A hard day's night (The Beatles)

(Amazon UK link)

We’ve had the DVD of the classic film ‘A hard day’s night’ on our shelves for years. I have no idea how or when we acquired it. But last night we decided, at last, that we would watch it. We knew nothing about it, other than that it featured The Beatles.

The film was made in 1964, but was in black-and-white. This didn’t worry us, after a moment’s initial surprise. And while there is, of course, quite a bit of Beatles music featured, the film doesn’t feel like a standard musical. Instead, it’s a story - fictional, but based loosely on the kinds of things that might have happened - starring the four Beatles as themselves.

We first see them chased and almost mobbed by screaming young women, but getting onto a train with their manager Norm (Norman Rossington) and his sidekick Shake (John Junkin). They are also accompanied by Paul’s grandfather (Wilfred Bramble). I could not understand the frequent references to Grandfather as ‘a very clean man’, until we watched one of the ‘extras’. Apparently he was better known in a sitcom from the same era, ‘Steptoe and Son’, where he played an elderly man who was known for being very grubby. 

Dad's Army series 3

(Amazon UK link)

In the early part of 2024, we spent a couple of months watching the first two series of the classic ‘Dad’s Army’ TV series that we recalled from childhood. I was surprised at how enjoyable the show was, despite seeming very dated in some of the production style. So I ordered a few more of the series, sent to relatives in the UK, to collect in the summer.

In the meantime we started watching other light TV series. It took until towards the end of October 2025 to decide to watch Dad’s Army series 3. Unlike the first two series, it’s in colour, although it doesn’t feel all that different from the earlier, black-and-white episodes. Series 3 was broadcast in 1969, when - as far as I remember - we only had a black-and-white television anyway. My father loved this show, and I used to watch it with him. 

However, although I must have seen at least some of these, I didn’t remember any of them. I evidently didn’t see them on one of the many reruns. I was surprised, since the episodes from the first series felt quite familiar. Evidently it had become popular enough to run for longer by 1969, since Series three has 143 episodes, enough for a full quarter’s season. 

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

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

Let's Make Love (Marilyn Monroe)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Apartment (Jack Lemmon)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews)

(Amazon UK link)

After re-watching ‘Saving Mr Banks’ a week ago, I was eager to see the film of ‘Mary Poppins’ which I had not seen for at least twenty years, possibly more. I saw it as a child, possibly in the cinema, and certainly on television, when I was a teenager. But although we have had the DVD for a long time, and it’s been seen many times by other people, I don’t recall watching it myself. 

What a delight it is! It’s a long film, over two and a half hours but I didn’t find it over-long at all. Made in 1964, this was the first film role for Julie Andrews, who’s probably better known as ‘Maria’ in ‘The Sound of Music’. She makes an excellent Mary Poppins, the nanny who arrives at the Banks household, floating down from the sky…

The story is set in 1910. Mr Banks (David Tomlinson) is a very regimented man who works at a bank in London. He arrives home at six o’clock on the dot (emphasised by an eccentric captain neighbour who sets of a cannon at this time) and goes through the same routine each day. He’s fond of his young children Jane (Karen Dotrice) and Michael (Matthew Garber) in a vague kind of way, but wants them to behave impeccably and mostly keep out of his way. 

Despite the fact that several nannies have left in less than a week, Jane and Michael are not badly-behaved or wild children. Sometimes they get distracted, or decide to hide, but they’re basically kind, honest and likeable. We were very impressed by the two children playing their parts; both were less than ten years old, and entirely realistic in their roles.

Mrs Banks (Glynis Johns) is in stark contrast to her husband, although she’s very fond of him and entirely defers to him as head of the household - at least, when he’s with her. She’s an active campaigner for women’s votes, and spends a lot of her time on protest marches. She and the two main household servants Mrs Brill (Reta Shaw) and Ellen (Hermione Baddeley) provide most of the humour of the film.

On the children’s first outing with Mary Poppins they meet her old friend Bert (Dick van Dyke) who is working as a street artist. We’ve already seen him as a one-man band, earlier in the story, and he appears later as a chimney sweep. He’s multi-talented, and his tap dancing skills come to the fore in several scenes. 

In addition to the ‘realistic’ story featuring the family, there are some surreal mystical adventures, the first one including a countryside break, with singing animals and merry-go-round horses that take the children onto a racecourse… this is all done in animation, and I was full of admiration, knowing this was all done by hand long before the days of CGI or even computer-aided animation. There are some delightful sequences, very cleverly produced.

There are a lot of songs, as this is a musical production. Some of them are well-known, others less so, but all are very well done, most accompanied by excellent choreography. I have have a slight criticism, it’s that some of the songs are a bit drawn-out. Modern directors would have cut them much shorter, and made the film faster-paced; I’d have preferred it just a little faster in places. But in the 1960s films were longer, and apparently people had better attention spans. 

Overall I thought it an excellent production. Our DVD set is an anniversary edition which has an ‘extras’ disc, including interviews with the musical director, one with a rather older Julie Andrews and Dick van Dyke, looking back on the making of the film, and quite a long documentary ‘extra’ about the making of the film. All very interesting. I was surprised to learn that the whole outdoor setting of the Banks’ street was a set in a studio. None of the film was shot in London. 

I’m glad we watched it after seeing ‘Saving Mr Banks’, particularly the extras, as that story - which is mostly true - gives a lot of useful and personal background. 

Highly recommended, to adults and children so long as you don't mind suspending reality somewhat.  

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Pink Panther (Peter Sellers)

(Amazon UK link)

Browsing stalls at a church sale a few months ago, I spotted a box set of DVDs containing five of the ‘Pink Panther’ comedy-detective series of films from the 1960s. I recalled quite liking them many decades ago, and they looked in excellent condition, so I bought the collection. 

Last night we decided to watch the first of them, simply titled ‘The Pink Panther’, which was the first of the series, produced in 1963. I’m not sure I’d ever seen this before, the film that introduced the legendary jewel known colloquially as ‘The Pink Panther’, because of a slight pink flaw. It’s owned by a princess; there’s a brief cameo at the beginning when we see her, as a small girl, being given it by her father. 

I remember watching the animated children’s show ‘Pink Panther’ when I was about nine or ten. I had no idea that this was a spin-off of a detective series, nor that the pink panther was anything other than the bright pink feline character who starred in the cartoons. Apparently it was invented for the opening sequence of this film - and it’s extremely well done; we were all the more impressed, knowing the credits were done by hand rather than using computer graphics.

The story is a bit confusing at first; there are several clandestine meetings, around the world, where (I gathered) valuable jewels had been stolen. But the action really begins in a hotel in Italy where the princess (with her pink panther jewel) is staying, as are several potential guests. It was hard to keep track of who was whom as they all had similar accents and clothes, all very 1960s, but it didn’t much matter.

But Sir Charles (David Niven) stands out early on, a suave womaniser who is set on seducing the princess. He has a nephew, too, called George (Robert Wagner) who has been educated in the United States and has just graduated. It’s quickly apparent that his personality is similar to his uncle’s, albeit without the elegance or suavity. 

The most important person, however, is Inspector Clouseau, brilliantly played by Peter Sellers. He’s investigating a series of robberies by a mythical ‘phantom’, and is convinced that the pink panther jewel will be stolen at some point over this weekend. Clouseau is a wonderful creation; he’s quite intuitive but very naive, and extremely clumsy. There are some cleverly choreographed scenes where he trips or breaks things, and where he’s entirely hoodwinked by his wife Simone (Capucine) who apparently entertains several lovers. 

There’s lots of silliness in the film, including a fancy dress/masked party where Clouseau and some of his colleagues wear the most bizarre outfits. Two people dressed as gorillas manage an excellent sequence, and there are car chases, ski chases, and a kidnapped dog. John le Mesurier makes a cameo role towards the end as a barrister, and Claudia Cardinale is a dignified, tee-total princess 

The script is clever, the music works well, the actors are believable (in a 1960s dramatic kind of way) and the story begins to make sense in the latter part of the film. There’s a lot of smoking, of course, and a surprising number of innuendoes and suggestiveness even though nothing explicit is shown, nor any nudity. Language is mild and there’s minimal violence (most of it comedic). The rating is PG which makes sense, although I can’t imagine many young children being at all interested in this film.

‘The Pink Panther’ is nearly two hours long, but I didn’t notice the time - although the pace is mostly quite relaxed, it didn’t feel at all dull. I liked the fact that there weren’t continually scene changes but a little more time to get to know some of the cast, unlike today’s fast-action films.

I understand that there's an updated 'Pink Panther' movie with Steve Martin in the role of Clouseau. I'm sure it's well done, but it's not the one we saw, and (according to some reviewers) not as good as the classic.

I would definitely recommend the original 'Pink Panther' film if you don’t mind silliness and a bit of mild slapstick (very well choreographed) and would like a light evening’s undemanding viewing.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Sidney Poitier)

(Amazon UK link)

It was nine years ago that we first saw the film ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’, so it was more than time to watch it again. My husband had entirely forgotten what it was about; I recalled the general theme, but not much more. It was made in 1967 and is thus extremely dated, but still, on the whole, well made and thought-provoking.

Spencer Tracey - who died soon after the film was completed - is excellent as the upright, principled and somewhat irascible Matt. He and his wife Christina (Katharine Hepburn) are a fairly well-off late middle-aged white couple living in San Francisco, in the United States. Christina is the owner of an art gallery, and Matt the editor of a prestigious newspaper.

They have brought up their daughter Joey (Katharine Houghton) to be inclusive, accepting and generously liberal. Racism is clearly still somewhat in evidence in the United States in this era, but Matt has written articles against it. They see themselves as modern, liberal and intelligent adults.

Joey has been on holiday in Hawaii, and has arrived back with a young man, John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) whom she has fallen in love with. He is a highly educated doctor who has worked all around the world. However he is rather older than she is… and he’s also black. For all their liberal principles, this is quite a shock to Joey’s parents.

There’s not a great deal of plot in this film, which takes place in the course of just one day. I imagine it was quite eye-opening fifty years ago, inviting viewers to examine their own hearts, to see whether their beliefs and principles would extend to their own children marrying someone with a different coloured skin. However there is a great deal of discussion and debate, as Joey and John try to convince her parents that they won’t have serious problems if they get married. And they plan to do that soon.

There’s some humour in the situations, some irony, and much that was very serious back in the 1960s in the United States. The person who objects most to the proposed union is the family’s housekeeper and cook Tillie (Isabel Sanford) who is the most racist of all and believes that John is an imposter.  This is nicely balanced by the family friend Monsignor Ryan (Cecil Kellaway) who is wise, and thoughtful, and also - in places - very amusing.

When John’s parents arrive (apparently booking flights at the last moment was much easier than it is nowadays) they find themselves entirely in agreement with Joey’s parents, in another gentle irony.

Inevitably the style of the film is dated, but that isn’t a problem, even if some of the backdrops look rather fake. Harder to accept was that while three of the main characters are ideally suited to their roles, and extremely good, Joey is rather fluffy and unrealistic, making us feel that John could do better for himself! And while the black/white issue is, for the most part, no longer relevant, there are plenty of other modern equivalents, where parents might have idealistic views, but less inclined to approve when one of the parties concerned is their own child.

We had to suspend belief a little at the way everything happened, just in conversation and discussion. At times, towards the end, the film felt a bit like a play with different scenes involving groups of actors talking, and poor Tillie waiting to serve the dinner... but overall we liked the film very much and would recommend it to anyone.

Rated PG, which I imagine is for the racial slurs (though only one instance of the word now considered very bad) and other mild bad language. But it’s unlikely to be of any interest to children anyway.

Review copyright 2019 Sue's DVD Reviews

A Taste of Honey (Rita Tushingham)

(Amazon UK link)

Years ago we acquired some DVDs which a relative had collected free with weekend newspapers. ‘A Taste of Honey’ came with a Sunday Telegraph, and has sat in our to-be-watched DVD drawer for five years or more. We knew it was black-and-white, which isn’t necessarily appealing, but last night we finally decided to watch it.

The film, made in 1961, is set in a northern coastal town of the UK. It stars Rita Tushingham as Jo, a young girl of perhaps 15 or 16. She lives with her mother Helen (Dora Bryan) but the two have an acrimonious relationship. Helen likes drinking and dancing, and men… Jo is full of anger at life in general, and her mother in particular.

We see them doing a ‘moonlight flit’ from a rented apartment where they have fallen behind on payments, ending up somewhere worse, though presumably without either means to pay or references. It’s impossible to tell time-frames, as the action moves forward in random jerks; Jo is at school when we first meet her, then employed at a shoe shop, looking after herself.

We thought at first that it might be somewhat amusing, but it’s really all rather depressing. Rita Tushingham’s acting debut is impressive, and apparently she won an award for the role, going on to a lengthy career as an actress. Dora Bryan is also a expressive, if caricatured and rather inconsistent. At one point she seems to care for her daughter, at other points she ignores her or treats her badly. She’s shallow and increasingly dislikeable as the film progresses.

Jo herself is rather blatant; she appears quite shy at first, but makes male friends as easily as her mother clearly has done through the years. There are a lot of issues in this film which were probably very shocking back in 1961. Jo first makes friends with a black sailor, and then with a young man who is gay. Promiscuity is rife, along with casual sex, although it all takes place off set. Indeed, I see that the film was initially rated as X, although there’s no real violence, no bedroom scenes, and no bad language. Our edition is rated 15, but I see that the general UK rating is now 12. That seems about right to me, although I can’t imagine it being of interest to anyone below the age of at least fifteen.

I understand that the genre is that of the ‘kitchen sink drama’ which was popular in the 1950s and early 1960s in contrast to the lavish earlier films that were produced. So we see a slice of what life probably was like for poorer, working class folk of the era. But the conversation is quite stilted in places, the action slow and plodding, the background music irritating. Worst of all, there’s no resolution to any of the storylines.

I was startled to read that the play on which the film was based had quite a run both in the West End and Broadway. I should perhaps have guessed that it began as a play, since there are only five named characters in the play, as far as I recall, although there are a lot of children around as extras. I was even more surprised to learn that this film is highly rated and won several awards.

Perhaps it’s a particularly good example of the kitchen sink genre; maybe caricatured and depressed looking characters are to be expected. But neither of us enjoyed it. It’s only 96 minutes long, but I found myself regularly glancing at the clock. It certainly isn’t the pleasant escapism I look for in watching DVDs.

I really wouldn’t recommend ‘A Taste of Honey’, but don’t necessarily take my word for it. It’s clearly very popular in some circles.

Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews

Oliver! (Mark Lester)

(Amazon UK link)

‘Oliver’ is the classic musical production based on Charles Dickens’ book ‘Oliver Twist’. The plot is well-known, as are many of the songs - such as ‘Food, Glorious Food’ or the catchy ‘Oom-pah-pah’. First produced in film format in 1968, this is a lengthy DVD, over two-and-a-half hours in length. It follows the typical style of musical films in that the plot is interrupted regularly by well-choreographed and beautifully sung pieces, which (at least in the case of this one) lighten the mood.

I had only the vaguest memories of this film, but we had it on DVD. It’s rated U so I rather naively assumed it would be a good one for some young friends (aged 3 up to 11) to watch. Thankfully they didn’t opt for it, and instead I saw it - or most of it - in the company of two teenage friends who already knew the story. One of them had read the Dickens book.

The story, set in the mid 19th century, starts in the workhouse. Oliver, who has lived there all his life, draws the short straw and makes the infamous request for more gruel. He is sold to a local undertaker, and escapes, only to find himself part of a gang of juvenile pickpockets. It takes him a while to work out what’s going on, by which time he is ensnared by the greedy Fagin, and the evil Bill Sykes. Bill’s wife Nancy, however, develops quite a soft spot for Oliver who is quite tender-hearted despite his upbringing.

It’s very well done. The young Mark Lester makes a very believable Oliver with an amazing singing voice, and Jack Wild was perfectly cast as the Artful Dodger, Oliver’s new friend and lead amongst the young pickpockets. The songs go on, perhaps, a bit too long for today’s youngsters, and some of the general shots of scenes in London were rather slow; an editor today would, I’m sure, reduce the length by at least half an hour with no loss of plot or dialogue. But those are minor quibbles; it’s a classic film, and this kind of thing is to be expected.

What surprised me more was the level of violence in the film, something which, I feel, should have lifted the rating to at least PG, preferably 12. There are two very unpleasant deaths at the end; one is off-stage, but it’s still clear what went on, and the other, while less gruesome than that in the book, could still give nightmares to a sensitive child. Earlier in the film there is a great deal of violence - or threatened violence - to the boys, in ways that would today be considered seriously abusive.

While there is no overt bad language, nudity or intimacy, there are some clear innuendoes, and quite a bit of drinking - not inappropriate for the characters and era concerned, but equally not something I would want a young child to see. I will no longer offer it to my younger friends as a possibility!

Still, for teens and adults, it’s worth seeing at least once, if only to learn where the songs come from, and to appreciate the grandeur and complexity of such a major production in the late 1960s.

Available as DVD or Blu-Ray.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews

The Italian Job (Michael Caine)

(Amazon UK link)

I first saw this film over twenty years ago, when - a little ironically - we were living in the US for a couple of years. Some friends invited us over to see the video, assuming we would like it because it was 'so British'. Never good at understanding fast-moving action, I found it very confusing in the early sections, mildly amusing in the middle, frustrating at the end. I wasn't very impressed, although my husband thoroughly enjoyed it.

As I learned later, the 1969 version of 'The Italian Job' is considered a classic. So when it came out on DVD we thought our teenage sons should see it. My husband watched with them, but I decided against it. However, last night some teenage friends asked to watch it, and I though I'd see if time had mellowed my opinion.

The basic plot involves some crooks, ably headed by Michael Caine, who plan - in minute detail - a major robbery in Italy. To do this includes hacking into the traffic control computers to cause a traffic jam. So we have the introduction to this (essentially another crook failing in the attempt), and a lot of discussion about it, and some preparation, and then the actual day. There's a lot of fast action, some of it very cleverly choreographed, and some mildly amusing sections although they mostly involve some kind of slapstick violence.

So it's an action film involving cars, which is fine; not my taste, as there's little room for character development, but suitable for most viewers... I had a hard time understanding what was going on in the early sections, but the essential plot was pretty clear.

What surprised me was the number of fluffy girls involved in the first part. Everything that happened was clearly behind closed doors with no detail, but still the implied activities of the hero were sleazy, and totally unnecessary as they didn't add anything at all. Indeed, they were very demeaning to the girls in question. 

The UK rating for 'The Italian Job' is PG, which seems about right. However I would probably have said 12 myself, given that there are a few mild swear words, a great deal of violence (albeit non-gory) and some implied sex.

What surprised me even more was to learn that the US censors, usually more prudish than the UK ones, rated this as G - suitable for all.

On the whole I thought the film was quite watchable, given the genre. I had forgotten almost everything in it other than the ending, and that wasn't as frustrating as it was the first time since I knew what was coming. Our young friends were shocked when the titles rolled at the end, leaving the film (literally) on a cliff-hanger... but overall they enjoyed it very much.

We then watched the classic 'deleted scene' with a band playing the 'Blue Danube' while cars 'danced' ... that alone made it worthwhile, in my view!

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews

Never on Sunday (Melina Mercouri, Jules Dassin)

(Amazon UK link)

While I was browsing Amazon, as one does, this DVD was recommended to me, along with several others that were about Greek culture or people. I assume that this is because I had already rated 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' highly, and had 'Driving Aphrodite' on my wishlist. I had no idea that there were so many films featuring Greek people! I skimmed through the reviews, rejecting the ones that were unpopular, and put 'Never on Sunday' on my wishlist, as it seemed to be very highly regarded in both the UK and US.

I received it for Christmas, and we watched it last night.

Our first surprise was that it was as old as it is. I hadn't really taken in the details, so we had not noted that it was made in 1960, nor - stranger still - that it was black and white. I also hadn't expected that over half the film was in Greek, with English sub-titles (there are options for three or four other languages in the menu).

However, it seemed like an interesting story, if somewhat unusual. Ilya is the main character, brilliantly played by Melina Mercouri who is best known as one of the earliest women in Greek government. She is a lively, fun-loving 'lady of the night'. She goes swimming each morning to entertain sailors, and is said not to have a price... she chooses her men, depending on whether or not she likes them.

Homer (Jules Dassin) is an American philosopher visiting Greece, determined to find out what made the country descend from the great cultural icon of ancient times into the disorganised, light-hearted crazy culture he sees around him. We first come across him in a taverna, watching people getting drunk and dancing in typical Greek style. He makes a cultural error, and is embroiled in an angry fight when Ilya - who speaks pretty good English - arrives and manages to negotiate.

Homer is shocked when he discovers Ilya's profession, but sees her as an icon, a representation of all that he considers to be wrong with Greece. So he sets out to educate and enlighten her.. in a way that seemed, at first, to be along the lines of 'Pygmalion' (a story popularised in the films 'My Fair Lady' and 'Educating Rita').

We liked the story, once we got used to the regular subtitles, and the way the film was made. Ilya is quite a believable person, in a 1960s, never dishevelled kind of way, and the strangely named Homer is a cleverly satirical character, determined that his own country and culture are superior to the one he is visiting. Yet he does not object to some hypocritical wheeling and dealing on his own behalf.

What puzzled us is that the UK rating is only PG, and it's not rated at all in the USA. Admittedly there is no bad language, and there are no overt bedroom scenes or below-the-shoulders frontal nudity displayed; but there's a great deal of it implied. Indeed, the entire story has an 'adult' theme that should surely attract at least a '12' rating. There are many scenes of drunkenness and disorder, and some violence too, though nothing too gory. Not that it worried us - it just shows how ridiculous some of the ratings systems are.

I'm not sure I'd particularly recommend this film, but it was interesting to see - and probably all the more so since we ourselves live in a Greek-speaking country, so could catch at least some of the Greek dialogue, and certainly understood the reality (if a little caricatured) of the culture.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? (Katharine Hepburn, Katharine Houghton, Sidney Poitier, Spencer Tracy)

(Amazon UK link)

'Guess who's coming to dinner?' is apparently a landmark film, which was made in 1967. I wasn't very old then, so it's not surprising that I didn't see it at the time; more surprising, perhaps, is that I had not even heard of it before Amazon recommended it to me, based on my wishlist and DVDs I had bought.

The story is about Joanna (Katharine Houghton), a young white woman, who falls deeply in love with John (Sidney Poitier), an intelligent, much-sought-after doctor. John also happens to be black. I gather that this was pretty much unheard of in the USA in the 1960s, when – although it’s hard to imagine, from our more enlightened times – it was illegal in several states for ‘mixed race’ marriages.

However, Joanna is confident that her parents, who have brought her up to be extremely liberal minded about race, will be delighted for them. John is less certain about his parents. What nobody expects the extremely negative reaction from Tilly, Joey’s family’s much-loved cook and housemaid, who is also black. 

All the parents, too, have to battle their initial shock at something they were not expecting. Joanna's parents, played brilliantly by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, have a major struggle to see if they can reconcile their theoretical beliefs with the actual situation in front of them.

The feel of the film is rather ‘1950s’ – I was surprised it was made as late as it was, and that was not just due to the content. There were some very fake-looking scenes supposedly featuring sunsets or other outdoor views, which were nothing of the sort. Still, the acting was good, the script excellent (given its vintage), and I felt totally involved in the film and characters all the way through.

Even though the particular subject-matter is now long out of date, this film gives a fascinating insight into some of the ways we deal with prejudice of any kind, and how difficult it can be to reconcile what we believe in theory with a situation involving someone we love.

Definitely recommended. Rated PG in the UK and apparently not rated at all in the USA.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews

Billy Liar (Tom Courtenay)

'

(Amazon UK link)

Billy Liar' is a popular classic film from 1963, which I hadn’t seen before. Possibly I would never have done so, but for a free offer in a Saturday paper, passed on to us by relatives.

Billy (Tom Courtenay) is a young man who dreams of a better life. He has a fantasy world which he escapes to at times. Unfortunately, despite being an adult working as a clerk, he has still not learned to distinguish fact from fantasy. So he makes up stories not just for his parents but also tells them to his friends and colleagues.

Billy has managed to get engaged to two different young women, due to this bizarre character quirk. He is also in big trouble for having forgotten to post a large number of calendars some months previously.

We had no idea what to expect, and were surprised that it felt extremely old-fashioned in style, more like a 1950s film. This may have been, in part, because it's black-and-white rather than colour, but that doesn't usually bother us. 

There are a few amusing moments, and it was interesting to see the film that – apparently – was the first one featuring the young Julie Christie. But on the whole I thought it silly rather than humorous. It is basically a sad reflection of someone living such a boring life that he has never grown up.

Rather a discouraging ending, too. Not really recommended. I don't think we'll watch this one again. 

Rated PG in the UK, but not rated at all in the US, apparently.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews

Yours, Mine and Ours (Lucille Ball, Henry Fonda)

(Amazon UK link)

'Yours, Mine and Ours' is an American film from 1968. It is based, apparently, on a true story.

The story is about two widowed people with large families who meet and fall in love. Frank (played by Henry Fonda) has ten children, while Helen (Lucille Ball) has eight. With so many children, it takes much discussion and indecision before they decide that they really do want to get married.

Trying to blend the two families together (eighteen children in all, aged eighteen down to about two) produces significant difficulties, as might be expected. The children are not particularly unpleasant. But they're all quite lively and none of them is keen on the idea of a whole host of new step-siblings.

There’s some humour, and quite some touching moments, with a fairly predictable resolution. It feels comfortably dated. It's rated PG in the UK due - I assume - to some alcohol and sexual references. In the United States it is not rated at all.

There's nothing too deep in the storyline, which keeps moving along at great pace, so it makes a pleasant evening’s viewing for a couple or family, without any great mental strain.

Recommended.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews

The Miracle Worker (starring Patty Duke and Anne Bancroft)

(Amazon UK link)

As far as I remember, this is one of many DVDs we were given by a relative, who acquired it as a free gift with a Sunday newspaper. I'm not sure we would ever have bought it; it's rather an under-rated version of a true story that would not naturally appeal to many people.

Moreover, 'The Miracle Worker', in this 1962 version, is in black and white, giving it a rather dated feel at first glance. However, we were very quickly drawn into the story. It's based on the life of Helen Keller, a girl in the USA who was both deaf and blind, due to a serious illness in babyhood.

With no way of communicating with Helen - and a great deal of sympathy for her plight - her parents had no idea how to handle her. She had become totally wild, prone to horrendous tantrums and, even more worryingly, was increasingly dangerous to herself and others. So eventually a young teacher (Anne Bancroft) was employed to try and bring some control to her life, and see if she could help Helen to communicate via signs, traced on her hands.

The acting was superb, particularly by Patty Duke who played Helen. She and her teacher dominated the film, with the other characters rather flat, but that didn't matter. My only minor gripe is that the film ended rather abruptly. I would like to have seen more of the story, as I know that Helen Keller went on to do amazing things with her life.

We were also disappointed in the sound quality of this particular edition; we had to switch on subtitles as we found we were missing so much of the conversation. But perhaps that was a problem with the DVD itself.

Highly recommended, in any case.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews

The Parent Trap (Hayley Mills)

(Amazon UK link)

Now that I'm well into middle age, at least in theory, I want to relive some of my childhood and introduce young friends to classic films and stories. However, this is not a film that I could remember seeing, or even hearing about.  The reason we ended up with 'The Parent Trap' on our shelves is that it was on special offer in a double-pack with 'Pollyanna'. 

But when I suggested watching 'Pollyanna', it didn't much appeal to my husband. Then he decided that 'The Parent Trap' sounded much more interesting. So we watched it.

First the negative side of this film. It's rather twee, and feels extremely dated. It was actually made in 1961, so it was not quite as old as we thought. We would not have been surprised if it had been ten years earlier. Moreover, the plot is - in the end - rather predictable. Not to mention unlikely, relying as it does on an amazing coincidence following bizarre circumstances...

To say any more would be a spoiler, although I imagine that most people interested in this movie will know at least the outline of the plot.

On the plus side, it's really a delightful feel-good story, once one accepts the 1960s twee American style of acting. The young Hayley Mills does a wonderful job, acting two girls brought up in different environments. She even manages two distinct American accents. That this was done before the modern days of easy special effects is in itself a triumph of production.

So I would recommend 'The Parent Trap' as a warm family film that doesn't require much thought. There is, apparently, a 1998 remake of this film which modernises the names and situations. But many people who have seen both prefer this original. There's something special about watching a classic.

Review copyright Sue's DVD Reviews