The love punch (Emma Thompson)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s ten years since we watched the 2013 film ‘The love punch’. Neither of us could recall anything about it, and we wanted something light to watch. So we decided on this film, noting that all four of the main cast were people we knew of. We’re not generally very aware of a lot of famous actors, so this was unusual.

Emma Thompson is wonderful as the middle-aged divorced Kate. We see her at a wedding, bumping into her ex-husband Richard (Pierce Brosnan). It’s clear that they still have things in common, but they can’t seem to exchange more than a couple of sentences without being unpleasant to each other. Emma Thompson has a gift of becoming the person she is playing - and I thoroughly enjoyed her role. 

Pierce Brosnan doesn’t seem to be quite as versatile; while the role of Richard is different from his best-known James Bond, there’s still a fair bit in common with the two. He looks and sounds like himself; not that it’s a problem, since his character fits very well with that of the businessman Richard. 

Kate has good neighbours who are close friends: Pen (Celia Imrie) and Jerry (Timothy Spall). Pen thinks that Kate would be a good match for her tennis coach, who is a rather klutzy over-keen person. Kate tries to be polite, and agrees to a dinner date with her neighbours and the coach…

However, this isn’t just a relationship-based film. Richard is a week away from retiring from a flourishing company which has been bought by a French organisation. He learns, to his horror, that the company has been run to the ground, and that his pension (and that of all his employees) is gone. This affects Kate, too, so they come up with a plan to get their money back. And it gets more and more bizarre as the film progresses.

Indeed, there’s more than a nod to the James Bond films, as well as others. The film seems to include a lot of adventure tropes - and I don’t watch many films of that nature. There’s an exciting car chase where Kate demonstrates unusual skill. There’s a scene where all four of the principal actors, dressed in wet suits and snorkels, wade into the sea, to the amusement of children nearby.  And there's a van almost falling off a cliff face. 

In addition, there’s a scene high up in a hotel building, climbing in and out of windows and balancing precariously. And there’s a jewel heist… or, at least, a planned one. To say more would give too many spoilers. But we thought it all extremely well done. There’s some humour, though nothing that made us laugh aloud. The chemistry between the actors is perfect; we could totally believe in Kate and Richard as a couple who married too young but are still fond of each other, deep down. 

I loved the way that Pen and Jerry are evidently very happily married. Through the course of the film, Jerry reveals, in passing, various unexpected information from his past, which Pen knew nothing about. But it’s done for humorous effect, even though she becomes quite stressed about it. Jerry just ‘happens to know’ rather a lot of people who are able to help in the unlikely and bizarre plot that slowly plays out.

There’s excellent comic timing, some great repartee, and the slapstick nature of some of the more humorous scenes is not overdone, but choreographed perfectly.  

The rating is 12, which seems about right; there’s nothing explicit, but a great deal that’s implied. I don’t think I’d show this to anyone under the age of about 15 or 16 anyway. 

There aren’t many extras, but we did watch some short interviews with each of the four principal actors. They didn’t really tell us anything new, but were quite interesting to see.

Recommended, if this kind of rom-com with a difference (and some silliness) appeals. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Shakespeare Retold (2005)

(Amazon UK link)

Many years ago, at a charity fair, I bought a DVD called ‘Shakespeare retold’. We’ve quite enjoyed productions of Shakespeare plays over the years, both live ones, and adaptations on film, such as ‘Twelfth Night’ and ‘Midsummer night’s dream’; both those are set in the 19th century rather than the 16th, but otherwise are true to the originals, using the same text.

What we hadn’t realised is that this BBC series consists of modernised stories, based very loosely on Shakespeare’s originals. So there’s almost none of the 17th century dialogue, although names of some of the characters are the same or similar to those used by Shakespeare.

The first one we watched one evening when we wanted something reasonably light, and not too long. It’s based on the play ‘Much ado about nothing’, which neither of us was very familiar with. It’s set in a TV news studio, primarily. The main characters, as in Shakespeare’s original, are called Beatrice (Sarah Parish) and Benedick (Damian Lewis). They have some history, as is clear from a brief opening sequence, and the director has decided to reunite them on screen as news anchors after someone else loses his job. 

There’s some good chemistry between these two. Initially it’s barbed insults and repartee, cleverly done, until others of the cast decide to manipulate each one into thinking that the other is secretly in love with them. That, I gather, is the main focus of Shakespeare’s original, and I thought it cleverly done. The overhearing is done through headphones or TV screens. 

Meanwhile the director’s glamorous daughter and weather reporter Hero (Billie Piper) starts going out with Claude (Tom Ellis), much to the dismay of Don (Derek Riddell) who is in love with Hero himself. Again, a very Shakespearean storyline. When they decide to get married, Don decides to sabotage the wedding..

There are a lot of other characters, and some quite amusing misunderstandings. In Shakespeare’s version, people kept overhearing what others were saying (sometimes they were intended to). This adaptation does something similar quite cleverly, with people watching on screen, or hearing through the studio speakers. The general plot does follow a similar structure to the Shakespeare play, and we very much enjoyed this production. It’s all cleverly done, with plenty of ironic humour and a bit of tension towards the end. 

The second play on the first DVD is Macbeth, but I find Shakespeare’s tragedies quite disturbing, and discovered that this one was set in a kitchen, with some slightly gruesome scenes; so we decided to skip this.

So the next one we watched, a week or two later, was a modern adaptation of ‘The taming of the shrew’, a play which we had watched, live, a few years ago. In this modern version, Kate (Shirley Henderson) is a government minister, possibly in line to become the next prime minister. And she is very, very shrewish. We see her right at the start, becoming more and more angry with dramatic facial expressions, before slapping her aide (David Mitchell) in the face. Apparently he gave her some incorrect information. 

Kate has a sister, the model Bianca (Jaime Murray), who has a lot of admirers. Kate has never had a boyfriend, which is hardly surprising as she is so mean to everyone. Then an adventurer called Petruchio (Rufus Sewell) arrives, penniless, and says his only solution is to marry somebody rich. He doesn’t care how awful she is, and sets his sights on Kate. She has already been told that her ratings will soar if she marries someone, so she agrees. Then she has an unpleasant shock as they arrive at the church for the wedding. 

The ‘taming’ applies as much to him as it does to her, and I’m not sure I found it entirely believable. But Shakespeare tends to write caricatured stories, and there’s a lot in the original that is decidedly unpleasant. Overall, we thought this a good - if somewhat bizarre - adaptation. 

And finally we saw ‘A midsummer night’s dream’, a version which is much closer to the original than any of the others. It’s set in a holiday park, but there’s a wood where fairies live and cause mischief. The start, and a few sections throughout, are told as a monologue to the audience by Puck (Dean Lennox Kelly). 

The story opens with a middle-aged couple throwing a large party for their daughter Hermia (Zoe Tapper) who is getting engaged to James (William Ash). Then she runs off with Zander (Rupert Evans), leaving James crying and ranting to Hermia’s best friend Helena (Michelle Bonnard), who is secretly in love with James…

Meanwhile the king and queen of the fairies have fallen out, and the king asks Puck for some ‘love juice’ for his wife, and also for James. But, as in Shakespeare’s play, the wrong young man is dosed, leading to chaos and miscommunication. The queen falls in love with the unappealing comic known as Bottom (Johnny Vegas)... and eventually everything gets sorted out. 

We thought this adaptation was extremely well done, with a lot of humour as well as the many romantic threads. The actors are all believable; it might have been confusing had we not been familiar with the story, but as it was, we liked it very much. There are excellent performances, too, from Hermia’s parents (Bill Patterson and Imelda Staunton).

The scripts of all three plays were clever, the stories told well, and the music effective. I still don’t have any wish to see the Macbeth production; I don’t know they did three comedies and one tragedy. But I would rate the other three highly. 

One of the DVDs has some extras on it - mostly still images, but there are some short interviews which we watched. There’s one for each of the plays, and they give a brief introduction, and explain the thought processes behind the different settings. 

Definitely recommended, if you like this kind of thing.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Doctor Who, the complete specials 2008-2010 (David Tennant)

(Amazon UK link)

We finished watching Doctor Who series four at the end of July, just before going away for most of August. After returning, I remembered that before series five there was a series of ‘specials’, in the course of which David Tennant would regenerate into Matt Smith. We saw these in 2013, but I hadn’t remembered anything about them.

The first episode, ‘The next doctor’, was the Christmas special for December 2008. I assume that the title was deliberately misleading, since this is not the episode in which the Doctor regenerates. It’s set in Victorian England, in a Dickensian environment with children in workhouses. We see a formal funeral with men only, in top hats and black suits. There’s also a ‘scarlet woman’ (assumed) - a beautiful woman dressed in red who shocks the men in black, and who is in league with the Cybermen. 

Oh, and there’s also a man who insists that he is the Doctor. He has a sonic screwdriver, sort of, and has created a rather unusual tardis. He has an assistant, the feisty, courageous Rosita, and he has clearly done several Doctor-like things. He knows all about cybermen, too… but his memories are very confused, and he doesn’t remember much at all, other than the most recent events. 

The second episode, ‘The world of the dead’, is set primarily in a huge desert, supposedly a different world. It starts with a dramatic ‘mission impossible’ style scene, watching a masked woman commit an ingenious crime. She runs from the police and boards a bus, where she meets the Doctor. There’s a fast police chase and a tunnel is blockaded… but the bus leaps through a ‘wormhole’ into this other world. 

Most of the story is about trying to figure out what has happened, and - more importantly - how to get back. Michelle Ryan is excellent as Lady Christina, who proves to be highly intelligent and almost a match for The Doctor. When we watched the ‘confidential’ extra on the same DVD, there was discussion about whether she might have made a good companion. But, it was explained, as David Tennant’s role as the 10th Doctor was coming to an end, he wasn’t taking on any new companions. There’s some humour in this episode, and in the ‘extra’ too. 

The third episode, ‘The waters of Mars’ is in stark contrast, despite it also taking place on another world. The Doctor arrives looking cheerful; he has no expectations of anything other than a friendly visit. He quickly discovers that the people living in the space station there are the first settlers in Mars, people whose names he knows well. The year is just 2059. When he learns the date, he becomes rather unsettled, insisting he should go.

Some of the filming is done in the style of a horror movie, with tense moments and music before a ‘monster’ is revealed… I found myself hiding my face in my hands more than once. I found it really quite scary as a story. But it was also interesting theoretically because the Doctor insists that an imminent disaster is fixed in the history of time, and there’s nothing he can do about it. This clearly stresses him… 

There are some scenes later in the book which demonstrate, once again, David Tennant’s superb acting ability. His acceptance of his role reaches its limit, and he decides to do something that he knows is wrong, against the laws of time. He is the last of the time lords, so he decides that he’s in charge - and the usually friendly doctor becomes arrogant and appears angry. 

The specials end with a two-part episode, ‘The end of time’.  These were apparently broadcast on Christmas Day 2009 and New Year’s Day 2010. That would account for Christmas decorations being in evidence on the first part, and mention of the new year in the second. But they’re not typical ‘holiday’ episodes. Instead, they’re a dramatic end to David Tennant’s role as the 10th doctor.

In part one of ‘The end of time’, the Master is resurrected, in a somewhat bizarre and disturbing form. He has extra powers, but sometimes he appears as a skull. He is excessively hungry, attacking food in a rather gross and very greedy way; it’s implied that he also eats people if he can’t get other food. 

What I liked best about these episodes is that the Doctor reunites with Wilf (Bernard Cribbins) who turns out to be a very significant person. I love his sense of humour and the joking friendship he has with the Doctor. It was also nice to see Donna, although it was essential she should not remember anything about her travels. 

I’m not sure I entirely followed the storyline, which includes a ‘gate’ (supposedly harmless) which the Master reprograms. It also includes episodes showing the Time Lords, who were supposedly lost permanently in the time vortex. Timothy Dalton is excellent as their leader. The episode ends with the Master changing everyone on earth (with a couple of exceptions) into clones of himself.  

Part two of ‘The end of time’ is faster-paced with a lot of chase scenes and a storyline that becomes increasingly more confusing. The Doctor and Wilf are rescued, and we learn that the Time Lords are responsible for the constant beat in the Master’s head, which is driving him crazy. 

One has to put aside any kind of logic with this show, and accept that the progression of time is - as the Doctor said once - a ‘big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff’. So the world - indeed the entire universe, and time itself - are due to end. But, obviously, they don’t. I didn’t follow the processes, but it’s all very well done even if I had to hide my eyes a few times, when the action became too fast.

At the end, it’s clear that the Doctor is going to regenerate - it’s no surprise as he’s been expecting it since the end of Series Four. He keeps going longer than would be expected, surviving several near-death experiences. And I particularly liked what he called his ‘reward’ - revisiting former companions and loved ones, seeing how they were doing. 

David Tennant is a great actor, and never more so than this final episode when we see him in many different moods. He is angry and also grieving about the fact that regeneration is not just like changing skin. It’s the end of his personality, even if in another sense he will continue living. 

Each DVD of this box set features just one episode of about an hour, and a good number of ‘extras’. We thoroughly enjoyed watching the Doctor Who confidential documentaries, a few deleted scenes, and other random extra features. 

Highly recommended if you like watching Doctor Who, and particularly if the tenth doctor is one of your favourites.  The rating for most of these is PG which reflects the lack of any nudity, sexual content or 'strong' language. But there's inevitably a lot of tension and some violence, so it's not recommended for a sensitive child. I don't think I'd want to show it to children under the age of about ten or eleven, even though, back in the 1960s and 1970s, Doctor Who was billed as a children's TV programme.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mother's Day (Jennifer Aniston)

(Amazon UK link)

Another new (to us) film is ‘Mother’s Day’ which we bought for 50 pence in the UK this summer. It was made in 2016 and we had not heard of it; but three of the main actors are well-known: Jennifer Aniston, Julia Roberts, and Kate Hudson. 

The first few scenes introduce a lot of different people, and I found myself somewhat bewildered for the first twenty minutes or so. It wasn’t clear who, if anyone, was the ‘main’ character, nor what the plot was about. It was evidently all pointing towards a celebration of the US holiday ‘Mother’s Day’ (which is in May) and that turns out to be the tentative thread connecting the various groups.

Jennifer Aniston is excellent as Sandy, a woman with two sons. She is divorced from Henry, but they’re still quite amicable… until she learns that he’s married a much younger woman. And this younger woman is surprisingly good with their sons. Her jealousy and anger are sometimes a tad exaggerated, but this film isn't intended to be taken too seriously. 

Sandy’s friend Jesse (Kate Hudson) is married to Russell (Aasif Mandvi) and they have a son called Tanner. Sandy’s parents are very bigoted and protective, and have no idea that she is married; they were horrified when they heard she was dating an Indian, and she pretended that they broke up. They also don’t know that their other daughter, Gabi, is married to a woman.

Then there’s Kristin (Britt Robertson) who lives with Zack (Jack Whitehall). They have a daughter, Katie, and Zack would love to get married. But she’s quite insecure, in part because she was adopted. 

There’s also Miranda (Julia Roberts) who is a larger-than-life model promoting jewellery - I assume she was meant to be a caricature, as everything she does is exaggerated, even towards the end when it’s clear how she fits in with others in the cast.

Oh, and there’s Bradley (Jason Sudeikis). He was widowed a year before the story starts, and has two teenage daughters. They’re all struggling in different ways to come to terms with their tragic loss. Bradley wants to ignore Mother’s Day completely. 

In addition to these (and I had to check an online synopsis to remember any of their names) there are a large number of friends, supporters etc, and of course the various offspring. Gradually I realised that there were three or four different stories happening alongside each other, but I never entirely sorted out who was whom. There are some quite moving moments, and some humour - this is, after all, technically a romantic comedy.

There are some well-done scenes scattered throughout, and we appreciated those. I liked Zack’s attempts at being a stand-up comic, particularly when he had to take his daughter on stage with him. I quite liked the scenes where Sandy messes up one thing after another; it’s exaggerated, but well done. And there’s a very nice scene on the morning of Mother’s Day, when she realises how much her sons love her. 

I also liked the scenes involving Hector Elizondo, who is Miranda’s agent. It took me half the film to realise why I recognised the actor, and suddenly remembered that he had a big role in the ‘Princess Diaries’ films. I knew I recognised the actor playing Zach, as well. But I could not recall where I had seen him previously. Eventually I looked him up, and realised that he was in the excellent series ‘Good Omens’, which we watched earlier in the year. 

The rating of ‘Mother’s Day’ is 12, which I think is about right, although there’s nothing overtly sexual, and no nudity. There are plenty of innuendos, but they would mostly go over the heads of younger children. There’s  no violence or gore, and only mild swearing with one instance of ‘strong’ language. But the subject matter - divorce, adoption, parental loss, bigoted parents etc - isn’t really appropriate to young children. So I don’t think I would show this to anyone younger than about fifteen. 

There are some gag reels and deleted scenes as ‘extras’ on our DVD, but no documentary about the film. 

It made a good light evening’s entertainment, and no doubt we’ll watch it again in another decade or so. But it’s not exactly a memorable film. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

My family and other animals (Darren Redmayne)

(Amazon UK link)

Many years ago, it was inexpensive and reliable to buy DVDs from online UK shops to send to Cyprus. I browsed the sites regularly, and bought quite a few classic films at excellent prices. We introduced our sons to some of our favourites from the 1980s, and bought some TV series on DVD too. 

But I hadn’t realised, when I bought it, that ‘My family and other animals’ was a BBC series rather than a single film. So for various reasons, we hadn’t seen it. I loved the book, which I first read when I was about twelve, and most recently in 2006. 

The story is well-known, based on what actually happened. Gerald Durrell and his family moved to Corfu when Gerry was twelve. He was passionate about animals of all kinds, and brought many of them home. His mother was mostly calm and long-suffering, and dealt not just with Gerry’s increasing menagerie, but with the foibles and demands of her older three offspring. Larry wanted peace and quiet to type, Leslie kept shooting things, and Margo liked to sunbathe and go out with a series of unsuitable men. The book has a nice balance of amusing family situations, and Gerald’s discoveries and acquisitions. 

We finally watched the TV series over the past month or so, a couple of episodes at a time. It was made in 1987 though it looks older than that. But the book was set in the 1930s, so it’s inevitably rather old-fashioned in style. And, as far as I recall, it sticks quite closely to the book. Hannah Gordon and Brian Blessed are billed as the stars, and they are both excellent. 

Hannah Gordon is exactly as I imagined Mrs Durrell - quite laid-back about her quirky family, and with a sense of humour. Brian Blessed is perfect as Spiro, too, their self-appointed Corfiot guide and chauffeur, who becomes a close family friend. Most of the locals in the series are clearly locals from Corfu; they are similar enough to Cypriots that we found a lot of the local scenes quite familiar, even though they happened over 90 years ago. 

It’s quite slow-moving, which is fairly typical of films and shows made in the 1980s, but also reflects the slow lifestyle that the family adopts. There are some great scenes with dialogue which I’m fairly sure was taken directly from the book, and the chemistry between the family members feels entirely believable. Larry’s demands increase, and his mother goes along with them, wanting to keep the peace. 

So there are scenes of the family at mealtimes, and also quite a few showing their attempts to have Gerald (Darren Redmayne) educated with a variety of different tutors. Theodore (Christopher Godwin), with his stammer, is just as I recall him from the book. I thoroughly enjoyed the family scenes, with the authentic backgrounds and local people. 

On the other hand, I didn’t much like the scenes involving local wild-life. There are, in my view, far too many close-ups of lizards, snakes, large insects and more, and I had to hide my eyes several times. I also found myself feeling very sorry for some of the animals, particularly birds, which were housed in cages that seemed rather too small. 

Still, as a series showing events from the book, we thought it very well-done. I would recommend it to fans of the book who would like something that (as far as I recall) sticks really very close to the original. I’d also recommend it to people who are familiar with Greek culture, as it feels so authentic. I’d have preferred it a bit faster-paced and with fewer animal scenes; but Gerald Durrell was famous for his knowledge and treatment of animals later in life, so it’s not unreasonable that they have a significant role. 

Each episode is about half an hour, and they are mostly complete in themselves. The music works well in the background and over the (short, by today's standard) titles sequences.

There are no extras in our DVD series. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

How to lose a guy in 10 days (Kate Hudson, Matthew McConaughey)

(Amazon UK link)

‘How to lose a guy in ten days’ is the film on a DVD we picked up for 50p in a charity shop in the UK earlier this year. It was made in 2003. We had no idea what to expect, but we usually like light romantic comedies. So we decided to watch it last night.

Andie (Kate Hudson) works for a women’s gossip magazine called ‘Composure’ (evidently intended to be a spoof on another well-known magazine that starts with the same two letters). She writes ‘how to…’ articles, but really wants to focus on more serious issues such as politics or the refugee crisis. Her best friend Michelle (Kathryn Hahn) also works there, but has endless relationship issues. Their boss Lana (Bebe Neuwirth) wants someone to write an article based on Michelle’s love-life, and Andie volunteers…

So Andie is set to write ‘How to lose a guy in 10 days’. And she has to do this for herself: dating someone and making all the mistakes Michell has made, with the aim of making him break up with her within the first ten days. 

Meanwhile Ben (Matthew McConaughy) works for an advertising agency, and really wants to get the contract with Composure magazine. He sees himself as irresistible to women, and claims that he can make anyone fall in love with him in ten days. So he is set the challenge of finding a new girlfriend, and having her declare not just liking or lust but love, within the first ten days…

Inevitably (with a little assistance from Ben’s competitors) Ben and Andie start going out, each with their own agenda. Ben does all he can to be charming, something he does very well. Andie does all she can to be annoying, and some of it is very amusing. Within about a week it’s clear that the two are becoming quite close at times… and also that Ben is becoming increasingly irritated with some of what Andie does. He feels as if there are two sides to her, and he isn’t sure which side is real…

While not a new idea, it works well to have the audience aware of both the motivations, as it makes for some quite amusing situations. At times Andie’s actions are a bit cringeworthy - deliberately so, of course - and Ben is clearly near to breaking. But the more she wants him to break up with her, the more he is determined to stick it out. And when she meets his parents, and sees him with his family, she realises that he’s actually a very nice man.

The ending is rather predictable, of course; but the route the story takes is less so. We thought it was all very well done, with some great lines, and excellent chemistry (both positive and negative) between the two principals. The supporting actors are excellent, too. The pace is good, and if the overall story is nothing new, it’s a different take on it, one which we thought unusual and cleverly done.

‘How to lose a guy in 10 days’ was never going to be a huge hit. It’s a bit too formulaic for that, despite the clever script, great acting and unusual premise. But for a light evening’s viewing, it met our requirements perfectly. 

The rating is 12, which seems reasonable to me. There’s a fair amount of minor bad language, but it doesn’t feel excessive. There’s quite a bit of discussion about sex, and relevant body parts, but nothing explicit. There’s some tension, but it’s mostly done for comedy - and since this film is about adults, it’s unlikely to be of any interest to younger children, or indeed anyone under the age of at least fifteen. 

Recommended, on the whole, if you like light-weight rom-com films. 

There are no extras on our DVD.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews