as if it might be science fiction, or perhaps a political drama. But it’s neither. It’s a family-based story that’s based on a very unusual premise…

Gillian (Tushka Bergen) is newly arrived in the United States, with no job, and nowhere to stay. She happens to spot an advert in a shop window for a nanny, and decides to call at the house in the hope of an interview. She meets the father Tim Beeman (Victor Garber) who introduces her to his ten-year-old daughter Rebecca, known for some reason as ‘Doc’ (brilliantly portrayed  by a young Mae Whitman). Gillian also meets his four-year-old son Sam (David Dorfman).

There’s not much of an interview, but Tim lets her know that an important part of her job would be helping to maintain a rather bizarre fantasy. His wife Annie (Rita Wilson) believes she has another child, Maggie, who is a year older than Sam.. and who is invisible to everyone else. Sam apparently believes he has an invisible sister and claims he can hear her speaking. But Doc, along with her father, play along knowing that Maggie isn’t real. 

Gillian takes the job and quickly learns to join in the pretence: she pushes ‘Maggie’ on a swing, talks to her in the bath, tucks her in at night… and she also endears herself to both Doc and Sam. But now that ‘Maggie’ is five, and supposedly attending Kindergarten, it’s harder for the pretence to continue and there are some awkward moments. Gillian feels more and more uncomfortable and decides to consult some professionals, which creates a huge crisis…

Outside of science fiction it’s one of the strangest premises for a film that I can recall. Annie is a loving wife and mother, she’s friendly and encouraging - but she lives in this fantasy world. And it raises all kinds of questions: is this a mental illness, or the result of stress? Is she a danger to anyone? Is Doc in danger, colluding with her father to maintain the pretence?  Is Sam in danger, growing up in the belief that Maggie is real…? And is it really helpful for Annie to have everyone else protecting her, going along with her fantasy?

There’s a wonderful pivotal scene about three-quarters of the way through, when Doc is being interviewed by three social workers. She comes across as friendly, intelligent, and open - posing her own questions about whether an invisible, imaginary ‘friend’ is really any different from belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. The script is very cleverly written, and the actors play their roles so well that we were completely drawn into the story, almost as part of the family.

It’s inevitably a bit dated, having been made nearly quarter of a century ago, and the quality of our DVD wasn’t the greatest. It claims to have ‘bonus material’ but it’s just text about the actors and something about the film - no interviews or ‘making of’ documentary or outtakes. It would have been interesting to know if the story was based on a real situation or person, and how the actors felt about the story.

I don’t think I’d class it as one of my favourite films, but it was well worth seeing, and very thought-provoking, making us consider in a new way where the boundary is between living in a fantasy world and mental illness.  It's light-hearted in places, but also warm and surprisingly moving. 

The rating is PG which I think is about right; there’s nothing a child shouldn’t see and not much that they shouldn’t hear, but the storyline and its eventual outcome could be disturbing for a young or sensitive child.  

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews