Review: Return to Cranford (2009)

Cranford is amazing. Its sequel... isn't. Not that there's anything wrong with the sequel, as such. It's just not as good as the original.

Return to Cranford takes place two years after the first series. Most of the original characters reappear, but there are some conspicuous absences. Where on earth are Dr. Harrison and Sophy? And Dr. Morgan and Mrs. Rose (now Mrs. Morgan) are mentioned in the first few minutes and completely forgotten about afterwards. More irksome is the introduction of characters who are supposedly well-known to the village but have mysteriously never been heard of before.

Obviously, many of the original recognisable actors are still there, but they've been joined by a few new familiar faces.
Jonathan Pryce (Governor Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean, and Juan Perón in Evita 1996) as Mr. Buxton
Tom Hiddleston (Loki, and Thomas Sharpe in Crimson Peak) as William Buxton
Jodie Whittaker (the thirteenth Doctor in Doctor Who) as Peggy Bell

The story begins with the arrival of the Buxton family. Apparently they're from Cranford but have been away for a while. Strange no one ever spoke about them in the first series. And then we're introduced to the Bells. Ugh. That's all I can say about the Bells. Mrs. Bell is the least convincing character ever to appear in Cranford, Edward is one of the few characters as vile as Septimus, and Peggy is just... dull. Compared to Mary, Sophy, Miss Matty, Miss Pole, and the host of other comical and sympathetic characters in Cranford, Peggy is practically a non-entity.

Peggy

William

Peggy with her mother and brother

Mr. Buxton

Speaking of Septimus, we finally get to meet him in this series. He lives down to all expectations. But more about him later.

The railway is coming closer and closer to Cranford. But Lady Ludlow refuses to sell her land, so it looks like it won't reach the town itself.

Harry goes off to school. This is the start of a lot of trouble for Harry, Miss Galindo, and Rev. Hutton.

Miss Galindo. I like her new hairstyle much more than her hair in the first series.

Harry, looking much more grown-up than when we saw him last.

Meanwhile, Martha dies in childbirth, and Jem decides to leave Cranford with Tilly, the child he and Martha already had. At the same time, Lady Ludlow dies of an unnamed disease (implied to be a form of cancer). This is when Septimus finally -- ahem -- graces us with his presence 😏

Lady Ludlow and Miss Galindo

Martha's death

Septimus, the selfish spendthrift, who smirks and slithers onto the screen like a snake.
(Okay, I'll stop now.)

Septimus decides to cheat Harry out of his inheritance. Miss Galindo finds out in time and tells Septimus what she thinks of him.

Miss Galindo: "Your handshake had no meaning and never will have. Your handshake is a bastard thing, for you are not a gentleman!" Me: *cheers*

Mary returns to stay with Miss Matty. For some reason the writers decided to give her a fiancé who never appears and who she breaks up with before the end of the story, a decision that leaves me scratching my head. Why did they bother creating the fiancé at all when he serves no purpose in the story?

Anyway, Miss Matty convinces her friends, plus Mr. Buxton, William and Peggy to accompany her on a train journey. Cranford's ladies and Mr. Buxton agree that they were wrong to oppose the railway. And William suddenly declares his undying love for Peggy and asks to marry her. Even though they've barely spoken to each other. This is another decision that leaves me scratching my head. If the writers wanted the viewers to sympathise with William and Peggy, they should have included some scenes of them getting to know each other, learning what they have in common, anything that makes their romance seem genuine.

The not-very-romantic William and Peggy

Mary and Miss Matty on the train

Episode two begins with Mr. Buxton learning of his son's engagement and losing his temper. I disagree with his reasons for objecting, but I agree with his disapproval. Peggy and William barely know each other, but suddenly they're going to get married?

Mary has broken off her engagement, something that has no effect on the story and makes no sense. And Mrs. Jamieson's sister-in-law, Lady Glenmire, has come to stay in Cranford... and she marries Captain Brown, to Mrs. Jamieson's horror.

Lady Glenmire and Mrs. Jamieson

Meanwhile, Harry has run away from school. He goes to Miss Galindo, and then runs away from her too when she says he has to go back. At the same time Peggy's brother has stolen money from his employer and has to go on the run. Peggy decides to go with him to Canada. What an idiot! Your wretched brother doesn't deserve your help, Peggy!

Disaster strikes when Harry accidentally frees Bessie (who's still wearing her pyjamas!). She wanders onto the tracks and is hit by a train. Poor Bessie 😢 Harry, William and Peggy are injured, and Peggy's brother is killed. Good riddance!

Jem and Tilly return to Cranford in the middle of a magic show, a moment that made up for all the implausible plot twists earlier. And the story ends with everyone dancing a waltz. Aww! 😃

My overall opinion is "a typical sequel". It's a fairly good, if somewhat rushed, story on its own, but it's a sequel to Cranford. Nothing short of absolute perfection would have made it as good as the original. And sadly, it's far from perfect. It has some good moments, but the emphasis placed on the frankly dull William and Peggy, the absence of Dr. Harrison and Sophy, and the changes in some people's characters make it nothing better than average.

There's no moment I can point to and say "that's what makes this series so mediocre". Its flaws are woven all through its plot. But if you don't expect too much and accept it for what it is, you'll probably enjoy it just fine.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Howl's Moving Castle (novel)

Another late review 😑 Sorry! Hopefully updates will be back to normal from now on.

What do you get when you take traditional fairy-tale tropes, give them a new spin, and put them together in a novel? This book.

Howl's Moving Castle was written by Diana Wynne Jones and published in 1986. It has two sequels, and was loosely adapted into a 2004 Studio Ghibli film.

The story revolves around Sophie, a hatter who's cursed by a witch, and how she comes to live with Howl, a wizard, Michael, his apprentice, and Calcifer, Howl's fire demon.

Sophie accidentally insults the Witch of the Waste, and becomes the victim of a curse that ages her about sixty years. Then she has a frightening encounter with a hopping scarecrow (it makes sense in context) and ends up in a moving castle. Howl, who owns the castle, reluctantly agrees to let Sophie stay. Hilarity ensues.

From the first few lines I fell in love with this story. It only became better as I read on. Sophie and Howl's bickering is hilarious. The battle with the Witch of the Waste is awesome. And the ending is both adorable and perfectly in-character.

My favourite scene is undoubtedly the incident with the mile-long suit. People who've read the book will understand what that is. But special mention must also go to drunk!Howl stumbling around and complaining his bed is dodging him.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know. But it's in many libraries and bookstores!

Rating: 10/10. (Have you noticed that I tend to be much more generous in the ratings I give books compared to the ratings of films/series? I've no idea why that is, but it just happens. *shrugs*)

Review: The Horse and His Boy (novel)

This review is a day late thanks to real life getting in the way, but better late than never!

People who know me in real life can confirm that I love to read. My favourite book tends to change depending on what I'm reading at the minute. But among my absolute favourite books are The Chronicles of Narnia. And out of them, The Horse and His Boy is the one I like most. Yes, even more than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. (Sorry, LWW fans! *dodges things thrown at me*)

The Horse and His Boy is chronologically the third Narnia novel, but the fifth book to be published. (This causes endless confusion when attempting to decide what order the books are meant to be placed in.) It was published in 1954. Unlike the other books in the series, its plot doesn't revolve around children from our world finding their way into Narnia.

The story begins with Shasta, the adopted son of a Calormene fisherman, learning that his "father" plans to sell him as a slave. So he escapes with Bree, a Talking Horse, and they set out for Narnia. Along the way they meet Aravis, a runaway aristocrat, and Hwin, another Talking Horse; encounter Edmund, Susan and Lucy (now adults and King and Queens of Narnia); learn that the Tisroc intends to attack Archenland; and Shasta learns his true identity and how much Aslan has been looking out for him.

One of the things I like so much about HHB (easier to shorten it to that instead of writing out the full title) is that it takes place entirely in Narnia (the world, not the country). No wardrobes, magic rings or paintings are needed to get the main characters into that world. It gives the reader a glimpse into a part of the Narnia-world that's only mentioned in passing in other books.

Another thing I love is the scene where Shasta meets Aslan. Picture this: Shasta is riding along a cliff in the middle of the night, in a fog, when he realises someone is walking beside him. Then he and the person have a conversation, where Shasta bemoans his fate and grumbles about how unlucky he is. The person corrects him, and shows him how everything he thought was a misfortune has been carefully arranged for his good. Then the sun rises and the mist vanishes, and Shasta sees Aslan in all his glory. What a wonderful scene! 😄

There are exciting moments (the race to reach King Lune before the Calormenes) and funny moments (Rabadash getting caught on a hook). And overall the story is just as thrilling as The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

Is it available online?: I don't think so. But you can find it in most bookshops and libraries!

Rating: 10/10.

Review: Mozart! das Musical (2015)

I can sum up this show in one word: "What."

I admit I know very little about the historical Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. All I know about him is "he was a child prodigy who wrote some great music and died young". Until I saw this musical, I had no idea about his relationship with his father or the existence of Nannerl, Constanze or Colloredo. The reading I've done since watching it has convinced me that the musical does an injustice to almost everyone except Wolfgang and Nannerl.

First, some information. Mozart! is a German-language musical by Michael Kunze and Sylvester Levay, the same writer and composer who made Elisabeth das Musical. It premiered in 1999 and met with a lukewarm response. Now that I've seen it, I can understand why. This version was staged in 2015, filmed, and released on DVD.

I only recognised two of the actors, both from different versions of Elisabeth:
Thomas Borchert (Lucheni in 1998) as Leopold Mozart
Mark Seibert (Death from 2012-circa 2015?) as Colloredo

The story begins after Mozart's death. Then it flashes back to when he was a child, and then jumps forward to him as an adult. We're introduced to Wolfgang, his sister Nannerl, his overbearing father Leopold, his arrogant employer Colloredo... and Amadé, who's the personification of Wolfgang's genius and who literally stabs him and writes music with his blood.

Wolfgang and Leopold

Colloredo

Nannerl

Wolfgang and Colloredo have an argument that ends with Wolfgang being fired, so he goes to find work elsewhere. Colloredo, in an astonishing display of pettiness, does his best to stop anyone hiring Wolfgang. I was just getting into the story and expecting to see Wolfgang to triumph over Colloredo... and then it takes a turn for the surreal.

Picture this, if you will. (Or you could watch the musical and then you won't have to picture it.) You're watching a show set in 18th century Austria. All right, so the costumes are rather anachronistic, and the sets are very bland and rely too much on projections. But it's still supposed to be the 18th century, and you can suspend your disbelief enough to accept that.

And then a van drives onstage.

I'm not joking. They drive an actual van onstage -- a van that IMHO bears a striking resemblance to the Mystery Machine of Scooby-Doo! fame. The first time I saw the musical, I had to pause it and skip backward and forward a few scenes to assure myself that no, someone hadn't added a clip from an entirely different show to the video.

Things deteriorate even further from then on. The van in question is driven by the Weber family, a bunch of money-obsessed creeps who look like they got lost on their way to a rock concert. Naturally, they latch onto Wolfgang as a way to get money.

This picture is its own snarky caption.

Meanwhile, Colloredo has realised how good Wolfgang's music is and is determined to get him to work for him again. And Leopold is angry with Wolfgang's behaviour, and wants his son to go back to working for Colloredo. Wolfgang has fallen in love with Constanze, one of the Webers and the only one of them who's remotely sympathetic, and doesn't care what his father wants. Act 1 ends with Wolfgang bluntly (and crudely) refusing to work for Colloredo, then singing the most memorable song in the musical.

Wie wird man seinen Schatten los? (How Can You Escape Your Shadow?)

If you noticed that title sounds a bit like "Die Schatten werden länger", then you can already guess what this song is about. Wolfgang wants to live, but he knows that Amadé is slowing killing him and there's no way to escape. This is where that aforementioned "writing in blood" scene appears.

Amadé and Wolfgang

Amadé writing with Wolfgang's blood

In Act 2, we learn that the Webers are as repulsive as ever and historical accuracy has been murdered in its sleep. What else is new?

Constanze, her mother, and a set almost as hideous as the Webers.

Constanze and Wolfgang are apparently living together. Yes, in 18th century Catholic Austria, an unmarried man and woman are living together and no one except Constanze's mother objects -- and her objection is because she wants money, not to save her daughter's reputation. Now, people did live together years ago... but if it became widely known it would have been scandalous. Especially in Catholic countries. Royalty and nobility could get away with it, but Wolfgang was neither. Anyway, Constanze's mother forces them to get married, and then she sponges off Wolfgang.

Nannerl asks Wolfgang for money so she can get married. Instead Wolfgang gambles his money away, the irresponsible jerk 😠

Leopold dies, and Wolfgang finally realises he's been a brat. Not that it changes him, though. Then he gets a visit from a mysterious man who wants him to compose a requiem. It's strongly implied that this is some sort of supernatural visit.

Wolfgang and the mysterious man

Wolfgang composes an opera, has a final confrontation with Colloredo, and then dies before finishing the requiem. Before he dies he realises that it's his own requiem. And then Amadé stabs him in the heart 😮

That face Wolfgang makes ruins what should be the most dramatic scene in the musical. He looks like he's just heard something surprising, not like he's been stabbed in the heart.

If you've read this far, I think you can already guess what my overall opinion of the show is.

As if the unlikeable characters, the frequently-dull plot and the blatant lack of regard for historical accuracy weren't enough, the sets are ugly too.

In fact, I hesitate to call them "sets". That conjures up images of doors and furniture placed on the stage. For about three quarters of the musical, the actors and (maybe) one piece of furniture are all that's on the stage. The rest of the backgrounds are provided by projections. On very rare occasions, this looks realistic. Most of the time it's as unconvincing as the show itself. Remember how I complained about the poor lighting in Elisabeth (2005)? Mozart! would have benefited from lighting like that.

The high point of this musical is the music. In fact, if you're interested in this musical, I'd advise you to not bother watching it at all but to listen to the songs instead. You'll get the good without the bad or the ugly.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles. My grasp of spoken German is poor, but I understand enough to suspect the subtitles take liberties with the meaning of some lines.

Rating: The story gets 3/10, the costumes, sets and historical accuracy get 1/10, and the songs get 6/10. I'll leave it to someone with a better grasp of maths to work out what the average rating is 😊

Review: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

When I started this blog, I was sure I wouldn't review any films I don't like. I've changed my mind. Snarking at films I don't like is so much fun!

I've already reviewed this film on TVTropes. This review is an expanded version of that one. In essentials, nothing has changed.

Not even the title-card is as beautiful as in the cartoon.

Some genius in Disney decided to reinvent the wheel and make live-action films of their cartoons. For years now a parade of sub-par, soulless "adaptations" have made their way onto our screens. Some of them are watchable -- The Jungle Book (2016) stands out. Others are complete rubbish that lack everything that made the originals good -- Maleficent is one of the worst offenders.

This film is the worst of a bad lot. And to add insult to injury, it makes a mockery of Disney's best animated film.

It has a long list of familiar faces, which makes it more proof that not even a (mostly) good cast can make a film good.
Emma Watson (Hermione in Harry Potter) as Belle (!)
Dan Stevens (Matthew Crawley in Downton Abbey) as the Beast (!!)
Emma Thompson (Elinor in Sense and Sensibility 1995) as Mrs. Potts
Ian McKellan (Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings) as Cogsworth (What.)
Luke Evans (Bard in The Hobbit) as Gaston (Double "what.")
Ewan McGregor (Christian in Moulin Rouge! 2001) as Lumière
Audra McDonald (the Mother Abbess in The Sound of Music Live! 2013) as Madame de Garderobe (the wardrobe, for fans of the cartoon wondering who the heck that is.)
Kevin Kline (voice of Phoebus in The Hunchback of Notre Dame 1996) as Maurice
Josh Gad (voice of Olaf in Frozen 2013) as LeFou
Stanley Tucci (Abraham Erskine in Captain America 2011) as Cadenza (a character invented for this film)
Hattie Morahan (Elinor in Sense and Sensibility 2008) as the Enchantress

And that's just a few of them. The director deserves some sort of medal. He cast so many good -- well, famous, which isn't always the same thing -- actors, and managed to give all of them roles they were utterly unsuited to. Remember the Joe Wright curse I mentioned in the Pride and Prejudice (2005) review? This film is a perfect example of it.

But then, Bill Condon, the director, also directed at least one Twilight film. That should tell you all you need to know about his, ahem, "qualifications".

From the second scene, the greatest problem with this film becomes apparent. When you make a musical, you want actors who can sing, right? And if for some reason you cast an actor who can't sing, you can consult Singin' in the Rain on what to do in that situation. Namely, dub them! But this fine director decided he didn't care if half the actors couldn't carry a note in a bucket.

The result is painful to your ears, and leaves you close to tears. Yes, that was a My Fair Lady reference. I'm not a fan of Rex Harrison's recitative, but at least he didn't try to actually sing. They should have done the same thing here if they didn't want to dub anyone.

Anyway, back to the film. It opens in much the same way as the original: with a prologue describing the Beast's curse, and the townspeople singing "Belle". But dear god, compared to the original this looks like the preview of The Dueling Cavalier.

Belle's wooden acting is the only thing worse than her off-key singing. Emma Watson seems to have spent this film in a state of constant boredom. Can't say I blame her. I felt much the same when watching it.

We're introduced to Maurice, one of the few characters who can actually sing without making my ears bleed, but who for some inexplicable reason isn't an inventor in this version. Instead, Belle is the inventor. What.

Maurice goes off to a convention, gets lost, and ends up at the Beast's castle. Then the filmmakers decide to take a leaf from the original fairy-tale's book, and he picks a rose to bring back to Belle. This angers the Beast so much that he immediately throws Maurice in the dungeon.

Back in the village, Gaston proposes to Belle. This scene lacks all the humour of the original, not least because this Gaston is utterly unconvincing. The whole thing happens in private, without the village watching, yet the filmmakers kept his complaint about being publicly humiliated. Another "what".

Belle sets off to rescue her father, ends up at the castle, and meets the Beast. We viewers get our first good look at the Beast in this scene. That noise you just heard was me roaring with laughter. Remember how the Beast looks like a chimera out of someone's nightmares in the cartoon? (Until character development sets in.) Well, this Beast looks like an overgrown goat. It's not just the Beast, either. All the enchanted characters' appearances have been changed. And not for the better, either.

This film's motto is "things get worse". We're treated to a sub-par rendition of Be Our Guest (one of my favourite songs in the original, and dull as dishwater here). Then Belle sees the rose and has a confrontation with a remarkably calm Beast... that ends with her screaming and running away like in the original, even though he didn't lose his temper here.

In addition to directing rubbish films, the director has no grasp of biology. So allow me to enlighten him. WOLVES DON'T ROAR! Lions, tigers, bears, and angry audience members roar. Wolves howl. There's a difference.

As if this fiasco didn't drag on long enough, someone decided to add new songs to the film. Now, there's a stage version of BATB that already added several original songs. "Home" and "If I Can't Love Her" are the most impressive IMHO. So surely, if Disney decided to add more songs, they would turn to the stage version.

Nope. They went and gave us the sort of soppy drivel I'd expect to find in an amateur poet's first works. "Days in the Sun" is... reasonably bearable (oh, how it pains me to admit it). "Evermore" is best summed up with a Phantom of the Opera quote.

They changed half the lyrics in "Gaston", and in the process lost everything that makes that song so funny. But I mustn't overlook the way they butchered "Beauty and the Beast". The song, as well as the film. It's sad but true that Emma Thompson cannot sing this song. "Tale as old as toime, song as old as roime..." And Belle's dress looks nothing like a ballgown and more like an amateur dressmaker's first attempt.

An awful lot about this film is amateurish, actually. Except the budget. They certainly knew how to spend that. What a pity it doesn't show in the finished product.

Anyway, Belle runs off (in her underwear!) to save Maurice, Gaston and co. storm the castle, the Beast apparently dies. It was heart-wrenching in the original. Here, my only thought was "When will this end?"

Then the director makes the truly mind-boggling decision to bring back the enchantress and have her personally lift the curse. What. And the film ends (*cheers*) with a ball and a sub-par reprise of "Beauty and the Beast" (*boos*).

I can sum up this film in one word: "Ugh". It makes a mockery of the actors, the songs, and the story. Don't waste your time watching it. The original is better in every way, and much more enjoyable.

Is it available online?: To quote my P+P 2005 review, "Who cares?"

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Rupert of Hentzau (novel)

Remember I mentioned The Prisoner of Zenda had a sequel? I've just finished reading the sequel, so here's a review of it.

Rupert of Hentzau was published in 1898, and takes place three years after the events of the first book. It's been adapted into several films, but has never been as popular as The Prisoner of Zenda.

The narrator is no longer Rudolf, for reasons that will become clear when you finish the book, but instead his friend Fritz. Unfortunately, Fritz isn't as good a narrator as Rudolf. This book doesn't bring the reader to the edge of their seat the way Zenda does.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

Flavia is now Queen of Ruritania and married to King Rudolf. She and her husband have never loved each other, however, and she's still in love with not-king!Rudolf, who she hasn't seen for three years. She writes him a letter to give him a permanent farewell, and gives it to Fritz to deliver to Rudolf. Fritz is ambushed along the way by Rupert of Hentzau, who's still up to his old tricks. Rupert reads the letter and immediately sees a way to ruin Flavia and both Rudolfs. A race against time starts to retrieve the letter and foil Rupert's plots.

From the beginning, I knew this story wouldn't be as good as the original. But I was determined to give it a try, and I ended up enjoying it a lot. I admit spent most of the time impatiently waiting for Rupert's next appearance, though 😊 That's one problem with this book. Even though he's the title character and main villain, Rupert of Hentzau has far too few appearances for my liking.

In fact, Rupert is the most likeable character in this novel. He makes no pretensions to being anything other than a villain. The supposed heroes, meanwhile, have become a collection of jerks since the end of the first novel. I used to like Flavia, but the whole plot starts because she writes a love letter to a man who isn't her husband, and so I was very disappointed in what this novel did with her character. Not-king!Rudolf is no longer the awesome if out-of-his-depth hero of the first book, and Fritz and Sapt are just... dull.

The book still has some moments of drama. The death of King Rudolf took me completely by surprise. And it has its comical moments, like the embarrassing moment when not-king!Rudolf is seen climbing through a window by a whole crowd of aristocrats who think he's the king.

I have mixed feelings about Rupert's death. On the one hand, he was already defeated when Rudolf shot him. On the other, he had just tried to kill Rudolf, and would have tried again if he lived. On the other hand (I know, that makes no sense), I'm disappointed Rupert died at all. Yes, he richly deserved it, but he was such an awesome villain!

The last few chapters were the most dramatic and enjoyable. The weakest moment is when the author kills Rudolf off without revealing what his choice was. I understand why he did it, but it's still an anti-climax.

Yet I still cried all the way through the final chapter. I couldn't help it. I wasn't even sure what I was crying at -- Rupert's death, Rudolf's death, or the aftermath of Rudolf's death. But the funeral was so poignant and tragic that I burst into tears and kept crying even after the last sentence 😭

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (novel)

Some novels grab hold of you from the first sentence and refuse to let go until the end. This is one of them.

The Prisoner of Zenda is a novel by Anthony Hope, an author I'd never heard of until I picked up this book. It was published in 1894, and followed later by a sequel, Rupert of Hentzau. I haven't read the sequel yet, but I hope to get around to it soon. Both books have been adapted into several films.

There are some books that invented or popularised whole genres. Frankenstein did it for science fiction, Dracula for vampire novels, The Lord of the Rings for fantasy. The Prisoner of Zenda is one of those novels. It paved the way for a whole flood of novels set in small fictional countries. Ironically, very few of the settings in those novels bear much resemblance to the original Ruritania.

Our story begins with Rudolf Rassendyll, an English nobleman, going on a trip to the fictional country of Ruritania. Thanks to a scandal involving an ancestor, Rudolf is a distant cousin of the Ruritanian king, also called Rudolf, and the two men look very alike.

You can already see where this is going, can't you?

King Rudolf's half-brother Michael wants the throne, so he drugs the king before the coronation. The other Rudolf finds himself with no option but to pretend to be the king. He thinks it'll be just for a day. But Michael kidnaps the real king and locks him up in the castle of Zenda. So not-king!Rudolf has to find a plan to rescue King Rudolf without revealing the truth to the people... and before Michael kills the king.

Reading this book is like watching a film. It's more fast-paced and exciting than many action sequences on the screen. It has some hilarious moments, and some moments when my heart leapt into my throat and I was sure the truth would be revealed with disastrous consequences.

It also has some truly great characters.

At first I pitied Michael, who was barred from the line of succession because his parents had a morganatic marriage. But a few chapters in, I quickly began to despise him. King Rudolf isn't much better. Yes, his brother drugged and kidnapped him... but his brother would never have had a chance to do either if he hadn't spent the night before his coronation getting drunk.

Not-king!Rudolf (this is the easiest way I can find to distinguish between the two Rudolfs) is trying so hard to keep up this charade and rescue the king at the same time. And while doing that he manages to narrate one heck of a story, full of moments that are dramatic, comical, and both at once. I laughed so hard at his tea-table attack 😃

But my favourite character, without a doubt, is... the most villainous character. And who could blame me, I'd like to know, when the villain is as awesome as Rupert?

Common sense and morality both say that Rupert of Hentzau is despicable, irredeemable, and has committed the most horrible crimes. Yes, that's true. But he's also so brazen and daring, even while committing his crimes, that it's impossible not to be reluctantly impressed.

And then there's poor Princess Flavia. Out of all the characters in the novel, I felt the most sorry for her. She falls in love with the man she thinks is the king, and not-king!Rudolf can't explain the truth to her. Then she finally discovers who he really is... just before they have to part forever. Poor girl 😢

The Prisoner of Zenda is fairly short by Victorian standards -- twenty-two chapters. If you don't think that's short, please remember that Little Dorrit has seventy chapters, Vanity Fair has sixty-seven, and The Way We Live Now has a hundred. And let's not forget Les Misérables, which has five volumes and more than three hundred chapters.

So yes, Zenda is extremely short. It also moves at a much faster pace than any of the other novels mentioned.

I'm disappointed that it hasn't had a recent adaptation. There are no end of adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, and apparently there's a series of new Charles Dickens adaptations in the works, but The Prisoner of Zenda is being overlooked. Which is a shame, because if adapted well it would make a thrilling miniseries -- or even a full-length film.

If you want to read an exciting novel that you'll finish fairly quickly, I'd definitely recommend this book to you!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: The Greatest Showman (2017)

It's November, which means I'm suffering through NaNoWriMo. (If you've never heard of NaNo, lucky you.) So while I panic about word counts, here's another review! 😃

There are some films that leave me with really mixed feelings. This is one of them.

The Greatest Showman is a musical that's a (very, very, very) fictionalised biography of Phineas Taylor ("P. T.") Barnum, who's famous for starting a now-defunct circus and creating a number of hoaxes. The musical doesn't even try to stick close to history. Notably, instead of showing Barnum's real, unpleasant, "anything-for-money" personality, it portrays him as a jolly, kindly chap who wants to help people.

I recognised exactly one of the actors, so I won't bother listing any of them.

The film begins with one of Barnum's shows. Then it flashes back to how he got there. Unlike in real life,  he didn't do this by cheating, lying and exploiting people. Instead, it's a heartwarming tale of how Barnum fell in love, married Charity, the girl he loved, in spite of her parents' objections, and created his circus to give "freaks" (as they were called then) a place to live.

Yeah, right.

Barnum with his wife and daughters.

The story gets further and further away from history from then on. It includes fictitious events like protests against the circus, a "star-crossed lovers" subplot between two people who never actually existed, and a one-sided romance between Barnum and Jenny Lind. And the film muddled the timeline of events so thoroughly that the opening of the circus, Jenny Lind's tour, and the fire at the circus building all apparently happened within months of each other. Wow, if that really happened it would have been the most eventful year in the 19th century.

Jenny Lind

(Side note: the filmmakers apparently forgot the real Jenny was a soprano. They dubbed the actress playing her anyway; would it have been so hard to dub her with a soprano? And Jenny Lind sang opera, not pop music. They should really have had her sing an aria from Lucia di Lammermoor. That would have had some basis in history.)

Some of the circus performers.

Phillip and Annie, the aforementioned star-crossed lovers. Their characters are bland, but their song "Rewrite the Stars" is pretty awesome. Not so much for the lyrics, but for the choreography.

After an arson attack on the circus building, Barnum decides to use a tent for the performances instead. And then we're back where the film started, with one of Barnum's shows. Phillip and Annie get a happy ending, Jenny Lind disappears, and Barnum goes to see his daughter's ballet recital. It's all the sort of glowing sentimentality calculated to make the viewer go "aww".

If only there was some substance behind the show.

My opinion of this film can be summed up in one word: "Kitsch!" (Yes, that is an Elisabeth das Musical reference. Somehow that show has become my standard for judging musicals.)

The Greatest Showman is glittery nonsense from beginning to end. It reminds me of musicals from the 30s and 40s, like Top Hat and White Christmas. Like them, it's full of absurd and implausible things that we're supposed to ignore. But unlike them, it pretends to be a true story. And that's the problem. The Greatest Showman bears as much resemblance to history as Twilight does to Dracula. Yet people who watch this film will get the impression that Barnum was a decent guy and Jenny Lind was a bitch. And that is a gross misrepresentation.

Some people defend the film by saying that it's obviously a fictionalised version of P. T. Barnum, and therefore we shouldn't be upset that it paints over his true colours. Frankly, this argument is nonsense. Take an extreme example, and let's imagine that someone made a musical portraying Stalin as a kindly, well-meaning chap. Would anyone try to defend such a thing by saying "it's just a fictionalised Stalin"? I certainly hope not. Yet somehow people think that argument, when applied to Barnum, makes everything all right.

I can ignore -- no, enjoy -- the ridiculousness and blatant escapism of the story. I do that every time I watch a Takarazuka production. But the problems with this film are always there. They're much harder to ignore and impossible to enjoy.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 3/10.