Ballet Shoes (Emma Watson, Yasmin Paige, Lucy Boynton)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s fifteen years since we watched the 2007 film ‘Ballet Shoes’ (originally made for television). I know the story well - it’s adapted from Noel Streatfeild’s best-known book, also called 'Ballet Shoes'. But my husband had almost entirely forgotten the plot. It seemed like a pleasant evening’s light viewing. Although the book was originally written for older children, the author wrote crossover books before the concept was popularised, and I like them just as much as an adult as I did as a child.

The beginning of the film introduces the young Sylvia, who is taken to live with her great-uncle Matthew (known as GUM) when her parents are killed. GUM is a delightfully grumpy (but benevolent) man who grows believably older each time we see him; he’s extremely well played by Richard Griffiths, who is probably best-known as the obnoxious Vernon Dursley in the ‘Harry Potter’ series. Sylvia is accompanied by her nanny, known to all as Nana, perfectly portrayed by Victoria Wood. 

Emilia Fox is the adult Sylvia, who looks after the house when GUM is travelling, as happens most of the time. Twice he returns, briefly, bringing babies whom he has adopted. The third time, he sends a baby via a friend. Pauline (Emma Watson), Petrova (Yasmin Paige) and Posy (Lucy Boynton) are the three sisters, given the surname Fossil, back in days when adoption was considerably easier than it is now. The main part of the book is set in the 1930s in London. 

As GUM stays away longer and longer, money becomes more and more difficult. The two older girls are at a private school, and must be taken out, educated at home. Sylvia decides to take in lodgers; two elderly academics, a car mechanic called John, and a dance teacher called Theo. I had never imagined Theo as anything like the one in this film, but all the other characters feel realistic. Theo is flamboyant - but she has the best idea: to enrol the three girls in Madame Fidolia’s stage school, where impoverished children were often taken for nothing, then trained to go on the stage. 

Pauline turns out to be a talented actress, and as soon as she’s old enough she’s engaged to perform in several productions. This is all true to the book, although in the book her classmate Winifred is much nicer than in the film. Posy is spotted as a potential star in the ballet world, and is soon given private coaching by Madame Fidolia herself. 

However, Petrova, perhaps the most interesting of the three girls, has no wish to be on stage. She’s not talented at dancing or acting; her interests are more mechanical. She’s very good at maths, and interested in cars, though her ambition is to be the pilot of an aeroplane. The scenes with Petrova and Pauline are, I thought, very well done. The two want to work to help with household expenses; Pauline loves what she does, but for Petrova it’s akin to torture. 

Inevitably some of the book is cut out, to fit the story into a 90-minute film production, but on the whole I thought they did it well. According to the IMDb site, Lucy Boynton didn’t dance in the film; instead, the ballet sections were done by a body double. I had no idea: I thought I was watching carefully, as I was impressed that they found someone who could act and dance so well. Evidently it was extremely well shot and edited to enable such good continuity.

The people are all believable, in my view (well, except perhaps Theo…), and the close bond between the three sisters comes through strongly in several places. Pauline and Petrova in particular are close; Posy can be somewhat demanding and self-centered, as was typical for Streatfeild’s ballet stars. But Pauline, too, finds that fame goes to her head, and that was also handled well. 

The BBC, who produced this, always seem to do particularly well with period dramas. While this is in the 20th century, it's set before World War II, and the locations, clothes etc seem entirely authentic. The acting is very good, which isn't surprising with such a talented cast, and the whole flows nicely, drawing us both right into the family and their struggles. 

I’m not sure I entirely approve of the extra romance thrown in towards the end - it’s nicely done, and quite low-key, and makes a pleasant ending for two of the characters. But it’s not even hinted at in the book, and leaves a slight organisational question open about who would be living where, in the future that’s given to the three girls right at the end. It ends a tad abruptly, but then so does the original novel. 

Overall, we both liked watching ‘Ballet Shoes’ very much, and would recommend it highly to anyone who enjoys this kind of production. Suitable for all. It’s rated PG, and apparently the only reason for that is that there’s quite a lot of smoking shown - something that would have been appropriate for the era, when it was thought that cigarettes helped people to relax, and the health dangers were unknown.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Stuck in love (Greg Kinnear)

(Amazon UK link)

We first watched the DVD of the 2012 film ‘Stuck in love’ in 2015. Neither of us had any memory of it, either before deciding to rewatch, or during the film itself. And during the first twenty minutes or so, I wondered why we had kept it - it didn’t seem either romantic or humorous, but rather sordid and depressing.

Greg Kinnear plays the main character, and is excellent as the middle-aged divorced Bill. He is a writer, and has two teenage children. Samantha (Lily Collins) is at university, and is a writer too. Bill’s son Rusty (Nat Wolff) is still at High School and must be about fifteen or sixteen. We first meet them at a Thanksgiving meal which Bill is hosting. He’s set the table for four, and while his children roll their eyes a bit, he is adamant that their mother will return despite her having left him three years earlier.

Rusty then goes to see his mother Erica (Jennifer Connelly) and her new partner. It’s clear that she and Samantha are estranged - Sam refuses to speak to her mother, blaming her for everything. Bill is obsessed with Erica, sometimes sneaking around her house and peeping in windows. 

Bill tells Rusty he needs to get more life experiences to be a good writer, and Rusty takes this to heart - and there are scenes of drug-taking, drinking, partying, fist fighting and more. Nothing too explicit, but there’s a lot of casually-used ‘strong’ language that felt entirely unnecessary. 

The story takes place over the course of a year, and after the first half hour or so I found myself quite engrossed in the plot. Bill seems a bit irritating, living in the past - albeit sleeping with his married neighbour, who seems keener than he is. He can’t let go of Erica and says he won’t fall in love again. He isn’t even writing despite having published several books. 

Samantha is evidently somewhat promiscuous but is gently befriended and wooed by a likeable boy in one of her university classes called Louis (Logan Lerman). And Rusty is very keen on a girl at his school called Kate… it turns out she’s not just far more experienced sexually than he is, she has a lot of other problems too.

It’s really a story about people, each one learning a bit more about themselves. Bill is challenged to start moving on with his life. Samantha, who thinks she has given up on love, discovers there are more kinds of love than she had realised. Rusty realises that life outside the home can be dangerous and stressful, and that hearts can be broken.

We didn’t think there was anything funny in this film, and not a lot of real romance either. It’s more a drama than a rom-com, in my view. But it’s all very well done (other than the extreme bad language early on). There’s nothing explicit although there’s a lot that’s implied, and I’m not surprised that it’s rated 15. 

The year comes full circle. Rusty has an astonishing phone call relating to one of his short stories, and at the end we see the family meeting again for Thanksgiving, mirroring the start of the movie, and giving an encouraging, positive ending for several people.

I was surprised at just how many songs were included as background in the film; I had only noticed a couple, when they were part of the storyline. But it felt as if the pace was good, and the music must have been just right if it was so unmemorable. The acting is excellent throughout. 

So overall I think it was well worth watching, but I can’t really recommend it due to all the casual swearing, and the somewhat sordid opening scenes.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The decoy bride (Kelly Macdonald)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s over ten years since we first watched the 2011 film ‘The decoy bride’, and we had entirely forgotten the storyline. We wanted something light and possibly amusing to watch, so decided this would probably be a good choice.

The story opens with the press gathered, cameras and microphones ready, at the door of a large hotel. Out comes someone dressed in white, with a veil covering her head. We - and the press - assume she’s the bride they are waiting for. Then someone else emerges, also with a veil covering her head, albeit not in white. And then someone else…

It’s clear that there’s a major society wedding about to take place, and that the happy couple are trying to avoid the press. This is probably a vain hope, since the bride is a famous and very beautiful actress called Lara (Alice Eve). There has been much speculation about who she might marry on the front covers of magazines. But she’s finally made her choice in James (David Tennant) who is a writer with a recent publishing success, a kind of travel guide to some of the Hebridean islands.

Unfortunately the wedding is halted when an intrusive member of the press is found hiding. Marco (Frederico Castellucio) has been stalking Lara, and somehow manages to find out where she is, no matter where she hides. Not that she’s in any danger from him, but she is fed up of his persistence. 

So James’ publicity team agree to relocate the wedding to a small, private one on the (fictional) island of Hegg, which has a population of just 75. James has written about this island in enthusiastic terms, in particular praising a castle. But when the team arrive there, they find it’s a ruin. James’ book, it seems, is more fiction than fact…

Meanwhile on Hegg a young woman in her early thirties is returning after working in Edinburgh. Katie (Kelly Macdonald) is still upset after a broken engagement, and has decided to give up on men. Her mother, who is in a wheelchair and terminally ill, runs the only bed and breakfast place on the island. She has never left Hegg, but would love to travel and see the world before she dies. 

‘The decoy bride’ is essentially a romantic comedy, although there’s not a huge amount of comedy. We smiled several times; there are some clever lines, and some mildly amusing situations. But there are some quite serious issues too, not just that of celebrities trying to escape media attention.

When James meets Katie in some rather dank-looking public toilets that are supposed to be haunted, they clash and misunderstand each other. By the principles of romantic comedies they were likely to end up together, we thought. But it was hard to see how it might happen. Then Lara vanishes, and Katie is offered a large amount of money to be the ‘Decoy bride’, for the sake of the press, so that James and Lara can have their wedding later, more privately…

It’s all very well done, in a mostly light-hearted way. David Tennant is good in any role he plays, though it must have been a bit strange for him, as a Scot, being the only person using an English accent surrounded by Scots. He’s entirely believable as the besotted James who has made his money due to good publicity rather than genuine research.

I liked Katie, too. She’s a bit awkward - intentionally so, I assume - and tends to speak her mind. She’s had bad experiences in the past, and tensions with her mother. But she does love her. There’s a beautiful moment, too, when she uses sign language competently to communicate with an elderly deaf couple who are dancing. And I very much appreciated the way that she and James gradually overcome their antipathy and realise that they could be good friends…

The romance element is quite low key, with nothing explicit and only passing references to sexual issues. There’s no violence, only the mildest of bad language, and nothing particularly tense. It’s rated 12 in the UK; just PG in the United States. Unlikely to be of interest to children, but there’s really nothing unsuitable for them, in my opinion.

Definitely recommended if you like light-hearted romcoms with some unusual features. There are no ‘extras’ on our DVD.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

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