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

Hotel for dogs (Emma Roberts)

(Amazon UK link)

About eighteen months ago, when we bought some extra DVD shelving (used), we were offered a selection of children’s DVDs. Some of them are of no interest to me, although visiting children sometimes like them. But I thought that the 2009 film ‘Hotel for dogs’ sounded quite interesting, based on the blurb. So last night we decided to watch it.

Andi (Emma Roberts) is sixteen, and very close to her ten-year-old brother Bruce (Jake T Austin). They were orphaned three years earlier - we don’t learn why - and are living in foster care. It’s clearly not working well for them; their foster parents, Lois and Karl, provide a lot of the comedy in the film as they are so dreadful, and clearly unsuited to the role. She makes extremely unappetising food, and the two of them spend most of their time trying to record bad quality music.

Andi and Bruce have a dog called Friday, whom they adore. But no dogs are allowed in their foster home, so they have to sneak him in at night-time. And since they have no money, they try to ‘earn’ enough to feed Friday, through very dubious scams. Their social worker Bernie (Don Cheadle) is excellent; he clearly cares about them, and regularly gets them out of trouble. Although he knows their foster parents are neglectful, there are very few foster families willing to take on siblings of their age. And they are desperate to stay together.

In their neighbourhood there is a van that goes around collecting stray dogs, and unfortunately they come across Friday and impound him. And while they manage to release him, they’re shocked to see that there are many other delightful dogs, and that they’re only allowed to be there, uncollected, for 72 hours…

It’s quite poignant at first, contrasting the young people’s love of dogs, and concern for strays with the rigidity of the dog police. Andi and Bruce discover an abandoned hotel where some of the dogs have made themselves at home. And they decide to take it over, with the help from some friends they gradually acquire. Bruce is a technological genius, and makes some impressive devices from items left behind in the old hotel, and also things he has taken from his foster home…

There’s a lot of humour in this film, which we thought was beautifully made. The dogs are wonderful, more and more of them appearing and being adopted by Annie and Bruce. There are scenes showing the dog police wondering where all the stray dogs have gone. And we loved the way Bruce gradually manages to automate not just the dogs’ feeding time, but their exercise, toilet needs, and other preferences. It’s quite surreal, of course, but while we were watching, we felt quite drawn into the film, rooting for the teenagers and the dogs.

Naturally enough, things can’t continue this way forever, and there’s some tension and an exciting race towards the end. Bernie makes a heartfelt speech which makes for a happy ending - this is, after all, a children’s film - and an even more surreal conclusion, which we thought very amusing.

The acting is excellent, and the dogs are amazing. We watched some of the ‘extras’ on the DVD, which included a section about the dog training, which was impressive. And there was a heartfelt comment from the actor who plays Bruce, saying that there were times when he did everything correctly, but the dog with him didn’t. So they had to do seventeen takes. 

It was clear both from the film and from the ‘making of’ extra that the cast loved dogs - and the crew, too. Some of the dogs used were themselves strays, who were then adopted by cast or crew members. I am not, in general, a dog person. But I thought that, as well as being a well-made and amusing film, it gave a very important message about the responsibility that comes with having a dog. 

Overall, I would recommend it to adults as well as teens and children who want something light-hearted, so long as you don’t mind a bizarre storyline that’s a bit like a 21st century fairy-tale. Apparently this was loosely based on a book of the same name. The teenage actors - or those portraying teenagers - are excellent, carrying the film entirely. Other than Bernie, most of the adult characters are either caricatures, or in some way against the teens' efforts. 

The rating is U, which reflects the lack of anything ‘adult’. There are one or two very minor uses of bad language, and the film might, perhaps, be disturbing to a child who had problems in foster care, or who had lost a dog. I think I would probably rate it PG, suggesting that parents should take responsibility for deciding whether or not their children would be likely to find it upsetting, or funny.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Tara Road (Andie MacDowell, Olivia Williams)

(Amazon UK link)

I thoroughly enjoyed rereading Maeve Binchy’s lengthy novel ‘Tara Road’ in November last year. Then I noticed a DVD of a film adaptation, which was mostly well-rated, so I put it on my wishlist and was given it for my birthday a few months ago. We decided to watch it last night.

I realised there would have to be a lot of abridgement, to fit the novel into just an hour and a half, and I thought it was done very well. The DVD opens with a brief scene at a party, obviously caught on video, which leads to a terrible tragedy. It’s not something that actually comes into the book, and isn’t mentioned until near the end, but it works very well as a dramatic opening of this adaptation.

The main characters, Marilyn (Andie MacDowell) and Ria (Olivia Williams) are then introduced at the start, with action switching from one to the other. That, too, is different from the book; the first half of the book is only about Ria, and covers her teenage years, her romance and marriage to the handsome Danny (Iain Glenn), and the birth of their two children, Annie and Brian. The story in the film starts when Annie is already a teenager, clashing sometimes with her mother. 

So we know, from the start, why Marilyn wants time away from her husband Greg (August Zirner), and we see, very early in the film, why Danny and Ria separate - that doesn’t happen until half-way through the book. But then, most of the background and many of the minor characters aren’t necessary to the plot, although they add to the enjoyment of the story when reading. I thought Annie and Brian were excellent, very true to the characters in the book. 

Still, the main characters and their families are very recognisable from the book. Marilyn and Ria agree to swapping houses for the summer, and we see them slowly adjusting to each other’s cultures. Marilyn is much more reserved than Ria; this isn’t really shown in her American life, but is clear when she gently rebuffs some local attempts at socialising. And Ria, who is very sociable, befriends Marilyn’s neighbours, hosts parties, and even finds a temporary job. The neighbours and restaurant owners are caricatures, but that isn’t a problem: there’s some gentle humour which is a nice balance to the traumas and tragedies that have taken place.

The theme is of healing and growth in a new environment. Ria starts to move on and find new meanings to her life, while Marilyn slowly opens up about why she is so unhappy. Both of them meet men who are attracted to them, and both experience some temptations as well as making new decisions. I found Marilyn and Greg entirely believable; Ria is very well done, but feels a lot younger than I had imagined her. The actress was apparently in her late thirties when the film was made, but looks about twenty-five.

There’s also an important thread in the film involving Danny’s business, selling houses. Danny is a womaniser, as we learn early on, and not very reliable. But he seems to have been working honestly; so it’s a shock when his boss declares bankruptcy. This leads to some of the tension later in the film (as happens in the book) and the resolution is nicely done. 

Ria’s friend Rosemary (Maria Doyle Kennedy) is a lot stronger - and nicer - as a character in the book than she is in the film. Watching the movie, I couldn’t quite believe that she was such a close friend of Ria’s. But then we learn, early in the film, what she does that Ria doesn’t know about. It’s a shocking twist in the book; yet something obvious that is shown early on in the film, which makes her generally a less likeable character.

But given that the story had to be condensed so significantly, I thought it was very well done. My husband had never read the book, and he thought it an excellent film. The main characters are believable, and there’s a nice blend of humour and pathos. There’s some lovely images of the different locations, and some musical background, though I had not realise just how many until I saw the credits at the end.

The rating is PG which reflects the lack of nudity, bad language and intimate scenes. The opening scene is potentially quite disturbing, and the only other somewhat violent scene is dramatic and exaggerated; nobody is hurt. 

It’s unlikely to be of any interest to children or younger teens anyway. If you’ve read and love Maeve Binchy’s book, you might love it, as I did, or might find it a travesty as so much is left out. So if you’re a fan of the book ‘Tara Road’, I’d only suggest watching this if you’re happy to put aside any preconceptions and enjoy it for what it is.

But overall, we both enjoyed it very much.  And with the above caveat, I would recommend it to anyone who would like a well-made and thoughtful drama with a satisfying ending. 

There are no extras on our DVD.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Failure to launch (Matthew McConaughey)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m not sure why ‘Failure to launch’ was recommended to me by Amazon; perhaps it was because I had previously watched and liked a film with Sarah Jessica Parker in it. Whatever the reason, the blurb sounded interesting and I put it on my wishlist. I was given the DVD for my birthday a few months ago, and we watched it last night.

We’ve recently seen some films that were supposed to be romantic comedies, but which liked either romance or humour. ‘Failure to launch’, however, succeeds in providing both. It’s an unusual story, and felt quite contemporary so I was surprised to learn that it is almost twenty years old. 

Tripp (Matthew McConaughey) is in his mid-thirties, and still lives with his parents. It works well, at least from his perspective. His mother (Kathy Bates) still provides breakfast for him, and even washes his clothes. His father (Terry Bradshaw) would like him to move out, but they haven’t figure out how to let him know. And Tripp uses the situation when he wants to dump a girlfriend - he takes her home, and in most cases they are so shocked to learn that he still lives with his parents that they storm off. 

So Tripp’s parents come up with a scheme. They hire an attractive young woman called Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker) to make Tripp fall for her. She says she’s had a great success rate, usually with somewhat geeky young men, who - after going out with her a few times - decide they need to move out. I wasn’t entirely sure how this would work: Paula didn’t intend long-term relationships with any of them, or even anything too intimate, so I didn’t entirely understand why they were persuaded to move out, nor what happened when Paula moved on.

Paula is pleasantly surprised to discover that Tripp is good-looking and interesting, and he, not knowing what his parents have done, is rather keen on her, too. She follows a typical routine: she goes to dinner with him, joins in one of his hobbies (sailing), she meets his friends and gets along with them, and she engineers an apparent emotional trauma. Tripp finds her very attractive, but he’s afraid of commitments, and when she starts making hints about something long-term, he follows his usual pattern of trying to dump her…

All of which would be rather cliched and predictable if that was the only storyline. But there are some great scenes with Tripp and his two long-term buddies, who also live with their parents. There are also some quite amusing scenes with Paula in her flat with her flatmate Kit (Zooey Deschanel). Kit is getting driven round the bend by a noisy bird right outside her window; her dead-pan comments are perfectly done. .

There are some slightly ridiculous scenes, too, when Tripp gets bitten by several animals - I assume all CGI or whatever the 2006 equivalent was. They’re somewhat realistic, but not entirely, and I wasn’t quite sure what the point of these was, other than to imply that Tripp does not get on with the natural world. The most bizarre scene, however, takes place after Kit and one of Tripp’s friends decide to shoot the annoying bird.. 

It’s all a bit caricatured, of course, and the main storyline predictable from the first. But it’s very well done, and nicely balanced. The actors are excellent, and the timing impeccable. While we were watching, we felt quite drawn to the storyline; I smiled several times and even chuckled once or twice. There were also some scenes that were surprisingly moving and thought-provoking, although the ending is pure farce - and quite amusing too. 

The rating is 12 which I would say is about right, though it’s unlikely to be of interest to anyone younger than about fifteen. There are implied scenes of intimacy but only blankets are shown. However there’s quite a bit of discussion about and references to sex. There’s a scene including rear nudity, played for humour; and there are a few instances of bad or ‘strong’ language, but nothing excessive. There’s some paintball violence and the biting scenes which don’t last long, and a potentially disturbing scene with a dog at the vet’s.  

Overall we liked this film very much, and will probably watch it again in another decade or so.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Jane Austen book club

(Amazon UK link)

It’s eleven years since we watched ‘The Jane Austen book club’, so more than time for another viewing. We wanted something reasonably light-hearted, and this was ideal for the purpose. We hadn’t remembered much about it, other than that it related to a group of people meeting to discuss Jane Austen’s novels.

It’s a tad confusing in the early scenes, as I tried to work out who was going to be a main character, but I soon sorted most of them out in my mind. The early scenes give us a bit of background to each of the six folk who decide to form the monthly club. They’re all American, and the story is set in California. 

The opening scene is of a funeral. It turns out to be for someone who was important to Jocelyn (Maria Bello)... though also rather unexpected. Jocelyn is comforted by her friends Bernadette and Sylvia. Bernadette (Kathy Baker) is a bit older, and quite glamorous. She has been married several times, but is currently single.

Sylvia (Amy Brenneman) has been married for nineteen years to Daniel (Jimmy Smits) and is still very much in love with him. So when he tells her that he feels it’s time to move on and separate, she is devastated. Her daughter Allegra (Maggie Grace) is furious with her father, and decides to move back home to be with her mother. 

Sylvia’s friends suggest forming a book club to discuss Jane Austen’s novels, as they all like them so much. One of the other members is Prudie (Emily Blunt). She is a very organised, neat and tidy French teacher, married to Dean (Marc Blucas). But he seems to care more about football than he does about her, and rarely communicates. She’s quite emotional and needy, and also loves Jane Austen.

Then there’s Grigg (Hugh Dancy) who meets Jocelyn in a bookshop. He’s clearly quite attracted by her, but she doesn’t realise this. Instead, she wonders if she can set him up with Sylvia, since her ex-husband is seeing someone else. Grigg only reads science fiction, but is keen to expand his horizons, and asks if he can join the club…

The story is cleverly done, showing six months where one book after the other is read and discussed. Not that there’s a whole lot of discussion; instead, events in the characters’ lives reflects aspects of the book. Jocelyn, for instance, is an enthusiastic matchmaker, rather like Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’. Prudie becomes disturbingly attracted to an 18-year-old student whom she sees in a play, reflecting a significant part of ‘Mansfield Park’. 

And a whole lot more. There’s some humour in the book, and some quite moving places, as well as a fast pace and some interesting conversation. It’s not necessary to have read any of Austen’s books, although it certainly adds to the enjoyment to see the parallels. And each of the characters reflects, in some way, one of Austen’s characters (or several of them, in Grigg’s case). 

As a book lover myself, I could relate to the characters’ passion for Austen’s novels, and their discussions of the people as if they were old friends. I enjoyed Grigg’s comments, as someone new to the book; he often seemed to have quite insightful points. And I thought his house decorating for the month of ‘Northanger Abbey’ was cleverly done, though slightly disappointed that there was almost no discussion of that book.

The final book group meeting takes place on the beach, with a few extra visitors; once again there’s almost no discussion of the book, but a great deal of interaction. Prudie is tempted to do something that would get her into serious trouble as a teacher, only to pause and reconsider as she gazes at the traffic lights, in a scene that’s both tense and amusing.

The rating is 12, and I thought that was about right. There’s no violence in the book, and no nudity, although there are a few quite passionate embracing or kissing scenes, including some between women. There’s minimal bad language, but a lot of innuendoes. And there’s a woman - the hippie mother of one of the characters - who’s seen smoking pot. 

All in all, we enjoyed this film very much. My husband hasn’t read any of Jane Austen’s books but has seen several of the films, and he liked it as much as I did. We particularly liked the ending, showing everyone at a charity dinner. Several threads are tied up neatly and in encouraging ways, and Bernadette, who likes everyone to be happy, has a surprise for them all. 

Afterwards we watched the ‘making of’ documentary which is an ‘extra’ on our DVD. We also saw the deleted scenes, most of which were quite interesting, but wouldn’t have added anything much to the story.

Definitely recommended if you like books and enjoy character-based films.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Annie (Alicia Morton)

(Amazon UK link)

Towards the end of 2009, we watched the DVD of the 1982 version of the musical ‘Annie’, with Aileen Quinn in the title role. We liked it on the whole, and thought it well-done. But I didn’t feel that it was entirely suitable for young children. There was some extreme drunkenness, some innuendoes and a very tense scene towards the end.

Last year, when we bought some extra DVD shelving, we also acquired, inexpensively, some more children’s films on DVD. One of them was the 1999 Disney version of ‘Annie’, with Alicia Morton in the title role. We wanted something light to watch last night, and this was the DVD my husband chose.

The story opens in the orphanage, showing interactions between the half dozen or so children. One of them cries for her mother at night, and Annie comforts her, while reminding everyone that she is not an orphan. She has a letter that was left by her parents, and part of a locket. She believes that, one day, they will come to find her.

As with some other Disney films, the action is quite rapid. Even so, I was a bit surprised that almost immediately Annie decides to get out of the orphanage to look for her parents. She creeps downstairs and is unlocking the front door when Miss Hannigan (Kathy Bates) appears. She is the owner of the orphanage, and appears to be the only member of staff. The children have to say, repeatedly, that they love her, although in private (including in song...) she expresses how much she loathes little girls.

Everyone else is woken up to be punished, by extra thorough cleaning of the floors. Nobody seems to resent Annie for having brought this on their heads… instead, musical style, they launch once again into song. There seem, in my view, to be rather an excessive number of songs in this film, although they’re very well done.

The plot is, as far as I recall, reasonably close to the story in the 1982 version. A wealthy bachelor wants to foster an orphan for a week, and Annie is chosen, much to Miss Hannigan’s disgust. It all happens rather rapidly, and Annie is thrust into a world of wealth, with new clothes, toys and plenty of food. And she becomes quite attached to the rich Mr Warbucks (Victor Garber). Again, this happens a tad too quickly, it seems… 

There’s low-key tension as Mr Warbucks and his PA Grace (Audra McDonald) attempt to locate Annie’s parents, and a sneaky plot is hatched by Miss Hannigan and her scheming brother Rooster (Alan Cumming), along with his intellectually challenged girlfriend Lily (Kristin Chenoweth). They are delightfully wicked, and I liked their song-and-dance routine, with Miss Hannigan, as they discuss how to go about getting rid of Annie.

There’s more humour in this than I recalled in the earlier version, and it’s generally more family-friendly, so that the rating of U seems appropriate. Miss Hannigan makes a lot of threats to the orphans, but it’s clear that she has never actually hit any of them. She’s unpleasant, but there’s no hint of drunkenness. Lily is dressed proactively, but there’s no nudity or any bad language. The tense scene in the 1982 version isn’t there at all. And the dog is very cute.

It’s undoubtedly ‘Disneyfied’, with that feel-good sense, and little time to think about or anticipate anything very much; it’s under 90 minutes in length, and I thought it could have benefitted from being a bit longer. However, as a piece of light-weight entertainment, it certainly filled the bill. And since it takes place in December, with the (inevitably) happy ending on Christmas Day, we’ve decided to put this with our Christmas DVD collection for the future.

Recommended if you like this kind of child-centred musical with some caricatured villains and a positive outcome. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Miss Potter (Renée Zellweger)

(Amazon UK link)

We were running a bit late yesterday evening, and wanted to watch something fairly short. ‘Miss Potter’ at just 87 minutes seemed to fill the bill. We saw it in 2014, but my husband had totally forgotten it, and I had only the vaguest recollection of a few scenes.

It’s a dramatisation of the story of Beatrix Potter, one of the best-selling children’s writers of all time. She’s best known, probably, for ‘The Tale of Peter Rabbit’, but she wrote a large number of other books, which she illustrated beautifully. They are still published, over a hundred years later, often in the original style of a small, square hardback which is easy for young children to hold. 

While there are forays into Beatrix’s childhood, as she thinks of odd moments or situations, the main story begins in 1902 when she is in a publisher’s office, submitting the text and drawings for ‘Peter Rabbit’. One of the rather strait-laced publishers is about to say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’, but his brother says he thinks that they can take it on. Beatrix (brilliantly portrayed by Renée Zellweger) is delighted. But after she has left we learn that this is to be the first project for their younger brother Norman (Ewan McGregor). They don’t expect it to sell more than about ten copies, so Norman is being fobbed off with what they think is cute and twee, but not commercially viable.

Norman meets Beatrix, and the two become friends as he introduces her to all the different aspects of producing a book. He discusses everything with her, and even takes her into the printing room to inspect the results. When the book is published, it rapidly becomes popular and sells a large number. Beatrix thinks their friendship must now end, as she has achieved her dream. But Norman persuades her to write out her other stories, to make more books. 

Norman’s sister Millie (Emily Watson) befriends Beatrix; both are single, and determined to remain that way. At least, they are until Beatrix realises that Norman is falling in love with her, and she starts to feel something for him, too. Her parents are horrified; they have moved into wealthy upper-middle class society despite having roots in the trade world, and they look down on someone who works for his living.

So there’s a romance going on alongside the remarkable success of the delightful little books, which, in the era, are startlingly different from any other children’s books. And it’s all beautifully done, in a way that kept us fully engrossed throughout. There is a bit of humour here and there - Beatrix is quite whimsical, and talks to her paintings as if they were her friends; there are some animations as she looks at them, which I liked very much. The expressions on the face of her constant chaperone are amusing too, at times, as are the caricatures she remembers of the ‘suitors’ whom her mother tried to introduce her to. 

There’s also some tragedy, hinted at in the musical change as Beatrix goes off on holiday with her parents. It’s very well done, and quite moving. 

Some of the scenery is stunning, and the pace is exactly right. Inevitably there are liberties taken with the story, but it seems to be pretty close to the reality of Beatrix Potter’s life. It’s interesting on so many levels: the obvious one is of seeing how her books came to be published. Knowing something about her life is also intriguing; she was a young woman rather ahead of her time, determined not to fall into a typical domestic role. And it’s the story of emancipation, of escaping from traditional parents, particularly her somewhat overbearing mother. For a young Victorian woman, this must have been quite a triumph.  Yet Beatrix comes across as quite a shy person, good at making friends, but unwilling to be in the spotlight. 

The rating is PG but it could easily have been U.  I didn’t notice any violence or bad language, and the most ‘intimate’ scene is that of a deep kiss. 

Highly recommended. 

Our DVD comes with a 'making of' documentary extra, but it doesn't really add very much. However it was a slightly surprising reminder that Renée Zellweger is American, and Ewan McGregor Scottish. They both spoke 1900s British English flawlessly, as far as I could tell, in the film. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Good Place (Series 1-4, complete)

(Amazon UK link)

We had never heard of ‘The good place’, but our son and his wife thoroughly enjoyed watching it last year.. So they sent us blu-rays of the complete series for Christmas, and we started watching on 10th January after finishing the similarly titled (but VERY different!) box series of ‘The Good life’.

We watched three episodes of series one the first evening, with no idea what to expect. We first meet Eleanor (Kristen Bell), who is in an office talking to an older, pleasant-looking man called Michael (Ted Danson), who says he is the ‘architect’ of the neighbourhood. He tells her that she died in a supermarket car park accident, and that she’s now in ‘The Good Place’.  Most people, he explains, are in the ‘bad place’. He says all religions are about ten per cent correct in their beliefs in what happens in the afterlife.

Eleanor is taken to a small, quirky house in her new neighbourhood, though she’s a bit miffed to see that others around have enormous mansions. And she’s told that she has a soul mate - Chidi (William Jackson Harper) - who is a likeable, if somewhat wordy academic. There are introductions to the ‘good place’ made by Michael, and Eleanor gets to know her neighbour, a rather condescending and glamorous tall woman called Tahani (Jameela Jamil) with a slightly fake-sounding upper-class British accent.

However, Eleanor does not think she should be in the good place. We get regular flashbacks to her life, where it’s clear that she was extremely selfish and somewhat manipulative. But Chidi hopes to make her nicer, and a tentative friendship begins with Tahani and her rather flaky soulmate Jason (Manny Jacinto), supposedly a buddhist monk with a vow of silence. 

The neighbourhood is enhanced by Janet (D'Arcy Carden), a humanoid computer who knows everything, and appears when anyone asks her to. She is able to advise, and to keep secrets, and when ‘killed’ will reboot to a more advanced version. We were very impressed with the actress who plays Janet. She not only plays herself, in different iterations but other very different Janets from other neighbourhoods. 

We continued watching two or three episodes each week; at first we were slightly bemused by the strange ethos, and the somewhat exaggerated acting. But it became oddly compulsive, and we were more and more intrigued as to what was going to happen. 

Strange things start to happen in the neighbourhood - sometimes very bizarre things at times. While Michael says he’s going to take the blame, Eleanor starts to take responsibility for her own actions. There are discussions about whether she should be sent to the ‘bad place’... and then a surprising twist at the end of series one. 

Series Two includes the same characters, now ‘rebooted’. That means they have forgotten everything that happened in Series One, and are starting over. With a few changes that are obvious to the viewer. And, again, it’s quickly compulsive viewing. We realised what a good actor Michael is, too; he is able to portray, with facial expressions and voice, different sides of his personality, depending on who he is talking to.  

The action is quite rapid, with some humour and conversation that’s surprisingly thought-provoking. Chidi embarks, once again (and again…) on a course in ethics in the hope of making other characters nicer. The script writers were very creative: after the first couple of episodes in this series we wondered if others were going to be similar, but each one has its own focus, with new adventures, discussions and twists.

During the course of the series these six main characters get to know each other better, and bond quite strongly, even after rebooting. They are courageous and increasingly caring, even when forced to be in the ‘Bad Place’, or - surprisingly - back on earth. We kept wondering what else could happen, only to be pleasantly surprised at yet another unexpected episode.

There are plenty of minor characters, some of them appearing in almost half the episodes, but the main six carry it through with their different and yet complementary personalities and actions. We started to become quite fond of them all. 

There’s some humour, some parts that are quite moving. Then, in the final episode of the fourth series, there’s a bittersweet ending which, once again, was unexpected. But it works well. It’s taken us four and a half months to finish watching the series, and I will miss it!

There’s very little actual bad language, although a lot is implied; in the ‘good place’ planned swear words emerge as innocent words, as, for instance, ‘fork’. There’s also no nudity or scenes of intimacy, although much is implied and there are a lot of references to genitalia in later episodes. It’s not a series for children; the rating is 12 for three series, and 15 for the fourth, and I think that’s about right.

The theology isn’t in line with Christian beliefs about the afterlife - or, indeed, those of any other religion - but the philosophy and discussions are both interesting and thought-provoking. 

Recommended, if you would like something light, amusing and yet oddly moving.

There are no extras on our blu-ray series. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

That touch of mink (Doris Day)

(Amazon UK link)

Over a year ago, now, we were given a selection of DVDs by an older friend who was downsizing. We have watched some of them, but not all. Last night we decided to watch another Doris Day movie, ‘That touch of mink’. We were surprised to learn, after watching it, that it was made in 1962. It had a much older ‘feel’ to it, as if it were a 1950s or even 1940s film (albeit in colour).

The film opens with a sequence showing Cathy Timberlake (Doris Day) standing on a street corner in pouring rain, only to be splashed quite badly by a car driving past. Nobody stops, and she is furious. 

After the title sequence, we see Cathy - still rather dripping - in an unemployment benefit office, claiming her cheque and insisting that she is trying hard to find work. She talks to the rather sleazy Everett (John Astin) who clearly wants to take her up to his apartment and seduce her. She is not remotely interested, and makes that clear.

We then see her ordering lunch in a cafe where her flatmate Connie (Audrey Meadows) works. Connie is full of advice, and annoyed on her behalf when she hears about her being splashed.

Meanwhile, in an expensive-looking office, Philip Shane (Cary Grant) is feeling slightly guilty about the incident in which he was involved that morning. He looks out of the window and happens to see Cathy as she goes into the cafe. So he asks his assistant Roger (Gig Young) to go and apologise on his behalf, and also to offer to pay for any damage or cleaning that is necessary.

I liked Roger enormously. A lot of the humour in the film comes from his insistence that he was happier in his previous job, and coerced to stay with Philip due to salary increases and benefits. Perhaps the joke is dragged out a bit far, but it was bizarre enough that I smiled, and sometimes even chuckled at it, each time. Roger also has some sessions with a therapist, Dr Gruber (Alan Hewitt) which lead to an amusing misunderstanding, one which would probably have been considered very risqué in the early 1960s.

I didn’t much like Philip Shane, however. Cary Grant was often typecast in this kind of wealthy businessman role, but I don’t think he’s all that good-looking. It was hard to see why Cathy fell for him when she was planning to give him a piece of her mind (much to Roger’s approval). All we could see was her facial expression, as it changes from one of righteous anger to a somewhat goofy star-struck look . Doris Day’s expressions are believable and very well done; but Philip is rather sleazy, and a known womaniser. His eventual plans for Cathy are a long way from the principles she absorbed from her small-town religious upbringing. 

The plot is somewhat predictable and stereotypical, but there are lot of asides and subplots that make this a surprisingly amusing and enjoyable film. The rating is U as there’s no nudity, no bad language, and nothing explicit. But a great deal is implied; it's full of innuendoes. It’s not a film I would recommend to children, even though most of the implications would probably go unnoticed. 

Having said that, there’s a bit of slapstick humour when the unfortunate Roger is mistaken, by Cathy’s flatmate, for Philip - again, more than once. It’s also very well done, and although I gasped, some viewers might find it very funny. 

The pace is good, if typical for films of this type, and the script very clever, with some excellent timing from the principal actors. There's not much chemistry between Philip and Cathy, but although it's a boy-meets-girl story, the focus is more on comedy than romance. 

All in all, we liked it a lot more than we expected to.  

x Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews