The love punch (Emma Thompson)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Shakespeare Retold (2005)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely recommended, if you like this kind of thing.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

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

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Mother's Day (Jennifer Aniston)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

My family and other animals (Darren Redmayne)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no extras in our DVD series. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

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

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no extras on our DVD.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Never been kissed (Drew Barrymore)

(Amazon UK link)

Once again we were tired. So we wanted to watch something light and not too long. We looked through some DVDs which we had not seen in a decade or so, and opted for the 1999 movie ‘Never been kissed’, which we last saw in February 2014.

Drew Barrymore - rather a young Drew Barrymore - stars in this light-hearted romantic comedy. I had entirely forgotten the storyline. Drew plays 25-year-old Josie Geller who has a good job with a newspaper, working as a copy editor. She’s quite pedantic, and evidently very good at what she does. She has her own office, and even an assistant, though he doesn’t seem to be much use. 

But Josie longs to write some stories for the paper. She’s proposed several ideas, most of which have been accepted - and then given to another writer. She’s almost in despair when the paper’s CEO, the rather authoritarian Rigfort (Garry Marshall) announces that their next big scoop is going to be an undercover expose of a high school. And he selects Josie to research and write the story. To do so, she has to pretend to be 17, and enrol in the local school…

Josie is very nervous about this; as we learn, in flashbacks through the film, she had some terrible experiences when she was at high school. She was quite geeky, and had terrible clothes sense, and was quite badly bullied. This was mostly verbal, but she suffered a lot of humiliation. And it seems that very little has changed when she starts out again in her undercover role.  Her brother Rob (David Arquette) was very popular when he was at the school, but did not do well academically. 

The film itself, rather like the film ‘Mean girls’, serves as something of an expose of American high school culture. Perhaps it’s now similar in the UK and elsewhere, but it bears almost no relation to my own experience in the 1970s. In these American films there are a lot of cliques. For instance, the ‘popular’ girls (usually in ultra short skirts and tight tops) who rather rule the roost, and the sporty types - particularly boys - who are treated like sex symbols.

 ‘Mean girls’ has a lot of other groups, but the only other one featured in this film is the one with the geeky people who like math(s), known as ‘denominators’. One of them befriends Josie, and she likes being part of this group who share a lot of her values. She’s rather keen on one of the teachers, too, Sam Coulson (Michael Vartan), and he admires her extensive knowledge and enjoyment of Shakespeare. I did feel a bit uncomfortable at times with the extra attention he gives her; as his student, he should have been more careful. 

However, Josie isn’t at school just to attend classes and make friends, and when she visits her workplace she’s forcibly reminded by her immediate boss Gus (John C Reilly) that she needs to come up with a good storyline, or both their jobs will be forfeit…

While the style is quite light-hearted, I didn’t find any of it particularly funny. I hope some of the flashback scenes were caricatured rather than realistic, but they give a very poor impression of a US high school. Drew Barrymore is excellent as a somewhat klutzy geeky girl who often gets things wrong; she manages to play herself at 25, at 25 pretending to be 17, and in flashbacks as if she really were 17. 

There are some nice interactions in the film, and a few thought-provoking lines, too. It’s sad when people are judged by what they wear and their manner of behaving; but probably people who are judgemental in that way are unlikely to watch this film. 

The ‘romance’ part is also somewhat underplayed, although it was obvious from early on where this was eventually going. The ending is a bit bizarre, something I could not imagine anyone doing, but it makes a dramatic conclusion and a happy ending. So while this seems to me more a teen movie than a romantic comedy as such, the main characters are adults rather than teens even if a lot of the action is set in a high school.

On the whole I liked watching this, but it’s not one of my favourites.  The rating of 12 is about right, in my view; there's nothing explicit but a lot of innuendoes and sexual discussion. There's no real violence and bad language is mostly fairly tame. But it's not the kind of film that would be of any interest to younger children; it's more likely to appeal to older teens or young adults. 

There are no extras on our DVD.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Princess Diaries 2 (Anne Hathaway)

(Amazon UK link)

Towards the end of July, we rewatched the 2001 film ‘The Princess Diaries’, and liked it very much. So last night, wanting something light, we decided to rewatch the 2004 sequel, ‘The princess diaries 2: royal engagement’. We last saw it in 2014, and had only vague memories of the story.

This film starts as Mia (perfectly portrayed by Anne Hathaway) graduates from university. And then, accompanied by the security guard Joe (Hector Elizondo), she flies back to Genovia. As well as studying academically, Mia has been trained to take over as queen, as her grandmother Clarisse (Julie Andrews) wants to retire. 

Genovia is a small, loyal (and imaginary) country. It’s supposedly another European microstate, and royalty is very important, with all the pomp of parades. Mia had been reluctant at first, but now she is looking forward to her coronation. However, she discovers a law that states that she can’t be queen unless she’s married. And she has just one month to find someone…

There’s a lot of humour in this film, as well as much that’s thought-provoking. Genovia is evidently quite a patriarchal society, despite having a queen rather than a king. All the government officials are male, and one of them believes that his nephew Nicholas (Chris Pine) should be the next in line for the throne. 

Mia meets and dances with a lot of theoretically eligible men at a ball, and feel some rapport with Nicholas, not knowing who he is. When she meets him officially, she is convinced he was fooling her and they have several quite acrimonious encounters when it’s clear that she’s falling for him. But she doesn’t trust him. 

She’s shown a series of slides depicting potential husbands around the world, most of whom are unsuitable for one reason or another. But she finds one who has all the right qualifications, and who is quite good-looking too. They both agree that arranged marriages are not ideal, but they get along well enough. And so the wedding is planned…

Despite looking elegant and beautiful most of the time, Mia is still somewhat clumsy. There are some very nicely choreographed scenes where she slips or slides, or drops something. And she pulls the most horrendous faces at times, when she thinks nobody is looking. She and her grandmother have excellent rapport, even when the queen is annoyed with Mia (as happens all too often). And Mia is essentially kind and caring. She’s a good example of a feisty young woman who knows her own mind as well as wanting to follow her destiny and do what she knows to be her duty.

There are some delightful and moving scenes involving children. Mia stops an important procession to talk to some orphaned children, and, later, we see her hosting a party which includes some wonderful sliding on mattresses; even the queen gets involved.  And I loved the scene where the queen is persuaded to sing; Julie Andrews had thought she would never sing again after failed throat surgery in 1997. 

The climax to the story is well done, and the ending somewhat predictable, but I didn’t mind that at all. The film perfectly fulfilled our wish for something light-hearted and amusing. It’s intended for teenagers so the romance parts are quite low-key. The rating is U, reflecting the lack of any bad language and only the mildest of tension. Having said that, it’s not a film for young children. The theme of trying to find a husband is unlikely to interest anyone under the age of about ten or eleven anyway. 

There are quite a few extras; the deleted scenes are introduced by the director, Garry Marshall, whom I’ve seen before doing this kind of thing. And the blooper reel is nicely done, without being repetitive. We watched some of the documentaries too, and found them interesting, but we didn’t see them all.

While the film stands alone, it’s definitely best to have seen the first ‘princess diaries’ film, as it gives so much background.  I understand that these films are based on books with the same title, although I haven’t read them.

Recommended. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Little Fockers (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

Six months ago we watched the film ‘Meet the Fockers’, which I found inexpensively in a local thrift store. We liked it so much that I ordered (second-hand) the first and third in the series when I was in the UK.  We watched ‘Meet the parents’ last week, and thought it excellent. So we were looking forward to seeing the final film in the trilogy, ‘Little Fockers’, yesterday evening. 

The main characters are the same as in the other two films, and the chemistry between them is as good as ever. Ben Stiller is excellent as Greg Focker, a nurse who has other responsibilities in his hospital. He’s married, now, to Pam (Teri Polo) and they have twins, Samantha and Henry, who are nearly five. Samantha is considerably taller than Henry. Apparently the actress (Daisy Tahan) was eight in 2010 when the film was made, while Colin Baiocchi, who played Henry, was a year younger. 

There are several themes running through this film. Greg has bought a bigger house, which is undergoing some improvements, at least in theory. He is hoping to use it to host his children’s fifth birthday party, but work is going rather slowly, and it appears to be deteriorating rather than improving.

Kevin (Owen Wilson) who made cameo appearances in the other films, keeps cropping up in this one. He’s a caricatured egoist, talented in a ridiculous number of fields, with a lot of ex-lovers, including Pam. And he offers his mansion as an alternative venue for the birthday party.

Then there’s an attractive medical drug rep called Andi (Jessica Garber). She wants Greg to do some promotional videos and talks for a new sexual enhancement pill she’s promoting. She also, clearly, finds Greg very attractive although he has no idea… 

Meanwhile Pam’s father Jack (Robert De Niro)has been having some health problems, and wants to pass on responsibility for the well-being of the family to one of his sons-in-law. But the one he found more satisfactory has gone off with someone else, so he’s left with Greg. And they have a lot of ongoing stresses, despite quite liking each other underneath…

So there’s quite a bit going on in this film, and it’s mostly well-done. The actors, many of them well-known, are excellent and there are some amusing moments. But overall it didn’t feel entirely coherent. The subplots interweave, sometimes picking up on things in earlier films, sometimes introducing new elements. The title suggests that it should mainly be about Greg and Pam’s twins, but there are a lot of more ‘adult’ scenarios. 

The birthday party comes towards the end, as the climax to the film. But even that is more about Kevin and his talents than about Henry and Samantha. Greg’s parents are reunited after some time apart, and what goes on (in private) in one of the tents is definitely not child-friendly. Nor is the fist-fight that takes place between Greg and Jack - something that had been simmering for a while but which seemed to go on much longer than necessary. Some of it’s done for humour - they fight on the slide and in the ball pool, for instance - but it looks all too realistic. And there’s a very tense scene when Jack is taken ill again… something which I didn’t find at all funny.

I did like the fact that Greg and Pam really are committed to each other, and still love each other. The point is made that it’s not always easy to find time for romance when there are two young children in the house, and I thought that was well done. I also liked the final family scene which finishes the story nicely. But this is not a film for children; the 12 rating reflects the lack of anything explicit, although I would have thought that the fight and the fact that the name sounds like ‘strong’ language might have put it up to 15. 

I’m glad we saw this, but am also glad that it’s the last of the ‘Meet the parents’ trilogy. I think the humour between the two sets of in-laws has probably been done sufficiently. We watched some of the extras including an alternative beginning and ending which were amusing but, we thought, wouldn’t have worked as well as the actual start and finish. There are some other deleted scenes, a gag reel, and other extras which we didn’t see.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Meet the parents (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

About six months ago, we watched the 2004 film ‘Meet the Fockers’, and found it very enjoyable. When I was reviewing it, I learned that it was a sequel to the 2000 film ‘Meet the parents’. I was making an order from the ‘Worldofbooks’ site, to be collected when I was in the UK in the summer. So I decided to add this film, and the third in the trilogy as well, as both were priced very inexpensively. 

I expected used editions of these DVDs, and was surprised and pleased to find that ‘Meet the parents’ was still shrink-wrapped, either new or as-new. We watched it last night. It wasn’t a problem that we had seen these films in the wrong order, although we had some inkling of what the characters were going to be like.

Ben Stiller is excellent in his role as the slightly hapless and unambitious Greg. He works as a nurse, where he is sometimes mistaken for a doctor. But we only see him in this role at the start of each of the films. He then goes to meet his girlfriend Pam (Teri Polo) in his lunch break. We see her finishing her morning’s teaching in a class of young children, perhaps Kindergarten. She’s evidently a good teacher who cares about all her children and their health and emotional side as well as their academic education. 

Greg is about to propose to Pam, using an unusual visual display when she’s interrupted by a phone call. He discovers that he should ask her father first. And then we see them arriving at her parents’ home, a couple of weeks later, for her sister’s wedding after quite a stressful plane ride where his luggage gets lost.

Pam appears to revert to a young child, swung around in her father (Robert De Niro)’s arms, then greeted by her mother (Blythe Danner) as if she were about six. Greg is introduced almost as an afterthought. And while her parents seem to be welcoming, they are full of suspicion. Her father, in particular, doesn’t think anyone is good enough for his older daughter. He is particularly biased against male nurses, though it’s not clear why. 

Most of the film then takes place over the next couple of days. The action includes part of a wedding rehearsal, a meeting with Pam’s ex fiancé (Owen Wilson), a game of pool volleyball where Greg distinguishes himself in negative ways, and a lost cat. Disaster follows disaster as Greg tries, in vain, to impress his future in-laws. It could have been trite or silly, but the choreography is excellent, the script well-written, and the whole really quite amusing. It’s exaggerated and caricatured, of course, but we didn’t find that a problem. 

I suppose part of the appeal of this film is because many people have some apprehension before meeting the parents of a partner or future spouse. We all want to live up to others’ expectations, and all the more so when they are important to the people we love. Ben Stiller is extremely good in this role, which approaches but never quite reaches slapstick. Robert De Niro is superb, too, as the strict father who, nevertheless, has something of a sense of humour. Perhaps the eventual (and inevitable) reconciliation scene is a tad unlikely, but then so are many of the other scenes. 

This is one of the rare films that succeeds in being a true rom-com: the romance is there with some great chemistry between Greg and Pam. But it’s also full of humour, including places where we laughed aloud. It’s not to be taken seriously, although it makes some good points about honesty and being oneself, rather than trying too hard to impress others. It made a very good evening’s light viewing.

The rating is 12, which is probably about right, in my view. There’s nothing explicit, but many innuendoes and some passionate kisses. There’s one short scene of mild (accidental) violence with quite a bit of blood. There’s discussion about both smoking and marijuana. Then there are a few instances of mild bad language. Also, of course, Greg’s surname (‘Focker’) sounds deliberately like a ‘strong’ word. I don’t think any of these things would actually disturb or corrupt a young child, but since all the actors are adults and the story is about adult relationships, it’s unlikely to be of interest to anyone under 12. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Doctor Who complete fourth series (David Tennant)

(Amazon UK link)

We finished rewatching series 3 of Doctor Who in early April, and then didn’t watch anything for a couple of weeks while our family visited. Finally, at the end of the month we began series 4, which opens with the Christmas special that was first broadcast in December 2007. 

The title of the special episode is ‘Voyage of the damned’, and it’s over an hour long. We had mostly forgotten it, as we last watched series 4 in 2013. It features an apparently traditional Christmas party on a spaceship which has the unfortunate name of ‘Titanic’. The doctor befriends one of the waitresses, called Astrid (Kylie Minogue in a one-off performance) as strange things start happening.

It didn’t seem particularly Christmassy, other than the opening, but Astrid was well cast, and an excellent assistant to the Doctor (David Tennant in his third series as the tenth Doctor). There’s a lot of fast action and it’s quite sad as well as dramatic. I recognised Geoffrey Palmer as the ship’s captain, and also a cameo role for Bernard Cribbins as Wilf, selling newspapers when some of the group briefly visit London. 

It was a couple of weeks later when we watched the next episode, ‘Partners in crime’. It’s much more light-hearted, and despite its widespread low rating, it’s one of my favourite stories. Donna (Catherine Tate) reappears in this, and there’s quite a bit of situational humour as she and the Doctor keep missing each other, neither aware that the other is nearby. They are both, independently, concerned about a new product designed to reduce fat. 

I wasn’t sure about Donna when we first saw this series, after the excellent Martha. But I very much appreciated the repartee between her and the Doctor this time around. I also recognised that their relationship as platonic friends is rather healthier than that of Rose and Martha, both of whom had major crushes on the Doctor (reciprocated, apparently, in Rose’s case). 

Episode Three is also one which I very much liked seeing again. Donna agrees to travel to somewhere in known history, and the Doctor believes they have landed in ancient Rome. But they’re in Pompeii, on the eve of the eruption of Vesuvius. Peter Capaldi appears in this episode as the Roman Catullus, father of a rebellious teenage son, and a daughter who is being primed to be part of a religious group. Several women can ‘see’ into the future, quite accurately. But none of them are aware of the imminent eruption… 

This episode is very well done, with authentic Roman costumes and sets, and some humour which transpires when Donna tries to use actual Latin words. And the Doctor has to make an almost impossible decision, as well as a more personal one, where he is persuaded by Donna to change history a little bit.

Episode Four is more serious, set far in the future on the planet of the Ood. The Ood seem particularly subservient, yet something is going wrong, as a few of them apparently turn rogue. It’s quite a thought-provoking episode, touching metaphorically on the subject of servants vs slaves, with some fast action and some quite emotive scenes. 

That’s followed by ‘The Sontaran Strategem’, a tense two-part story, which concludes with ‘The poison sky’. Martha Jones (the Doctor’s companion in Series Three) gets in touch with him, wanting a raid on a suspicious factory. It has been supplying a new kind of navigation system, but several people who were using it have died. There’s a storyline alongside this, involving a strict boarding school, supposedly for brilliant people, which is run by a most unpleasant young man called Luke. 

The first part ends with a cliff-hanger so I was glad that we could see the second part immediately afterwards. It’s quite a stressful story, but cleverly done. And I liked the way that Martha came into her own again - and is taken at the end, so that she can have another adventure.

I really liked the next episode, ‘The doctor’s daughter’, where both Donna and Martha travel with the Doctor. His ‘daughter’ is generated from his DNA, and I enjoyed it all the more knowing that this attractive young woman, known as ‘Jenny’, ended up in ‘real life’ as David Tennant’s wife. 

Martha leaves at the end of this episode, which is emotional and poignant, and the next one sees the Doctor and Donna at an upper-class lunch party in the 1920s. One of the guests is Agatha Christie, who at the time has only written a handful of novels, although they’re becoming well-known. It’s an amusing episode, peppered with references to Christie’s novel titles, and - in theory - explains a mystery that has puzzled her fans for decades.

‘Silence in the library’ starts another two-parter, entirely set in a planet-sized library in the 51st century. It’s a bit spooky, and we thought very well done. This is the episode where the Doctor first meets River Song, whose time-line apparently runs in the opposite direction from his. We knew, from having seen this and subsequent series before, who she was; but the story behind her involvement with the Doctor still feels rather bewildering. 

‘Midnight’ is an episode where Donna is lying on a sun-lounger in a luxury hotel, and plays almost no part in the story. The doctor, and a handful of other people, are en route to a visitor attraction known as a sapphire fountain. They’re a mixed bunch of people, some of whom have done the trip before. So nobody expects the shuttle to stop, and a rather scary knocking to begin… 

‘Midnight’ is what became unofficially known as a ‘companion-lite’ episode, since it mainly featured the Doctor without Donna. The following episode, ‘Turn left’, is a ‘doctor-lite’ episode, almost all about Donna. The Doctor appears only briefly at the beginning and the end. 

'Turn left' is something of a surreal episode - even more so than most of this series! - beginning with a palm reader who offers Donna a free reading. She asks for some history about why she started travelling with him, and poses a question: what would have happened if she had turned right, rather than left, on a day when she was going to a job interview. 

The story then has brief cameos of many of the earlier episodes in the series, showing what would have happened if Donna had not rescued the Doctor in ‘The Runaway Bride’, at the start of Series 3. I quite enjoyed the reminders of some of the stories, and the alternative reality that would have taken place if the Doctor had not been around to avert multiple crises. And if that isn’t bizarre enough, the Doctor’s earlier companion Rose, who is in a different universe, keeps appearing to talk to Donna… 

And then there’s a dramatic, exciting two-part ending to this series, episodes 12 and 13. We watched them one after the other, ensuring we had plenty of time. The Doctor and Donna arrive on Earth on what seems like a normal day… and then, a few minutes later, the entire planet has vanished. I’m not sure I entirely followed the plot, but essentially a load of planets from around the universe have been hijacked. This is part of a domination strategy by some of the worst of the classic alien enemies.

I found some of it quite scary, with a bit too much fast action. But what I did like is that these episodes draw together several people from the Doctor’s past. Rose has crossed back from the dimension where she had ended up, Martha is involved too. Jack Harkness gets in on the act, as does Sarah Jane and her teenage son. And there are appearances from Rose’s mother Jackie and her former boyfriend Mickey. And even the former prime minister Harriet Jones has a small but very significant role.

There are a good number of extras in our DVD box set, and we watched most of the ones that shared a DVD with the episodes. They give some good insights into the making of the series, and we particularly enjoyed the one that gave an overview of the first four series of the ‘new’ Doctor Who, and it’s popular revival.

All in all, I liked this series very much. But then David Tennant is unquestionably my favourite of the Doctors, and I very much enjoyed Catherine Tate’s portrayal of Donna, with an entirely platonic relationship. I like, too, the fact that the Doctor develops as a character; he's not just a super-hero who arrives on his tardis to fix everything. He makes mistakes, he has regrets, and he has a sense of humour. There's a lot of poignancy in this series, and a lot of happiness too.

Definitely recommended.  Rated 12, probably due to some of the violence and tense situations. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Good Omens (David Tennant, Michael Sheen)

(Amazon UK link)

Although it’s twenty-five years since I last read the excellent book ‘Good Omens’ by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, I remembered that I liked it very much. So when I saw that it had been serialised on film, with David Tennant as one of the main characters, I knew I wanted to see it. It took a while for it to be available, but eventually I put it on my wishlist. I was given a blu-ray edition for Christmas, and we have been watching one episode per week over the past six weeks. 

I was pleased to see that, at least as far as I recall, it was remarkably true to the original. It opens in the garden of Eden; the snake tempts Eve, and she and Adam are cast out. Then we see the demon Crawley (David Tennant) discussing things seriously with the angel Aziraphale (Michael Sheen). Aziraphale has given away his flaming sword, which he uses to guard the garden, and both are wondering if they did the right thing…

The main action moves to the end of the 20th century, and the birth of a baby. Crawley is told to deliver the antichrist to a particular couple; but things go awry, as in the book. Crawley and Aziraphale keep a watch on a normal human boy who mostly ignores them. The actual antichrist is given to another couple who bring him up as an ordinary child. Adam is a likeable boy, on the whole, with leadership skills and three close friends. 

Subsequent episodes backtrack somewhat through history, showing Crawley and Aziraphale meeting each other at significant points - Noah taking the animals on board the ark, for instance. I did feel slightly uncomfortable at a scene portraying Jesus’ crucifixion, which I don’t feel should be treated with even mild humour. But then Crawley asks what he did, to deserve such a terrible punishment, and Aziraphale responds, ‘He told people to be kind to each other’. As a theological statement it’s surprisingly profound. 

There’s another thread involving a woman called Anathema who is the descendant of a witch called Agnes Nutter. Agnes was burned at the stake, but left behind a book of accurate prophecies. These lead to several amusing moments, as things written hundreds of years earlier are oddly appropriate to the modern era.

Over the centuries, Crowley and Aziraphale adapt more and more to human life. And in the era when Adam is growing up in the countryside, Aziraphale owns an antiquarian bookshop. Crowley is more interested in classic cars, which he drives at a breathtaking speed. And while they profess loathing for each other, it’s clear that they have a sort of unwilling friendship.

Everything is moving towards Armageddon, so we also see the horsemen of the apocalypse preparing to ride… and every so often there are placards announcing how near we are to the end of the world…

It’s all very much reminiscent of the book; the only parts I didn’t recall were some forays that Aziraphale makes into the heavenly realms, where other angels are portrayed as not particularly nice characters. I thought that was a bit of a strange touch. Evidently I need to read the book again soon. 

The acting is excellent, and the production very well done with great use of special effects alongside believable (in context) people. When I read the book I found the storylines, running alongside each other, a tad confusing at times. In this film version it all works well and makes more sense. Having said that, I would probably have found it somewhat bewildering if I wasn’t already familiar with the story. 

We have been watching Doctor Who series 4 with David Tennant in the title role over the same period, and I wondered if I would sometimes find the overlap disturbing. But he’s such a good actor that I mostly forgot that he was anyone other than the demon Crawley, adapting to human life. I don’t think I’d seen Michael Sheen in a production before, but he was also excellent as the slightly nervous, uncertain angel who really wanted to do the right thing, and to be left alone with his books.

The rating is 12, which is about right, in my opinion. There are a few potentially disturbing scenes, and a handful of instances of bad language. There are innuendoes, too, and a couple of scenes showing a couple in bed together, though covered with sheets and just talking. The entire theme isn't really appropriate for younger children anyway. 

I know a second series was made of ‘Good Omens’, though it doesn’t seem to be available on DVD or blu-ray. But I don’t know that I want to see it. This first series covers the events in the book, and seems to me to be complete in itself without the need for anything else. 

However, I would recommend this original (first) series highly. If you do buy it, make sure it's in English if that's your preferred language, or that it has English options. Our set is an Italian one, but has the option of English too. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Princess Diaries (Anne Hathaway)

(Amazon UK link)

We watched the 2001 film  ‘The Princess Diaries’ back in 2009, and liked it very much. It’s a film for the whole family, made by Disney, so it’s quite light-hearted. We wanted something light, so thought it was time for a re-watch. 

Anne Hathaway stars as the awkward teenager Mia Thermopolis. Apparently this was the first film that shot the actress to stardom, although she was only about eighteen when it was made. She makes an excellent fifteen-year-old who has wild, frizzy hair and doesn’t really fit in with her classmates. Her mother (Caroline Goodall) is a bohemian artist who makes very strange creations, and they live in a converted fire station. 

Mia does have a good friend, the equally awkward and odd-looking Lily (Heather Matarazzo). Neither of them particularly enjoys school, and Mia particularly dislikes public speaking, and is very bad at team sports. She’s quite a klutz, too; but she mostly ignores teasing and rudeness from her peers.

In a move reminiscent of both Cinderella and Harry Potter, Mia receives an unexpected summons to tea from her grandmother. She knows that her late father’s mother lives in a small European nation called Genovia, but she has never met her. She doesn’t much want to meet her, but her mother persuades her to go. And when Mia arrives at the largest, poshest house she has ever been in she is given information so startling that she doesn’t really take it in at first. 

Julie Andrews is perfect for her role as Mia’s Genovian grandmother Clarisse, living a life about as far removed as possible from the one Mia has always known. There’s a lot of tension at first, as Clarisse and her employees try to instil some deportment and table manners into Mia, rather to her disgust. I particularly appreciated her friendship and rapport with the man who becomes her chauffeur for a while, known as Joe (Hector Elizondo). 

It’s extremely well done. Anne Hathaway is excellent as Mia, even if her inevitable transformation seems a bit over-dramatic to be believable. But she manages both sides of her appearance with style. There’s some low-key humour in the film, partly involved in Mia’s mother’s bizarre art, but there are also some quite poignant and moving moments. 

It’s a teenage film primarily, so there is some love interest and a fair amount of kissing (though nothing more). And there’s some loud music and dancing, and much that shows the shallowness of many high school students. At the same time, there are some difficult choices that have to be made. Popularity or loyalty? Safety or adventure? Friendship or romance? 

I loved the chemistry between Mia and her mother, and also between Mia and her grandmother. And I thought the pace was perfect. I was totally engrossed, and surprised to learn that the film is almost two hours long. It felt like a much shorter movie. 

Our DVD has some extras; we watched a documentary about the way the cast and crew had a lot of fun together as well as working hard, and some of the reasons for the cast choices. We also watched some interesting deleted scenes, introduced and explained by the director, Garry Marshall. 

Definitely recommended for older children, teens, or adults like us who like slightly schmaltzy, clean and light-hearted films with great acting and a positive ending.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Carousel (Gordon MacRae)

(Amazon UK link)

One of the films we were given by a friend downsizing at the start of last year is ‘Carousel’. It’s a 1950s classic musical, by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and just over two hours long. We decided we would watch it last night, making sure to allow plenty of time. We have the 50th anniversary edition, with two discs. I don’t know if it was digitally remastered, but the quality of both sound and picture seemed to be very good. 

We had no idea what the story was about when we started watching. However, the opening sequence shows a fairground after dark. There are crowds of people, mostly adults, buying street food, or playing games, or converging on the carousel. It’s an old-fashioned one with wooden horses and other animals going up and down to loud music. It’s impossible to hear any dialogue over the general noise, but apparently that was deliberate.

But then the film moves to a very different scene. Billy (Gordon MacRae) is sitting on a ladder, polishing and hanging stars. I thought at first he was decorating for Christmas, but quickly realised that these are supposedly real stars, set in the sky, and that he is in some kind of afterlife. Someone tells him he’s heard rumours that his family on earth are having trouble, and tells him that he might be able to go down for a day. Billy isn’t sure about this, but consults the person in charge…

This is a good device for letting the viewer know Billy’s back story, as he supposedly recounts it, to explain why he has a family, and why he is no longer with them. Billy was the ‘barker’ (a term I didn’t know) for someone else’s carousel at the fair. That meant he stood at the side, proclaiming the wonders of the experience, to draw people in to buy tickets. He was evidently very good at this, until he became distracted by an attractive young woman called Julie (Shirley Jones)...

Billy is quite a womaniser but Julie is rather smitten, although insisting that she is respectable. And as they flirt a little, they burst into song. I should have expected it - this is, after all, a musical - and they both have good voices. But I found this, and some of the other songs in the film, rather slow and long-winded. The first one is mildly amusing, perhaps… and then the action takes us back to Billy in his afterlife scenario. To remind the viewer, perhaps, that something evidently happened to cause his death.

Back to earth, as he continues talking about what went on, and he’s married to Julie, but all is not well. Billy has no job now, and hates being idle. All the town is going on a ‘clam bake’ (something else I had never heard of) which starts with a trip out in boats… and Billy is persuaded to go by a disreputable ‘friend’ who has proposed a method of making them both wealthy…

I did enjoy the dance sequences, which were cleverly choreographed and extremely well executed. I was also quite surprised to find that I knew a couple of the songs in the film. ‘June is bustin’ out all over’ was written for this musical, as was the quite well-known ‘I’ll never walk alone’. I also quite liked Billy’s gradual change of heart, as circumstances change, although it’s not until the very end that he does something totally altruistic.

We appreciated the settings too; it was filmed in Maine, on the coast and there are quite a few scenes on the beach, or on sailing boats. Despite the title of the musical, the carousel itself only appears at the beginning of the film, as the place where Billy and Julie first meet. 

While there’s some humour and a lot of caricaturing, it’s a bit dark for a musical. I gather that it wasn’t as popular as the writers had hoped when it was first in the cinemas. Perhaps that’s because Billy isn’t all that likeable, and because there is a tragic scene when things go wrong. It’s one which we know is going to happen, but it stops the otherwise light-hearted film being truly family-friendly, despite the U rating. 

While I’d have liked it better if it wasn’t quite so slow-moving, it was very well done, in a 1950s way. The way actors in films spoke - as if they were on stage - seems quaint to us now, as does the way that the women are all perfectly made up at all times, even at the end of a day’s fishing and then smoking sea-food. 

We didn’t watch all the extras, but were interested in one about the making of the film, with some clips from the writers and people involved in the production. Apparently it was based on a much darker Hungarian film called ‘Liliom’ which didn’t have the somewhat uplifting ending of ‘Carousel’. Initially ‘Carousel’ was a stage musical which ran for quite a long time before it was turned into a film. 

Worth watching once, as it’s a classic, if only for the excellent dance sequences. But it’s not one I’m likely to want to see again.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews