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

Lover come back (Doris Day)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Chariots of fire (Ben Cross, Ian Charleson)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Three to tango (Matthew Perry)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Goodnight Mister Tom (John Thaw, Nick Robinson)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Shirley Valentine (Pauline Collins)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely recommended.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews