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