My Old Lady (Kevin Kline)

(Amazon UK link)

I had seen several recommendations for the DVD ‘My Old Lady’ on Amazon. Since Maggie Smith was listed as one of the main characters in it, and reviews were mostly positive, I added it to my wishlist and was given it for my recent birthday. Last night, we decided to watch it. We didn’t know what to expect, and liked it very much. 

Apparently the film is based on a play, and was directed by the play’s author who was in his mid seventies at the time. We thought he did an excellent job. There are just three main characters, and a handful of others who stand out; that’s typical of a stage production, and it works very well as a film.

The whole story is set in Paris, filmed on location. But one of the main characters is an American: Mathias (Kevin Kline) is a man in his sixties who has learned from a lawyer that he has inherited his father’s house. He has been having some financial problems, and has spent his last money on his flight.  

We quickly learn that Mathias didn’t have a good relationship with his father, and that he hasn’t inherited any money from him - that was all given to charity. However, he assumes he can sell the house in Paris which is reputed to be worth quite a lot due to its size and location.

What he doesn’t expect is that even this house comes with a sting in the tail: it was bought inexpensively under a French system known as ‘viager’. That meant that the house was occupied by an elderly lady called Mme Girard (Maggie Smith), the former owner of the house, and she would continue to live there until she died. Worse, Mathias must continue to make payments to her every month for as long as she lives.

He then discovers that Mme Girard’s daughter Chloe (Kristin Scott Thomas) also lives there, and she is very antagonistic to him…

There’s a lot in the film, which has some beautiful shots of Paris, some acerbic, perfectly timed humour (mostly from Maggie Smith’s character) and some deeply poignant reminiscences of childhood. Both Mathias and Chloe are lonely people, and while their lives have been very different, they discover that they have much in common.

The three main characters are so believable that I felt entirely drawn into the story. The supporting cast are realistic too, and it felt at times as if I knew the cast. Their screen chemistry and acting is impeccable. Maggie Smith (who was 80 when this film was made) plays a woman of 92 as well as she has all her many other superb roles over the year. 

The overall plot is perhaps a bit predictable, but that doesn’t much matter; it’s a character study as much as anything, a story about discoveries, and family loyalties, and the effects of infidelity. We were mesmerised. I had expected it to be more amusing than it turned out to be, based on the front cover: instead the humorous moments nicely balanced the deeper, more heart-wrenching sections of the film.

All in all, we liked it very much and were glad we watched it. The rating is 12A in the UK, PG-13 in the US. It’s not a film that would be of any interest to children - or teenagers, for that matter, as the main characters are in their sixties. But I’m surprised the censors didn’t rate it PG as there are no scenes of intimacy or nudity, almost no bad language, and no violence. 

The only ‘extra’ on this DVD is an interview with the author of the original play, who directed the film; it’s not too long and was very interesting.

Definitely recommended.

  Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Doctor Who: Flux, series 13 (Jodie Whittaker)

(Amazon UK link)

I had the thirteenth series of ‘Doctor Who’ on my wishlist for quite some time, so was very pleased when we were given the DVD set last Christmas.  We were coming to the end of the fourth ‘Father Brown’ series, which we had been watching on DVD, and when we finished that we watched ‘The Revolution of the Daleks’, a Doctor Who special which preceded the thirteenth series, and which had been in our to-be-watched drawer for over a year.

We started watching the thirteenth series - which has the title ‘Flux’ on the box - towards the end of February. There are only six episodes, but I was away for three weeks and we had only seen five of them. We watched the last episode (and the extras on the third DVD) last night. 

What an epic series it has been! Unusually for Doctor Who, the episodes are not complete in themselves, or even two-parters. They are essentially a six-part series, each episode ending with a dramatic cliff-hanger as the story continues. The overall theme is that a huge hurricane of anti-matter, known as The Flux, is sweeping across the entire universe causing devastation and wholesale destruction everywhere it goes.

Inevitably this eventually gets stopped in the final episode; that’s really no surprise. But there are many different subplots all blending together involving almost every enemy race that I could recall from the Doctor Who series. The daleks, the cybermen, the sontarans, the creepy weeping angels… all have their place in what feels like a very confusing but well-made series. 

My favourite parts of Doctor Who are the human interactions that take place, and the more emotional stories. The start of the first episode drew me right in: a young man called Dan (John Bishop) acts as an unofficial guide to parts of Liverpool. He’s clearly a generous person but also in financial straits. Strange things start happening to him and then he’s kidnapped by an alien spaceship…

Inevitably Dan is rescued and it becomes clear that he’s going to travel with the Doctor (Jodie Whittaker) for a while, along with Yas (Mandip Gill). He’s a good addition to the team, quick to grasp what is needed, and full of courage as well as having a sense of humour.

Another thread I liked involved two new characters: Vinder (Jacob Anderson) who is in a spacecraft travelling the galaxy alone and making reports, and Bel (Thaddea Graham) who is a talented warrier and navigator. The two are romantically involved but have somehow lost each other, and are both on a quest to reunite. 

There are also quite complex time-travel threads with a woman called Clare (Annabel Scholey) who reappears in different eras, and a professor (Kevin McNally) who finds everything delightfully interesting despite increasing danger. And there’s an interesting connection with real-life history, with Joseph Williamson (Steve Oram) who built tunnels under Liverpool in the nineteenth century. 

Another foray into real history happens in the second episode of the series, and involves Mary Seacole and the Crimean War… except that it’s a war against an entirely different race from that which we have learned about. Sara Powell is wonderful and entirely believable as the courageous Seacole who was a pioneer in medicine around the same time as Florence Nightingale. 

Meanwhile the Doctor has lost some of her memories, and is fighting against not just the familiar enemies but the chilling ‘Ravagers’ who seek to destroy everything. There’s a lot of backstory about the Doctor in this series, and in the earlier ones too, which hasn’t happened so much with earlier incarnations of the Doctor. 

It’s a magnificent series, shorter than planned, apparently, as it was filmed during the pandemic. My husband didn’t seem to have any problem understanding what was going on, but I find fast action and loud noises confusing, and had to read summaries of the episodes after watching to figure out what I had missed. I’m still not sure I grasped more than the overview but with all the human interest stories, I looked forward to watching it each week, and am very glad I did.

We have the subsequent ‘special’ episode to watch over the next few weeks, and in the autumn plan to start over with Series One of the ‘new’ seasons, involving the Ninth Doctor, and re-watch everything again to see if it gradually becomes clearer. 

Definitely recommended if you like Doctor Who. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Shakespeare in Love (Joseph Fiennes, Gwyneth Paltrow)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s nearly twelve years since we watched the 1998 film ‘Shakespeare in Love’, so it was definitely time for a re-watch. We only had the vaguest recollection of the story, and I had entirely forgotten that there were so many well-known actors in this film. Joseph Fiennes is excellent and quite believable as the young Will Shakespeare, even if rather different from how I had imagined the playwright.

The film is set in the late 1590s, in a realistic-looking London, full of commerce, noise and general hubbub. We learn that there are two theatres, one doing fairly well, the other one in dire straits. The owner of the second theatre is being tortured by his creditors as he is unable to pay them the vast sum of twelve pounds… however he promises them a new play by the upcoming young genius Shakespeare, and they agree to give him more time.

Shakespeare, meanwhile, is supposedly working on his play ‘Romeo and Ethel the Pirate’s Daughter’, but is in despair as the words won’t come. He believes he needs a new muse, and it’s clear that he’s a serial womaniser, despite being married to Anne Hathaway, who is still in Stratford. We weren’t at all sure how much of this film was historically realistic and how much was fictional; the ‘extra’ that we watched afterwards explained that we know very little about Shakespeare himself, but that historical details (such as the information about theatres, and some of the minor characters) are accurate. The blend works brilliantly.

It’s quite a raunchy story, as Will meets and falls for the beautiful Lady Viola de Lesseps (Gwynneth Paltrow). She lives in a class and culture that expects arranged marriages, and her parents have decided that she should marry Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) despite him being rather overbearing and arrogant. 

Viola is quite a rebel, and sometimes dresses up as a boy, giving herself the name of Thomas Kent, so she can get out of the house without a chaperone. She has an old nurse who loves her (Imelda Staunton) and helps her in this disguise. Viola loves the theatre and particularly the plays she has seen by Shakespeare…so she decides to audition for a part in the new play.  Will, fired up by having met Viola, writes the first act of what will eventually be Romeo and Juliet, and engages ‘Thomas Kent’ as Romeo. 

There’s some humour in this film, which we both appreciated; it’s not laugh-aloud funny, but there are some ironies and a few good one-liners. There’s also the situational humour in that nobody - including Will at first - realises that ‘Thomas’ is in fact a woman despite the fact that it seems very obvious. However the idea of a woman on the stage is so shocking that perhaps it wouldn't have occurred to anyone.  

I thought the blend of reality and fiction was extremely well done. The writing of Romeo and Juliet, which goes through several adjustments, is entirely believable. Possibly my favourite character was Queen Elizabeth I, brilliantly portrayed by Dame Judi Dench. Apparently the real Queen Bess was a huge fan of theatre, despite some of the London leaders wanting them closed down. This comes through in the movie, and there’s a wonderful blend of arrogance and humour in the way the Queen is portrayed.

The film is rated 15, which I think is correct. There’s not much bad language; expletives are mostly very mild. There’s also not much real violence; the most disturbing scene was the first one, and that was quite brief. There’s plenty of stage violence, but that has some humour and is not too gory. But the whole film is about an adulterous affair, and there are several obviously sexual scenes. There are flashes of partial nudity and some scenes where little is left to the imagination, although I suppose a couple of them were meant to be humorous.

‘Shakespeare in Love’ won several awards, unsurprisingly; overall it’s an excellent film, and I would recommend it to anyone - adults or older teens - wanting to get an idea of what the young William Shakespeare and his daily life might have been like.  

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

One Fine Day (Michelle Pfeiffer, George Clooney)

(Amazon UK link)

We decided to take a break from watching mid-20th century classics last night. Instead we watched ‘One Fine Day’, a light rom-com which was released in 1996. It’s a bit shocking to realise that this is nearly thirty years ago! We watched it in 2014 and had almost no memory of the story.

Michelle Pfeiffer stars as the efficient architect called Melanie. She has a young son, Sammy (Alex D Linz) who is probably meant to be about five; he behaves as if rather younger, although the actor, I gather, was about seven. He’s a likeable child who is constantly active and curious, getting into trouble one way or another regularly. 

We learn from an early conversation that Sammy adores his father, who doesn’t live with them any more; he desperately hopes that his father will make it to a soccer game he’ll be playing in later that day. And Sammy is also looking forward to his school field trip on a boat. Melanie is ready to leave; all she has to do is collect Maggie (Mae Whitman) one of Sammy’s classmates, whom she takes to school. 

The action then switches to a small apartment where Maggie’s father Jack (George Clooney) lives on his own. It’s clear that he’s rather disorganised and can be child-like and silly at times. A knock on the door heralds his ex-wife and her new husband with Maggie, whom they’re leaving with him for the next week. He doesn’t seem to be aware that this is going to happen, nor does he have any clue about her schedule. 

He listens with half a mind to his ex-wife’s instructions and takes a sheaf of papers… then spends some time eating junk food and playing with Maggie, unaware until she mentions it that she should be in school going on a boat trip. And he hasn’t remembered to let Melanie know that he will be taking Maggie to school himself. 

Inevitably both children are too late for the boat trip; equally inevitably the parents get thrown together although Melanie is very antagonistic towards Jack. It is, after all, his fault that the children have missed their trip. And she has no idea what to do with Sammy during some important work meetings…

The scene is set for an amusing day, which we see alternately from Melanie and Jack’s viewpoints. Sammy has a tendency to put objects up his nose, while Maggie is passionate about cats, and will forget everything else if she sees one and decides to follow it. The child actors do at least as well as their adult co-stars, and I was particularly taken with Sammy. Having the children as such a big part of the film brings it out of the ordinary, and we both enjoyed it very much.

There’s plenty of mild humour; we didn’t laugh aloud, but I smiled several times. There’s some choreographed slapstick type humour which slightly made me wince, but it was well enough done that it was amusing too. The pace is excellent, the conversation believable, and if the outcome is somewhat inevitable, that wasn’t a problem. 

The film is refreshingly free of ‘strong’ language, with only the mildest of profanities. It’s also free of anything violent or overtly sexual. There are quite a few risque references here and there, but nothing major. The rating of PG seems about right; parents have different opinions about what children can be exposed to and children vary in their understanding. I doubt if this would be of any interest to a young child anyway, despite the young actors. 

Definitely recommended if you want a light evening’s viewing that actually is a romantic comedy, even if the humour is mostly fairly understated. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Grand Hotel (John Barrymore)

(Amazon UK link)

Yesterday evening we decided to watch another of the classic films we were given recently by a friend. We knew nothing about ‘Grand Hotel’, although I gather it was very highly regarded in 1933 when it was released. And as an early example of a full-length movie (it’s nearly two hours) it’s quite impressive in its cast and some of the filming. It's in black-and-white, rather than colour, but that doesn't worry us. 

Even we had heard of both John and Lionel Barrymore, who play important characters in this film, and of course we knew of Greta Garbo by repute, although I don’t think either of us had seen her in action before. Joan Crawford, Wallace Beery and Lewis Stone are the other main characters, although we had not heard of any of them before, as far as we know. 

There are a lot of extras too, and other people who appear in minor roles, and the opening of the film is quite confusing. The entire film is set in a large, luxurious and very expensive hotel in Germany. We first see a row of girls from the back, operating what I assume is a telephone switchboard. 

Then we see several characters on the phone: a man awaiting news of his new baby, a businessman hoping for information about an upcoming deal, someone else concerned that a temperamental dancer is not happy. None of these seem to be connected - people come and go, and it took me at least twenty minutes to realise which stories were ongoing, and which were minor. 

‘Grand Hotel’ does not have a coherent storyline; it consists of several ongoing interactions between different people. The pace is good - it’s nearly two hours long, but it didn’t drag. On the other hand, it didn’t grip me at all. The only likeable character is that played by John Barrymore, known as ‘Baron’. He’s desperate for money and we quickly learn that he’s being employed to steal an expensive necklace from the temperamental dancer (Greta Garbo). 

Joan Crawford’s character is, I learned when researching afterwards, called Flaemmchen, known as Flaemm . Unfortunately it sounded like ‘phlegm’ when she or anyone else said it. She’s a ‘stenographer’ (a fast typist, possibly using shorthand). But she’s entirely willing to do other things for money, including spending the night with her married employer. 

And I think that epitomises what I disliked about this film. It’s basically quite sordid. The Baron has a kind heart, and doesn’t want to hurt anyone, but towards the end of the film something shocking and unexpected happens to him. Joan Crawford’s employer (Wallace Beery) is a sleazy bully.  Lionel Barrymore’s character, the rather naive Mr Kringelein, is staying in the hotel because he has been told that he is dying, so he wants to use up the money he has saved. As for the dancer played by Greta Garbo, she’s over-dramatic, self-centred and greedy for adulation. 

Acting in the 1930s was always somewhat overdone and artificial, and that didn’t worry us over-much, although it was hard to identify with any of the characters. And frankly, the more we watched, the more I disliked it. I kept hoping there would be some redemption - something positive for at least some of the people. But for most of them (other than one minor character) the outcome is essentially either sordid or quite depressing. 

I gather some of this film was considered amusing, but we thought it was all rather sad, given the scenarios. Not in a weepy way, though; we didn’t care enough for (or believe in) anyone sufficiently to feel moved. However, I did appreciate the irony of the comment at the end of the film (repeating one said at the beginning) that nothing ever happened in the Grand Hotel. 

There’s nothing explicit shown, of course, although there are plenty of implications of intimacies and affairs. And there’s no bad language and very little violence.  There’s one disturbing scene which is implied rather than actually shown. So the rating originally was A (now PG). The subject matter wouldn’t be of the least interest to children or young teenagers anyway - and frankly, we disliked it so much we wouldn’t show it to anyone. It’s not a DVD that we plan to keep on our shelves.

Not recommended. But having said that, this film won awards and is highly regarded by many, so don't necessarily take my word for it. Perhaps it’s worth seeing once as a bit of cultural education, and an example of a different genre of film. 

Review copyright 2024 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

Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn)

(Amazon UK link)

Working slowly through the twenty-five classic DVDs given to us by a friend who was downsizing, we decided to watch ‘Sabrina’ last night. We had never heard of this film, which was made in 1954, but we had certainly heard of both Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart who were billed on the cover as the stars, along with William Holden (whom we had not heard of).

We had no idea what to expect from this seventy-year-old film. It was in black-and-white which sometimes bothers me for a minute or two, but no more - I was quickly absorbed in the storyline. 

The main character is a girl called Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn) who must be about seventeen or eighteen at the start of the film. She is the daughter of a chauffeur called Tom Fairchild (John Williams), and they both speak with English accents of the mid-century slightly upper-crust style that was informally known as ‘BBC English’. However they live in New York, at a stately home owned by the very wealthy Larrabee family. There are two adult sons in the family: Linus (Humphrey Bogart) and David (William Holden).

It quickly transpires that Sabrina has been in love with David for as long as she can remember, but he barely notices her. He’s quite a playboy, who has been married and divorced three times already, and is always ready for a flirtation with an attractive girl of his class. Sabrina is almost in despair, feeling that her heart is broken, so her father decides to send her to Paris for a couple of years, to do a cooking course with a celebrated chef. 

There’s a surprising amount of humour in this film, alongside some poignancy and very engaging characters. It could have been a bit schmaltzy but the dialogue is good, and the pace excellent. Some films of this era tend to drag, with over-done shots and lengthy scenes that could have done with some editing. But I didn’t find anything dull or long-winded in this film which, apparently, was one of Audrey Hepburn’s first major successes, launching her as a star. 

David can be quite charming, though he is clearly unreliable. His brother Linus is much more serious, and works every hour possible for the family business. And when Sabrina returns from her course, much more sophisticated and confident than she was two years earlier, both brothers find her rather attractive. I found it very interesting that, despite being set in the theoretically egalitarian United States, it was considered rather shocking that the son of a well-established and wealthy family could fall in love with the chauffeur’s daughter.  

There are some delightful secondary characters in the other staff at the Larrabee home, all of whom adore Sabrina, and think it wonderful that she might marry one of the sons of the house. There are some amusing scenes involving them which we appreciated very much. 

The rating is U, probably due to the lack of any intimacy or bad language, although there’s one potentially disturbing scene near the start of the film, and a few punches thrown between the brothers (with no gore). I can’t imagine it being of any interest to children, but feel that PG would have been more appropriate.

Apparently there was a re-make of this film in 1995, with Harrison Ford, but reviews suggest that it wasn’t as good or as well-made as the black-and-white original from thirty years earlier.

Recommended if you like this style of film, or if you are interested in seeing Audrey Hepburn in one of her earlier roles.

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Bus Stop (Marilyn Monroe)

(Amazon UK link)

We were given twenty-five DVDs by a friend who was downsizing, most of which are of films and musicals from the 1950s and 1960s. We hadn’t even heard of some of them, including ‘Bus Stop’, which was made in 1956. We thought it might be black and white, but it was an early colour film. We had, of course, heard of Marilyn Monroe but neither of us could recall ever having seen any of her films. 

The opening of the film is set in Montana, at a rodeo. I found this a bit disturbing: dangerous, bucking animals are ridden, and then other animals lassoed and brought down. I had to look away a couple of times. But we soon meet the two important male characters in the story: a young cowboy called Beau (Don Murray) who has apparently never left the ranch where he grew up, and his mentor, Virgil, known as Virge (Arthur O’Connell). 

It took me a few minutes to be able to tune into the strong accents and fast talking, but it didn’t much matter. These two men board a bus that’s going to take them to Phoenix, in Arizona, where Beau is going to enter some major rodeo competitions. He’s quite arrogant about  his abilities, and - as becomes clear - also very naive. Virge thinks it’s about time he looks for a nice girl, but Beau has had nothing to do with girls and has no idea how to approach one.

On the first evening in Phoenix, they go to a night club where Cherie (Marilyn Monroe) is singing, in a rather scanty outfit. She’s evidently being treated quite badly by the manager, who hasn’t yet paid her anything, and expects her to perform and try to manipulate customers into buying her drinks. I found her Southern accent extremely hard to understand; she comes across as unintelligent, but far from innocent. Unsurprisingly, Beau finds her very attractive - and after a brief conversation he informs her they’re going to be married…

It’s obviously intended to be humorous, but I found Beau’s attempts to take charge, to ‘tame’ Cherie as if she were a wild animal, to be rather disturbing. His insistence that he is going to call her ‘Cherry’ is also somewhat demeaning. And it seemed very strange to me that, while one or two of the women understand and sympathise with her predicament, it takes a lot longer for any of the men around Beau to do anything other than voice objections. 

The last half hour or so of the film is set at a small inn/cafe known as the ‘Bus Stop’, as that’s where several cross-country buses. The landlady, Grace (Betty Field) makes them all welcome, and doesn’t want any unpleasantness. Conveniently there is a heavy blizzard which prevents the coach from leaving (and any other buses from arriving) and unsurprisingly there’s a showdown… but I found the ending rather trite and unlikely, although also a bit sad: Cherie has not had a happy life. 

The acting is mostly good, in a 1950s way, and the pace of the film about right. It wouldn’t work as a new movie today, but considered as a classic to watch from nearly 70 years ago, it’s an interesting, light-hearted way to spend an evening. There are a few country music interludes; Virge likes playing the guitar and organising sing-songs. But it's not a musical as such. 

The rating is U, probably because there’s no overt nudity or intimacy (though much is implied), and I don’t recall any bad language. But the subject matter certainly isn’t appropriate for children; I would have thought at least PG would be more appropriate, and wouldn’t personally show it to anyone under the age of about fourteen or fifteen at the youngest.

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Doctor Who: Revolution of the Daleks (Jodie Whittaker)

(Amazon UK link)

Apparently it’s just over two years since we finished watching the excellent 12th series of Doctor Who with Jodie Whittaker. It ended with a dramatic episode where the Doctor’s origins were discovered. Her companions returned to Earth, but the doctor, right at the end, was put in a space jail by the Judoon. 

I had forgotten all this in the intervening period when I was hoping that we might acquire the thirteenth season. We did have the New Year special episode - ‘Revolution of the Daleks’ - but I’m not a huge fan of daleks, and decided we would wait until we had the following season on DVD too. They were a gift at Christmas, and since we just finished watching the first four seasons of ‘Father Brown’, it was time for another Doctor Who series. 

So, last night, we watched ‘Revolution of the Daleks’. It opens with the Doctor’s companions, Yas (Mandip Gill), Graham (Bradley Walsh) and Ryan (Tosin Cole) doing a lot of research. Yas can’t quite believe that the Doctor won’t return, but it’s been a long time since they last saw her. Ryan has been getting back with friends, and trying to make a career for himself. 

And then the new Prime Minister (Harriet Walter) announces new security drones. To the horror of the Doctor’s companions, they look like daleks. There are some scenes with a wealthy, unscrupulous American businessman (Chris Noth) clearly in cahoots with the Prime Minister - but it appears that his only motivation is financial exploitation. He has no idea what daleks were. 

A young and enthusiastic scientist (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett) is pioneering the project, ensuring everything works, and perhaps all would have been well if he hadn’t discovered a remnant of dalek DNA which he was able to clone…

At least, that’s my understanding of the opening scenes, which happen with such rapidity that it was difficult for me to keep up. The Doctor, who is very bored in space jail, is released unexpectedly after the appearance of Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman). I didn’t follow that subplot at all, but wasn’t surprised that the Doctor (with Jack in tow) arrive in the Tardis in Graham’s living room while the team are discussing the new dalek-like machines.

It’s a fast-paced episode but there are some excellent interludes of discussion: the Doctor with Ryan, and - later - the whole group. I very much like the depth of characterisation of the companions which has been such a feature of the ‘new’ Doctor Who series that began when the show was reborn in 2005 (in checking that date, I’m astonished to find that it was nearly twenty years ago!). 

It’s the characters and their stories that have kept me watching; science fiction and fast action are not generally my preferred genres of film. I used to watch the ‘old’ Doctor Who, as a child, behind the sofa. It took the persuasion of both my sons to start watching again - and we didn’t do so until 2011, although we then quickly acquired DVDs of the next few series until we had caught up. There are interesting story arcs, and the acting is good, with odd unexpected humour here and there to balance the tension. 

And while I loathe daleks (who epitomise violence and hatred), they weren’t actually too stressful in this episode. The Doctor comes up with risky ideas to vanquish them, which (inevitably) are successful; but while they’re still on earth although we see random ‘exterminations’ they’re done with random people in a variety of places, most of whom have not been introduced. Not that it makes it any better, but I knew it was visual effects - modern graphics and CGI somehow make them less threatening than the very scary daleks of the 1970s. Or perhaps it’s just that I’m fifty years older. 

I’m glad we’ve finally watched this DVD which has been sitting in our to-be-watched drawer for over a year. It’s not my favourite episode, but it was well worth seeing, and is useful from the continuity point of view, bridging Series 12 and Series 13 (which we will start watching next week). 

Our DVD came with some 'art cards' (which we put straight in the paper recycling, not wanting to collect yet more clutter), and has a couple of brief 'extras' on it: one is from the point of view of the Doctor and her three companions, and was very interesting. The other featured John Barrowman trying to recall lines from his time on the series, and was a bit weird. 

Recommended if you’re a fan of the series. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

An American in Paris (Gene Kelly)

(Amazon UK link)

From twenty-five DVDs given to us by a friend who is downsizing, we decided to watch ‘An American in Paris’. It’s well-enough known that we had both heard of it, yet neither of us had ever seen it. We’re not huge fans of musicals in general, and had no idea what to expect.

The film, made in 1951 but in colour, stars Gene Kelly as Jerry Mulligan, an American artist who decided to settle in France after the war. He’s an artist, and feels that he’s learned a lot and is inspired by the beauty of Paris - but he’s not very successful, and struggles to manage. He lives in a tiny apartment, and there’s an amusing and cleverly choreographed scene where he wakes up and transforms his room from a bedroom into a studio. 

Jerry has a friend called Adam (Oscar Levant) who is a talented musician. We see him playing the piano several times in the course of the film; but he’s also struggling, wanting to be a concert pianist but having to make do with smaller events. 

Adam has a French friend called Henri (Georges Guétary) who is in love with a dancer called Lise (Leslie Caron). They have a mildly humorous discussion as Henri tries to explain what his girlfriend is like, and we see images of her dancing in a variety of roles.

The fifth main character is a wealthy woman called Milo (Nina Foch) who buys a couple of Jerry’s paintings, and decides she wants to sponsor him. He’s rather reluctant, but eventually agrees.  And at a restaurant where they’re meeting friends, Jerry sees and is instantly attracted to a young woman… who we quickly realise is Lise. He’s very persistent (in a way that would be considered harassment nowadays) but they become close… 

So there’s something of a comedy of errors, although it’s poignant too; Lise is young and doesn’t know what to do, being courted by two rather different men. The outcome is inevitable, perhaps, but it’s not at all clear how it can come about. And it was a bit irritating that, in fact, we don’t learn exactly how it comes about.  I found the ending of the film rather frustrating, partly for that reason.

The acting is good, if a bit overdone (as tended to happen in films of this era) and there are some interludes with songs and dancing in the first half of the film. Gene Kelly, of course, was known for his tap dancing routines, and they blend in well with the general atmosphere of the film; none of the earlier musical items are too long, and they don’t seem out of place. There’s an amusing musical interlude too, when Adam dreams of being a concert pianist, and we only gradually realise that he’s playing not just the pianist, but the conductor, and all the other instrumentalists too. 

But I found the last twenty minutes of the film puzzling and (frankly) a bit dull. There’s a long dance sequence mainly featuring Jerry, but also Lise with different styles, different locations, and different chorus members. It’s supposed to be Jerry dreaming as Lise drives away with Henri, but although the dancing is crisp and very well done, and it’s all clever, I was involved in the story by this stage, wanting to know what was going to happen. A few minutes of this routine would have been fine - but it went on and on. According to Wikipedia, it’s seventeen minutes! 

Then after the dance routine, there’s only a brief scene before ‘The End’ and the closing credits. One part of the plot is brought to a close (though without any clear indication why it happens the way it does) but other parts are left hanging. We have no idea what happens in Jerry’s proposed exhibition, or how his professional relationship with Milo continues. Nor do we learn whether Adam’s dream comes true. 

I’m glad we watched the film; the dancing is good (even if too lengthy at the end) and the songs nicely done, though Gershwin isn’t my favourite composer or style. The humour is slickly done, and I loved the expressions on Adam’s face as he realises that both his friends are in love with the same girl. But I’m not sure why it was quite as popular as it was, and don’t suppose I’ll want to see it again. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Father Brown (seasons 1-4)

(Amazon UK link)

I have been familiar with GK Chesterton’s delightful creation, ‘Father Brown’, since my teens. This fictional Roman Catholic priest in the early 1900s is adept at solving crimes, with insight and local knowledge, combined with compassion and surprising energy. I last read one of the books about him in 2018. But I had somehow missed that Father Brown had inspired a lengthy TV series - I believe it’s up to 11 seasons now. 

One of our sons had seen the show, and liked it so much that he sent us a DVD box set of the first four seasons for Christmas 2022. We started watching it towards the end of January 2023, and have watched one episode most weeks (occasionally two episodes) since then. We finally reached the end of the fourth season last night. 

My first surprise was that the series is set in the 1950s rather than at the start of the century when Chesterton was writing. Mark Williams, whom we knew as Arthur Weasley in the ‘Harry Potter’ films, is excellent in the title role. However, he’s not at all as I had imagined Father Brown from Chesterton’s writing. Still, once I realised that the series is ‘inspired by’ Chesterton’s character rather than actually based on the stories, I was able to adjust and see the TV show for what it is. The TV Father Brown is certainly wise, energetic, kind and likeable. He’s also quite persistent, and has a lot of courage. 

His Irish housekeeper, Mrs McCarthey (Sorcha Cusack, whom I recall as a much younger ‘Jane Eyre’ in the 1970s adaptation) is an excellent addition to the storyline. She provides some stability to Father Brown’s life, cooking meals for him, dealing with church accounts, and generally accompanying him in his ministry as well as his criminal investigations. She is also responsible for some low-key humour now and again; although these are crime stories, they have moments of light-heartedness which we appreciated. 

Two other significant characters are the wealthy Lady Felicia (Nancy Carroll) and her driver Sid (Alex Price). Sid isn’t part of Father Brown’s congregation, and has some criminal tendencies himself, such as the ability to pick locks; this regularly comes in useful during investigations. Lady Felicia is a bit snooty but very generous, and she often clashes with Mrs McCarthey although the two are, deep down, quite fond of each other.

As always, what I appreciate most in a film or TV series is the characterisation, and I thought that excellent, particularly between the four principle actors. There’s also some banter - and some antagonism - between Father Brown and the local police inspector. In the first series this is Inspector Valentine (Hugo Speer), and in the second and third season he is replaced by Inspector Sullivan (Tom Chambers). Both gradually come to respect Father Brown, and reluctantly admit it in their final episodes when they are moved to other locations. 

The third inspector is introduced at the start of the fourth season: Inspector Mallory (Jack Deam) is the most cynical of all, but gradually develops a kind of grudging liking for Father Brown, despite calling him ‘Padre’, and regularly telling him to leave the scene of the crime. Sergeant Goodfellow (John Burton) makes a good foil for the inspectors, and usually has a lot of respect and trust in Father Brown. 

The stories themselves are widely varied. In forty-five episodes, we didn’t think any of the settings were the same. There’s an overall theme, of course: in most of them somebody dies or is found dead, and eventually Father Brown figures out who the perpetrator was. He uses his intuition, his excellent observational skills, and his knowledge of human nature to probe deeply into what has happened, and why. He saves many innocent men from execution - for this is the era when people were still hanged if believed guilty of a serious crime.

Most of the stories are set in the village of Kembleford where everyone knows everyone else, although some include visitors, and there are some residents whom we only meet once or twice. There are stories set in local homes, involving a variety of people from the Pope to visiting vagabonds. Some relate to former war crimes, some to family feuds, some to medical discoveries or abuse… and so much more. Each time we think the writers must surely have run out of ideas, yet another setting or motive emerges.

I very much liked the slow pace of the series, and the countryside images as well as the interactions between the main characters. I also appreciated the lack of gore; occasionally I had to close my eyes, but there was very little overt violence, and the bodies, when shown, mostly looked asleep. The overall rating of this box set is 12, which I think is about right, given the nature of the plots; it's unlikely to appeal to children anyway. 

I appreciated the way that God is taken seriously, too. It’s not a ‘preachy’ series, but, like Chesterston’s original, Father Brown comes across as a devout man with a living, vibrant faith. 

Still, having watched four series over the past twelve months, it’s time for a change. So although I would recommend this to anyone who likes light crime television, we’re not going to look for the later seasons on DVD. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Good Life (6 episodes from series 1)

(Amazon UK link)

I can remember watching and liking the television sitcom ‘The Good Life’ in the late 1970s. I didn’t watch it all, but the premise appealed to me: a young couple decides to quit the rat race. So I was pleased when I found a DVD containing series 1 - or, rather, six episodes from the first series. I’m not sure why they didn’t include the rest, as there were only seven episodes in that series. 

We’ve been watching one episode per week over the past six weeks, and have both appreciated the show very much. Other than the events of the first episode, I had forgotten entirely what happened. And in a sense it doesn’t matter, because the characterisation is what makes this such a good series.

Richard Briers is excellent as the enthusiastic but often naive Tom Good. He works in an office with his neighbour Jerry (Paul Eddington) but whereas Jerry has been promoted and is quite senior, Tom has not risen. He’s a very talented graphic designer, but as he approaches his 40th birthday he becomes disillusioned, and decides he would like to give up paid employment, and become self-sufficient.

Tom’s wife Barbara, brilliantly portrayed by Felicity Kendal, is enthusiastic and encourages him to give in his notice. They come up with all kinds of plans, from growing their own crops to keeping animals for eggs and even meat. They’re not sure how it will all work out, but they’re both eager to try. I love the relationship between Tom and Barbara, which is loving, mutually supportive, and full of conversation. Sometimes they have arguments, even shouting matches; but they always make up. 

Jerry, by contrast, is married to the upwardly-mobile Margo (Penelope Keith is perfect in the role). She’s a terrible snob, and loves her life of luxury. She can’t believe Tom and Barbara will actually go ahead with their plans, and at first is horrified at what they will do to their ‘nice’ neighbourhood. There are some clashes, but Margo is ultimately quite kind-hearted, and her friendship with Tom and Felicity is important even though they somewhat laugh about her quirks when she’s not there.  

Jerry is a bit hen-pecked, and often does things behind Margo’s back; their relationship is not so open and affectionate as Tom and Barbara’s, but there are times when they become close… 

Later episodes show progress in the self-sufficiency, inevitably beset with problems; Barbara has moments of despair, but she’s very supportive and works hard to fulfil what has become their joint dream. And there’s a lot of humour. Most of it is verbal, and several times we found ourselves laughing aloud. But we also grew to like the characters, so much so that having finished this DVD, I’m going to try to find the other three seasons on DVD when I’m next in the UK.

To our surprise, there were even a few ‘extras’ on our DVD set, made some years later, looking back on the show and reasons for its success. I don't know if these 'extras' appear in the full season 1 DVD; the link above is to the version we have, with episode 7 missing. 

Highly recommended, if you appreciate classic British sitcoms from the 1970s. 

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

Saving Mr Banks (Emma Thompson)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s nine-and-a-half years since we watched the film ‘Saving Mr Banks’. I remembered liking it very much, and recalled the basic outline, but had forgotten all the details. We knew it was based on a true story, of course, and decided to watch it again last night.

Emma Thompson is perfect as the rigidly uptight writer PL Travers, in the early 1960s. Indeed, it took me a while to realise who the actor was. Mrs Travers (who allows very few people to use her first name) is a very proper Englishwoman in her sixties. She was briefly famous for having written the classic novel ‘Mary Poppins’, but doesn’t want to write any more, and - as her agent points out - she’s facing poverty, unless she is willing to discuss turning the book into a film. 

Mrs Travers hates the thought of her creation being animated, or turned into a musical, and has resisted offers from Walt Disney Productions for twenty years. But, unwilling to lose her house, she agrees at last to fly to Los Angeles to meet the team who would like to adapt her book. However she insists that she will write the script, and she will have the last say on every detail. 

There’s some mild humour as she comes up against airline staff and passengers, and some wonderful asides with Ralph, the personal chauffeur allocated to her for her time in California. But there’s also a great deal of poignancy; much of the film is shown in flashback form, when the young Helen went through some very traumatic scenes in her childhood. 

I hadn’t looked at the DVD cover, so had forgotten that Tom Hanks plays Walt Disney himself in this film. He’s so good that I hadn’t realised who he was until the credits roll at the end. Walt Disney is portrayed as a likeable man, who really wants to make this film after promising his young daughters that he would, two decades before. 

The film of ‘Mary Poppins’ is so well-known that it’s not a spoiler to say that eventually Mrs Travers agrees to the making of the film, although she’s unimpressed with several of the songs, and horrified at the thought of some animated sequences. And part of the storyline involves her getting to know the team, and gradually - reluctantly - accepting them. 

But the more powerful part of the story takes place fifty years earlier, when the young Helen, oldest of three girls, sees her beloved father lose his job, and descend into alcoholism. She’s a thoughtful child who adores her father, and is devastated when one of his promises cannot be kept. And as Mrs Travers sees flashbacks of her past, Walt Disney finally begins to understand what the book is really about… 

I don't suppose it's entirely true to the real story. But at the end, over the titles, we hear some of the recordings made during the actual meetings in Los Angeles. It's good that they were kept, and suggests that, at least to a reasonable degree, the story is accurately told. 

I was mesmerised by the film, even if I ended up (like the first time) with the song ‘Let’s Go Fly a Kite’ as an earworm. It’s beautifully made, realistically done, with just the right blend of gentle humour and poignancy. I would recommend it to everyone who has ever seen the film of ‘Mary Poppins’ (or read the book); indeed, having now watched this again, I want to see ‘Mary Poppins’ again, as I didn’t recall at all the few sequences shown from it in ‘Saving Mr Banks’. 

Very highly recommended. The rating is PG, possibly because there are some rather tense and gory scenes from the childhood flashbacks. But a young child probably wouldn’t really understand this anyway; I probably wouldn’t want to show it to a child younger than about eleven or twelve. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Letters to Juliet (Amanda Seyfried)

(Amazon UK link)

I watched the film ‘Letters to Juliet’ with relatives just eighteen months ago. But my husband was given it on blu-ray for Christmas, after putting it on his wishlist, and had not seen it. So, as I recalled enjoying it, I was happy to watch it again even after such a brief period.

While I had recalled the general outline, I had quite forgotten the opening scenes. Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) lives in New York with her boyfriend Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal). He is soon to be opening a new restaurant, but has agreed to go on a short holiday with her, to Verona in Italy. Sophie is a professional fact-checker who would love to become a published writer.

Victor is very fond of Sophie, but his real passion is cooking, and he’s very excited to be able to meet with some of his suppliers in Italy. Sophie goes with him for the first, including wine-tasting. At the second, looking at cheeses, she feels a bit left out and bored. And when he decides to take a few days meeting yet another supplier, she decides to stay in Verona and do some sight-seeing.  

She comes across a wall, supposedly part of Juliet’s house (created for tourists who want to see where Shakespeare’s Juliet lived) where women are writing and affixing notes. Sophie even more intrigued when a group of women appear and take the notes away in baskets. Her journalistic instincts are aroused, and she follows them…

One thing leads to another, and the bulk of the story involves Sophie travelling around Italy with the wonderful Claire (Vanessa Redgrave) who hasn’t seen Lorenzo, the person she fell in love with fifty years earlier. She is accompanied by her reluctant grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan). He is, understandably, annoyed that her soulmate was apparently not his own grandfather, and thinks she has come on a wild goose-chase. 

There’s quite a bit of gentle humour in the film, much of which I had entirely forgotten, as the group find more and more people with the same name, in widely different circumstances. There’s also some wonderful chemistry between Sophie and Claire, who feel a sense of kindred immediately. 

One minor criticism of the film is that Claire is only supposed to be 65, but she looks about ten years older. Quick research revealed that Vanessa Redgrave was in fact 73 when this film was made. She’s still active and attractive, but is also treated by Charlie as if she were in her 70s and quite frail. She fell in love at 15, which is why she had to return to the UK with her parents; but I felt it should have been sixty years earlier rather than fifty. 

However it’s a minor thing; Vanessa Redgrave is the most wonderful actress, and I could entirely believe in Claire, putting aside the problem that she looked and behaved older than 65. Sophie, too, is entirely believable, and we loved the passionate Victor, who injects some humour into the early part of the film. We weren’t so impressed with Charlie, however. His accent felt a bit over-plummy; we later discovered that he’s Australian, so his English accent wasn’t authentic. We got used it; but his gradual change of character didn’t seem entirely authentic. He’s quite rude when he first appears, and antagonistic towards Sophie and there’s no real explanation as to why he softens and changes.

But that’s also minor, as the real love story is the one that - inevitably - is finally fulfilled, with some very poignant scenes. 

Rated PG, this is free of anything explicit, and the only nudity is that on some of the classical Italian statues. The film has only the very mildest of bad language - and not even much of that. A story like this isn’t likely to be of interest to children, but I would recommend it highly to anyone over the age of about 15 who likes gentle romantic stories. 

There are some extras which we watched: a short ‘making of’ documentary which explains some of the background; also some deleted or expanded scenes that weren’t used.

Letters to Juliet

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews