Let's Make Love (Marilyn Monroe)

(Amazon UK link)

We’ve had several DVDs of films from the middle of last century given to us by a friend who was downsizing. Having watched a film starring Marilyn Monroe for the first time a couple of weeks ago, we decided to watch another last night. ‘Let’s Make Love’ was billed as a comedy romance, made in 1960, nearly two hours long.

Although the film is in colour, the opening few minutes feature still black and white drawings depicting the (theoretical) French Clement family who have built up an empire in New York over several generations. The current owner, Jean-Marc Clement (Yves Montand) is a billionaire, and very arrogant. He speaks several languages and has very little time to himself. 

Then he learns from his press agent Alex Coffman (Tony Randall) that an off-Broadway theatre company are going to produce a show that satirises several famous people, including Jean-Marc. His instant reaction is to get it closed down, but Alex points out that this would be counter-productive. He suggests that they go and see what exactly is happening, showing good sportsmanship by being amused rather than offended.

Rehearsals are only just beginning, but Jean-Marc is smitten with Amanda (Marilyn Monroe) who is the main female star of the production. So when the director assumes that he is auditioning for the part of Jean-Marc, he goes along with it, hoping to get to know Amanda better.

It’s an amusing premise, and one that’s done very well. We thought the pace of the film excellent; perhaps the musical numbers in the show rehearsals are a bit long and tedious, but everything else works very well. The acting is a bit overdone, but that is typical of the era, and adds to the humour in a film that’s not meant to be taken seriously. 

We very much liked the comedy of errors that results, as Jean-Marc starts to fall in love, and discovers that being (apparently) an impoverished actor is a very different proposition to being an autocratic billionaire. Nobody laughs at his jokes, and Amanda doesn’t fall into his arms; she’s romantically involved with someone else, and she’s quick to point out Jean-Marc’s failings. It’s quite poignant as he realises that his power and money have attracted women and hangers-on, and he tries to figure out who he is, as a person. 

There are some amusing interludes as Jean-Marc tries to learn to tell better jokes, and to dance and sing, with cameo roles by Bing Crosby and Gene Kelly playing themselves. I didn’t particularly like Tony (Frankie Vaughan) who is Amanda’s co-star in the show, and romantic partner, but felt quite sorry for him towards the end. 

I was surprised at how very engaging and enjoyable this film was, and felt quite immersed in it despite the rather alien settings of a risqué show and a billionaire’s huge office block. Definitely one to watch again in a few years. 

I had wondered if the phrase ‘make love’ was still used in the Jane Austen sense of chaste flirting in the 1960s. But apparently the usage moved over to the current understanding in the 1940s, so the film and its contents are far from innocent. The rating in the UK is U, probably because there’s nothing explicit, no bad language and no real violence. But the theme isn’t appropriate for children, and it’s not something I would show to anyone under the age of about twelve or thirteen. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn)

(Amazon UK link)

Working slowly through the twenty-five classic DVDs given to us by a friend who was downsizing, we decided to watch ‘Sabrina’ last night. We had never heard of this film, which was made in 1954, but we had certainly heard of both Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart who were billed on the cover as the stars, along with William Holden (whom we had not heard of).

We had no idea what to expect from this seventy-year-old film. It was in black-and-white which sometimes bothers me for a minute or two, but no more - I was quickly absorbed in the storyline. 

The main character is a girl called Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn) who must be about seventeen or eighteen at the start of the film. She is the daughter of a chauffeur called Tom Fairchild (John Williams), and they both speak with English accents of the mid-century slightly upper-crust style that was informally known as ‘BBC English’. However they live in New York, at a stately home owned by the very wealthy Larrabee family. There are two adult sons in the family: Linus (Humphrey Bogart) and David (William Holden).

It quickly transpires that Sabrina has been in love with David for as long as she can remember, but he barely notices her. He’s quite a playboy, who has been married and divorced three times already, and is always ready for a flirtation with an attractive girl of his class. Sabrina is almost in despair, feeling that her heart is broken, so her father decides to send her to Paris for a couple of years, to do a cooking course with a celebrated chef. 

There’s a surprising amount of humour in this film, alongside some poignancy and very engaging characters. It could have been a bit schmaltzy but the dialogue is good, and the pace excellent. Some films of this era tend to drag, with over-done shots and lengthy scenes that could have done with some editing. But I didn’t find anything dull or long-winded in this film which, apparently, was one of Audrey Hepburn’s first major successes, launching her as a star. 

David can be quite charming, though he is clearly unreliable. His brother Linus is much more serious, and works every hour possible for the family business. And when Sabrina returns from her course, much more sophisticated and confident than she was two years earlier, both brothers find her rather attractive. I found it very interesting that, despite being set in the theoretically egalitarian United States, it was considered rather shocking that the son of a well-established and wealthy family could fall in love with the chauffeur’s daughter.  

There are some delightful secondary characters in the other staff at the Larrabee home, all of whom adore Sabrina, and think it wonderful that she might marry one of the sons of the house. There are some amusing scenes involving them which we appreciated very much. 

The rating is U, probably due to the lack of any intimacy or bad language, although there’s one potentially disturbing scene near the start of the film, and a few punches thrown between the brothers (with no gore). I can’t imagine it being of any interest to children, but feel that PG would have been more appropriate.

Apparently there was a re-make of this film in 1995, with Harrison Ford, but reviews suggest that it wasn’t as good or as well-made as the black-and-white original from thirty years earlier.

Recommended if you like this style of film, or if you are interested in seeing Audrey Hepburn in one of her earlier roles.

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Bus Stop (Marilyn Monroe)

(Amazon UK link)

We were given twenty-five DVDs by a friend who was downsizing, most of which are of films and musicals from the 1950s and 1960s. We hadn’t even heard of some of them, including ‘Bus Stop’, which was made in 1956. We thought it might be black and white, but it was an early colour film. We had, of course, heard of Marilyn Monroe but neither of us could recall ever having seen any of her films. 

The opening of the film is set in Montana, at a rodeo. I found this a bit disturbing: dangerous, bucking animals are ridden, and then other animals lassoed and brought down. I had to look away a couple of times. But we soon meet the two important male characters in the story: a young cowboy called Beau (Don Murray) who has apparently never left the ranch where he grew up, and his mentor, Virgil, known as Virge (Arthur O’Connell). 

It took me a few minutes to be able to tune into the strong accents and fast talking, but it didn’t much matter. These two men board a bus that’s going to take them to Phoenix, in Arizona, where Beau is going to enter some major rodeo competitions. He’s quite arrogant about  his abilities, and - as becomes clear - also very naive. Virge thinks it’s about time he looks for a nice girl, but Beau has had nothing to do with girls and has no idea how to approach one.

On the first evening in Phoenix, they go to a night club where Cherie (Marilyn Monroe) is singing, in a rather scanty outfit. She’s evidently being treated quite badly by the manager, who hasn’t yet paid her anything, and expects her to perform and try to manipulate customers into buying her drinks. I found her Southern accent extremely hard to understand; she comes across as unintelligent, but far from innocent. Unsurprisingly, Beau finds her very attractive - and after a brief conversation he informs her they’re going to be married…

It’s obviously intended to be humorous, but I found Beau’s attempts to take charge, to ‘tame’ Cherie as if she were a wild animal, to be rather disturbing. His insistence that he is going to call her ‘Cherry’ is also somewhat demeaning. And it seemed very strange to me that, while one or two of the women understand and sympathise with her predicament, it takes a lot longer for any of the men around Beau to do anything other than voice objections. 

The last half hour or so of the film is set at a small inn/cafe known as the ‘Bus Stop’, as that’s where several cross-country buses. The landlady, Grace (Betty Field) makes them all welcome, and doesn’t want any unpleasantness. Conveniently there is a heavy blizzard which prevents the coach from leaving (and any other buses from arriving) and unsurprisingly there’s a showdown… but I found the ending rather trite and unlikely, although also a bit sad: Cherie has not had a happy life. 

The acting is mostly good, in a 1950s way, and the pace of the film about right. It wouldn’t work as a new movie today, but considered as a classic to watch from nearly 70 years ago, it’s an interesting, light-hearted way to spend an evening. There are a few country music interludes; Virge likes playing the guitar and organising sing-songs. But it's not a musical as such. 

The rating is U, probably because there’s no overt nudity or intimacy (though much is implied), and I don’t recall any bad language. But the subject matter certainly isn’t appropriate for children; I would have thought at least PG would be more appropriate, and wouldn’t personally show it to anyone under the age of about fourteen or fifteen at the youngest.

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Doctor Who: Revolution of the Daleks (Jodie Whittaker)

(Amazon UK link)

Apparently it’s just over two years since we finished watching the excellent 12th series of Doctor Who with Jodie Whittaker. It ended with a dramatic episode where the Doctor’s origins were discovered. Her companions returned to Earth, but the doctor, right at the end, was put in a space jail by the Judoon. 

I had forgotten all this in the intervening period when I was hoping that we might acquire the thirteenth season. We did have the New Year special episode - ‘Revolution of the Daleks’ - but I’m not a huge fan of daleks, and decided we would wait until we had the following season on DVD too. They were a gift at Christmas, and since we just finished watching the first four seasons of ‘Father Brown’, it was time for another Doctor Who series. 

So, last night, we watched ‘Revolution of the Daleks’. It opens with the Doctor’s companions, Yas (Mandip Gill), Graham (Bradley Walsh) and Ryan (Tosin Cole) doing a lot of research. Yas can’t quite believe that the Doctor won’t return, but it’s been a long time since they last saw her. Ryan has been getting back with friends, and trying to make a career for himself. 

And then the new Prime Minister (Harriet Walter) announces new security drones. To the horror of the Doctor’s companions, they look like daleks. There are some scenes with a wealthy, unscrupulous American businessman (Chris Noth) clearly in cahoots with the Prime Minister - but it appears that his only motivation is financial exploitation. He has no idea what daleks were. 

A young and enthusiastic scientist (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett) is pioneering the project, ensuring everything works, and perhaps all would have been well if he hadn’t discovered a remnant of dalek DNA which he was able to clone…

At least, that’s my understanding of the opening scenes, which happen with such rapidity that it was difficult for me to keep up. The Doctor, who is very bored in space jail, is released unexpectedly after the appearance of Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman). I didn’t follow that subplot at all, but wasn’t surprised that the Doctor (with Jack in tow) arrive in the Tardis in Graham’s living room while the team are discussing the new dalek-like machines.

It’s a fast-paced episode but there are some excellent interludes of discussion: the Doctor with Ryan, and - later - the whole group. I very much like the depth of characterisation of the companions which has been such a feature of the ‘new’ Doctor Who series that began when the show was reborn in 2005 (in checking that date, I’m astonished to find that it was nearly twenty years ago!). 

It’s the characters and their stories that have kept me watching; science fiction and fast action are not generally my preferred genres of film. I used to watch the ‘old’ Doctor Who, as a child, behind the sofa. It took the persuasion of both my sons to start watching again - and we didn’t do so until 2011, although we then quickly acquired DVDs of the next few series until we had caught up. There are interesting story arcs, and the acting is good, with odd unexpected humour here and there to balance the tension. 

And while I loathe daleks (who epitomise violence and hatred), they weren’t actually too stressful in this episode. The Doctor comes up with risky ideas to vanquish them, which (inevitably) are successful; but while they’re still on earth although we see random ‘exterminations’ they’re done with random people in a variety of places, most of whom have not been introduced. Not that it makes it any better, but I knew it was visual effects - modern graphics and CGI somehow make them less threatening than the very scary daleks of the 1970s. Or perhaps it’s just that I’m fifty years older. 

I’m glad we’ve finally watched this DVD which has been sitting in our to-be-watched drawer for over a year. It’s not my favourite episode, but it was well worth seeing, and is useful from the continuity point of view, bridging Series 12 and Series 13 (which we will start watching next week). 

Our DVD came with some 'art cards' (which we put straight in the paper recycling, not wanting to collect yet more clutter), and has a couple of brief 'extras' on it: one is from the point of view of the Doctor and her three companions, and was very interesting. The other featured John Barrowman trying to recall lines from his time on the series, and was a bit weird. 

Recommended if you’re a fan of the series. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

An American in Paris (Gene Kelly)

(Amazon UK link)

From twenty-five DVDs given to us by a friend who is downsizing, we decided to watch ‘An American in Paris’. It’s well-enough known that we had both heard of it, yet neither of us had ever seen it. We’re not huge fans of musicals in general, and had no idea what to expect.

The film, made in 1951 but in colour, stars Gene Kelly as Jerry Mulligan, an American artist who decided to settle in France after the war. He’s an artist, and feels that he’s learned a lot and is inspired by the beauty of Paris - but he’s not very successful, and struggles to manage. He lives in a tiny apartment, and there’s an amusing and cleverly choreographed scene where he wakes up and transforms his room from a bedroom into a studio. 

Jerry has a friend called Adam (Oscar Levant) who is a talented musician. We see him playing the piano several times in the course of the film; but he’s also struggling, wanting to be a concert pianist but having to make do with smaller events. 

Adam has a French friend called Henri (Georges Guétary) who is in love with a dancer called Lise (Leslie Caron). They have a mildly humorous discussion as Henri tries to explain what his girlfriend is like, and we see images of her dancing in a variety of roles.

The fifth main character is a wealthy woman called Milo (Nina Foch) who buys a couple of Jerry’s paintings, and decides she wants to sponsor him. He’s rather reluctant, but eventually agrees.  And at a restaurant where they’re meeting friends, Jerry sees and is instantly attracted to a young woman… who we quickly realise is Lise. He’s very persistent (in a way that would be considered harassment nowadays) but they become close… 

So there’s something of a comedy of errors, although it’s poignant too; Lise is young and doesn’t know what to do, being courted by two rather different men. The outcome is inevitable, perhaps, but it’s not at all clear how it can come about. And it was a bit irritating that, in fact, we don’t learn exactly how it comes about.  I found the ending of the film rather frustrating, partly for that reason.

The acting is good, if a bit overdone (as tended to happen in films of this era) and there are some interludes with songs and dancing in the first half of the film. Gene Kelly, of course, was known for his tap dancing routines, and they blend in well with the general atmosphere of the film; none of the earlier musical items are too long, and they don’t seem out of place. There’s an amusing musical interlude too, when Adam dreams of being a concert pianist, and we only gradually realise that he’s playing not just the pianist, but the conductor, and all the other instrumentalists too. 

But I found the last twenty minutes of the film puzzling and (frankly) a bit dull. There’s a long dance sequence mainly featuring Jerry, but also Lise with different styles, different locations, and different chorus members. It’s supposed to be Jerry dreaming as Lise drives away with Henri, but although the dancing is crisp and very well done, and it’s all clever, I was involved in the story by this stage, wanting to know what was going to happen. A few minutes of this routine would have been fine - but it went on and on. According to Wikipedia, it’s seventeen minutes! 

Then after the dance routine, there’s only a brief scene before ‘The End’ and the closing credits. One part of the plot is brought to a close (though without any clear indication why it happens the way it does) but other parts are left hanging. We have no idea what happens in Jerry’s proposed exhibition, or how his professional relationship with Milo continues. Nor do we learn whether Adam’s dream comes true. 

I’m glad we watched the film; the dancing is good (even if too lengthy at the end) and the songs nicely done, though Gershwin isn’t my favourite composer or style. The humour is slickly done, and I loved the expressions on Adam’s face as he realises that both his friends are in love with the same girl. But I’m not sure why it was quite as popular as it was, and don’t suppose I’ll want to see it again. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Father Brown (seasons 1-4)

(Amazon UK link)

I have been familiar with GK Chesterton’s delightful creation, ‘Father Brown’, since my teens. This fictional Roman Catholic priest in the early 1900s is adept at solving crimes, with insight and local knowledge, combined with compassion and surprising energy. I last read one of the books about him in 2018. But I had somehow missed that Father Brown had inspired a lengthy TV series - I believe it’s up to 11 seasons now. 

One of our sons had seen the show, and liked it so much that he sent us a DVD box set of the first four seasons for Christmas 2022. We started watching it towards the end of January 2023, and have watched one episode most weeks (occasionally two episodes) since then. We finally reached the end of the fourth season last night. 

My first surprise was that the series is set in the 1950s rather than at the start of the century when Chesterton was writing. Mark Williams, whom we knew as Arthur Weasley in the ‘Harry Potter’ films, is excellent in the title role. However, he’s not at all as I had imagined Father Brown from Chesterton’s writing. Still, once I realised that the series is ‘inspired by’ Chesterton’s character rather than actually based on the stories, I was able to adjust and see the TV show for what it is. The TV Father Brown is certainly wise, energetic, kind and likeable. He’s also quite persistent, and has a lot of courage. 

His Irish housekeeper, Mrs McCarthey (Sorcha Cusack, whom I recall as a much younger ‘Jane Eyre’ in the 1970s adaptation) is an excellent addition to the storyline. She provides some stability to Father Brown’s life, cooking meals for him, dealing with church accounts, and generally accompanying him in his ministry as well as his criminal investigations. She is also responsible for some low-key humour now and again; although these are crime stories, they have moments of light-heartedness which we appreciated. 

Two other significant characters are the wealthy Lady Felicia (Nancy Carroll) and her driver Sid (Alex Price). Sid isn’t part of Father Brown’s congregation, and has some criminal tendencies himself, such as the ability to pick locks; this regularly comes in useful during investigations. Lady Felicia is a bit snooty but very generous, and she often clashes with Mrs McCarthey although the two are, deep down, quite fond of each other.

As always, what I appreciate most in a film or TV series is the characterisation, and I thought that excellent, particularly between the four principle actors. There’s also some banter - and some antagonism - between Father Brown and the local police inspector. In the first series this is Inspector Valentine (Hugo Speer), and in the second and third season he is replaced by Inspector Sullivan (Tom Chambers). Both gradually come to respect Father Brown, and reluctantly admit it in their final episodes when they are moved to other locations. 

The third inspector is introduced at the start of the fourth season: Inspector Mallory (Jack Deam) is the most cynical of all, but gradually develops a kind of grudging liking for Father Brown, despite calling him ‘Padre’, and regularly telling him to leave the scene of the crime. Sergeant Goodfellow (John Burton) makes a good foil for the inspectors, and usually has a lot of respect and trust in Father Brown. 

The stories themselves are widely varied. In forty-five episodes, we didn’t think any of the settings were the same. There’s an overall theme, of course: in most of them somebody dies or is found dead, and eventually Father Brown figures out who the perpetrator was. He uses his intuition, his excellent observational skills, and his knowledge of human nature to probe deeply into what has happened, and why. He saves many innocent men from execution - for this is the era when people were still hanged if believed guilty of a serious crime.

Most of the stories are set in the village of Kembleford where everyone knows everyone else, although some include visitors, and there are some residents whom we only meet once or twice. There are stories set in local homes, involving a variety of people from the Pope to visiting vagabonds. Some relate to former war crimes, some to family feuds, some to medical discoveries or abuse… and so much more. Each time we think the writers must surely have run out of ideas, yet another setting or motive emerges.

I very much liked the slow pace of the series, and the countryside images as well as the interactions between the main characters. I also appreciated the lack of gore; occasionally I had to close my eyes, but there was very little overt violence, and the bodies, when shown, mostly looked asleep. The overall rating of this box set is 12, which I think is about right, given the nature of the plots; it's unlikely to appeal to children anyway. 

I appreciated the way that God is taken seriously, too. It’s not a ‘preachy’ series, but, like Chesterston’s original, Father Brown comes across as a devout man with a living, vibrant faith. 

Still, having watched four series over the past twelve months, it’s time for a change. So although I would recommend this to anyone who likes light crime television, we’re not going to look for the later seasons on DVD. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Good Life (6 episodes from series 1)

(Amazon UK link)

I can remember watching and liking the television sitcom ‘The Good Life’ in the late 1970s. I didn’t watch it all, but the premise appealed to me: a young couple decides to quit the rat race. So I was pleased when I found a DVD containing series 1 - or, rather, six episodes from the first series. I’m not sure why they didn’t include the rest, as there were only seven episodes in that series. 

We’ve been watching one episode per week over the past six weeks, and have both appreciated the show very much. Other than the events of the first episode, I had forgotten entirely what happened. And in a sense it doesn’t matter, because the characterisation is what makes this such a good series.

Richard Briers is excellent as the enthusiastic but often naive Tom Good. He works in an office with his neighbour Jerry (Paul Eddington) but whereas Jerry has been promoted and is quite senior, Tom has not risen. He’s a very talented graphic designer, but as he approaches his 40th birthday he becomes disillusioned, and decides he would like to give up paid employment, and become self-sufficient.

Tom’s wife Barbara, brilliantly portrayed by Felicity Kendal, is enthusiastic and encourages him to give in his notice. They come up with all kinds of plans, from growing their own crops to keeping animals for eggs and even meat. They’re not sure how it will all work out, but they’re both eager to try. I love the relationship between Tom and Barbara, which is loving, mutually supportive, and full of conversation. Sometimes they have arguments, even shouting matches; but they always make up. 

Jerry, by contrast, is married to the upwardly-mobile Margo (Penelope Keith is perfect in the role). She’s a terrible snob, and loves her life of luxury. She can’t believe Tom and Barbara will actually go ahead with their plans, and at first is horrified at what they will do to their ‘nice’ neighbourhood. There are some clashes, but Margo is ultimately quite kind-hearted, and her friendship with Tom and Felicity is important even though they somewhat laugh about her quirks when she’s not there.  

Jerry is a bit hen-pecked, and often does things behind Margo’s back; their relationship is not so open and affectionate as Tom and Barbara’s, but there are times when they become close… 

Later episodes show progress in the self-sufficiency, inevitably beset with problems; Barbara has moments of despair, but she’s very supportive and works hard to fulfil what has become their joint dream. And there’s a lot of humour. Most of it is verbal, and several times we found ourselves laughing aloud. But we also grew to like the characters, so much so that having finished this DVD, I’m going to try to find the other three seasons on DVD when I’m next in the UK.

To our surprise, there were even a few ‘extras’ on our DVD set, made some years later, looking back on the show and reasons for its success. I don't know if these 'extras' appear in the full season 1 DVD; the link above is to the version we have, with episode 7 missing. 

Highly recommended, if you appreciate classic British sitcoms from the 1970s. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Apartment (Jack Lemmon)

(Amazon UK link)

An elderly friend was giving away her DVD collection, moving to online films. Despite being twenty years younger, we prefer physical DVDs or blu-rays, and were delighted to be offered as many of them as we wanted. We selected about twenty-five which looked interesting, and last night decided to watch ‘The Apartment’. 

We had no idea what this was about - I didn’t even read the blurb on the back - but knew it was black-and-white. I thought that might bother me, but it wasn’t a problem at all. However we were a tad surprised to find that the premise of this film is quite risqué - and I’d have thought would have been shocking in 1960 when the film was first shown. But it won several Oscars, so perhaps people were less prudish then. 

Jack Lemmon is the main character, a young executive known as CC Baxter, who works for a huge insurance company in New York. He’s quite ambitious, and has discovered a way of hastening his rise to the top. He has an apartment which he lends to senior colleagues who want to ‘entertain’ young women. They, in turn, write positive comments about him in the office, leading to rapid promotion.

Of course nothing is simple, and we see poor Baxter walking up and down on a chilly evening, after staying late at the office. The light is still on in his apartment, so he knows he can’t interrupt. And when someone wants to change a booked tryst - or when Baxter himself is sick, and needs to be at home - he has to make extensive phone calls adjusting everyone else’s schedules.

It’s somewhat ridiculous, of course, and the film is light-hearted and exaggerated. Yet there’s apparently more than a grain of truth in the premise of professional married men playing around. And it certainly seems possible that a young and ambitious man could get himself caught up in this kind of scheme, which rapidly snowballed out of hand, in the hope of rising beyond his colleagues.

Naturally there’s a love interest for Baxter, in the form of Fran Kubelik (a young Shirley MacLaine), who works as an elevator operator. He talks to her, and she appreciates his courtesy but when he eventually plucks up the courage to invite her out, she’s reluctant - we don’t learn why until later in the film. 

The acting of the 1950s and early 1960s looks overdone and exaggerated by today’s standards, and the only person we thought at all believable was Fran, who displays almost every possible emotion in a sympathetic and believable way. The office philanderers in their suits feel like people from a bygone era although perhaps they still exist. And CC Baxter is an odd mix of honest, kind and thoughtful, yet so seriously ambitious that he has no problem compromising his integrity.

Still, the pace is excellent, the script realistic (given the bizarre nature of the film) and we didn’t feel that the film was over-long despite it being a full two hours. The rating is PG but it’s not a film I would show to young children, or even young teens; quite apart from the rather sordid storyline, there’s a lot of talk about sexuality (even if mostly euphemistic), some minor - but disturbing - violence, and a couple of very tense scenes. 

On the whole we liked it, but I’d only recommend it if you like this era and style of film. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews