Doctor Who, complete third series (David Tennant)

(Amazon UK link)

It wasn’t quite the end of the Christmas season when we started watching Doctor Who series 3. It begins with the ‘Christmas special’ which was first broadcast on December 25th 2006. We saw it in 2012 and I had entirely forgotten the storyline. 

It begins with a wedding. Donna (Catherine Tate) is walking up the aisle in her wedding dress, on her father’s arm. She’s clearly very much looking forward to being married, but suddenly she disappears… and ends up on the tardis. The tenth doctor (David Tennant) is bewildered as this should be impossible, and the two have a bit of an argument…

It’s a remarkably tense episode, in my view, with an alien that could lead to nightmares, the empress of the racnoss. And the references to Christmas are rather scanty, although there are a few light-hearted moments to punctuate the tension. The Santa robots of the series two Christmas special appear again, as this begins a year later, on Christmas Eve. I knew that Donna was one of the tenth doctor’s travelling companions, but she doesn’t accept his invitation in this episode, which seems to have been a one-off.

The first official episode of the series, ‘Smith and Jones’ introduces Martha (Freema Agyeman) as Martha Jones, a trainee doctor whose hospital unexpectedly ends up on the moon. The Doctor is a patient who knows something strange is going on. Martha saves his life, and he offers her just one trip in the tardis to the past, to convince her that he really does travel in time.

‘The Shakespeare Code’ is the second episode, where the Doctor and Martha travel to Elizabethan England and a production of a Shakespeare play that isn’t going as the author expects. It’s a bit creepy, but overall a light-hearted episode with some humour, and more than one nod to the Harry Potter series. I always like the episodes set in real historic periods. 

When they solve the problems and return to the tardis, they travel a long way into the future. ‘Gridlock’ sees the Doctor and Martha travelling to ‘New Earth’, where just about everyone is trapped in a huge traffic jam. They haven’t been stuck for hours, but, in may cases, months or even years. And attempts to go in the ‘fast track’ are doomed… 

Episodes four and five are a two-parter featuring the daleks, one of my least liked of the alien races. Just four daleks remain after the time war, and they seem to be looking to the future, trying to integrate better with humanity. But daleks are built for hatred, and they care nothing for the people they hijack to be part of their purposes. These were good episodes, although there are a lot of casualties.  

Episode six is, on the surface, a bit lighter, but it’s also very thought-provoking. The doctor takes Martha home, just a day after she left. And it looks as though it will be ‘goodbye’, although she feels devastated. But the Doctor happens to hear something on television, and this prompts him to investigate. We meet Martha’s mother and sister, and the idealistic Dr Lazarus who believes he has found the secret to eternal youth - or, at least, to reducing his age. But at what cost? 

I didn’t like episode seven, called ‘42’. The Doctor and Martha arrive on a spaceship which is hurtling towards the sun. There’s quite an interesting underlying storyline, but I found it very stressful as the time gradually clicks down, and the characters have to race through doors, solving codes, or rush around making adjustments to the controls. Too much fast action and stress for my tastes, and I closed my eyes several times so as not to be distracted by the rapid visuals. 

On the other hand, I did like the two-part story of episodes eight and nine, set mainly in a school. The first time we saw this, we realised just how good an actor David Tennant is, managing flawlessly to portray himself in two different personas. There are some quite creepy parts of these episodes, but it’s primarily character-based and I liked them very much. 

We decided to skip episode ten, ‘Blink’. I’m aware it’s considered one of the very best of the new Doctor Who series, but both of us find the weeping angels just a bit too disturbing. So we missed it out, and instead saw episode eleven, ‘Utopia’, with the time-travelling, apparently immortal Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) reappearing and flirting with Martha. He adds a bit of extra fun to his episodes, and the dynamics between the three characters are excellent.

What we didn't realise is that episode eleven is in fact the first of a three-parter... but it was late, so we left it another week.  Finally we watched episodes twelve and thirteen, where a prediction made by the dying ‘Face of Bo’ is uncovered. I liked the way that there’s what they call a ‘story arc’ moving through all the episodes, so that something mentioned in an earlier one could be revealed much later. 

There’s ongoing tension as Martha’s mother reports any phone calls to some officials, convinced the Doctor is dangerous. And there are a lot of scenes involving one or more of Martha’s family, when she and the Doctor are on earth. I had almost forgotten that the new, controlling prime minister is also an old enemy... John Simms is excellent in the role. 

Overall we thought this an excellent series. I liked Martha very much as a companion and was a sorry that she only did this one season. There are a few ‘extras’ throughout our DVD set, including some of David Tennant’s video diaries that go behind the scenes in interesting ways. Then there’s a final entire DVD with longer documentary-style extras, covering the background of several of the episodes. For anyone interested in some of the filming and production, these are well worth seeing. 

Definitely recommended. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Muriel's wedding (Toni Colette)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m sure I had heard of the 1994 film ‘Muriel’s wedding’, but we had never seen it. So when I saw it inexpensively at the local thrift store, it wasn’t a difficult decision to buy it. We decided to watch it last night. The blurb on the back said it’s a funny hit comedy, so we were looking forward to something light-hearted.

Unfortunately, it’s not at all a light film. It’s not even funny, although some of the characters are very stereotyped. Instead we found it extremely sad. It's set in Australia, initially in a small town with the unfortunate name of Porpoise Spit. 

Muriel (Toni Collette) is a bit frumpy and overweight, but longs to be accepted by her peers. She hangs out with three trendy young women, one of whom is getting married at the start of the film. Muriel catches the bouquet, but everyone else tries to persuade her to throw it again. After all, nobody’s going to marry her…

Muriel is part of a highly dysfunctional and very depressing family. Her father Bill (Bill Hunter) is a corrupt local politician, who is also a horrendous bully. He orders his unfortunate wife Betty (Jeanie Dryan) around, treating her like dirt. And he regularly insults all his children (I think there are five in all, Muriel being the oldest). None of them have jobs, and they’re all rather frumpy and don’t do much. Their father is so scathing that I’m not surprised they had no motivation or interest in anything. 

Muriel would like to find a job and move out of her family home; she’s something of a dreamer, and loves listening to Abba music. She also lies regularly, and has stolen clothes from shops. She’s offered a job by a woman who’s evidently keen on Muriel’s father, but then takes a blank cheque and uses it to buy herself an expensive holiday and nice clothes. 

The only somewhat likeable character in the whole film is a former schoolmate of Muriel’s called Rhonda (Rachel Griffiths), although she’s promiscuous and smokes heavily. But she’s loyal and interesting. They become friendly, and decide to move to Sydney and share a flat.  Then Rhonda learns something devastating. 

Muriel - who has changed her name to Mariel by this stage - is supportive of her friend, and I started liking her better. But she’s obsessed with the idea of getting married. She goes around all the bridal shops she can find, trying on expensive outfits, trotting out fake sob stories, and getting polaroid pictures taken. She’s invented a fiancé…the more I watched, the more it seemed as if she was entirely out of touch with reality.

There is a wedding, although it’s one of convenience after Muriel answers an advert. Her potential husband doesn’t even like her at first, yet she is a glamorous bride, smiling broadly as if she’s finally doing what she has always hoped to do. It’s surreal, as is her very depressing interaction afterwards with Rhonda, and the fact that her three former friends are her bridesmaids.

And yet, it’s a very watchable film. The acting is excellent, the pace good, and I quite liked the Abba soundtracks that were in the background for quite a bit of it. There are some lighter sequences - such as a talent show where the two young women are dressed like Abba members, singing and dancing to ‘Waterloo’. It’s extremely well done. But there are also some deeply sad sequences. I felt desperately sorry for Muriel’s mother, who is so eager to please everyone, and works hard with no appreciation - she’s barely even noticed, until it’s too late.

Back in the 1990s there was less political correctness; but even thirty years ago, I can’t see how any of the film could have been considered ‘funny’. The issues covered are all unpleasant ones, starting with blatant adultery in the first scenes, then covering theft, fraud, verbal abuse, deception and others - worse - which would be spoilers if I mentioned them.

The rating is 15 in the UK (R in the United States) which I would say is right. There’s nothing over-explicit or full-frontal nudity, but three or four sexual scenes, and quite a bit of raunchy conversation. There’s some bad language, too, though it’s not excessive. Definitely not suitable for children and I wouldn’t show it to most teens, either.

It’s very popular in some circles, and apparently won awards. But I wouldn’t recommend it. We were glad, overall, that we saw the film, as it’s so very well made and acted. But we found it quite depressing, despite a somewhat positive ending, and don’t want to see it again. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Meet the Fockers (Ben Stiller)

(Amazon UK link)

I had heard of the 2004 film ‘Meet the Fockers’ several times in the past couple of decades. But for some reason I had not thought to acquire it. Perhaps the title was off-putting - I’m not sure. However, when I saw it inexpensively in a local thrift store a couple of weeks ago, I thought it would be interesting to see. If we didn’t like it, I thought, we could always donate it back.

It opens with a hospital scene. Greg (Ben Stiller) is a nurse assisting at a birth. He can’t get a doctor, so delivers the baby himself. We then see him at home, and his fiancée Pam (Teri Polo). They are preparing to go on a visit which evidently allows his parents to meet hers, so they can get to know each other before the wedding. Greg is clearly rather concerned about this. 

I had not realised until a few minutes ago that this film is in fact a sequel to another film, ‘Meet the parents’, in which Greg and Pam meet each other’s parents for the first time. I think that could be interesting to watch, so I will look out for it. But it isn’t necessary to have seen it first. ‘Meet the Fockers’ stands alone and doesn’t feel as if anything is missing. 

Pam’s parents Jack (Robert de Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner) are quite traditional in outlook. Jack used to work for the CIA, but doesn’t want Greg’s parents to know. And he’s acquired a huge luxurious motorhome in which the four of them are planning to drive to Greg’s parents’ home. Plus their cat, who has been taught to use (and even flush) the toilet.

And then there’s Little Jack, a total cutie who must be around a year old. He is played by the identical twins Spencer and Bradley Pickren, and he, to my mind, is one of the best characters in the film. He is competent in baby sign language, but until half-way through the film has not said a single word. However he toddles around like a child of fifteen months or so. I guess his age doesn’t much matter. He is Jack and Dina’s grandson, and they’re looking after him while their other daughter is away. Jack is trying to teach him new signs, and also introduce the so-called ‘Ferber method’ of sleep-training. 

Jack is also highly competitive in everything he does. Greg’s parents, by contrast, are relaxed, bohemian and very loving. They never expected Greg to be perfect, but honoured him in every achievement, no matter how minor. This goes a bit overboard and Greg finds it embarrassing, but I liked his parents very much Dustin Hoffman is wonderful as his father Bernie, and Barbra Streisand also excellent as his mother Roz. Greg has told his future in-laws that Roz is a doctor, but not that she works as a sex therapist..

The contrast of the two sets of parents is very cleverly done; perhaps it’s an advantage of not having seen the earlier film in that I had no idea what to expect. There are some very amusing scenes, some of them involving Little Jack, some exploring the contrast between Pam’s rather uptight parents and Greg’s very huggy, talkative and relaxed parents. 

The pace is perfect; the film is nearly two hours long but I don’t think I looked at the clock even once. It didn’t feel long at all. There’s a lot of humour and also some interesting insights into different relationships. There’s some great choreography and scenes that could almost be considered slapstick, but they are extremely well done. I didn’t much like Bernie and Roz’s small and annoying dog that tries to ‘hump’ everything it sees, but other than that I thought all the characters were well portrayed, believable, and - at least deep down - very likeable. 

It’s perhaps a bit predictable, but that doesn’t matter too much in this ‘rom-com’ film which really does manage to combine romance with some very amusing scenes. 

Rated 12A in the UK, and PG-13 in the US, which I think is about right. There’s no real violence, other than a couple of incidents that lead to a nose bleed, and there’s very little bad language, none of it ‘strong’, as far as I can recall, although of course Greg’s family’s surname does sound similar to a ‘strong’ word. But although there’s no real nudity or anything explicit, there’s a lot of talk about sexuality, and plenty of innuendoes and discussion of people’s intimate lives. So it’s not a film I would show to children, or even younger teens.

But for adults who want something light-hearted and amusing, without anything too serious, I would recommend this. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Lover come back (Doris Day)

(Amazon UK link)

We’re still slowly working our way through the DVDs given to us by a friend who was downsizing about a year ago. This time we decided to watch ‘Lover come back’, another one in the Doris Day collection. We had no idea what to expect: the cover photo looks decidedly risqué, but the rating is PG.

I found the first few minutes a little confusing, but gradually realised what was happening, and was drawn into the film. Carol, Doris Day’s character, is a young woman who works in advertising. She’s enthusiastic and has lots of good ideas, and likes to get new accounts after doing a lot of research and hard work. She is contrasted with Jerry (Rock Hudson) who lazes about, and wines and dines his potential clients, taking them to strip clubs and similar.

Carol works hard on a contract she hopes to acquire, spending many hours on a portfolio and coming up with some excellent ideas. She finally goes to see the client, only to discover him rather drunk after a party with lots of drink and scantily clad girls. And he tells her he has given the contract to Jerry. Carol is furious and determined to take Jerry to a tribunal, accused of unethical behaviour. But her witness is persuaded not to testify against him, after yet more unethical bribery on is part….

Jerry really is a most unpleasant character with superficial charm, but no positive qualities. Rock Hudson was a good actor, and he feels quite believable. I really hoped he wouldn’t end up (as was inevitable from the start…) with Carol. 

There’s a serious misunderstanding when Carol mistakenly assumes that Jerry (whom she has never met) is someone else. He goes along with the deception, behaving as if he were rather naive, and allowing her to pay for his accommodation and meals. And then he steals an advertising idea…

The action is fast, and the acting good in an early 1960s style.  There’s some humour, particularly when Jerry pretends he has a new product which doesn’t exist, and others start battling to advertise it. There were a couple of places where we laughed aloud, and for most of it, I felt quite drawn into the story, rooting for Carol and annoyed by Jerry. 

I can see why the rating is PG and no higher. There’s no nudity shown, and no bad language as far as I recall. There’s no violence, and the drinking and cigarette use are appropriate for the era and the story. But there’s a lot implied in Jerry’s life, and one incident showing a ‘morning after’ with a sheet covering a couple who have evidently spent the night together. There are also shows with very scantily clad women; the stripping is not shown (it’s more amusing watching the audience, anyway) but clearly there.  

However it’s not the kind of thing that would appeal to most children or even teens; it’s inevitably somewhat dated, and the story relates to adult life. 

But overall, we thought it a well-made and nicely produced film, with just the right balance of humour and action. The ending is somewhat far-fetched, but then so are many of the incidents in the film - at least, I hope so!

Recommended, on the whole, if you like this era and style of films.

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

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