Good Omens (David Tennant, Michael Sheen)

(Amazon UK link)

Although it’s twenty-five years since I last read the excellent book ‘Good Omens’ by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, I remembered that I liked it very much. So when I saw that it had been serialised on film, with David Tennant as one of the main characters, I knew I wanted to see it. It took a while for it to be available, but eventually I put it on my wishlist. I was given a blu-ray edition for Christmas, and we have been watching one episode per week over the past six weeks. 

I was pleased to see that, at least as far as I recall, it was remarkably true to the original. It opens in the garden of Eden; the snake tempts Eve, and she and Adam are cast out. Then we see the demon Crawley (David Tennant) discussing things seriously with the angel Aziraphale (Michael Sheen). Aziraphale has given away his flaming sword, which he uses to guard the garden, and both are wondering if they did the right thing…

The main action moves to the end of the 20th century, and the birth of a baby. Crawley is told to deliver the antichrist to a particular couple; but things go awry, as in the book. Crawley and Aziraphale keep a watch on a normal human boy who mostly ignores them. The actual antichrist is given to another couple who bring him up as an ordinary child. Adam is a likeable boy, on the whole, with leadership skills and three close friends. 

Subsequent episodes backtrack somewhat through history, showing Crawley and Aziraphale meeting each other at significant points - Noah taking the animals on board the ark, for instance. I did feel slightly uncomfortable at a scene portraying Jesus’ crucifixion, which I don’t feel should be treated with even mild humour. But then Crawley asks what he did, to deserve such a terrible punishment, and Aziraphale responds, ‘He told people to be kind to each other’. As a theological statement it’s surprisingly profound. 

There’s another thread involving a woman called Anathema who is the descendant of a witch called Agnes Nutter. Agnes was burned at the stake, but left behind a book of accurate prophecies. These lead to several amusing moments, as things written hundreds of years earlier are oddly appropriate to the modern era.

Over the centuries, Crowley and Aziraphale adapt more and more to human life. And in the era when Adam is growing up in the countryside, Aziraphale owns an antiquarian bookshop. Crowley is more interested in classic cars, which he drives at a breathtaking speed. And while they profess loathing for each other, it’s clear that they have a sort of unwilling friendship.

Everything is moving towards Armageddon, so we also see the horsemen of the apocalypse preparing to ride… and every so often there are placards announcing how near we are to the end of the world…

It’s all very much reminiscent of the book; the only parts I didn’t recall were some forays that Aziraphale makes into the heavenly realms, where other angels are portrayed as not particularly nice characters. I thought that was a bit of a strange touch. Evidently I need to read the book again soon. 

The acting is excellent, and the production very well done with great use of special effects alongside believable (in context) people. When I read the book I found the storylines, running alongside each other, a tad confusing at times. In this film version it all works well and makes more sense. Having said that, I would probably have found it somewhat bewildering if I wasn’t already familiar with the story. 

We have been watching Doctor Who series 4 with David Tennant in the title role over the same period, and I wondered if I would sometimes find the overlap disturbing. But he’s such a good actor that I mostly forgot that he was anyone other than the demon Crawley, adapting to human life. I don’t think I’d seen Michael Sheen in a production before, but he was also excellent as the slightly nervous, uncertain angel who really wanted to do the right thing, and to be left alone with his books.

The rating is 12, which is about right, in my opinion. There are a few potentially disturbing scenes, and a handful of instances of bad language. There are innuendoes, too, and a couple of scenes showing a couple in bed together, though covered with sheets and just talking. The entire theme isn't really appropriate for younger children anyway. 

I know a second series was made of ‘Good Omens’, though it doesn’t seem to be available on DVD or blu-ray. But I don’t know that I want to see it. This first series covers the events in the book, and seems to me to be complete in itself without the need for anything else. 

However, I would recommend this original (first) series highly. If you do buy it, make sure it's in English if that's your preferred language, or that it has English options. Our set is an Italian one, but has the option of English too. 

Review copyright 2025 Sue's DVD Reviews

Midnight in Paris (Owen Wilson)

(Amazon UK link)

I had never heard of this film, and it’s not one that would naturally have been recommended to me. However I happened to read a review of it on a consumer site, and my interest was piqued. It went on my wish-list and I was delighted to be given it for a recent birthday. We decided to watch it last night simply because it was the shortest of the ones remaining in our to-be-watched drawer.

‘Midnight in Paris’ starts with some very nice scenery and some rather too loud jazzy music. I quite like jazz in its place, and when I thought this was going to be the background to opening titles, I didn’t mind it at all. But no titles appeared, and the music became louder as the images of Paris continued for much longer than we’d have expected as an opening sequence. We had to turn the sound down at one point as the high notes were almost screechingly loud.

Then the story starts. We meet an American family who are visiting Paris. The parents - caricatured materialistic types - are there for business. Their daughter Inez (Rachel McAdams) decided to tag along, as did her fiancé Gil (Owen Wilson). Right from the start they seem like an ill-matched pair. He’s evidently a romantic, who loves the nostalgic feel of Paris, and the beauty of the buildings. He wonders if they could live there after they’re married. But Inez doesn’t want to live anywhere other than the United States.

Gil is a successful Hollywood scriptwriter, and Inez appears to care more for his success and wealth than for him as a person. She’s rather scathing about his current project of writing a novel, although he’s easy-going and seems to brush off her negativity. Still, when she decides to go dancing with some old friends, he says he’d rather go for a walk, as Paris is so romantic at night. He manages to get himself lost, and sits down for a rest just before the clock strikes midnight…

...at which point an old-fashioned car arrives and he’s persuaded to get inside. The situation gradually becomes surreal, as he finds himself amongst people whose novels he has admired… apparently he’s gone back in time to the 1920s, an era he believes reflects the glories of literature. I thought this was supposed to be a dream sequence at first, but he repeats the experience the following day, meeting famous artists as well as writers, and a very attractive girl…

I had to accept that, essentially, it’s a semi-fantasy plot, which includes time travel but without any worries about the potential problems. Whether or not these forays into the past were a dream, or a subconscious wish, or reality (so to speak) is left open. But the contrast is made between Gil’s romantic nature and Inez’s materialistic side. As he becomes more inspired to write, given advice by people who care, and begins to fall for the girl in the 1920s, his relationship with Inez deteriorates rapidly. And thank goodness for that. Right from the start I was hoping they would break up.

There’s an underlying message or theme to the film: being contented with one’s own era, taking life as it comes, going with one’s heart. There’s some humour, nicely mixed in with the story; once or twice we even chuckled aloud. The scenery and filming are gorgeous, the costumes stunning, and despite the oddness of the storyline, I was left feeling both nostalgic and uplifted.

Rated 12; basically due to several sexual references, although there’s nothing explicit, no violence, and no nudity. Mild language. Unlikely to be of interest to anyone under the age of about fifteen or sixteen anyway; it’s necessary to know the names of at least some of the best-known artists and writers from the 1920s in order to get the point of the forays into the past.

Recommended, if you like character-driven stories that are light, slow moving and somewhat thought-provoking. It's only 90 minutes long, but quite intense; the length felt exactly right.

Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews