Muriel's wedding (Toni Colette)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Meet the Fockers (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Lover come back (Doris Day)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Chariots of fire (Ben Cross, Ian Charleson)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Three to tango (Matthew Perry)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews