I obviously didn't see the same version of this DVD set as another reviewer.. lol.. there was no sex romp-fest, the acting was superb, and the newest DCI Barnaby (John) never called or referred to DS Ben Jones as an idiot or a fool or anything else like that.

The version of this DVD set that I watched was very enjoyable and I believe the change to Neil Dudgeon (an accomplished actor in his own right with hits like the Mrs Bradley series to his credit) brings new life to the series, and certainly injects some fun as well.

Set 21 (2011) features four episodes:

1) Death In The Slow Lane - A body is found on the property of a girls' school, the case is closed quickly.. open and shut. Fast forward a few years to when the new DCI Barnaby investigates a new death at the school, nothing adds up.. with the old case or with the new one. No one is above suspicion and I mean no one, and the twists at the end may leave you at a bit of a loss for words.
In this episode, at least one of the reasons why DS Ben Jones wasn't recommended to fill now-retired DCI Tom Barnaby's shoes is revealed quite unintentionally by Jones himself, and John Barnaby doesn't criticize or ridicule or even look surprised.. he just lets Jones realize his monumental "oooops" and gets on with the case. On the down side, the writer/s of this episode saw fit to have John Barnaby greatly underestimate a suspect, thereby (and, oddly, with no back-up) putting his life in jeopardy.

2) Dark Secrets - An overly enthusiastic social worker is determined to check on the well-being of an elderly couple.. whether or not the couple likes it (and they don't)! The owner of a horse breeding facility demands special services from one of her employees and threatens him if he won't comply. John Barnaby's wife (a teacher) arrives and starts her new job.. one that a local teacher wasn't given.. and the locals make their unhappiness known. When a body is found in the river (yes, only one, lol) there are countless suspects. Edward Fox, and Phyllida Law (a.k.a. Emma Thompson's mother) make this episode (which deals with some uncomfortable subject matter) enjoyable.

3) Echoes Of The Dead - Someone is copying serial killers, and it's a race against time to find the killer before he or she strikes again. Neil Dudgeon is particularly good in this episode, bringing both humour and intense drama to this episode. This is a particularly gorey episode, so be warned if you like to eat supper while you watch :p

4) The Oblong Murders - Ben Jones is ordered to go undercover at a new age cult to try to find out what happened to a young woman who went there for a week.. but was never heard from again. Jason Hughes is particularly good in this episode, bringing a new look, a new attitude, emotional depth, humour, and a new over all depth to Ben Jones we've not seen before.

All in all, if you're a MM fan, I highly recommend this new set. The scenery is gorgeous (aside from the corpses, lol), the stories are complicated but not ridiculous, the acting is first-rate, and these episodes feature most of the same characters we've come to know and love.

I'm a Tom Hardy fan, so I admit I wanted to watch this film because he's in it. And he's not his thin, slightly-built usual self. He's gained maybe 40 lbs (most of it muscle) and he looks mighty fine. But, being his usual chameleon-self, I soon forgot I was watching him and was drawn into the story.

This film is a bit disorienting, but that's to be expected because this is the real-life story of Michael Petersen, also known as Charlie Bronson (he needed/wanted a stage name when he began a fighting career), and his life to date has been very disorienting indeed.

While the film shows shocking brutality and (male) nudity, it's hard to look away. It shows very clearly how the long-standing attitudes of the U.K. prison heads hurt the people who desperately need Help, not solitary confinement and more beatings.

We've all heard the news and Amnesty International stories that tell us how countless studies over the past hundred years or so clearly show that solitary confinement for any extended length of time causes measurable, serious, and sometimes irreversible damage to a human's emotions, psyche, brain functions, and so forth.

Most of us are horrified when we hear of true stories where someone in a "foreign" country is locked up indefinitely, even though they never killed anyone. We call countries that routinely do this "barbaric" and our leaders sometimes impose trade sanctions against the "barbaric, backwards" country. So why is it considered ok for England to have locked up Michael Petersen (originally for stealing 25 bucks) for more than 35 years... more than 30 of those years _In Solitary Confinement_. Ask yourself why. I know I did.

Now ask yourself why it's ok for the school system, the social welfare system, and the prison system (to whom he's been entrusted) to have completely and utterly failed this man. And in the age of Dr Phil, cutting edge behaviour/brain research, pharmaceuticals, Amnesty International, numerous "studies".

Michael Petersen/Charlie is a man born in the wrong place, at the wrong time. At any other time in history for thousands of years (pre-1900 or thereabouts), this man would've been highly valued and used as a tool to help win wars, regain territory, explore the unknown, keep kings and queens in power, fearlessly lead men into battle. He would've been unstoppable, and undoubtedly a hero. He was born to fight, and doesn't know how to give up.

But no one got him into extreme sports or psychotherapy/behaviour modification or the military or boxing or wrestling before he went to jail. No one since has done anything other than keep him like a caged animal, and mainly in a small, dark room. Is it any wonder this man now has self-control issues and lashes out?

He's never killed anyone, raped anyone, molested anyone, but he's rotting in jail longer than many readers of this review have been alive. Ask yourself why. I know I did. And I will continue to do so.
And consider this: since it's "ok" to treat Michael Petersen like this.. who's next? You? Me? And who will speak up or speak out on our behalf? Nobody.

Ask yourself if _you_ would still be in your right mind after more than three decades in solitary confinement. I don't think I would be.

People can argue that "society" must be kept safe, BUT cold-blooded murderers, pedophiles, rapists, are released into society every day ("did their time, clean slate" and all that).

One scene, in which Charlie holds a prison employee hostage in order to be allowed to hear music moved us to tears. He didn't care what kind of music.. he just wanted.. Needed.. to hear music. I listen to my tunes every day and I can't begin to imagine not being able to hear any music of any kind for thirty YEARS.

I have to wonder how many other Charlies there are (male and female) who were also born in the wrong time and don't fit in to neat little boxes, and who are rotting in solitary confinement in first-world countries.

We can put probes on Mars, turn on lights with our voice, create complex Playstation Home virtual worlds, map the human genome, but we can't treat this man to anything but brutality and solitary confinement?

This film is hard to watch but it's well worth it. It offers a glimpse into worlds most of us will never see.. if we're lucky.

Hampstead Heath (a very large park in London) is the real-life setting for this film, about average people enjoying a day in... you guessed it... Hampstead Heath, known locally as The Heath.

The writing is excellent, the cinematography is steady (no hand-held jerky cams here) and even and good, and the acting is first-rate. The writer and director somehow managed to link several seemingly unrelated (but realistic and entertaining) stories about people -- young and old -- in London one random summer day in 2008.
Look for characters from one scene running or stumbling into scenes featuring characters from unrelated scenes.

I'm a huge Tom Hardy fan, so of course my favourite parts of the film feature him, but other scenes are funny or moving or weird... or a combo of all three. Tom Hardy (Star Trek Nemesis; Bronson) is only in four scenes, but this was undoubtedly so he could bulk up considerably for the film Bronson, which was filmed a year later.

In Scenes of a Sexual Nature:

A bittersweet meeting between two elderly strangers is touching, and reminds us what a difference one day makes.

Two male partners (one is played by Ewan MacGregor) finally agree to discuss whether or not to adopt a child, and the can of worms such a decision opens up reminds us how unwilling people are to change, and how couples face the same dilemmas whether straight or gay.

Another man meets up with his ex-wife to pick up his young daughter for the weekend, but is increasingly distracted about life, love, and everything else as he finds it harder and harder to locate a public urinal. He eventually tries to find a suitable tree, but finds the park is far too crowded. As his back teeth begin to float, he pays less and less attention to those around him.

A middle-aged couple, obviously together for a long time, hit a speed bump in their relationship when the woman catches the man "Looking". A young frenchwoman is on her back, on a blanket on the grass and engrossed in a book, and the couple nearby can see her underpants. Things go downhill and this story line opens up the whole "should men be free to sneak a glance at another woman. Ever." debate.

Another couple meet nearby, but it soon becomes obvious that all is not what it seems. The actor in these scenes has a mole on the side of his head that's so big we expected it to start talking, but it's an interesting storyline if you can ignore the mole.

We, the audience, are dropped into an arguement yet another couple is having. We come in at the end of it, when the woman (obviously hurting and angry) tells her man to make a decision. He does. He walks away. For good. She's obviously hurting and feeling vulnerable and unlovable and undesirable as she stares at her man walking off into the distance. Then she slowly becomes aware a much younger man has walked up beside her and is watching her man go off as well. She doesn't know what to make of this young man who has invaded her private moment and they have an interesting discussion that has more twists and turns than usual. She's obviously sensitive about her age and wants to know the young man finds her desirable, and, being 25, the young man can't seem to say the right thing and definitely doesn't know when to shut up.

There's a blind date that goes atomic, a man with his pants round his knees being chased by a dog (bare butt warning, but it's a gorgeous butt), insults (real or imagined), some genuinely funny and original dialogue, and some likeable (and some crazy) characters.

When the film seems over, it isn't, as there are a couple of funny (but short) scenes in the end credits.

If you enjoy a light-hearted, entertaining, interesting, well-written and well-acted film that also makes you think (without doing so obviously), check out Scenes of a Sexual Nature.
Aside from seeing white underpants (granny style), and a bare male butt, this film is decidedly non-sexual, so the title is a bit misleading.

We saw this on Netflix. Four times. Then I decided it was time to come on to Amazon and buy our own copy. We know we'll watch it again and again.

as the other reviewers on amazon.

With the first sentence (stating two types of people read books on assertiveness) the author launches into a very long-winded lecture about one type of person. Or ten. It's very hard to tell which.

He goes on and on and on and, within a few sentences, he's off on so many tangents that I finally skipped ahead a few pages. But then a long, drawn-out diatribe about something else began, and I was back in the middle of this churning sea of blathering nonsense. I call it nonsense because the long, drawn-out, monotonous rants don't make much sense, and the tangents are very distracting.

I'm sure the author has a point, but his Editor and publisher have let him down terribly (and have therefore let down Readers).

I admit I tend to think of psycholgists (as opposed to psychiatrists) as the chiropractors of the physician-world (however, some people love psychologists and chiropractors: to each her/his own) _but_ I know when a person just can't stay on topic and/or rambles on endlessly, no point in sight. Having had to read too many textbooks written by that sort of author during my paleoanthropology studies, I am a hard-core fan of brevity.

The author of this book is neither concise nor interesting, in my opinion, and I feel sure there are better books about assertiveness on Amazon. When I find one, I will read it and rate it accordingly.

I wanted to love this DVD, but much of the music blows chow (imho), and some of the most beautiful scenes are (seriously) on screen for less than 8 seconds. I bought this for relaxation, and, if I have the sound off and have my tv remote in my hand so I can press Pause when certain scenes come up, I do find it relaxing and enjoyable.

There's a broad selection of both scenery (from South American mountains to North American desert to south Asian statue things) and music, and there's sure to be something that appeals to almost anyone.

See my photos (sorry my tv screen doesn't photograph well, but at least it gives you an idea what the DVD looks like).

I couldn't like the characters in "Rich and Strange", and the cat/boat/mealtime scene made me queasy and creeped me out so completely, the rest of the film grated on my nerves.

"Sorcerer's Apprentice" also features unlikeable characters, and is very creepy.

For both films, I couldn't wait for the end, and I didn't care what happened to any of the characters.

I think one reviewer billed these films as 'Strange and Stranger' and I have to agree.

I wasn't blown away by either film, I'm sorry to say. "Young and Innocent" was very tame, and far too similar to "The 39 Steps".
"The Cheney Vase" (while I appreciated the twist at the very end) was rather dull, but at the same time very creepy.
I found for both films (especially Cheney Vase), I disliked the characters, couldn't find much appealing about the characters, and was glad when each film was over.

I would recommend these for die-hard Hitchcock fans only.

The actors (especially the lovely Anny Ondry) really make this film interesting. They reach across the decades and touch your heart, and make you care about what happens to their charcters. The actors made me care about them too (as real-life people), and I looked up each one on www.imdb.com to see who they really were, how long they lived, and so forth.

Other reviewers have explained much of the plot and the characters, but I wanted to add my two cents and mention as a closet silent films fan, I really liked this film and I think it's one of the top-5 best I've ever seen.

I really like the cinematography, the characters, the story, the actors (including the adorable toddler), the chemistry, and momentum.

This isn't to the taste of many people today, but then it was made for audiences of nearly a hundred years ago.

I'm sorry to say I fell asleep three separate times as I tried to watch this all the way through. While I'm sure it thrilled audiences way back when, it didn't thrill me. I think if the main character (the title character "Farmer") was even remotely likeable I would've wanted to stay awake and watch the film all in one go. Instead, I found myself shouting, "Run!" to all the would-be wives, and then dozing off.

This certainly isn't typical Hitchcock, but, if you're a die-hard Hitchcock fan, an "oldies" fan, or a film student, then you might enjoy this film.

The other reviewers have laid out much of the characters and the plot for this film, but I wanted to add a couple of things.

This isn't a comedy, but it does have some wry, dry-humour moments as it imitates real-life situations and quandries. It doesn't claim to be a comedy, or a taut spy thriller either for that matter, so if you watch it without expectations, I think you'll enjoy this film.

We think of the past as a simpler time, but this shows it really wasn't. Sure, they didn't have cel phones or laptops or ipods, but if people today are put in the same situation, we'd fare no better than these people. Even today, you could be at a ski lodge or a mountain hotel and the train tracks and roads get snowed over, the snow clearing equipment is elsewhere, the phone lines go down, and because of the mountains, cel reception is non-existent. If the lodge was already full and then had to make room for people stuck because the train isn't going anywhere... you see when I'm going with this.

It doesn't matter if it's 1930 or 2012, when you're stuck, you're stuck. And it's in this setting that we find our characters. They finally board a train and one of them goes missing. The thing is, almost everyone claims they never saw the elderly woman. Who's telling the truth? Who's lying, and, if they are lying, why?

In this arguably timeless film, the female lead is also stuck, so to speak, (a la Flightplan) and begins to doubt her sanity.

Some reviewers may complain about the number of rounds a certain handgun may or may not have, or what Hitchcock should have done differently, but I think this film is fine the way it is. Yes, it's a bit hokey at times, but it does touch on some serious subjects (such as at one point, a country the train enters is in the middle of political turmoil and the train is forceably stopped and everyone on board is afraid they'll be killed) and is timeless. Hence, I would call this film a timeless classic, and, as such, I think anyone who is a Hitchcock fan, a Michael Redgrave fan, an "oldies" fan, or a student of human nature would do well to watch this film.