Chariots of fire (Ben Cross, Ian Charleson)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Three to tango (Matthew Perry)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Goodnight Mister Tom (John Shaw, Nick Robinson)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m surprised to find that it’s over twenty-five years since I read Michelle Magorian’s excellent teenage book ‘Goodnight Mister Tom’. It’s rare for me to recall storylines of books I read that long ago, but it remains powerfully in my mind as an example of living through the war years, with some quite difficult issues covered. 

We had acquired the DVD of the 1998 TV adaptation of the book some years ago. We had heard good things about it, but for some reason had never watched it, until last night. We were immediately caught up in the story, and both agreed that it was extremely well-done.

John Thaw stars as the sixty-something and rather cranky Tom Oakley. He lives on his own almost next-door to the parish church in his village. He works mending roofs and furniture, but is something of a hermit. Then war is declared - the year is 1939, and it feels quite authentic. Before long, evacuees come to the village, and Tim is told that it’s his duty to take one of them in. He is given the nervous, malnourished ten-year-old William Beech (Nick Robinson), because there’s a note saying he must be billetted with someone God-fearing, or near a church. 

Tom is shocked to find a belt in William’s scanty belongings, and a note telling him to use it when necessary. He’s even more horrified to find terrible welts over his back. His compassion is triggered, and slowly he and Will become fond of each other. Will doesn’t find life easy; he can’t read or write, so is relegated to the ‘baby’ class at the local school, until Tom manages to teach him. And he makes friends with some of the other evacuees, in particular a Jewish boy called Zach (Thomas Orange).

As the weeks pass, Will starts to flourish, until there’s a letter saying his mother hasn’t been well, and wants him back. And when he’s back in London, life rapidly becomes very traumatic… we don’t discover just how bad it is until a scene which I still recalled from the book, when Tom makes the effort to travel to London himself, hoping to find out why he hasn’t heard from Will.

The acting is excellent. John Thaw is a name I knew, and he plays the part of Tom flawlessly. We see him grumpy, caring, anxious and more - and his growing relationship with William mirrors his slow thawing from a tragic bereavement he experienced many years earlier. Nick Robinson, too, is perfect as Will. I don’t know how the same boy (who would have been about eleven or twelve at the time of filming) manages to be the lively, cheerful Will as well as the nervous, emaciated evacuee in the early part of the film, and the starved, seriously abused child in later scenes. 

Other actors take more of a supporting role, but they are all believable, from the young married school teacher Annie Hartridge (Pauline Turner) to the unstable, violent Mrs Beech (Annabelle Apsion). The pace of the film is perfect, as far as we’re concerned, and some of the country scenery very attractive, contrasting starkly with the horrors of London. 

I don't suppose the film covers every detail of the book, and may even include extra images or scenes that aid the visuals. But as far as I can recall, this is a very good adaptation that captures the people, the story and the emotions of Michelle Magorian's book. Perhaps I should read the book again. 

The backdrop of the war, with bombings and air raid shelters feels entirely realistic. Inevitably there are casualties, and the topic of death is covered sensitively. I was a little surprised that the rating is PG; the evident signs of abuse and the horrific discovery in London could be very disturbing to a sensitive child. I don’t think I would want to show it to anyone younger than about eleven or twelve. 

But for teenagers and adults, this is a moving, somewhat educational and ultimately very satisfying film, and I would recommend it very highly.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Shirley Valentine (Pauline Collins)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m not sure where I first heard of the film ‘Shirley Valentine’. Perhaps Amazon recommended it to me, based on prior purchases and likes. Perhaps someone else suggested that I might like it. Whatever the reason, I put it on my wishlist a couple of years ago and had forgotten about it, so I was pleased to be given it for Christmas by a relative. We decided to watch it earlier in the week.

Pauline Collins stars as Shirley Valentine, who is the main character and who narrates some of the story. Apparently this film was based on a play. It’s set in 1990, and opens with the title character in her kitchen - a typical suburban British kitchen of the era. Shirley is talking - not to herself, as we thought, but to the kitchen wall. And she then turns to the camera, and explains this. It’s an unusual technique, but works extremely well. 

Shirley, we quickly learn, is a full-time housewife in her early forties, married to a somewhat rigid man called Joe (Bernard Hill). He expects his meals at precise times, and specific meals on different days of the week. It’s a Thursday, so he should be having steak and chips. Instead, she’s going to make him egg and chips (or ‘chips and egg’ as she puts it). And there’s then a flashback to a couple of days earlier to explain why. 

Shirley’s neighbour Gillian (Julia McKenzie) is a very upper-crust woman with a large dog. She’s popping to Europe for a couple of days, and asks Shirley to look after the dog… I wasn’t quite sure what was going to happen, and, again, it was very well done. It shows Shirley to be a kind-hearted, accommodating kind of person who thinks well of everyone… and who is also inclined, at times, to act spontaneously with little thought of the consequences.

There are quite a few scenes set in the past, including Shirley at school aged, I suppose, about fourteen. She tries very hard but isn’t particularly bright; then, one day the school head does something so unfair that it triggers her into becoming a teenage rebel. She wishes she could be like the beautiful and intelligent Marjorie. But since she can’t, she’s determined to stand out in other ways.

The second part of the story involves Shirley going for a holiday to Greece with her friend Jane (Alison Steadman). Jane is an ardent feminist, and very independent. But although Shirley has always wanted to travel, she is quite a traditionalist at heart. She’s not sure how to tell Joe, and as the preceding days progress, it becomes more and more difficult for her to explain, and in the end she just leaves a note. I wasn’t sure, for a while, whether or not she would actually get away. 

There’s a lot of humour in the film; not the kind that made us laugh aloud, but some clever one-liners and very well-choreographed interactions between the characters. The character of Shirley is beautifully done, and Pauline Collins holds it together superbly. While there’s another actress playing her as a young teenager, she manages to portray a carefree, newly-married young woman as believably as the tired, traditional housewife. And on her holiday in Greece, she blooms too into someone much more relaxed, appreciating beauty and making new friends. 

Some of the minor characters are caricatured, from the neighbour Geraldine through to some ghastly (though well-meaning) fellow travellers in Greece. There are digs at the reluctance of many Brits to try ‘foreign’ food, seen through Shirley’s eyes as she tries out everything. Including a day out in a yacht with a local who finds her very attractive…

It's quite an all-star cast; in addition to those mentioned, Joanna Lumley has a role as the adult Marjorie, whom Shirley encounters shortly before travelling to Greece. And Tom Conti is excellent as Costas, a Greek waiter who befriends Shirley, insisting that his intentions are honourable. 

I had no idea how it was going to end, and we were kept guessing until the final scenes. We both very much liked the conclusion, and hoped that the changes Shirley had experienced would continue in her future. 

There’s some ‘strong’ language in this film, which is probably why it’s rated 15, although I doubt if anyone under the age of about thirty would have any interest in it anyway. There's also some rear nudity shown when two people go skinny dipping, and one mostly hidden scene of intimacy (as well as a lot of quite explicit conversation). But mostly the 'adult' elements are used either for shock value or for humour. And there’s a lot to think about too. 

All in all, we liked ‘Shirley Valentine’ very much. No extras on our DVD unfortunately, but then thirty-five years ago they were far less common. 

Definitely recommended.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

While we're young (Ben Stiller, Naomi Watts)

(Amazon UK link)

I had never heard of the 2014 film ‘When we’re young’. But when I saw it in a charity shop, I thought it worth trying. The blurb on the back sounded intriguing, the picture on the front reasonably appealing, and it had a good cast of actors listed. The blurb on the back said it was intelligent, honest, perceptive and (among other things) utterly hilarious. 

We watched it last night. I would agree that it’s reasonably intelligent (though not throughout) and quite perceptive in places. But we didn’t find it hilarious, and certainly didn’t laugh every minute as the DVD case implied. We did smile a few times, and appreciated that it wasn’t meant to be taken too seriously. And yet some important issues are covered.

Josh (Ben Stiller) and Cornelia (Naomi Watts) are a married couple in their early forties. They’re not unhappy, exactly, but seem to be drifting apart. We quickly learn that although they tried to have a family, it wasn’t successful. And they’re both fairly content with the circumstances, pointing out that they can go wherever they want any time…even though they rarely go anywhere. We first meet them feeling rather awkward with their friends Marina and Fletcher who have just become doting parents. 

Josh has produced some good films in the past but has been feeling very blocked, and isn’t getting anywhere with his latest production, which he has been working on for eight years. His funding has dried up, and his editor is getting a bit fed up with not being paid. We see snippets of a long and rather tedious film. 

Josh also lectures, and meets a young couple (in their twenties) called Jamie (Adam Driver) and Darby (Amanda Seyfried). They express strong admiration for Josh’s work and say that they want to make documentaries too. Josh has made it clear that documentaries need to be real and honest. He and Cornelia have dinner with Jamie and Darby and strike up a friendship. 

There’s some mildly amusing contrast between their lifestyles; Jamie and Darby are very relaxed, bohemian and also surprisingly ‘retro’.  Josh has CDs and DVDs, Jamie and Derby have a huge vinyl record collection. Josh starts trying to emulate Jamie, buying a similar hat and shoes, but realises that he isn’t in his twenties any more… 

The action is quite fast, sometimes rapidly showing images that communicate without words, as we see the progress of this rather lopsided relationship. Cornelia tries to stay in touch with her older friends but they are totally caught up in baby activities and she feels as if they have moved in a different direction.  So she and Jamie go to a bizarre new age weekend where they take drugs and start hallucinating and then throwing up, which is gross rather than amusing, in my view.

I wondered a few times what the plot was, and where the story was going, if anywhere. I didn’t really understand all the ramifications of the documentaries that were being made and discussed, or why Josh seemed determined to have hours and hours of rather dull material in his production. I was also unimpressed with the regular use of ‘strong’ language - the same word, dozens of times, used casually, making the speakers seem immature and lacking creativity. 

However, the acting is in general good, the music blends in well, and it’s quite thought-provoking as Josh and Cornelia wonder whether youth has passed them by, or whether they are in fact more comfortable with who they are. The story itself gets going towards the end when Josh realises something that changes his perception. There’s quite a dramatic scene towards the end as two characters argue about what authenticity and honesty really mean. 

There’s a brief epilogue too, which I liked, showing two of the characters a year later, with friends in what I thought was quite an encouraging conclusion.  

The rating is 15, which must be due to the excessive amount of bad language. There’s no violence or nudity, or anything more intimate than a few passionate kisses. 

I don't know that I'd particularly recommend it, but if you see it in a charity shop and want something a. bit different, it's not a bad film. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The story of us (Michelle Pfeiffer, Bruce Willis)

(Amazon UK link)

I found the 1999 film ‘The story of us’ on DVD when browsing the shelves at our local thrift store a few weeks ago. The cover said it was wonderful and romantic, the image looked appealing, and it starred Michelle Pfeiffer who was one of my father’s favourite actors. I had never heard of it, but never mind paying 50 cents to try something new. 

We decided to watch it last night, and were quickly engrossed in the story. It features a couple who have been married for fifteen years. Bruce Willis plays Ben, and Michelle Pfeiffer is his wife Katie. We see them initially sitting with their children, twelve-year-old Josh (Jake Sandvig) and ten-year-old Erin (Colleen Rennison). 

Ben asks each of them what their high and low spots of the day were, evidently a game they play regularly. Then Erin points out that her parents’ anniversary is the following day and they agree that they’re going out for a meal. However when the children leave the room it’s clear that Ben and Katie really don’t care about spending time together. They barely acknowledge each other, except when pretending to the children that everything is fine.

We see them, a day or two later, driving the children to a bus to take them to a holiday camp - not a week or two, as I expected, but for two months. And then they drive home, where Katie is dropped off and Ben goes to stay in a hotel. Much of the film then follows them during the next couple of months as they get on with their separate lives (Ben is a writer, Katie compiles crosswords). There are regular flashbacks, sometimes showing times when they were deeply in love, but more often showing arguments or misunderstandings that turned into shouting matches.

It sounds rather depressing but there’s a lot of humour too, in part from their friends who share far too many intimate details from their own relationships. This, I assume is what gives the film its 15 rating, as well as some instances of ‘strong’ language. There’s no actual nudity other than one rear view which is amusing rather than intimate, and only one scene that would be considered ‘adult’ rated, but it’s interrupted before anything much transpires.

But there's also some humour from the couple's many visits to therapists, none of whom were particularly helpful. One of them does explain what he believes happens when a couple are in bed... and that leads to a very cleverly-done scene where six people, with perfect comic timing, are all talking at the same time. 

The chemistry between the two principals is, we thought, excellent. When they are getting on, they do so very realistically. When they have rows, they’re perhaps predictable, neither giving way, both taking things personally. I wanted to stop them, to make them think about what they were saying and whether they really meant it… they were definitely getting under my skin. But at the same time I could see that, albeit caricatured, some of the arguments were all too believable.

We see, too, the way that their relationship started to show rifts when Katie was trying to deal with cooking, laundry, and two small children. Ben is a good father, but doesn’t realise just how hard Katie was working or how difficult it was for her. Katie feels restrained; when they met, they were both fun-loving creative people, but while Ben has retained his spontaneity and enjoyment of life, she has felt as if she had to impose some structure and discipline in their lives, in order to get anything done. And this has become another thing that they fight about.

There’s not a whole lot of direct plot; it’s situational and character-based rather than having much story. But the pace is good, the humour understated but just enough to lighten what could have been quite stressful. There’s an interlude in Venice which draws Ben and Katie together, not because of the romance of the place but because of a truly ghastly (albeit caricatured) couple, also from the United States, who they keep bumping into…

I had no idea where the relationship was going to go; it isn’t until near the end that there is a resolution, after an impassioned (and brilliantly executed) monologue from Katie. I did find myself wondering why the children were happy to stay for so long in the car, after two entire months away from their parents… but only in passing.

I gather this film didn’t get a great response from initial reviewers or the public, perhaps because it doesn’t have much plot and there’s a lot of stressful arguing. But as the ‘making of’ extra said, it was trying to pinpoint why a marriage might go wrong, not because of infidelity or anything major; just through the stresses and strains of life. 

We thought it quite thought-provoking, and overall liked it very much. We were both pleased about how it ended, too. I would recommend it for people who have been in relationships for some years; I don’t think it would appeal to anyone who is single, and might be rather disturbing for someone just embarking on a new relationship. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

The Good Life (series 1-4, complete)

(Amazon UK link)

We watched six episodes from Series One of ‘The Good Life’ at the start of last year. It was a BBC sitcom from the 1970s, featuring Tom and Barbara Good (Richard Briers and Felicity Kendall). As Tom approached his 40th birthday he became increasingly fed up with corporate life, and decided (with Barbara’s support and encouragement) to become self-sufficient. 

We enjoyed these six episodes so much that I decided to acquire the full box set with all four seasons. I was able to do so when in the UK in April, and we started watching again in early May. We began with the remaining episode of series one which was not on the first DVD we had, and then saw the other three series over the rest of the year. We usually watched one per week, sometimes two. Apparently there are thirty episodes in all.

Looking back, it’s hard to recall any specific story, as there are inevitably similarities. It’s character-based as much as plot-based. Tom and Barbara are very happily married, even if he’s a bit pompous at times, and they are good at helping each other become more positive if one of them feels depressed. Their next-door neighbours are their closest friends: Jerry (Paul Eddington) and Margo (Penelope Keith) are money-oriented and Margo in particular likes to entertain, to keep her house perfect, and to be seen as someone significant in the neighbourhood. She’s a snob, and disapproves of the Goods’ venture - but she’s also kind-hearted, and they remain close friends to the end. 

Tom and Barbara’s forays into self-sufficiency have inevitable downs as well as ups. So we see them gradually acquiring more animals and finding ways to house them. We see them inventing a kind of vehicle to transport bigger items, much to Margo’s horror. They learn to weave, and to dye clothes as well as experimenting with different kinds of crops, and they negotiate prices with local shopkeepers to sell their excess.

There are some very amusing scenes and exchanges, and in almost every episode we found ourselves chuckling more than once. And it was also quite thought-provoking. Would someone really give up their phone, their electricity and more to follow this kind of lifestyle, on ecological principles? They do it in a nice suburb in the south of the UK and to keep going despite the disapproval of others. And this is the 1970s when people were much less aware of the potential of climate change and other ecological disasters. Tom and Barbara were way ahead of their time.

Series Four is not very long, but our DVDs had the bonus of two final ‘specials’: the first is a Christmas one, contrasting Tom and Felicity having a home-made Christmas with Jerry and Margo whose Christmas all comes in a van, ordered at great cost. Margo is arguing with the delivery man about her tree being six inches shorter than the one she had ordered, not realising that if she sent everything away, she might have nothing… we thought it a very good episode, showing what really matters in life.

Then there was a ‘command performance’ special, which began with film of the Queen and other dignitaries arriving in the BBC studio to watch the making of one of the episodes, filmed life. The entire episode is then shown, not the ‘making of’, with some brief appearances of all the cast at the end, when the action moves back to the studio.  

This last episode features Tom and Barbara’s anniversary of his leaving work and embarking on their self-sufficient lifestyle. There are some shocks as well as some humour, and they have to consider seriously whether they might have to give up. 

All in all, we thoroughly enjoyed this sitcom, which doesn’t feel as if it’s fifty years old. The chemistry between the characters is all too real, even if Margo is rather a caricature, and some of the issues raised are very relevant in today’s more eco-conscious world.

The rating is PG which seems about right; there's no real violence, certainly no nudity or explicit scenes, but there are some implications of intimacies although they would probably go over children's heads. The subject matter isn't really appropriate for children anyway, and I doubt if children or even teenagers would find this very interesting.

Highly recommended if you like this kind of thing.  

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews