Flipper (Elijah Wood)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s over twenty years since we watched the family film ‘Flipper’ about a teenage boy and his special relationship to a dolphin. I didn’t remember much about it, other than that it was a somewhat bittersweet ending with some tension along the way.

I had quite forgotten that the show stars Elijah Wood as fifteen-year-old Sandy, well before he became a household name as Frodo in the Lord of the Rings series. He was apparently prolific as a child actor, and plays the part of the somewhat fed-up Sandy very competently.

Sandy’s parents, we quickly learn, are separating, and they have sent Sandy to stay with his uncle, Porter (Paul Hogan), for the summer. Porter lives in a ramshackle building on the coast of Florida, and mostly lives on canned food, which he acquires in bulk from various ships. He doesn’t much want someone around, and Sandy doesn’t want to be there, but when Sandy tries to run away Porter follows him and brings him back.

Little women (Winona Ryder)

(Amazon UK link)

We have two DVDs with films based on Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel ‘Little Women’. We watched the 2019 version - updated for a modern audience - in 2020, and I liked it much more than I had expected to. But it was over twenty years since we watched the 1994 version which is rather closer to the original. So we decided to see it again. I am very familiar with the story, my husband much less so as he has never read the books.

On the whole, this is quite true to the original, although inevitably a lot has been cut out. The four March sisters are realistically portrayed: Trini Alvarado is the responsible Meg, and Winona Ryder is the impetuous Jo, who never quite manages to look tidy, and who spends most of her time writing. I thought Beth (Claire Danes) was the least believable of the four; but a lot of her story is removed from the film. Kirsten Dunst is an excellent young Amy; she’s the only sister who has a different actress (Samantha Mathis) playing her as an adult. But then Meg and Jo were older teenagers anyway at the start of the story.

Honeymoon in Vegas (Sarah Jessica Parker)

(Amazon UK link)

We’ve had the DVD of the film ‘Honeymoon in Vegas’ on our shelves for a long time. It was a freebie that one of our relatives acquired, some years ago, with a Sunday newspaper. I don’t know why we never got around to seeing it, but we finally rectified the omission last night.

It feels like quite an old film, given the style of the titles, which are cartoonish, reminiscent of the 1960s. So I’m a bit surprised to find that it was made as recently as 1992. The star of the film is a very young-looking Sarah Jessica Parker, who plays a glamorous, feisty woman called Betsy. She’s the girlfriend of Jack (Nicolas Cage), and they’ve been together for quite some time. She really wants to get married and have children, but he is afraid of commitment.

The reason for his fear is that, on her deathbed, his mother made him promise that he would never love anyone as much as he loved her, and that he would not get married. He didn’t quite make the promise, but it haunts him. And in his work as a private detective, he has seen so much evidence of marriages falling apart and infidelity that he begins to think his mother is right. Except that he really loves Betsy, and doesn’t want to lose her.

Her majesty, Mrs Brown (Judi Dench)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s nearly thirteen years since we watched the 1997 drama ‘Her majesty, Mrs Brown’. I wasn’t sure, when we first saw it, if we would be interested in seeing it again, but decided that we would. We recalled that it was about Queen Victoria, brilliantly portrayed by Judi Dench, and that it involved Billy Connolly. But we had forgotten most of the storyline.

Some of the film is based on true events, some is speculation, but it’s all extremely well done. It opens - after a couple of brief foreshadowing scenes that don’t come into play until almost the end - with the Queen in deep mourning after the loss of her beloved Albert. She has refused to make any public appearances, and won’t allow her son, the prince consort, to do so either. 

Never been kissed (Drew Barrymore)

(Amazon UK link)

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

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

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

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

Postcards from the edge (Meryl Streep)

(Amazon UK link)

I sometimes spend a few minutes browsing Amazon’s ‘recommendations’ to me, based on films I have bought. I always read the blurbs and usually one or two negative reviews before adding something to my wishlist. We have a lot of films, so I’m quite picky, now, about choosing any more. ‘Postcards from the edge’ stars Meryl Streep, and features several other well-known actors, and was mostly positively reviewed. I added it to my list, and was given it for my recent birthday. 

So last night we decided to watch it. The image on the front and general feeling suggest a comedy of some kind. But I didn’t look at the blurb on the back, and had forgotten what I read on Amazon. So I had no idea what to expect. 

The film opens with a dramatic scene. A helicopter descends, someone leaps out, then Meryl Streep and two friends are stopped at a border, and she is accused of something terrible. However, it would be a spoiler to say what happens next, as the surprise is cleverly done.

Streep’s character is called Suzanne, who must be in her late twenties, no more than thirty. She could easily have passed for twenty-four or twenty-five, despite the fact that Streep herself must have been over forty when this film was made in 1990. And once again, this versatile, brilliant actor becomes the character, in a way that few others manage. When we watch a film with Meryl Streep, we barely remember her in other roles, as each one is so different, and she manages them all to perfection.

Suzanne, we quickly learn, is a struggling actress who has a problem with drugs. After a nasty incident, she ends up in rehab and we meet her mother Doris, who is a perfectly made up Shirley MacLaine. It’s evident that the two have something of a difficult relationship; Doris tries hard to be loving and non-judgemental, but she can’t keep it up for long. And she is forever talking over her daughter, convinced she knows best what she should be doing. 

The subject matter is a serious issue, not one that would normally be turned into a light-hearted film. Apparently this is based on a true story, although it may well be quite loosely based. Suzanne works hard to be free of her habit, taking up smoking instead. Doris is an alcoholic, though she seems mostly to have her drinking under control. And Suzanne is chased rather determinedly by a somewhat pushy young man called Jack (Dennis Quaid).

Into the mix comes Doris’s own mother, whose name I didn’t learn, but she’s played by Mary Wickes: an overbearing, judgemental, loud and critical woman. I didn’t like ‘Grandma’ at all. Her husband has dementia and keeps complaining about her in a way that I thought was bittersweet: he is able to say what other people are thinking, in a somewhat amusing way; yet his condition is not one to take lightly or joke about. 

There are some insights into the stresses and pressures that go into making movies - or did, in the 1980s; I don’t know how much it has changed since then. It is perhaps caricatured, but almost certainly has some truth in the horrors and degradations, and the way some actors are (or were) treated. 

The acting is superbly done, the pace just right and the story well told. I didn’t know some of the actors, but I recognised Simon Callow’s distinctive voice before seeing his character. On the other hand I didn’t spot Richard Dreyfuss as a doctor. 

There’s some singing, too; Doris, in her younger days, was apparently a stage singer, and Suzanne has an amazing voice too, though she doesn’t want to give in to her mother’s pressure to be a singer rather than an actor. 

I wasn’t sure I was going to like the film in the first twenty minutes or so, but I quickly became absorbed and overall thought it excellent. The rating is 15 which reflects some ‘strong’ language and the drug theme, though by today’s more relaxed standards it might be reduced to 12. 

Recommended if you like quite hard-hitting dramas with some light-hearted moments, or if you’re a fan of Meryl Streep. 

x 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

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 Thaw, 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

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

A Christmas Carol (Patrick Stewart)

(Amazon UK link)

One of the Christmas DVDs we had not seen for a long time is ‘A Christmas Carol’, the 1999 ‘made for TV’ version with Patrick Stewart starring as Ebenezer Scrooge. We saw it in 2008, so it was more than time for a re-watch. We watched it on Christmas Eve.

It’s at least three decades since I read the Charles Dickens classic on which so many films have been based. But the basic story is well-known. Scrooge is such a miser that his name has become a synonym for meanness. We learn that his business partner, Jacob Marley, has died - we even see a brief cameo of the funeral. Then the main story takes place seven years later, on Christmas Eve. 

Patrick Stewart does not look anything like I have ever imagined Scrooge to be. I don’t understand why he wasn’t given a suitable wig for this film, to make him look more Victorian and rather older. But really that’s my only gripe. He is such a good actor that, as I became absorbed in the film, I quickly forgot my preconceived ideas, and saw him for the penny-pinching businessman Scrooge. 

Scrooge has one employee, Bob Cratchett (Richard E Grant) who is also very believable in his role. He is paid fifteen shillings per week, on which he can barely scrape by. But he has a wife and five children, and they are all happy - much happier than Scrooge despite their poverty. The youngest, ‘Tiny Tim’ is crippled; there’s no indication why, but he walks with a crutch and mostly has to be carried. Ben Tibber, who must have been eight or nine when this production was made, does well in this role.

Saskia Reeves is excellent, too, as Mrs Cratchett, holding the family together by her excellent housekeeping and cooking. Her other children are less distinct and perhaps over-acting a bit, but it doesn't much matter. 

Scrooge reluctantly gives Bob a whole day off for Christmas, while muttering ‘humbug’, and then returns to his gloomy home where he starts seeing ghosts… starting with his former business partner. The ghost of Marley rattles chains and warns Scrooge that unless he changes, he, too, will be doomed to roam the earth full of regrets for his self-centered life. 

Some of the special effects look a bit dated, which isn’t surprising for a film that’s now over twenty-five years old. There are many adaptations of this story, and I expect modern ones are more realistic (if ghosts can ever be considered realistic), and perhaps more scary. But given the era, and the fact that the book was written for older children, it’s not inappropriate to have very different and unscary ghosts. The third, who doesn’t speak, is perhaps the most disturbing, but then the third ghost shows Scrooge what might happen if he doesn’t change his ways.

Dickens cared deeply about the impoverished in society, and many of his novels form a kind of social commentary. ‘A Christmas carol’ is obviously intended to be a moral tale, demonstrating why it’s important to be kind and generous. Scrooge’s change of focus is perhaps a tad unlikely after so many years of selfish miserliness. But it’s done so well in this film that it feels quite realistic while watching. 

Knowing the story well did not in any way detract from my enjoyment of seeing this version. It’s rated PG which seems about right; there’s no violence or bad language, and parents will know whether or not the situations portrayed might upset their children. I doubt if it would be of much interest to very little ones anyway.

But for a good portrayal of the story, fairly close to the book, I would recommend this. 

Other related films we’ve watched in the past few years include:

* Scrooged (with Bill Murray) - a modern take on the story, not for children

* A Christmas Carol goes wrong - chaos and some slapstick, as an incompetent cast attempt a play

* The man who invented Christmas - a fictional portrayal of Dickens’ life and the writing of the 'Christmas Carol' story 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

Noises off (Michael Caine)

(Amazon UK link)

We’ve had the DVD of the film ‘Noises off’ for a long time. It was made in 1992 and I’m pretty sure we acquired the DVD early in our time in Cyprus, probably the late 1990s. I expect I watched it, too, but had no memory of it at all. Neither did my husband. But it looked like a light and possibly humorous film so we decided to watch it last night. Apparently the film was based on a play of the same name. 

It opens to a scene of traffic somewhere in the United States, and commentary from Lloyd (Michael Caine), worried about a theatre production called ‘Nothing on’. It’s billed as a sex farce from London. Lloyd wanders around the foyer of the theatre, but can’t bring himself to go in. He explains that it’s gone from bad to worse. 

Then the action takes us back to the dress rehearsal months earlier. It was taking place late at night and Lloyd tries to keep his temper as more and more actors forget their lines or directions. We meet the housekeeper Dotty (Carol Burnett) who has to answer a phone, then put down a plate of sardines and remove a newspaper. She keeps forgetting what she has to do, and is somewhat over-acting anyway. 

As she vanishes, finally, into the kitchen, John (Gary Lejeune) arrives with Brooke (Nicollette Sheridan) on his arm. They’re clearly there for an assignation. John assures her they are alone, and tells her that he owns the place. Brooke is not very bright, or observant, although the character she plays is quite seductive. 

After some misunderstandings they disappear into a bedroom, only to have the front door opened again to reveal another couple on an assignation. There’s a lot of cleverly done choreography as doors open and close, different people noticing - or not noticing - each other. Dotty keeps appearing with plates of sardines which are accepted or moved… and even though Lloyd keeps having to stop to remind people of lines or stage directions, it’s all rather cleverly done. 

However there are clearly different relationships off-stage. Lloyd, we learn, is intimate with Poppy (Julie Hagerty) who is the prompter, and general backstage manager. But she’s not the only one. I rather lost track of who was keen on whom, and it didn’t seem to matter as there was a lot of chaos, albeit well done.

After this dress rehearsal, there are two more sections of the film - I imagine they were separate acts in the stage play. In the first, everyone just about manages to hold things together as we see the first half of the play again.  In the second location, more and more things go wrong as people make mistakes, or go missing, or miss their cues… there were several times when we smiled, or even chuckled as unexpected things happened or went wrong. 

It’s a good idea, and I expect worked very well as a stage play. It was a bit strange having just a handful of characters, almost everything taking place in the same stage set, or behind it, with only Michael Caine’s character appearing in the foyer or audience. But we quickly got used to it, and on the whole liked it.

The UK rating is 15 which seems rather high. Although ‘Nothing on’ is supposedly a sex farce, there’s nothing too inappropriate that happens. Plenty is implied, and one character does spend most of the play in her lacy underwear, but there aren’t any actual scenes of intimacy.  There’s some comedic violence, and some bad language (including a couple of incidences of ‘strong’ language) but it didn’t seem overdone, and I’d have thought a rating of 12 would have been more appropriate.

Having said that, it’s not for the prudish. Innuendoes abound, and there’s a lot of general silliness and some slapstick. It rises out of the mundane by the excellent choreography and impeccable comic timing, but it’s not one I’d particularly recommend. Still, it made a good evening’s light viewing, and on the whole we liked it.

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

The cutting edge (Moira Kelly, DB Sweeney)

(Amazon UK link)

It’s nearly eleven years since we watched the DVD of ‘The cutting edge’. We remembered that it was about ice skating, but nothing much else. Indeed, we briefly confused it with the film ‘Ice Princess’, which we saw in 2021.

This film opens at the 1988 winter Olympics, but starts with two separate storylines. Kate (Moira Kelly) is a wealthy and very spoiled figure skater. She has trained extensively, on her private rink, and is strongly encouraged by her father (Terry O’Quinn). But her arrogant attitude has lost her several different skating partners. During her performance, her current partner drops her, meaning they lose their chance of a gold medal. She doesn’t really do solo skating, so her trainer Anton (Roy Dotrice) has to find someone else to be her partner. 

Meanwhile, Doug (DB Sweeney), a young man from a much more impoverished background, is a champion ice hockey player. He is also playing in a match at the Olympics, although he arrives late after a night with a girl. It’s clear that he’s rather arrogant, too, confident in his abilities. But there’s an accident during the game, giving him a head injury, which leads to permanent damage to his peripheral vision. 

This means he can no longer participate in competitive ice hockey. His brother Walter (Chris Benson) wants him to help in the family business and he does so, playing ice hockey in a local league but hoping for more. His brother has little patience with his ambitions and doesn’t understand his need to skate. 

Unsurprisingly, Anton tracks down Doug, and invites him to try working with Kate. Doug rather looks down on figure skating, but he’s willing to give it a go. He’s shocked at the magnificence of Kate’s family home and her private rink, and rather scathing at what he is expected to do. He struggles at first with the figure skating boots, and doesn’t like Kate laughing at him when he falls down. They have a lot of conflict, but he’s persuaded to stay… 

Most of the film charts their progress as Doug realises just how strong and flexible he has to be for figure skating. He and Kate have a lot of arguments but evidently she needs someone with a strong character who is willing to stand up for her. And he’s full of determination and courage. 

There are scenes at the US national competition where Kate and Doug just scrape a place at the next winter Olympics. And then they work on a new routine which includes a dangerous and unusual move which takes them a long time to perfect. Even then they’re not sure that they’re going to include it…

Alongside this, rather inevitably, Doug and Kate realise they find each other very attractive. It’s kept as a low-key part of the story, which contributes to the film's PG rating, despite some bad (though not ‘strong’) language in places. We see Doug in a ‘morning-after’ role more than once with other women, but there’s nothing explicit. 

In a sense there isn’t much of a storyline: without the skating it would be a very predictable romance with two people clashing strongly and gradually realising they are attracted to each other. But the ice dancing makes this a different and very watchable film, with some humour as well as some exceptional skating. It’s also interesting to see how the two principals gradually mellow - just a little - realising they have to rely on and trust each other.  

I wouldn’t class it as one of my favourite films, but I’m glad we decided to watch it again, and expect we’ll get it out to see again in another decade or so. Cheesey? Undoubtedly, but the figure skating pulls it out of the ordinary.  According to the IMDb site, neither of the main actors could skate at all, so they had to undergo three months of extensive training prior to filming. I assume that some of the most advanced skating must have been done by stunt doubles although it's not mentioned anywhere that I can find. 

Recommended for teens and adults if you like films about ice skating with a bit of romance thrown in.

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

One Fine Day (Michelle Pfeiffer, George Clooney)

(Amazon UK link)

We decided to take a break from watching mid-20th century classics last night. Instead we watched ‘One Fine Day’, a light rom-com which was released in 1996. It’s a bit shocking to realise that this is nearly thirty years ago! We watched it in 2014 and had almost no memory of the story.

Michelle Pfeiffer stars as the efficient architect called Melanie. She has a young son, Sammy (Alex D Linz) who is probably meant to be about five; he behaves as if rather younger, although the actor, I gather, was about seven. He’s a likeable child who is constantly active and curious, getting into trouble one way or another regularly. 

We learn from an early conversation that Sammy adores his father, who doesn’t live with them any more; he desperately hopes that his father will make it to a soccer game he’ll be playing in later that day. And Sammy is also looking forward to his school field trip on a boat. Melanie is ready to leave; all she has to do is collect Maggie (Mae Whitman) one of Sammy’s classmates, whom she takes to school. 

The action then switches to a small apartment where Maggie’s father Jack (George Clooney) lives on his own. It’s clear that he’s rather disorganised and can be child-like and silly at times. A knock on the door heralds his ex-wife and her new husband with Maggie, whom they’re leaving with him for the next week. He doesn’t seem to be aware that this is going to happen, nor does he have any clue about her schedule. 

He listens with half a mind to his ex-wife’s instructions and takes a sheaf of papers… then spends some time eating junk food and playing with Maggie, unaware until she mentions it that she should be in school going on a boat trip. And he hasn’t remembered to let Melanie know that he will be taking Maggie to school himself. 

Inevitably both children are too late for the boat trip; equally inevitably the parents get thrown together although Melanie is very antagonistic towards Jack. It is, after all, his fault that the children have missed their trip. And she has no idea what to do with Sammy during some important work meetings…

The scene is set for an amusing day, which we see alternately from Melanie and Jack’s viewpoints. Sammy has a tendency to put objects up his nose, while Maggie is passionate about cats, and will forget everything else if she sees one and decides to follow it. The child actors do at least as well as their adult co-stars, and I was particularly taken with Sammy. Having the children as such a big part of the film brings it out of the ordinary, and we both enjoyed it very much.

There’s plenty of mild humour; we didn’t laugh aloud, but I smiled several times. There’s some choreographed slapstick type humour which slightly made me wince, but it was well enough done that it was amusing too. The pace is excellent, the conversation believable, and if the outcome is somewhat inevitable, that wasn’t a problem. 

The film is refreshingly free of ‘strong’ language, with only the mildest of profanities. It’s also free of anything violent or overtly sexual. There are quite a few risque references here and there, but nothing major. The rating of PG seems about right; parents have different opinions about what children can be exposed to and children vary in their understanding. I doubt if this would be of any interest to a young child anyway, despite the young actors. 

Definitely recommended if you want a light evening’s viewing that actually is a romantic comedy, even if the humour is mostly fairly understated. 

Review copyright 2024 Sue's DVD Reviews

As time goes by (Series 4)

(Amazon UK link)

We started watching ‘As time goes by’ in March this year. We had DVDs of the first two seasons and liked them so much that, when I was in the UK in the Summer, I ordered the third and fourth season as well. We watched the third season in the autumn, and have just finished watching Series Four. Geoffrey Palmer and Judi Dench star as Lionel and Jean, separated by the Korean war, and reunited after thirty years. 

The first few episodes of Season Four revolve around Lionel writing the script for a mini-series commissioned by some people in the United States. He’s finding it very difficult to write about poignant memories, and is not helped by the loquacious though well-meaning Mrs Flack (Vivienne Martin). The background to these first few episodes also involves Lionel attempting to get used to living with Jean in a household that not only includes her twice-divorced daughter Judy (Moira Brooker) but Jean’s secretary Sandy (Jenny Funnell), who has broken up with her boyfriend.

Another episode involves Jean’s sister-in-law Penny (Moyra Fraser) being convinced her husband is having an affair, when it turns out that he’s trying to arrange a surprise party. Meanwhile Lionel and Jean decide that they really should get married, and Lionel’s father Rocky (Frank Middlemass) tells them he is giving them his house in the country. 

Later episodes - there are ten in the series - involve wedding jitters, the wedding itself, the end of the honeymoon, filming for the mini-series, and a discussion about whether or not Jean is going to retire. 

We watched one episode per week, and felt quite involved in the storylines which managed to offer something new each time. The acting is excellent, the stories well-done, with no bad language, no nudity, no violence… the humour is in the script and the timing, and the chemistry of the actors with each other. There’s much that’s poignant as well as several places where we smiled. We even laughed aloud a few times. 

I hope we’ll watch this series again in a few years, but - a tad perversely, perhaps - we’ve decided not to get hold of the later series. Apparently there were nine seasons of ‘As Time Goes By’, although the later ones had just six or seven episodes in each. I did glance at the storylines, summarised online elsewhere, and they looked rather less appealing, with Jean and Lionel starting to show signs of age, and the younger generation having trouble with their love-lives. I think it’s better to stop while we’re still enjoying the series, now that Jean and Lionel are happily married, and have made some decisions about where to live, and what they will be doing.

You probably have to be at least in your fifties to appreciate this series fully. I did see a few episodes on TV when I was much younger, and liked them, which is why I acquired the first two seasons on DVD when they were available. But we didn't watch them until this year. It was much better being around the ages of Jean and Lionel. 

It’s an undemanding show, with not a great deal happening and just a handful of characters who recur in most episodes. It doesn’t have the rather brash humour of some American sitcoms, nor any slapstick or canned laughter. It’s gentle, amusing, and heartwarming and I thoroughly recommend it if clean 1990s  UK sitcoms appeal to you.

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews

As Time Goes By (Series 3)

(Amazon UK link)

We watched the first two seasons of the 1990s sitcom ‘As time goes by’ earlier in the year, and liked it so much that I ordered second-hand editions of the third and fourth seasons. We started watching Season Three in July; there are ten episodes, but we didn’t manage to see one every week, so it’s lasted us until now. We watched the final episode of the season last night.

I had wondered if it would start to feel a bit tired or samey, but that hasn’t happened yet. The first episode of this season followed on directly from the last one of Season Two, with Jean (Judi Dench) and Lionel (Jeffrey Palmer) in a hotel in Paris. It’s something they had dreamed of doing for years, but - unsurprisingly - it’s not at all what they expected, and arguments ensue.  

The second episode was one of my favourites. Lionel’s 85-year-old quirky father Rocky (Frank Middlemass) gets married to Madge (Joan Sims). Lionel, grumpy as ever, feels they’re being silly at their time of life, but eventually realises that they’re making the most of the time they have left, and that they really do love each other.  

Subsequent episodes see Lionel and Jean deciding to move in together, with the inevitable confusion as lack of communication means that they haven’t agreed WHERE they will live. This leads to them taking a break in their relationships, only to be thrown together again by Jean’s rather irritating former sister-in-law Penny and her tediously dull husband Stephen. 

Then the last few episodes involve yet more subplots: Jean’s business is so successful that she opens up a new branch, but nobody much likes the person hired to run it. And Lionel is asked to write a mini-series for American television about his romance with Jean, broken off when they lost touch, and resumed thirty years later. But during a visit to the United States, it becomes apparent that the producers want to make something that bears almost no relation to the reality…

There are many more storylines running alongside these broad outlines; Jean’s daughter Judith (Moira Brooker) and Lionel’s always-positive agent Alistair (Philip Bretherton) continue to add humour and a younger viewpoint; Jean’s secretary Sandy (Jenny Funnell) also takes a bigger role than she did in the first two series, and becomes established as close friends with Judith.  

It’s the character interactions that make this so enjoyable, particularly contrasting Jean’s mostly upbeat personality with Lionel’s perpetual grouchiness, which is partly due to lack of self-esteem. But there are some moments of deep thinking and tenderness, and the chemistry between the two is excellent.  

There were many times when we smiled and a few when we laughed. There were also moments when we felt poignancy; although some situations are caricatured, there’s a lot of realism in this sitcom from the 1990s, and the acting is impeccable. 

We’re looking forward to series 4, but although we have been liking this very much, I suspect one more series will be sufficient. At least for now.

Rated PG as there's no violence, nudity or bad language - but the theme and characters are unlikely to be of any interest to children or, indeed, teenagers. Very highly recommended if you like gentle - and genuinely amusing - sitcoms with middle-aged protagonists from the end of last century.

(Note: The Amazon link above is to the DVD of Series 3 on its own, but you can find better deals with combined series of this show, or indeed second-hand on one of the many excellent sites providing used DVDs. )

Review copyright 2023 Sue's DVD Reviews