Carousel (Gordon MacRae)

(Amazon UK link)

One of the films we were given by a friend downsizing at the start of last year is ‘Carousel’. It’s a 1950s classic musical, by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and just over two hours long. We decided we would watch it last night, making sure to allow plenty of time. We have the 50th anniversary edition, with two discs. I don’t know if it was digitally remastered, but the quality of both sound and picture seemed to be very good. 

We had no idea what the story was about when we started watching. However, the opening sequence shows a fairground after dark. There are crowds of people, mostly adults, buying street food, or playing games, or converging on the carousel. It’s an old-fashioned one with wooden horses and other animals going up and down to loud music. It’s impossible to hear any dialogue over the general noise, but apparently that was deliberate.

But then the film moves to a very different scene. Billy (Gordon MacRae) is sitting on a ladder, polishing and hanging stars. I thought at first he was decorating for Christmas, but quickly realised that these are supposedly real stars, set in the sky, and that he is in some kind of afterlife. Someone tells him he’s heard rumours that his family on earth are having trouble, and tells him that he might be able to go down for a day. Billy isn’t sure about this, but consults the person in charge…

This is a good device for letting the viewer know Billy’s back story, as he supposedly recounts it, to explain why he has a family, and why he is no longer with them. Billy was the ‘barker’ (a term I didn’t know) for someone else’s carousel at the fair. That meant he stood at the side, proclaiming the wonders of the experience, to draw people in to buy tickets. He was evidently very good at this, until he became distracted by an attractive young woman called Julie (Shirley Jones)...

Billy is quite a womaniser but Julie is rather smitten, although insisting that she is respectable. And as they flirt a little, they burst into song. I should have expected it - this is, after all, a musical - and they both have good voices. But I found this, and some of the other songs in the film, rather slow and long-winded. The first one is mildly amusing, perhaps… and then the action takes us back to Billy in his afterlife scenario. To remind the viewer, perhaps, that something evidently happened to cause his death.

Back to earth, as he continues talking about what went on, and he’s married to Julie, but all is not well. Billy has no job now, and hates being idle. All the town is going on a ‘clam bake’ (something else I had never heard of) which starts with a trip out in boats… and Billy is persuaded to go by a disreputable ‘friend’ who has proposed a method of making them both wealthy…

I did enjoy the dance sequences, which were cleverly choreographed and extremely well executed. I was also quite surprised to find that I knew a couple of the songs in the film. ‘June is bustin’ out all over’ was written for this musical, as was the quite well-known ‘I’ll never walk alone’. I also quite liked Billy’s gradual change of heart, as circumstances change, although it’s not until the very end that he does something totally altruistic.

We appreciated the settings too; it was filmed in Maine, on the coast and there are quite a few scenes on the beach, or on sailing boats. Despite the title of the musical, the carousel itself only appears at the beginning of the film, as the place where Billy and Julie first meet. 

While there’s some humour and a lot of caricaturing, it’s a bit dark for a musical. I gather that it wasn’t as popular as the writers had hoped when it was first in the cinemas. Perhaps that’s because Billy isn’t all that likeable, and because there is a tragic scene when things go wrong. It’s one which we know is going to happen, but it stops the otherwise light-hearted film being truly family-friendly, despite the U rating. 

While I’d have liked it better if it wasn’t quite so slow-moving, it was very well done, in a 1950s way. The way actors in films spoke - as if they were on stage - seems quaint to us now, as does the way that the women are all perfectly made up at all times, even at the end of a day’s fishing and then smoking sea-food. 

We didn’t watch all the extras, but were interested in one about the making of the film, with some clips from the writers and people involved in the production. Apparently it was based on a much darker Hungarian film called ‘Liliom’ which didn’t have the somewhat uplifting ending of ‘Carousel’. Initially ‘Carousel’ was a stage musical which ran for quite a long time before it was turned into a film. 

Worth watching once, as it’s a classic, if only for the excellent dance sequences. But it’s not one I’m likely to want to see again.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Hotel for dogs (Emma Roberts)

(Amazon UK link)

About eighteen months ago, when we bought some extra DVD shelving (used), we were offered a selection of children’s DVDs. Some of them are of no interest to me, although visiting children sometimes like them. But I thought that the 2009 film ‘Hotel for dogs’ sounded quite interesting, based on the blurb. So last night we decided to watch it.

Andi (Emma Roberts) is sixteen, and very close to her ten-year-old brother Bruce (Jake T Austin). They were orphaned three years earlier - we don’t learn why - and are living in foster care. It’s clearly not working well for them; their foster parents, Lois and Karl, provide a lot of the comedy in the film as they are so dreadful, and clearly unsuited to the role. She makes extremely unappetising food, and the two of them spend most of their time trying to record bad quality music.

Andi and Bruce have a dog called Friday, whom they adore. But no dogs are allowed in their foster home, so they have to sneak him in at night-time. And since they have no money, they try to ‘earn’ enough to feed Friday, through very dubious scams. Their social worker Bernie (Don Cheadle) is excellent; he clearly cares about them, and regularly gets them out of trouble. Although he knows their foster parents are neglectful, there are very few foster families willing to take on siblings of their age. And they are desperate to stay together.

In their neighbourhood there is a van that goes around collecting stray dogs, and unfortunately they come across Friday and impound him. And while they manage to release him, they’re shocked to see that there are many other delightful dogs, and that they’re only allowed to be there, uncollected, for 72 hours…

It’s quite poignant at first, contrasting the young people’s love of dogs, and concern for strays with the rigidity of the dog police. Andi and Bruce discover an abandoned hotel where some of the dogs have made themselves at home. And they decide to take it over, with the help from some friends they gradually acquire. Bruce is a technological genius, and makes some impressive devices from items left behind in the old hotel, and also things he has taken from his foster home…

There’s a lot of humour in this film, which we thought was beautifully made. The dogs are wonderful, more and more of them appearing and being adopted by Annie and Bruce. There are scenes showing the dog police wondering where all the stray dogs have gone. And we loved the way Bruce gradually manages to automate not just the dogs’ feeding time, but their exercise, toilet needs, and other preferences. It’s quite surreal, of course, but while we were watching, we felt quite drawn into the film, rooting for the teenagers and the dogs.

Naturally enough, things can’t continue this way forever, and there’s some tension and an exciting race towards the end. Bernie makes a heartfelt speech which makes for a happy ending - this is, after all, a children’s film - and an even more surreal conclusion, which we thought very amusing.

The acting is excellent, and the dogs are amazing. We watched some of the ‘extras’ on the DVD, which included a section about the dog training, which was impressive. And there was a heartfelt comment from the actor who plays Bruce, saying that there were times when he did everything correctly, but the dog with him didn’t. So they had to do seventeen takes. 

It was clear both from the film and from the ‘making of’ extra that the cast loved dogs - and the crew, too. Some of the dogs used were themselves strays, who were then adopted by cast or crew members. I am not, in general, a dog person. But I thought that, as well as being a well-made and amusing film, it gave a very important message about the responsibility that comes with having a dog. 

Overall, I would recommend it to adults as well as teens and children who want something light-hearted, so long as you don’t mind a bizarre storyline that’s a bit like a 21st century fairy-tale. Apparently this was loosely based on a book of the same name. The teenage actors - or those portraying teenagers - are excellent, carrying the film entirely. Other than Bernie, most of the adult characters are either caricatures, or in some way against the teens' efforts. 

The rating is U, which reflects the lack of anything ‘adult’. There are one or two very minor uses of bad language, and the film might, perhaps, be disturbing to a child who had problems in foster care, or who had lost a dog. I think I would probably rate it PG, suggesting that parents should take responsibility for deciding whether or not their children would be likely to find it upsetting, or funny.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Tara Road (Andie MacDowell, Olivia Williams)

(Amazon UK link)

I thoroughly enjoyed rereading Maeve Binchy’s lengthy novel ‘Tara Road’ in November last year. Then I noticed a DVD of a film adaptation, which was mostly well-rated, so I put it on my wishlist and was given it for my birthday a few months ago. We decided to watch it last night.

I realised there would have to be a lot of abridgement, to fit the novel into just an hour and a half, and I thought it was done very well. The DVD opens with a brief scene at a party, obviously caught on video, which leads to a terrible tragedy. It’s not something that actually comes into the book, and isn’t mentioned until near the end, but it works very well as a dramatic opening of this adaptation.

The main characters, Marilyn (Andie MacDowell) and Ria (Olivia Williams) are then introduced at the start, with action switching from one to the other. That, too, is different from the book; the first half of the book is only about Ria, and covers her teenage years, her romance and marriage to the handsome Danny (Iain Glenn), and the birth of their two children, Annie and Brian. The story in the film starts when Annie is already a teenager, clashing sometimes with her mother. 

So we know, from the start, why Marilyn wants time away from her husband Greg (August Zirner), and we see, very early in the film, why Danny and Ria separate - that doesn’t happen until half-way through the book. But then, most of the background and many of the minor characters aren’t necessary to the plot, although they add to the enjoyment of the story when reading. I thought Annie and Brian were excellent, very true to the characters in the book. 

Still, the main characters and their families are very recognisable from the book. Marilyn and Ria agree to swapping houses for the summer, and we see them slowly adjusting to each other’s cultures. Marilyn is much more reserved than Ria; this isn’t really shown in her American life, but is clear when she gently rebuffs some local attempts at socialising. And Ria, who is very sociable, befriends Marilyn’s neighbours, hosts parties, and even finds a temporary job. The neighbours and restaurant owners are caricatures, but that isn’t a problem: there’s some gentle humour which is a nice balance to the traumas and tragedies that have taken place.

The theme is of healing and growth in a new environment. Ria starts to move on and find new meanings to her life, while Marilyn slowly opens up about why she is so unhappy. Both of them meet men who are attracted to them, and both experience some temptations as well as making new decisions. I found Marilyn and Greg entirely believable; Ria is very well done, but feels a lot younger than I had imagined her. The actress was apparently in her late thirties when the film was made, but looks about twenty-five.

There’s also an important thread in the film involving Danny’s business, selling houses. Danny is a womaniser, as we learn early on, and not very reliable. But he seems to have been working honestly; so it’s a shock when his boss declares bankruptcy. This leads to some of the tension later in the film (as happens in the book) and the resolution is nicely done. 

Ria’s friend Rosemary (Maria Doyle Kennedy) is a lot stronger - and nicer - as a character in the book than she is in the film. Watching the movie, I couldn’t quite believe that she was such a close friend of Ria’s. But then we learn, early in the film, what she does that Ria doesn’t know about. It’s a shocking twist in the book; yet something obvious that is shown early on in the film, which makes her generally a less likeable character.

But given that the story had to be condensed so significantly, I thought it was very well done. My husband had never read the book, and he thought it an excellent film. The main characters are believable, and there’s a nice blend of humour and pathos. There’s some lovely images of the different locations, and some musical background, though I had not realise just how many until I saw the credits at the end.

The rating is PG which reflects the lack of nudity, bad language and intimate scenes. The opening scene is potentially quite disturbing, and the only other somewhat violent scene is dramatic and exaggerated; nobody is hurt. 

It’s unlikely to be of any interest to children or younger teens anyway. If you’ve read and love Maeve Binchy’s book, you might love it, as I did, or might find it a travesty as so much is left out. So if you’re a fan of the book ‘Tara Road’, I’d only suggest watching this if you’re happy to put aside any preconceptions and enjoy it for what it is.

But overall, we both enjoyed it very much.  And with the above caveat, I would recommend it to anyone who would like a well-made and thoughtful drama with a satisfying ending. 

There are no extras on our DVD.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Failure to launch (Matthew McConaughey)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m not sure why ‘Failure to launch’ was recommended to me by Amazon; perhaps it was because I had previously watched and liked a film with Sarah Jessica Parker in it. Whatever the reason, the blurb sounded interesting and I put it on my wishlist. I was given the DVD for my birthday a few months ago, and we watched it last night.

We’ve recently seen some films that were supposed to be romantic comedies, but which liked either romance or humour. ‘Failure to launch’, however, succeeds in providing both. It’s an unusual story, and felt quite contemporary so I was surprised to learn that it is almost twenty years old. 

Tripp (Matthew McConaughey) is in his mid-thirties, and still lives with his parents. It works well, at least from his perspective. His mother (Kathy Bates) still provides breakfast for him, and even washes his clothes. His father (Terry Bradshaw) would like him to move out, but they haven’t figure out how to let him know. And Tripp uses the situation when he wants to dump a girlfriend - he takes her home, and in most cases they are so shocked to learn that he still lives with his parents that they storm off. 

So Tripp’s parents come up with a scheme. They hire an attractive young woman called Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker) to make Tripp fall for her. She says she’s had a great success rate, usually with somewhat geeky young men, who - after going out with her a few times - decide they need to move out. I wasn’t entirely sure how this would work: Paula didn’t intend long-term relationships with any of them, or even anything too intimate, so I didn’t entirely understand why they were persuaded to move out, nor what happened when Paula moved on.

Paula is pleasantly surprised to discover that Tripp is good-looking and interesting, and he, not knowing what his parents have done, is rather keen on her, too. She follows a typical routine: she goes to dinner with him, joins in one of his hobbies (sailing), she meets his friends and gets along with them, and she engineers an apparent emotional trauma. Tripp finds her very attractive, but he’s afraid of commitments, and when she starts making hints about something long-term, he follows his usual pattern of trying to dump her…

All of which would be rather cliched and predictable if that was the only storyline. But there are some great scenes with Tripp and his two long-term buddies, who also live with their parents. There are also some quite amusing scenes with Paula in her flat with her flatmate Kit (Zooey Deschanel). Kit is getting driven round the bend by a noisy bird right outside her window; her dead-pan comments are perfectly done. .

There are some slightly ridiculous scenes, too, when Tripp gets bitten by several animals - I assume all CGI or whatever the 2006 equivalent was. They’re somewhat realistic, but not entirely, and I wasn’t quite sure what the point of these was, other than to imply that Tripp does not get on with the natural world. The most bizarre scene, however, takes place after Kit and one of Tripp’s friends decide to shoot the annoying bird.. 

It’s all a bit caricatured, of course, and the main storyline predictable from the first. But it’s very well done, and nicely balanced. The actors are excellent, and the timing impeccable. While we were watching, we felt quite drawn to the storyline; I smiled several times and even chuckled once or twice. There were also some scenes that were surprisingly moving and thought-provoking, although the ending is pure farce - and quite amusing too. 

The rating is 12 which I would say is about right, though it’s unlikely to be of interest to anyone younger than about fifteen. There are implied scenes of intimacy but only blankets are shown. However there’s quite a bit of discussion about and references to sex. There’s a scene including rear nudity, played for humour; and there are a few instances of bad or ‘strong’ language, but nothing excessive. There’s some paintball violence and the biting scenes which don’t last long, and a potentially disturbing scene with a dog at the vet’s.  

Overall we liked this film very much, and will probably watch it again in another decade or so.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Jane Austen book club

(Amazon UK link)

It’s eleven years since we watched ‘The Jane Austen book club’, so more than time for another viewing. We wanted something reasonably light-hearted, and this was ideal for the purpose. We hadn’t remembered much about it, other than that it related to a group of people meeting to discuss Jane Austen’s novels.

It’s a tad confusing in the early scenes, as I tried to work out who was going to be a main character, but I soon sorted most of them out in my mind. The early scenes give us a bit of background to each of the six folk who decide to form the monthly club. They’re all American, and the story is set in California. 

The opening scene is of a funeral. It turns out to be for someone who was important to Jocelyn (Maria Bello)... though also rather unexpected. Jocelyn is comforted by her friends Bernadette and Sylvia. Bernadette (Kathy Baker) is a bit older, and quite glamorous. She has been married several times, but is currently single.

Sylvia (Amy Brenneman) has been married for nineteen years to Daniel (Jimmy Smits) and is still very much in love with him. So when he tells her that he feels it’s time to move on and separate, she is devastated. Her daughter Allegra (Maggie Grace) is furious with her father, and decides to move back home to be with her mother. 

Sylvia’s friends suggest forming a book club to discuss Jane Austen’s novels, as they all like them so much. One of the other members is Prudie (Emily Blunt). She is a very organised, neat and tidy French teacher, married to Dean (Marc Blucas). But he seems to care more about football than he does about her, and rarely communicates. She’s quite emotional and needy, and also loves Jane Austen.

Then there’s Grigg (Hugh Dancy) who meets Jocelyn in a bookshop. He’s clearly quite attracted by her, but she doesn’t realise this. Instead, she wonders if she can set him up with Sylvia, since her ex-husband is seeing someone else. Grigg only reads science fiction, but is keen to expand his horizons, and asks if he can join the club…

The story is cleverly done, showing six months where one book after the other is read and discussed. Not that there’s a whole lot of discussion; instead, events in the characters’ lives reflects aspects of the book. Jocelyn, for instance, is an enthusiastic matchmaker, rather like Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’. Prudie becomes disturbingly attracted to an 18-year-old student whom she sees in a play, reflecting a significant part of ‘Mansfield Park’. 

And a whole lot more. There’s some humour in the book, and some quite moving places, as well as a fast pace and some interesting conversation. It’s not necessary to have read any of Austen’s books, although it certainly adds to the enjoyment to see the parallels. And each of the characters reflects, in some way, one of Austen’s characters (or several of them, in Grigg’s case). 

As a book lover myself, I could relate to the characters’ passion for Austen’s novels, and their discussions of the people as if they were old friends. I enjoyed Grigg’s comments, as someone new to the book; he often seemed to have quite insightful points. And I thought his house decorating for the month of ‘Northanger Abbey’ was cleverly done, though slightly disappointed that there was almost no discussion of that book.

The final book group meeting takes place on the beach, with a few extra visitors; once again there’s almost no discussion of the book, but a great deal of interaction. Prudie is tempted to do something that would get her into serious trouble as a teacher, only to pause and reconsider as she gazes at the traffic lights, in a scene that’s both tense and amusing.

The rating is 12, and I thought that was about right. There’s no violence in the book, and no nudity, although there are a few quite passionate embracing or kissing scenes, including some between women. There’s minimal bad language, but a lot of innuendoes. And there’s a woman - the hippie mother of one of the characters - who’s seen smoking pot. 

All in all, we enjoyed this film very much. My husband hasn’t read any of Jane Austen’s books but has seen several of the films, and he liked it as much as I did. We particularly liked the ending, showing everyone at a charity dinner. Several threads are tied up neatly and in encouraging ways, and Bernadette, who likes everyone to be happy, has a surprise for them all. 

Afterwards we watched the ‘making of’ documentary which is an ‘extra’ on our DVD. We also saw the deleted scenes, most of which were quite interesting, but wouldn’t have added anything much to the story.

Definitely recommended if you like books and enjoy character-based films.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Annie (Alicia Morton)

(Amazon UK link)

Towards the end of 2009, we watched the DVD of the 1982 version of the musical ‘Annie’, with Aileen Quinn in the title role. We liked it on the whole, and thought it well-done. But I didn’t feel that it was entirely suitable for young children. There was some extreme drunkenness, some innuendoes and a very tense scene towards the end.

Last year, when we bought some extra DVD shelving, we also acquired, inexpensively, some more children’s films on DVD. One of them was the 1999 Disney version of ‘Annie’, with Alicia Morton in the title role. We wanted something light to watch last night, and this was the DVD my husband chose.

The story opens in the orphanage, showing interactions between the half dozen or so children. One of them cries for her mother at night, and Annie comforts her, while reminding everyone that she is not an orphan. She has a letter that was left by her parents, and part of a locket. She believes that, one day, they will come to find her.

As with some other Disney films, the action is quite rapid. Even so, I was a bit surprised that almost immediately Annie decides to get out of the orphanage to look for her parents. She creeps downstairs and is unlocking the front door when Miss Hannigan (Kathy Bates) appears. She is the owner of the orphanage, and appears to be the only member of staff. The children have to say, repeatedly, that they love her, although in private (including in song...) she expresses how much she loathes little girls.

Everyone else is woken up to be punished, by extra thorough cleaning of the floors. Nobody seems to resent Annie for having brought this on their heads… instead, musical style, they launch once again into song. There seem, in my view, to be rather an excessive number of songs in this film, although they’re very well done.

The plot is, as far as I recall, reasonably close to the story in the 1982 version. A wealthy bachelor wants to foster an orphan for a week, and Annie is chosen, much to Miss Hannigan’s disgust. It all happens rather rapidly, and Annie is thrust into a world of wealth, with new clothes, toys and plenty of food. And she becomes quite attached to the rich Mr Warbucks (Victor Garber). Again, this happens a tad too quickly, it seems… 

There’s low-key tension as Mr Warbucks and his PA Grace (Audra McDonald) attempt to locate Annie’s parents, and a sneaky plot is hatched by Miss Hannigan and her scheming brother Rooster (Alan Cumming), along with his intellectually challenged girlfriend Lily (Kristin Chenoweth). They are delightfully wicked, and I liked their song-and-dance routine, with Miss Hannigan, as they discuss how to go about getting rid of Annie.

There’s more humour in this than I recalled in the earlier version, and it’s generally more family-friendly, so that the rating of U seems appropriate. Miss Hannigan makes a lot of threats to the orphans, but it’s clear that she has never actually hit any of them. She’s unpleasant, but there’s no hint of drunkenness. Lily is dressed proactively, but there’s no nudity or any bad language. The tense scene in the 1982 version isn’t there at all. And the dog is very cute.

It’s undoubtedly ‘Disneyfied’, with that feel-good sense, and little time to think about or anticipate anything very much; it’s under 90 minutes in length, and I thought it could have benefitted from being a bit longer. However, as a piece of light-weight entertainment, it certainly filled the bill. And since it takes place in December, with the (inevitably) happy ending on Christmas Day, we’ve decided to put this with our Christmas DVD collection for the future.

Recommended if you like this kind of child-centred musical with some caricatured villains and a positive outcome. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Miss Potter (Renée Zellweger)

(Amazon UK link)

We were running a bit late yesterday evening, and wanted to watch something fairly short. ‘Miss Potter’ at just 87 minutes seemed to fill the bill. We saw it in 2014, but my husband had totally forgotten it, and I had only the vaguest recollection of a few scenes.

It’s a dramatisation of the story of Beatrix Potter, one of the best-selling children’s writers of all time. She’s best known, probably, for ‘The Tale of Peter Rabbit’, but she wrote a large number of other books, which she illustrated beautifully. They are still published, over a hundred years later, often in the original style of a small, square hardback which is easy for young children to hold. 

While there are forays into Beatrix’s childhood, as she thinks of odd moments or situations, the main story begins in 1902 when she is in a publisher’s office, submitting the text and drawings for ‘Peter Rabbit’. One of the rather strait-laced publishers is about to say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’, but his brother says he thinks that they can take it on. Beatrix (brilliantly portrayed by Renée Zellweger) is delighted. But after she has left we learn that this is to be the first project for their younger brother Norman (Ewan McGregor). They don’t expect it to sell more than about ten copies, so Norman is being fobbed off with what they think is cute and twee, but not commercially viable.

Norman meets Beatrix, and the two become friends as he introduces her to all the different aspects of producing a book. He discusses everything with her, and even takes her into the printing room to inspect the results. When the book is published, it rapidly becomes popular and sells a large number. Beatrix thinks their friendship must now end, as she has achieved her dream. But Norman persuades her to write out her other stories, to make more books. 

Norman’s sister Millie (Emily Watson) befriends Beatrix; both are single, and determined to remain that way. At least, they are until Beatrix realises that Norman is falling in love with her, and she starts to feel something for him, too. Her parents are horrified; they have moved into wealthy upper-middle class society despite having roots in the trade world, and they look down on someone who works for his living.

So there’s a romance going on alongside the remarkable success of the delightful little books, which, in the era, are startlingly different from any other children’s books. And it’s all beautifully done, in a way that kept us fully engrossed throughout. There is a bit of humour here and there - Beatrix is quite whimsical, and talks to her paintings as if they were her friends; there are some animations as she looks at them, which I liked very much. The expressions on the face of her constant chaperone are amusing too, at times, as are the caricatures she remembers of the ‘suitors’ whom her mother tried to introduce her to. 

There’s also some tragedy, hinted at in the musical change as Beatrix goes off on holiday with her parents. It’s very well done, and quite moving. 

Some of the scenery is stunning, and the pace is exactly right. Inevitably there are liberties taken with the story, but it seems to be pretty close to the reality of Beatrix Potter’s life. It’s interesting on so many levels: the obvious one is of seeing how her books came to be published. Knowing something about her life is also intriguing; she was a young woman rather ahead of her time, determined not to fall into a typical domestic role. And it’s the story of emancipation, of escaping from traditional parents, particularly her somewhat overbearing mother. For a young Victorian woman, this must have been quite a triumph.  Yet Beatrix comes across as quite a shy person, good at making friends, but unwilling to be in the spotlight. 

The rating is PG but it could easily have been U.  I didn’t notice any violence or bad language, and the most ‘intimate’ scene is that of a deep kiss. 

Highly recommended. 

Our DVD comes with a 'making of' documentary extra, but it doesn't really add very much. However it was a slightly surprising reminder that Renée Zellweger is American, and Ewan McGregor Scottish. They both spoke 1900s British English flawlessly, as far as I could tell, in the film. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Good Place (Series 1-4, complete)

(Amazon UK link)

We had never heard of ‘The good place’, but our son and his wife thoroughly enjoyed watching it last year.. So they sent us blu-rays of the complete series for Christmas, and we started watching on 10th January after finishing the similarly titled (but VERY different!) box series of ‘The Good life’.

We watched three episodes of series one the first evening, with no idea what to expect. We first meet Eleanor (Kristen Bell), who is in an office talking to an older, pleasant-looking man called Michael (Ted Danson), who says he is the ‘architect’ of the neighbourhood. He tells her that she died in a supermarket car park accident, and that she’s now in ‘The Good Place’.  Most people, he explains, are in the ‘bad place’. He says all religions are about ten per cent correct in their beliefs in what happens in the afterlife.

Eleanor is taken to a small, quirky house in her new neighbourhood, though she’s a bit miffed to see that others around have enormous mansions. And she’s told that she has a soul mate - Chidi (William Jackson Harper) - who is a likeable, if somewhat wordy academic. There are introductions to the ‘good place’ made by Michael, and Eleanor gets to know her neighbour, a rather condescending and glamorous tall woman called Tahani (Jameela Jamil) with a slightly fake-sounding upper-class British accent.

However, Eleanor does not think she should be in the good place. We get regular flashbacks to her life, where it’s clear that she was extremely selfish and somewhat manipulative. But Chidi hopes to make her nicer, and a tentative friendship begins with Tahani and her rather flaky soulmate Jason (Manny Jacinto), supposedly a buddhist monk with a vow of silence. 

The neighbourhood is enhanced by Janet (D'Arcy Carden), a humanoid computer who knows everything, and appears when anyone asks her to. She is able to advise, and to keep secrets, and when ‘killed’ will reboot to a more advanced version. We were very impressed with the actress who plays Janet. She not only plays herself, in different iterations but other very different Janets from other neighbourhoods. 

We continued watching two or three episodes each week; at first we were slightly bemused by the strange ethos, and the somewhat exaggerated acting. But it became oddly compulsive, and we were more and more intrigued as to what was going to happen. 

Strange things start to happen in the neighbourhood - sometimes very bizarre things at times. While Michael says he’s going to take the blame, Eleanor starts to take responsibility for her own actions. There are discussions about whether she should be sent to the ‘bad place’... and then a surprising twist at the end of series one. 

Series Two includes the same characters, now ‘rebooted’. That means they have forgotten everything that happened in Series One, and are starting over. With a few changes that are obvious to the viewer. And, again, it’s quickly compulsive viewing. We realised what a good actor Michael is, too; he is able to portray, with facial expressions and voice, different sides of his personality, depending on who he is talking to.  

The action is quite rapid, with some humour and conversation that’s surprisingly thought-provoking. Chidi embarks, once again (and again…) on a course in ethics in the hope of making other characters nicer. The script writers were very creative: after the first couple of episodes in this series we wondered if others were going to be similar, but each one has its own focus, with new adventures, discussions and twists.

During the course of the series these six main characters get to know each other better, and bond quite strongly, even after rebooting. They are courageous and increasingly caring, even when forced to be in the ‘Bad Place’, or - surprisingly - back on earth. We kept wondering what else could happen, only to be pleasantly surprised at yet another unexpected episode.

There are plenty of minor characters, some of them appearing in almost half the episodes, but the main six carry it through with their different and yet complementary personalities and actions. We started to become quite fond of them all. 

There’s some humour, some parts that are quite moving. Then, in the final episode of the fourth series, there’s a bittersweet ending which, once again, was unexpected. But it works well. It’s taken us four and a half months to finish watching the series, and I will miss it!

There’s very little actual bad language, although a lot is implied; in the ‘good place’ planned swear words emerge as innocent words, as, for instance, ‘fork’. There’s also no nudity or scenes of intimacy, although much is implied and there are a lot of references to genitalia in later episodes. It’s not a series for children; the rating is 12 for three series, and 15 for the fourth, and I think that’s about right.

The theology isn’t in line with Christian beliefs about the afterlife - or, indeed, those of any other religion - but the philosophy and discussions are both interesting and thought-provoking. 

Recommended, if you would like something light, amusing and yet oddly moving.

There are no extras on our blu-ray series. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

That touch of mink (Doris Day)

(Amazon UK link)

Over a year ago, now, we were given a selection of DVDs by an older friend who was downsizing. We have watched some of them, but not all. Last night we decided to watch another Doris Day movie, ‘That touch of mink’. We were surprised to learn, after watching it, that it was made in 1962. It had a much older ‘feel’ to it, as if it were a 1950s or even 1940s film (albeit in colour).

The film opens with a sequence showing Cathy Timberlake (Doris Day) standing on a street corner in pouring rain, only to be splashed quite badly by a car driving past. Nobody stops, and she is furious. 

After the title sequence, we see Cathy - still rather dripping - in an unemployment benefit office, claiming her cheque and insisting that she is trying hard to find work. She talks to the rather sleazy Everett (John Astin) who clearly wants to take her up to his apartment and seduce her. She is not remotely interested, and makes that clear.

We then see her ordering lunch in a cafe where her flatmate Connie (Audrey Meadows) works. Connie is full of advice, and annoyed on her behalf when she hears about her being splashed.

Meanwhile, in an expensive-looking office, Philip Shane (Cary Grant) is feeling slightly guilty about the incident in which he was involved that morning. He looks out of the window and happens to see Cathy as she goes into the cafe. So he asks his assistant Roger (Gig Young) to go and apologise on his behalf, and also to offer to pay for any damage or cleaning that is necessary.

I liked Roger enormously. A lot of the humour in the film comes from his insistence that he was happier in his previous job, and coerced to stay with Philip due to salary increases and benefits. Perhaps the joke is dragged out a bit far, but it was bizarre enough that I smiled, and sometimes even chuckled at it, each time. Roger also has some sessions with a therapist, Dr Gruber (Alan Hewitt) which lead to an amusing misunderstanding, one which would probably have been considered very risqué in the early 1960s.

I didn’t much like Philip Shane, however. Cary Grant was often typecast in this kind of wealthy businessman role, but I don’t think he’s all that good-looking. It was hard to see why Cathy fell for him when she was planning to give him a piece of her mind (much to Roger’s approval). All we could see was her facial expression, as it changes from one of righteous anger to a somewhat goofy star-struck look . Doris Day’s expressions are believable and very well done; but Philip is rather sleazy, and a known womaniser. His eventual plans for Cathy are a long way from the principles she absorbed from her small-town religious upbringing. 

The plot is somewhat predictable and stereotypical, but there are lot of asides and subplots that make this a surprisingly amusing and enjoyable film. The rating is U as there’s no nudity, no bad language, and nothing explicit. But a great deal is implied; it's full of innuendoes. It’s not a film I would recommend to children, even though most of the implications would probably go unnoticed. 

Having said that, there’s a bit of slapstick humour when the unfortunate Roger is mistaken, by Cathy’s flatmate, for Philip - again, more than once. It’s also very well done, and although I gasped, some viewers might find it very funny. 

The pace is good, if typical for films of this type, and the script very clever, with some excellent timing from the principal actors. There's not much chemistry between Philip and Cathy, but although it's a boy-meets-girl story, the focus is more on comedy than romance. 

All in all, we liked it a lot more than we expected to.  

x Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Main Street (Colin Firth)

(Amazon UK link)

I assume Amazon recommended the 2010 film ‘Main Street’ to me because Colin Firth is one of the main characters in it. The blurb sounded interesting, so I put it on my wishlist, and was given it for my recent birthday. We decided to watch it last night.

Unlike most films with Colin Firth, it’s set in the United States, in a small town in North Carolina. Firth doesn’t even appear in the first part of the film. Instead we meet the delightful elderly Georgiana (Ellen Burstyn), showing her house to a visitor. He comments that he’s heard that she’s thinking of selling it, and she insists that she doesn’t want to. She’s a bit doddery on her feet and evidently finds it hard to keep up such a huge house - but she’s lived there all her life.

When Georgiana is feeling nervous, her niece Willa (Patricia Clarkson) drives over to reassure her, to advise and generally to assist. She’s a competent woman, and they are clearly fond of each other. Willa thinks her aunt should sell the house; she’s less emotional and more practical.

There’s also an apparently unconnected story involving a young woman called Mary (Amber Tamblyn), who lives with her mother and is in love with someone who keeps cancelling on her. There’s a young policeman called Harris (Orlando Bloom) who is in love with Mary, but she has been avoiding him.

The characters and settings are well established when we finally meet Gus Leroy, the businessman who has rented a warehouse from Georgiana. Colin Firth is excellent in this role, although it was a bit of a jolt, at first, to hear him speaking in what seemed like quite an authentic accent from the American south. His business is in storing canisters that are potentially dangerous, but Georgiana had not realised this when they agreed.

Willa thinks her aunt should terminate the contract and return the money, but Willa has already spent it; she doesn’t like to admit it, but she is struggling with the upkeep of her house. And Gus has too many things going on, too many arrangements made. So they come to an agreement…

Gus is a businessman but he’s stringent about safety, and, it turns out, he’s kind-hearted too. And when something dramatic and potentially scary happens, he has to make a difficult decision.

I liked the way that there were so many subplots operating alongside each other, with some overlap between characters. I thought the acting was excellent; other than the brief blip at hearing Colin Firth with a southern American accent, we were caught up in the action, forgetting at times that this is a fictional story.

There’s some low-key romance in this film, but primarily it’s a drama, presumably one that’s realistic in its premise. We see a small town with little going for it, potentially boosted by a new industry which has helped other small towns to grow. We see relationships, some of them going back a long way, some new and unexpected. And there are a lot of interesting characters.

It’s quite slow moving at first, which may make it less appealing to those who prefer more action. But I appreciated the conversations and imagery, and the way we get to know each of the main characters before the story really gets going.

I felt that the ending was a tad abrupt; I would like to have known more about the future for some of the people whose lives were changed. But my husband thought it ended in exactly the right place. We both liked it very much, and thought it extremely well done.

There are no extras on our DVD. The rating is PG, which reflects the lack of anything that might trigger the censors, other than one dramatic and somewhat disturbing scene, though nothing explicit is shown. But I doubt if this would be of any interest to children or teens.

 
Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Miracle Club (Maggie Smith)

(Amazon UK link)

I think this film was suggested to me by Amazon because I had previously bought or liked others with the late Maggie Smith. I had never heard of ‘The miracle club’, a film that was made in 2023 although apparently it had been planned for a long time. I was given it for a recent birthday, and last night we decided to watch it. 

Supposedly the genre was comedy-drama, but it was not a light-hearted or amusing film. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and there are one or two lighter moments; but basically it’s quite a thought-provoking and sombre film. It’s very watchable, nonetheless. I was engrossed almost from the start. I had a moment's difficulty tuning into the Irish accents, but they aren't too strong and I don't think I missed anything. 

The date is 1967, and everything seems entirely authentic for the era. The first scenes are confusing, at least to someone like me who has a hard time keeping track of film plots and characters. We meet a lot of people, all from a small Irish town. There’s Lily (Maggie Smith), who looks very elderly but is evidently a strong character Maggie Smith would have been 89 at the time. Lily is still grieving for her son, who died four decades earlier, and regularly visits the place where he drowned. She’s married to Tommy, and they’re still very fond of each other. 

Then there’s Eileen (Kathy Bates), a middle-aged woman married to the rather grumpy and controlling Frank (Stephen Rea). They have six children, all living at home, from teenagers down to younger ones. And there’s Dolly (Agnes O’Casey) a young woman married to George, and struggling to cope with their two children. The older, Daniel (Eric Smith), is about five, and has never spoken. While it’s not stated, I assume from the way he behaved that he is supposed to be autistic. 

There’s a strong Catholic church locally, run by the likeable, forward-thinking Father Dermot (Mark O’Halloran). And as the film begins, everyone is preparing for a talent contest. The first prize is tickets to Lourdes, site (supposedly) of miracles. Lily, Eileen and Dolly form a singing trio and hope to win. Dolly wants to take Daniel there, and Eileen would like to go as she has just discovered a suspicious lump... 

As we also learn at the start of the film, Lily’s closest friend Maureen has recently died. What nobody expects is that Maureen’s daughter Chrissie (Laura Linney) will appear. She has been living in the United States for the past forty years, and left under a cloud. Nobody has heard from her, and nobody welcomes her back, other than Father Dermot. 

The second half of the film, roughly, covers the trip to Lourdes. None of the husbands want their wives to go - it’s a very chauvinist society - but with a little deceit and manipulation, they manage it. And while they are in the town, awaiting their turn in the baths, there’s a lot of talk; memories of the past are invoked, and confessions are made. All are hoping for miracles, convinced that they have only to bathe in the holy water for their problems to be solved.

But the water is cold, and it turns out that miracles are extremely rare… 

The acting is excellent, with all the cast believable. To me, Maggie Smith - despite her age - is the star, although all the main actors are very good. The pace, I felt, was just right with a blend of activity and heart-searching that worked well to keep me hooked. I found it quite emotionally draining, as relationships suffer, and people berate each other out of disappointment and anger. And yet the characters all learn important things about each other, and start to accept that they can’t change the past. 

One of the important themes of this film is that of forgiveness - both divine and human, and acceptance of other people’s grief. Faith is also significant, although several questions are raised. And despite the lack of any dramatic miracles, changes do happen. Overall, I thought the ending was encouraging. It left me wanting more, wondering what would happen to each of the characters in future.

The rating is 12A. I’m a bit surprised that it’s as high as it is. There’s no nudity or anything explicit, no violence, and nothing scary. There are a few instances of ‘strong’ language, and some discussions about unpleasant happenings in the past, but many of them would go over the head of a child. 

However, given the nature of the film, and the fact that all the main characters are adults, it’s not something I would show to a child, or even a younger teen.  And my only real 'gripe' with the film is that it's advertised as being a comedy, with quite a light-hearted cover; yet it's a very serious drama, with only a few lighter moments. 

Definitely recommended. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Postcards from the edge (Meryl Streep)

(Amazon UK link)

I sometimes spend a few minutes browsing Amazon’s ‘recommendations’ to me, based on films I have bought. I always read the blurbs and usually one or two negative reviews before adding something to my wishlist. We have a lot of films, so I’m quite picky, now, about choosing any more. ‘Postcards from the edge’ stars Meryl Streep, and features several other well-known actors, and was mostly positively reviewed. I added it to my list, and was given it for my recent birthday. 

So last night we decided to watch it. The image on the front and general feeling suggest a comedy of some kind. But I didn’t look at the blurb on the back, and had forgotten what I read on Amazon. So I had no idea what to expect. 

The film opens with a dramatic scene. A helicopter descends, someone leaps out, then Meryl Streep and two friends are stopped at a border, and she is accused of something terrible. However, it would be a spoiler to say what happens next, as the surprise is cleverly done.

Streep’s character is called Suzanne, who must be in her late twenties, no more than thirty. She could easily have passed for twenty-four or twenty-five, despite the fact that Streep herself must have been over forty when this film was made in 1990. And once again, this versatile, brilliant actor becomes the character, in a way that few others manage. When we watch a film with Meryl Streep, we barely remember her in other roles, as each one is so different, and she manages them all to perfection.

Suzanne, we quickly learn, is a struggling actress who has a problem with drugs. After a nasty incident, she ends up in rehab and we meet her mother Doris, who is a perfectly made up Shirley MacLaine. It’s evident that the two have something of a difficult relationship; Doris tries hard to be loving and non-judgemental, but she can’t keep it up for long. And she is forever talking over her daughter, convinced she knows best what she should be doing. 

The subject matter is a serious issue, not one that would normally be turned into a light-hearted film. Apparently this is based on a true story, although it may well be quite loosely based. Suzanne works hard to be free of her habit, taking up smoking instead. Doris is an alcoholic, though she seems mostly to have her drinking under control. And Suzanne is chased rather determinedly by a somewhat pushy young man called Jack (Dennis Quaid).

Into the mix comes Doris’s own mother, whose name I didn’t learn, but she’s played by Mary Wickes: an overbearing, judgemental, loud and critical woman. I didn’t like ‘Grandma’ at all. Her husband has dementia and keeps complaining about her in a way that I thought was bittersweet: he is able to say what other people are thinking, in a somewhat amusing way; yet his condition is not one to take lightly or joke about. 

There are some insights into the stresses and pressures that go into making movies - or did, in the 1980s; I don’t know how much it has changed since then. It is perhaps caricatured, but almost certainly has some truth in the horrors and degradations, and the way some actors are (or were) treated. 

The acting is superbly done, the pace just right and the story well told. I didn’t know some of the actors, but I recognised Simon Callow’s distinctive voice before seeing his character. On the other hand I didn’t spot Richard Dreyfuss as a doctor. 

There’s some singing, too; Doris, in her younger days, was apparently a stage singer, and Suzanne has an amazing voice too, though she doesn’t want to give in to her mother’s pressure to be a singer rather than an actor. 

I wasn’t sure I was going to like the film in the first twenty minutes or so, but I quickly became absorbed and overall thought it excellent. The rating is 15 which reflects some ‘strong’ language and the drug theme, though by today’s more relaxed standards it might be reduced to 12. 

Recommended if you like quite hard-hitting dramas with some light-hearted moments, or if you’re a fan of Meryl Streep. 

x Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Doctor Who, complete third series (David Tennant)

(Amazon UK link)

It wasn’t quite the end of the Christmas season when we started watching Doctor Who series 3. It begins with the ‘Christmas special’ which was first broadcast on December 25th 2006. We saw it in 2012 and I had entirely forgotten the storyline. 

It begins with a wedding. Donna (Catherine Tate) is walking up the aisle in her wedding dress, on her father’s arm. She’s clearly very much looking forward to being married, but suddenly she disappears… and ends up on the tardis. The tenth doctor (David Tennant) is bewildered as this should be impossible, and the two have a bit of an argument…

It’s a remarkably tense episode, in my view, with an alien that could lead to nightmares, the empress of the racnoss. And the references to Christmas are rather scanty, although there are a few light-hearted moments to punctuate the tension. The Santa robots of the series two Christmas special appear again, as this begins a year later, on Christmas Eve. I knew that Donna was one of the tenth doctor’s travelling companions, but she doesn’t accept his invitation in this episode, which seems to have been a one-off.

The first official episode of the series, ‘Smith and Jones’ introduces Martha (Freema Agyeman) as Martha Jones, a trainee doctor whose hospital unexpectedly ends up on the moon. The Doctor is a patient who knows something strange is going on. Martha saves his life, and he offers her just one trip in the tardis to the past, to convince her that he really does travel in time.

‘The Shakespeare Code’ is the second episode, where the Doctor and Martha travel to Elizabethan England and a production of a Shakespeare play that isn’t going as the author expects. It’s a bit creepy, but overall a light-hearted episode with some humour, and more than one nod to the Harry Potter series. I always like the episodes set in real historic periods. 

When they solve the problems and return to the tardis, they travel a long way into the future. ‘Gridlock’ sees the Doctor and Martha travelling to ‘New Earth’, where just about everyone is trapped in a huge traffic jam. They haven’t been stuck for hours, but, in may cases, months or even years. And attempts to go in the ‘fast track’ are doomed… 

Episodes four and five are a two-parter featuring the daleks, one of my least liked of the alien races. Just four daleks remain after the time war, and they seem to be looking to the future, trying to integrate better with humanity. But daleks are built for hatred, and they care nothing for the people they hijack to be part of their purposes. These were good episodes, although there are a lot of casualties.  

Episode six is, on the surface, a bit lighter, but it’s also very thought-provoking. The doctor takes Martha home, just a day after she left. And it looks as though it will be ‘goodbye’, although she feels devastated. But the Doctor happens to hear something on television, and this prompts him to investigate. We meet Martha’s mother and sister, and the idealistic Dr Lazarus who believes he has found the secret to eternal youth - or, at least, to reducing his age. But at what cost? 

I didn’t like episode seven, called ‘42’. The Doctor and Martha arrive on a spaceship which is hurtling towards the sun. There’s quite an interesting underlying storyline, but I found it very stressful as the time gradually clicks down, and the characters have to race through doors, solving codes, or rush around making adjustments to the controls. Too much fast action and stress for my tastes, and I closed my eyes several times so as not to be distracted by the rapid visuals. 

On the other hand, I did like the two-part story of episodes eight and nine, set mainly in a school. The first time we saw this, we realised just how good an actor David Tennant is, managing flawlessly to portray himself in two different personas. There are some quite creepy parts of these episodes, but it’s primarily character-based and I liked them very much. 

We decided to skip episode ten, ‘Blink’. I’m aware it’s considered one of the very best of the new Doctor Who series, but both of us find the weeping angels just a bit too disturbing. So we missed it out, and instead saw episode eleven, ‘Utopia’, with the time-travelling, apparently immortal Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) reappearing and flirting with Martha. He adds a bit of extra fun to his episodes, and the dynamics between the three characters are excellent.

What we didn't realise is that episode eleven is in fact the first of a three-parter... but it was late, so we left it another week.  Finally we watched episodes twelve and thirteen, where a prediction made by the dying ‘Face of Bo’ is uncovered. I liked the way that there’s what they call a ‘story arc’ moving through all the episodes, so that something mentioned in an earlier one could be revealed much later. 

There’s ongoing tension as Martha’s mother reports any phone calls to some officials, convinced the Doctor is dangerous. And there are a lot of scenes involving one or more of Martha’s family, when she and the Doctor are on earth. I had almost forgotten that the new, controlling prime minister is also an old enemy... John Simms is excellent in the role. 

Overall we thought this an excellent series. I liked Martha very much as a companion and was a sorry that she only did this one season. There are a few ‘extras’ throughout our DVD set, including some of David Tennant’s video diaries that go behind the scenes in interesting ways. Then there’s a final entire DVD with longer documentary-style extras, covering the background of several of the episodes. For anyone interested in some of the filming and production, these are well worth seeing. 

Definitely recommended. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Muriel's wedding (Toni Colette)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m sure I had heard of the 1994 film ‘Muriel’s wedding’, but we had never seen it. So when I saw it inexpensively at the local thrift store, it wasn’t a difficult decision to buy it. We decided to watch it last night. The blurb on the back said it’s a funny hit comedy, so we were looking forward to something light-hearted.

Unfortunately, it’s not at all a light film. It’s not even funny, although some of the characters are very stereotyped. Instead we found it extremely sad. It's set in Australia, initially in a small town with the unfortunate name of Porpoise Spit. 

Muriel (Toni Collette) is a bit frumpy and overweight, but longs to be accepted by her peers. She hangs out with three trendy young women, one of whom is getting married at the start of the film. Muriel catches the bouquet, but everyone else tries to persuade her to throw it again. After all, nobody’s going to marry her…

Muriel is part of a highly dysfunctional and very depressing family. Her father Bill (Bill Hunter) is a corrupt local politician, who is also a horrendous bully. He orders his unfortunate wife Betty (Jeanie Dryan) around, treating her like dirt. And he regularly insults all his children (I think there are five in all, Muriel being the oldest). None of them have jobs, and they’re all rather frumpy and don’t do much. Their father is so scathing that I’m not surprised they had no motivation or interest in anything. 

Muriel would like to find a job and move out of her family home; she’s something of a dreamer, and loves listening to Abba music. She also lies regularly, and has stolen clothes from shops. She’s offered a job by a woman who’s evidently keen on Muriel’s father, but then takes a blank cheque and uses it to buy herself an expensive holiday and nice clothes. 

The only somewhat likeable character in the whole film is a former schoolmate of Muriel’s called Rhonda (Rachel Griffiths), although she’s promiscuous and smokes heavily. But she’s loyal and interesting. They become friendly, and decide to move to Sydney and share a flat.  Then Rhonda learns something devastating. 

Muriel - who has changed her name to Mariel by this stage - is supportive of her friend, and I started liking her better. But she’s obsessed with the idea of getting married. She goes around all the bridal shops she can find, trying on expensive outfits, trotting out fake sob stories, and getting polaroid pictures taken. She’s invented a fiancé…the more I watched, the more it seemed as if she was entirely out of touch with reality.

There is a wedding, although it’s one of convenience after Muriel answers an advert. Her potential husband doesn’t even like her at first, yet she is a glamorous bride, smiling broadly as if she’s finally doing what she has always hoped to do. It’s surreal, as is her very depressing interaction afterwards with Rhonda, and the fact that her three former friends are her bridesmaids.

And yet, it’s a very watchable film. The acting is excellent, the pace good, and I quite liked the Abba soundtracks that were in the background for quite a bit of it. There are some lighter sequences - such as a talent show where the two young women are dressed like Abba members, singing and dancing to ‘Waterloo’. It’s extremely well done. But there are also some deeply sad sequences. I felt desperately sorry for Muriel’s mother, who is so eager to please everyone, and works hard with no appreciation - she’s barely even noticed, until it’s too late.

Back in the 1990s there was less political correctness; but even thirty years ago, I can’t see how any of the film could have been considered ‘funny’. The issues covered are all unpleasant ones, starting with blatant adultery in the first scenes, then covering theft, fraud, verbal abuse, deception and others - worse - which would be spoilers if I mentioned them.

The rating is 15 in the UK (R in the United States) which I would say is right. There’s nothing over-explicit or full-frontal nudity, but three or four sexual scenes, and quite a bit of raunchy conversation. There’s some bad language, too, though it’s not excessive. Definitely not suitable for children and I wouldn’t show it to most teens, either.

It’s very popular in some circles, and apparently won awards. But I wouldn’t recommend it. We were glad, overall, that we saw the film, as it’s so very well made and acted. But we found it quite depressing, despite a somewhat positive ending, and don’t want to see it again. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Meet the Fockers (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

I had heard of the 2004 film ‘Meet the Fockers’ several times in the past couple of decades. But for some reason I had not thought to acquire it. Perhaps the title was off-putting - I’m not sure. However, when I saw it inexpensively in a local thrift store a couple of weeks ago, I thought it would be interesting to see. If we didn’t like it, I thought, we could always donate it back.

It opens with a hospital scene. Greg (Ben Stiller) is a nurse assisting at a birth. He can’t get a doctor, so delivers the baby himself. We then see him at home, and his fiancée Pam (Teri Polo). They are preparing to go on a visit which evidently allows his parents to meet hers, so they can get to know each other before the wedding. Greg is clearly rather concerned about this. 

I had not realised until a few minutes ago that this film is in fact a sequel to another film, ‘Meet the parents’, in which Greg and Pam meet each other’s parents for the first time. I think that could be interesting to watch, so I will look out for it. But it isn’t necessary to have seen it first. ‘Meet the Fockers’ stands alone and doesn’t feel as if anything is missing. 

Pam’s parents Jack (Robert de Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner) are quite traditional in outlook. Jack used to work for the CIA, but doesn’t want Greg’s parents to know. And he’s acquired a huge luxurious motorhome in which the four of them are planning to drive to Greg’s parents’ home. Plus their cat, who has been taught to use (and even flush) the toilet.

And then there’s Little Jack, a total cutie who must be around a year old. He is played by the identical twins Spencer and Bradley Pickren, and he, to my mind, is one of the best characters in the film. He is competent in baby sign language, but until half-way through the film has not said a single word. However he toddles around like a child of fifteen months or so. I guess his age doesn’t much matter. He is Jack and Dina’s grandson, and they’re looking after him while their other daughter is away. Jack is trying to teach him new signs, and also introduce the so-called ‘Ferber method’ of sleep-training. 

Jack is also highly competitive in everything he does. Greg’s parents, by contrast, are relaxed, bohemian and very loving. They never expected Greg to be perfect, but honoured him in every achievement, no matter how minor. This goes a bit overboard and Greg finds it embarrassing, but I liked his parents very much Dustin Hoffman is wonderful as his father Bernie, and Barbra Streisand also excellent as his mother Roz. Greg has told his future in-laws that Roz is a doctor, but not that she works as a sex therapist..

The contrast of the two sets of parents is very cleverly done; perhaps it’s an advantage of not having seen the earlier film in that I had no idea what to expect. There are some very amusing scenes, some of them involving Little Jack, some exploring the contrast between Pam’s rather uptight parents and Greg’s very huggy, talkative and relaxed parents. 

The pace is perfect; the film is nearly two hours long but I don’t think I looked at the clock even once. It didn’t feel long at all. There’s a lot of humour and also some interesting insights into different relationships. There’s some great choreography and scenes that could almost be considered slapstick, but they are extremely well done. I didn’t much like Bernie and Roz’s small and annoying dog that tries to ‘hump’ everything it sees, but other than that I thought all the characters were well portrayed, believable, and - at least deep down - very likeable. 

It’s perhaps a bit predictable, but that doesn’t matter too much in this ‘rom-com’ film which really does manage to combine romance with some very amusing scenes. 

Rated 12A in the UK, and PG-13 in the US, which I think is about right. There’s no real violence, other than a couple of incidents that lead to a nose bleed, and there’s very little bad language, none of it ‘strong’, as far as I can recall, although of course Greg’s family’s surname does sound similar to a ‘strong’ word. But although there’s no real nudity or anything explicit, there’s a lot of talk about sexuality, and plenty of innuendoes and discussion of people’s intimate lives. So it’s not a film I would show to children, or even younger teens.

But for adults who want something light-hearted and amusing, without anything too serious, I would recommend this. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews