Review: Anna Karenina (2012)

On Friday, I (drumroll, please!) finished Camp NaNo. Obviously I decided to celebrate by snarking at a terrible film. My opinion of this film in a nutshell: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA 😆😆😆😆

A quick glance at the plot summary of the novel was enough to convince me I never wanted to read it or watch any adaptations. A look at who directed this adaptation told me all I needed to know about its quality. But I was bored and wanted to watch something I hadn't seen before. So guess what I ended up watching?

Like Pride and Prejudice (2005), which was made by the same *ahem* "director", I laughed all the way through this film. And again, it wasn't supposed to be funny.

They chose to write the title in a colour that blends into the background until it's barely visible. Of course they did. Why would anything about this disaster look like an actual film made by professionals?

Anna Karenina is based on an 1878 novel by Leo Tolstoy. I don't have to read the novel to know this is an atrocious butchering of it.

Several recognisable actors are wasted on it:
Keira Knightley (Elizabeth in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Anna
Matthew Macfadyen (Arthur in Little Dorrit 2008) as Stepan
Jude Law (Watson in Sherlock Holmes 2009) as Karenin
Kelly Macdonald (voice of Merida in Brave) as Darya
Alicia Vikander (Gaby in The Man From U.N.C.L.E 2015) as Kitty
Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux in Star Wars) as Levin
Holliday Grainger (Estella in Great Expectations 2012) as a baroness
Michelle Dockery (Erminia in Return to Cranford) as a princess

For some reason known only to the director's disordered mind, most of the film is set on a stage. A stage in a theatre that appears to have just been struck by a hurricane, no less. If you're like me, this will leave you scratching your head and utterly unable to suspend your disbelief.

We start with some scumbag getting caught in adultery while a weirdo waltzes around reading a letter while her maid dresses her. Yes, you read that last part right. The viewer has no time to process this absurdity before things get even worse. Scene changes aren't done by the traditional method of one scene ending and another one beginning. That would be too normal. Instead backgrounds change, props are lowered onto the stage, and people run around pushing furniture and playing musical instruments.

All of this would be understandable if this was a stage play. But it's a film. Films and stage plays are completely different forms of entertainment and held up to completely different standards. A theatre can get away with extras dragging props around the stage and painted backgrounds representing scenery. A film can't.

Turns out the weirdo is Anna and the scumbag is her brother Stepan/Stiva. She goes off to Moscow to get his wife to forgive him. To forgive him. Not to get her to leave him, as anyone with any brains would under the circumstances. On the train (which is represented by a toy train. I kid you not) Anna meets another scumbag, the mother of the man she'll run away with. Anna's behaviour here is really weird. Who just shoves a picture of their child in a complete stranger's face? 😒

Meanwhile Stepan meets a friend, Levin, who is apparently a farmer but looks more like a tramp. Levin is in love with some girl called Kitty but doesn't think she could love him. Considering how shabby he looks, he's probably right unless he makes an effort to tidy himself up. No self-respecting girl wants to marry a man who looks like he doesn't know what a hairbrush and razor are.

We meet Vronsky, yet another scumbag (who has apparently stolen his hairstyle, mustache and costume from 1937!Rupert of Hentzau, and only succeeds in looking sleazy instead of dashing). Unfortunately, Anna meets him too. The director clearly wants to portray this as "true love". It just makes me despise both of them. The only characters in this film who are at all likeable are Stepan's wife Dolly, Anna's husband Karenin, and her son Seryozha. Everyone else can go die in a fire. Or jump in front of a train.

Poor Dolly gives one of the few non-wooden performances in the film when she says she wants to leave Stepan. Anna convinces her not to leave and says Stepan loves her(!). I vented my feelings about this by yelling at the screen. (Thank goodness no one else was in the house to hear!)

Everything about this film gives the impression the director thought he was filming a stage play. I fully expected Levin to burst into a song or monologue before the ball. This film is so bad that such a thing wouldn't even be odd. With every passing minute I'm reminded more and more of Moulin Rouge!. (That isn't a compliment. Moulin Rouge! nearly made my brain explode.)

Why on earth is Anna almost always smiling? Even in scenes when there's nothing to smile at? Is her face stuck like that? Is it supposed to show she doesn't take anything seriously?

That ball has some of the weirdest hand gestures I've ever seen. It looks like someone who knew nothing about ballet looked at some ballet gestures and tried to copy them. What on earth is the point of that fireworks thing? Somehow I doubt it was in the book.

Amazingly things get even worse. I skipped several scenes. By the time the race happens I just wanted this travesty to be over. The viewer is supposed to be sad when Anna's supposedly dying. I hoped the end was finally in sight, until I remembered hearing how Anna actually dies. Guess what, she recovers and the film continues to stagger on.

The director clearly wants to portray that woman at the opera as a villain. Unfortunately he overlooked the unimportant little fact that Vronsky and Anna are among the most repulsive characters to crawl out of a gutter and onto a screen.

Dolly used to be one of exactly three characters I felt sorry for. But then she -- Dolly, whose husband is an adulterer, who more than anyone else should know how devastating Anna's sin is to her family -- says she's happy to see Anna. What the hell? 😠

The film drags on and on. Anna becomes convinced Vronsky is going to leave her for another woman. Why is she surprised? He's already shown he has no morals. The viewer is clearly supposed to pity her. I just looked at the clock and prayed the end would come soon.

Laughing at this abomination is the only way to get through it without throwing things at the screen. Thankfully the film provides plenty of things to laugh at. I guffawed at the scene where either time has stopped or everyone has been replaced with wax statues. The constant cuts between Anna and a train's wheels are more disorientating than funny, but I still managed to laugh at the director's ham-fisted attempt to drum up some sympathy for her before her death. That ship sailed a long time ago, I'm afraid. (Or perhaps I should say "That train left a long time ago" instead.)

Oh, for goodness' sake. We're supposed to believe Vronsky could hear Anna's death from a long distance away? And that Anna's body would be intact and conspicuously injury-less after being run over by a train?

The film finally ends! ...With a scene of a theatre overgrown with flowers. What. At least it doesn't show what happened to Vronsky, so the viewer is free to imagine him dying too.

There should be a law forbidding incompetent idiots from making films. Anyone who disagrees will be convinced if they watch this film. Anna Karenina is absolute trash as a film, but it's a good look at the depths to which some directors can sink.

Is it available online?: Dear god, I hope not.

Rating: 1/10. I hesitate to even give it that. Perhaps 0/10 would be better.

Review: Once Upon a Time (2017)

Less than a week and 5000 words of Camp NaNoWriMo left. Surviving it is looking more and more likely. (Surviving it with sanity intact was never even vaguely possible.) Anyway!

No, this isn't a review of the Disney series. That potential confusion could have been avoided if someone had thought to translate the Chinese title more literally. But they didn't, so I'd better make it clear what this review isn't of.

Once Upon a Time (三生三世十里桃花/Sān Shēng Sān Shì Shí Lǐ Táo Huā; literally "Three Lives, Three Worlds, Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms") is a 2017 Chinese film based on the novel of the same name by Qi Tang. (The novel's title, incidentally, is (mis)translated as "To the Sky Kingdom". No, I don't know why.) The novel was also the basis for the 2017 series Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms, which I've already reviewed.

I knew before watching this film that it would leave out a lot of things. Can't cover nearly as much in two hours as in 58 episodes, after all. The plot is basically the same as the series', so this review is mostly things I liked, didn't like, or simply noticed.

This is the first time I watched a Chinese film and recognised someone:
Jin Luo (Tuoba Jun in The Princess Wei Young) as Zhe Yan
Yikuan Yan (Yuan Ji in Ice Fantasy) as Qing Cang

Most films start with the logo of the studio that made them. Nothing unusual about that. But this film starts with more than five different logos, and after the third one I started to get annoyed. Every time I thought "It's finally starting", turned out it was just another logo.

At last the film starts. It doesn't waste time setting up the plot or characters. It dives (literally!) straight into Bai-Qian-as-Su-Su falling off that terrace. It took a minute for me to understand what was happening, even though I've seen the series. Anyone who doesn't already know the plot will be lost within seconds. On the bright side, the peach blossom forest is pretty.

Zhe Yan is much more colourful than in the series. I can't decide if I like this or not. On the one hand, it makes him look more like a bird (though a peacock rather than a phoenix). On the other, I couldn't figure out if this was Zhe Yan at first.

Zhe Yan

We get to see more of Qingqiu's (very, very colourful) inhabitants in this version. For some reason Mi Gu sometimes looks like a... small green Furby? I thought he was a tree spirit, not a goblin.

Yes, this is supposed to be Mi Gu. No, it makes no sense. (I guess he does look sort of plant-like, but... why?)

Mi Gu gives some heavy-handed exposition of the betrothal between Bai Qian and Ye Hua. This is not making me warm up to film!Mi Gu. Pity, because series!Mi Gu is adorable 😞

I like Bai Qian travelling across the sea in a submersible flower/jellyfish thing. It's a weird idea, but a pretty cool scene.

LOL at Bai Qian tripping up those gossips who insulted her! And aww, her meeting with A Li is so cute! Although the film doesn't explain who he is yet, or anything about her time in the Nine Heavens.

One of the main problems with this film is that it moves too quickly. Xuan Nu is introduced trying to kidnap A Li. Her backstory and connection with Bai Qian isn't mentioned. I didn't even realise who she was at first. She's defeated so easily (by A Li waving Bai Qian's fan, no less!) that I wonder why they bothered including this scene at all. On the bright side, Ye Hua also appears here. Bai Qian mistakes him for Xuan Nu and attacks him 😆 Talk about a bad not-actually-first impression!

Bai Qian

Ye Hua

A Li is still the cutest little kid ever! He's so adorable, especially when he calls Bai Qian his mother and says she looks just like the picture. She doesn't know what he talking about, or why Ye Hua calls her Su Su 😆 Come to think of it, the viewer wouldn't know that either without already knowing the plot. Nor would they understand why Bai Qian notices Su Jin's eyes.

A Li

Su Jin is as vile as in the series. I wish someone would push her off the Execution Platform.

Su Jin, in a costume almost as ugly as her personality.

I laughed when Ye Hua and A Li come to stay with Bai Qian, without warning her 😄 Her reaction is hilarious. So is the scene where Bai Qian pulls her quilt over her head when A Li tries to wake her.

The film doesn't show Ye Hua and Bai-Qian-as-Su-Su falling in love and getting married, so his behaviour comes across as rude and pushy. Especially when he insists on sleeping beside her. Very disappointing, and gives the completely wrong impression of his character 😑

The Ghost Tribe are renamed (retranslated?) the Demon Clan. Their clothes and make-up are, shall we say, dramatic. In the series they were mostly normal people, sometimes with horns and blue skin. Here Xuan Nu looks like a head-on collision between a Marvel villain and a Maleficent cosplay, with more glitter than some Takarazuka costumes. The result is... garish.

Xuan Nu. Complete with spiky eyebrows, a ridiculous headdress, and a necklace (or is it a shirt collar?) made out of the same material as both headdress and eyebrows. What were they thinking?

This isn't the only outlandish costume in the film. Many other characters also fall victim to costumes that are too colourful, too tacky, or just plain weird.

Half an hour(!) into the film we get a flashback to Ye Hua meeting Bai Qian/Su Su. Half an hour! 😒 On the bright side, I like the music in this scene.

Xuan Nu and Su Jin steal Mo Yuan's body. I didn't like Su Jin in the series (talk about an understatement!), but I don't remember her being part of that plan. I thought it was all Xuan Nu's craziness.

The fight between Bai Qian, Zhe Yan and the Ghost Tribe would be awesome if it was actually shown instead of just a few shots of it. As it is I was left wondering what on earth just happened. That's a major problem with this film. It explains so little. At least Bai Qian's fight with Xuan Nu gets a little more screentime. Side note: Xuan Nu's costume in this scene manages to be even weirder than the one pictured above.

I kept expecting Su Jin to try to push Bai Qian off when they were standing on that platform 😨 Can't understand how Bai Qian could ever believe anything Su Jin said when it's so obvious Su Jin's lying. But her behaviour towards Ye Hua immediately after shows she does believe some of it.

The less said about Bai Qian's headdress in the wedding rehearsal scene, the better.

Seriously, what is that pink monstrosity? Why did anyone think it looked good?

That tree monster gives me chills! As if its general appearance wasn't nightmarish enough, it tries to eat Bai Qian! I was really disappointed when Ye Hua apparently kills it the minute he arrives. I was just thinking "What an anticlimax" when it turns out it wasn't dead after all 😱

We finally get a flashback to Su Jin's attempt to kill Bai Qian. I want to slap some sense into Ye Hua. How could he possibly believe Su Jin's "She pushed me!" story? How? That's stupid in the series, and even stupider here. Thank goodness we don't see the eye-switching thing, though what we do see is gruesome enough. What happened to Su Jin after Ye Hua rescued Bai Qian? Did she kill herself? Blind herself? I can't figure that out at all. Very poor editing there.

Less than half an hour of the film to go, and Qing Cang hasn't showed up in person yet. I wonder why they bothered including that subplot. If they'd cut it and focused on Bai Qian and Ye Hua's relationship, the film might have been less rushed and they'd have had more time to spend on the Bai-Qian-as-Su-Su subplot. As it is the story charges from one scene to another at the speed of a stampede, to paraphrase Cranford.

Turns out Su Jin's now blind, but she's still alive. She stabs A Li and uses his blood to set Qing Cang free. Then she finally dies. Good riddance! What a pity she didn't die earlier 😠 Why did anyone ever let her near that bell? Didn't anyone realise what she was going to do?

Qing Cang. (What is that white thing on his staff?)

At long last we get a flashback that shows why Ye Hua couldn't rescue Bai Qian/Su Su when she jumped off the Execution Platform. Took them long enough! This film's pacing is so confusing. Someone should have realised they should rearrange the flashbacks or the viewers would be lost.

The fight between Ye Hua and Qing Cang is awesome! I cheered when Ye Ha turns into a dragon! And then he "dies" 😭 I knew it was coming, but it still made me cry 😭

The ending is so confusing. I can't figure it out at all. Is time going backwards? Is that Mo Yuan or Ye Hua? How did Ye Hua get out of that frozen sea? What does it mean?! 😕

As a film on its own this is a hopeless mess. As a sort of supplement to the series, it's alright. The special effects are better, though the costumes... aren't. I quite enjoyed some of it. And I'm glad Feng Jiu and Dijun were nowhere to be seen. Their subplot bored me to tears. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who hasn't watched the series. Nothing will make sense unless you already know the plot.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English and Vietnamese subtitles. Unfortunately the video is full of ads, so watching it is... frustrating.

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Pride and Prejudice (novel)

Happy Easter! 😄 What better way to celebrate than with a review of one of my favourite books ever?

It is a truth universally acknowledged that this is the best romance novel ever written. No, that isn't hyperbole.

Pride and Prejudice was Jane Austen's second novel, published in 1813. It's been adapted into endless films, series, musicals, plays, audiobooks, and so on. It's been the inspiration for almost every romance novel written since its publication. Even people who've never read the book know the plot. Popularity isn't always a judge of quality, but this is one case where a book absolutely does deserve its renown.

Jane Austen's amazing writing combines with some of her best characters to produce one of the greatest books ever written. Mrs. Bennet's matchmaking, Mr. Bennet's snark, Elizabeth's initial dislike of Mr. Darcy, Mr. Darcy's initial disdain for Elizabeth; from the minute each character appears on the page their personality is distinct and often amusing. The story is full of memorable events. Who can forget Mr. Collins' proposal, or Lady Catherine's visit? And who can read the book without wanting to punch Wickham and Lydia?

At first Miss Austen's writing style is hard for a modern reader to get through. This was the early nineteenth century, after all, when "show, don't tell" was advice few authors followed. But with a little effort, anyone can understand and enjoy it.

She truly excelled at creating characters. On the surface, most of the characters are caricatures. How many times have you seen the matchmaking mother, the embarrassing siblings, the sensible main character, the unsuitable suitor(s) who're then replaced with a suitable one? But Jane Austen's characters are so much more than caricatures. Everyone, even comic relief like Mr. Collins, could be real people you'd meet, laugh at, or be annoyed by. And the romance between Elizabeth and Darcy is what so many later romances utterly fail to be: convincing.

I love this book from beginning to end, and I highly recommend it!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 20/10. What do you mean, that's not a proper rating? 10/10 isn't nearly high enough! 😃

Review: Emily of New Moon (novel)

I once heard someone describe this book as "Gothic Anne of Green Gables". That isn't the best description of it, but it's partly accurate.

Emily of New Moon is one of L. M. Montgomery's many novels, and the first in a trilogy. It was published in 1923. It's been adapted into a TV series and an anime.

The story has many similarities to Anne of Green Gables. An orphan girl goes to live in a farm on Prince Edward Island, befriends a boy and a girl there, and dreams of becoming a writer. But at the same time it's thematically quite different. Emily has a more eerie, less idealistic atmosphere. At times when I was reading I wondered if L. M. Montgomery looked at Anne, thought "How can I use this plot without telling the same story?", and invented Emily.

Unlike Anne, Emily occasionally includes the supernatural. Anne's encounters with the supernatural, in the form of ghosts and fairies, were always imagined (even if they didn't always seem that way to her!). Emily, on the other hand, experiences something she calls "the flash", which is clearly described as a glimpse into another world, and in the rather spine-chilling conclusion to a subplot she actually witnesses events she never saw or heard about.

Some of the characters are very likeable; Emily herself, Cousin Jimmy, and Aunt Laura stand out. Then there are some who are sometimes likeable and sometimes not; Ilse, Teddy, and Aunt Elizabeth fall into this category. And then there are the utterly unlikeable ones, of whom the deranged and terrifying Mrs. Kent reigns supreme. This woman is supposed to be pitiable, but I found her utterly repulsive. She's so possessive and controlling of her son that she kills his pets when she thinks he loves them more than her!

Nor is the offscreen pet-killing the only dark moment in this book. There's also a woman who's believed to have abandoned her husband and child to run away with her cousin. (She didn't, as Emily learns in her measles-induced "dream" or whatever that thing was.) And then there's Dean Priest. He isn't the evil creep some modern readers think, but he's certainly unsettling.

There are occasional moments of humour in the book, though not as many as in Anne. There's the incident of Emily's visit to Father Cassidy, and Emily's comments about certain things and people in her diary. But overall the book is much more depressing than I expected an L. M. Montgomery novel to be. I still enjoyed reading it, though, and -- wonder of wonders! -- in some ways I like it better than Anne.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: The Inimitable Jeeves (novel)

I'm so busy with Camp NaNoWriMo that I completely forgot there was supposed to be a review today. So I had to write one in a hurry. Luckily, I'd just finished this book 😄

The Inimitable Jeeves is the second of P. G. Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster novels, first published in 1923. It isn't really a novel; it's a short story collection. The stories are all connected, and all revolve around the extraordinary situations Bertie Wooster gets involved in.

All Jeeves and Wooster plots are very similar. Someone close to Bertie falls in love with an unsuitable girl. Someone -- usually Bertie's Aunt Agatha -- orders him to sort it out. Bertie only succeeds in landing himself in the soup, as he puts it. Jeeves comes along and sorts everything out. Then the cycle starts all over again.

Usually this would be a criticism. But Wodehouse's sense of humour and brilliant narration makes each repetition of the plot fresh and amusing. The characters' idiocy provides much hilarity, but even it pales in comparison to the wonderfully sarcastic narration. I absolutely love the bit where Bertie complains most of a café's menu must have "been specially prepared by the nastier-minded members of the Borgia family for people they had a particular grudge against" 😆

My favourite scenes include Bertie returning his aunt's jewels, the ill-advised "pushing Oswald off a bridge" plan, and Bingo pretending to be a communist to impress a girl. But of all the stories, my absolute favourite has to be "The Delayed Exit of Claude and Eustace". (Every time Eustace is mentioned, I keep thinking "There once was a boy named Eustace Wooster, and he almost deserved it" 😆) The twins, who are supposed to be on the way to South Africa, stay in London to fight over a girl who can't stand either of them. Bertie has to try to get them to leave while keeping the family (especially Aunt Agatha) from learning where they are. And of course Jeeves comes along with an excellent solution that leaves the readers in stitches 😆😆

If you want original, unique plots, this definitely isn't the book for you. But if you want to roar with laughter at every line, this is the perfect book to read!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

"Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd..." Except you can't, at least not in song form, because this film made the thoroughly disappointing decision to cut "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" 😒

Even the opening credits are gory!

This was the first version of Sweeney Todd I ever saw. I was vaguely aware of what the stage play was about -- I thought it was about a murderer who bakes his victims into pies -- but I didn't know any of the songs or the full plot. After watching the film I decided I didn't like the musical. It was much too gory, and the final twist made no sense. Fast-forward several years, and I watched the 1982 production of the musical. I was shocked. It's an interesting story! It has some great songs! The final twist actually does make sense! So, armed with my new knowledge of the stage version, I rewatched the film. This time I enjoyed it much more.

Recognisable actors include:
Johnny Depp (Ichabod in Sleepy Hollow 1999) as Sweeney Todd
Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter) as Mrs. Lovett
Jamie Campbell Bower (Grindelwald in Harry Potter) as Anthony
Alan Rickman (Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility 1995) as Judge Turpin
Timothy Spall (Charles Cheeryble in Nicholas Nickleby 2002) as the Beadle
Laura Michelle Kelly (Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings musical) as Lucy
Sacha Baron Cohen (Thénardier in Les Misérables 2012) as Pirelli

The story starts with Sweeney and Anthony arriving in London. We immediately discover one of the main problems with this film. The actors, shall we say, weren't chosen for their singing ability. No one is absolutely atrocious, and you can listen to their singing without cringing, but when compared to stage performances the singing in the film is pretty poor.

Anthony

Sweeney Todd

The lighting is also poor. I've seen black-and-white films that have clearer pictures. There's no need to be so gloomy that the viewer can barely see a thing. The stage version manages to be both grim and well-lit.

Not only is "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" missing, so are most of the beggar woman's lines. On the one hand, we can do without hearing a lot of what she says. On the other, this means she has very few appearances before her death, which is why I thought the final twist made no sense. Someone should have realised this before they cut so many of her scenes.

We get to see Mrs. Lovett's pie shop in all its *ahem* "glory". Complete with meat of unidentifiable origin and insects crawling over the place. It's really a wonder she didn't kill plenty of customers on her own, with the atrocious hygiene in her kitchen.

Mrs. Lovett

"Poor Thing" is even more depressing and horrifying in the film than in the stage versions. All those people staring, and poor Lucy's screams... *shudders*

"Johanna" is one of my favourite songs in the show. I vaguely remembered the film made it creepy (you could argue it's creepy on-stage too, but the film makes it creepier). Thankfully the film doesn't ruin it. Anthony singing while covered in blood is unsettling, but downright tame by the standards of this film.

The film takes full advantage of its special effects to make the deaths as gory as possible. There is no need for so many close-ups of Sweeney cutting people's throats!

"A Little Priest" is a real let-down. When done right it's priceless black comedy. When done wrong it's just dull. Even the puns in this version aren't particularly funny. I think the main problem is how seriously it's played. This song isn't meant to be serious. It's meant to make the audience laugh, and that's completely missing here.

Johanna is reduced to a non-entity in the film. Most of her songs are removed, and she only gets about a quarter of her scenes. "Johanna (Quartet)" becomes "Johanna (Trio)". Even the scene in the madhouse loses most of its emotional impact. Very, very disappointing.

At least "By the Sea" is still relatively funny 🙂 Notice the "relatively". Most Mrs. Lovetts are very over-the-top in this song. This Mrs. Lovett is far too calm and restrained.

The dream sequence is comically absurd 😄 And the only time in the film there are any bright colours!

Judge Turpin's death is nauseating. Yes, he deserved it, but... good grief. All that blood 😱 The beggar woman's death should be tragic. Instead it's just another grisly murder in a film full of grisly murders, and even learning who she really was isn't as shocking as it should be. I'm glad the film removed Toby singing "Pat-A-Cake", though. That always struck me as incredibly silly under the circumstances.

The film ends with Sweeney's death, with no epilogue to be seen. Anthony and Johanna are completely forgotten about. Really? Here if anywhere is an excellent place to put "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd". But no, not a line of it to be heard. Just the occasional instrumental excerpt from it 😒

As a musical film on its own, this is a fairly good (though gruesome) movie. As an adaptation of the stage play, it falls pretty far short of what I'd expect. It's best to watch at least one stage production before watching this film. You'll have a better idea of how the story should be performed, and you won't be left scratching your head at some plot twists.

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

Rating: 5/10.

Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (1922)

Who'd have thought? Death Takes a Holiday is no longer the oldest film I've reviewed!

The only other silent films I've seen are very old Laurel and Hardy shorts. My perception of silent films as a whole is mostly influenced by Singin' in the Rain and its humourous look at the rise of talkies. So I expected this version of Zenda to be a comedy -- intentionally or otherwise.

This wasn't actually the book's first film adaptation. There were two earlier silent films. But both of them are now lost, so it's the oldest surviving adaptation.

I didn't recognise any actors, so onto the film itself.

Like the book, the film starts with Rudolf visiting his brother and sister-in-law. The film includes Countess Amelia's portrait, but doesn't explain (yet) who she was or why Rudolf is so interested in a newspaper article about King Rudolf's approaching coronation.

Rudolf

Meanwhile, in Ruritania Michael is plotting. Neither Michael nor Rupert make as much impression as in the 1937 film. I was amazed at how much Bersonin looks like Frankenstein's Monster, though 😆

Bersonin, who has apparently wandered out of a horror movie.

Rupert is a real disappointment. He doesn't look like my image of book!Rupert (and has a mustache and beard, something never mentioned in the book). But more importantly, he never steals the limelight the way Rupert should. He has some moments of Rupert-ness, and he isn't as unspeakably awful as 1952!Rupert, but he's not quite the scene-stealing, charming scoundrel of the book and 1937 film.

Rupert

One improvement the film makes is showing Michael and co. plotting. The book, which is entirely from Rudolf's perspective, never shows this. The film also introduces Flavia very early -- before Rudolf even gets to Ruritania, in fact. I don't mind this change (wonder of wonders! A change I don't mind!), but I do mind her costume and hairstyle. Could the wardrobe department have made them more anachronistic if they tried?

Flavia, in a hairstyle that came into fashion about thirty years after the film's setting, and a dress that doesn't fit any late 19th century fashion I've ever seen.

On the bright side, the film includes Helga! She was disappointingly absent from the 1937 version.

For some odd reason the name "Zenda" at the station is written in Cyrillic ("ЗЕНДА"). Goodness knows why. Ruritania in the book is basically a miniature Austria-Hungary, and neither country uses the Cyrillic alphabet. Did the director decide to move it closer to Russia?

King Rudolf's ill-advised drinking goes exactly like in the book, with the same results. I laughed at Rupert and Bersonin's amazement when they see "the King" leave the hunting lodge after they saw him drink the wine. But why on earth did Rupert send the "All is well" message to Michael when he knew all wasn't well? Did he send that message before he saw Rudolf? 😕

I like the addition of Flavia and Helga talking about "the King"! We never got to see that in the book. We also get to see Michael and his henchmen making their plans.

For some odd reason the film includes a subplot about Michael planning to assassinate Rudolf. Er, what? It was a major plot point in the book that Michael couldn't do anything of the sort because then the whole plan would be revealed. The film also has Antoinette directly meeting with Rudolf's friends, and being spied on by Michael's henchmen. Strange, I seem to remember how difficult it was for Antoinette to even get messages to them in the book.

Antoinette and Fritz

Michael manages to be even more despicable in the film than in the book 😠 In this version he actually gives Antoinette to Rupert, when in the book he died trying to defend her from him. His death is different, too. Instead of Rupert killing him before the heroes arrive, Rudolf kills him during the storming of the castle.

Here Zenda's castle moat isn't a traditional moat; it's part of a river leading to a waterfall. So when Rupert jumps in at the end, he apparently goes over the waterfall. Why'd he jump in, then? Rupert isn't the sort of character who'd choose an escape attempt that would probably kill him. Book!Rupert would be more likely to go along with Sapt taking him captive until he finds an escape (or can charm or kill his way to freedom).

I feel sorry for poor Flavia when she learns who Rudolf really is 😢

😢

The film's ending is closer to the book's than the 1937 film's. Here Rudolf gets on a train as Fritz and Sapt salute him. It's surprisingly sad 😢

This isn't the worst Zenda adaptation. Unfortunately it's not the best either. If I hadn't watched the 1937 film first, I probably would have enjoyed this film much more. As it is, I kept comparing it unfavourably to that version.

Is it available online?: Yes, there are several versions on YouTube. This is the one I watched.

Rating: 5/10. It's not great, but it could be worse.

Review: Ernest in Love (Takarazuka, 2016)

Camp NaNoWriMo has begun. That sound you just heard was hundreds of authors (including me!) crying in despair as they struggle to reach the daily word count. Taking breaks to watch musicals is the only way to stay sane. Luckily, this is a good musical to cheer me up, even amid the horrors of writing 1000+ words a day.

Ernest in Love is a musical adaptation of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest. It was first performed in 1960. This version is a Japanese translation performed (for the third or fourth time, depending on how you count it) by the Takarazuka Revue. I've never seen/listened to the English version of the musical, so I don't know how closely it sticks to that. But I have seen The Importance of Being Earnest, so I wasn't completely lost.

Takarazuka fans tend to have one or more actress they especially love. For me it's Mirio (Asumi Rio or Rio Asumi, depending on whether you use the Japanese or Western name order). What will I do when she retires in November? ...Cry. Cry a lot 😭 In the meantime I'm doing my best to watch every one of her shows I can find.

Actresses I recognised:
Rio Asumi (Death in Elisabeth 2014) as Jack/Ernest
Toa Serika (Rudolf in Elisabeth 2014) as Algernon
Juria Hanano (Rachel in The Poe Clan) as Miss Prism
Rin Yuuma (Inspector Ledoux in Phantom 2011) as Lady Bracknell

For some reason the orchestra isn't in an orchestra pit. (Apparently this show was in a theatre that doesn't have an orchestra pit?? I can't see one, anyway 🤷) Instead they're on the stage, inside a... conservatory? This is the first Takarazuka production I've seen that does this.

The orchestra, in what looks like a bird cage. Goodness knows why.

The musical starts with Algernon's butler having a song and dance routine with some townsfolk. It's safe to assume this is the opening narration, but I understood maybe one word in twenty. Then Algernon wanders onstage, into what's apparently some sort of market-place, in his nightclothes. Huh?

I suppose dialogue provides some context for this scene, but it's pretty weird for non-Japanese speakers.

I fully expected most of the comedy to go over my head (the trials of watching anything in a language you don't speak...). Some of it certainly did, but I still roared with laughter frequently. Even when you don't understand everything (or anything), you can still tell when someone's telling a joke by their expressions and tone. And then there's the sheer absurdity of some scenes, which requires no translation to be funny.

Jack (AKA Ernest) and Gwendolen's first appearance is one of my favourite scenes 😃 Jack rehearsing his proposal in front of a mirror is funny on its own. Jack and Gwendolen pushing the mirror back and forth is even funnier. Sure, it makes no sense (they aren't even in the same house, let alone on different sides of the same mirror), but who cares about little things like that?

Jack 😍

Gwendolen

I laughed and laughed when Algernon stops Jack from eating sweets(?). Jack tries and tries to get those sweets or whatever they are, even moving his chair closer and giving Algernon puppy-dog eyes. Instead Algernon eats them himself. What a great friend 😆

Jack, Algernon, and a plate of... something edible. Can't be more specific than that, I'm sorry to say. (The joys of missing almost every word! 😔)

Love that song where Jack and Algernon get off the stage and walk around next to the audience! (Can only imagine how cool that must have been for the audience!) Doesn't hurt that the song itself is perfect for humming (and whistling, and clapping, and nodding...) along to.

Lady Bracknell and Gwendolen arrive. Gwendolen and Jack spend the next few minutes trying to get closer to each other without anyone noticing. When they're finally left alone they're apparently struck with a complete inability to speak. Their awkward grins at each other and the way neither can find anything to say are adorable. And of course, very funny. So is their "conversation". They run at each other, both say "はじめまして" (hajimemashite, "nice to meet you"; one of the few Japanese phrases I recognised immediately), and then they spend a minute frantically rushing around the stage. It's even funnier than it sounds 😆

What farce would be complete without a disapproving parent walking in at the worst possible moment? Gwendolen and Jack fall onto a sofa just in time for Lady Bracknell to see them. Naturally, she gets the wrong impression.

It's not what it looks like... but tell that to Lady Bracknell.

Lady Bracknell isn't pleased about her daughter's engagement. She's even less pleased to learn Jack was found in a handbag as a baby. There's a truly weird song here. It involves a giant handbag, dozens of extras in unconvincing wigs, and Jack wearing a baby bonnet. Goodness knows why.

Algernon -- using the name Ernest -- goes to visit Jack's ward, Cecily. His attempts at getting Cecily's attention while she's singing are priceless 😄 Of course they fall in love. Of course Jack doesn't approve. And of course Gwendolen turns up, learns Cecily is engaged to "Ernest Worthing", and gets the wrong impression.

Cecily

Love the bit where Jack, pretending to be in mourning, tells Miss Prism and the pastor that his brother Ernest has died, then learns "Ernest" is visiting 😆 And his face when Algernon appears! He looks so utterly disgusted!

The mix-up about who's engaged to whom is eventually resolved, and Gwendolen and Cecily learn neither of them is engaged to the non-existent Ernest. They aren't happy about it. Jack's and Algernon's reactions are priceless 😆 My favourite part is when Algernon calmly has a cup of tea while Jack sulks on the floor. Then Gwendolen and Cecily forgive them... just before Lady Bracknell arrives.

This scene is comedy gold, but special mention must go to the discovery of Jack's real parentage. Jack's excited shouting, Algernon and Jack hugging and crying, the onlookers' reactions... Perfect chaotic hilarity. And of course, all the implausibilities are wrapped up with a happy ending 😄

Takarazuka shows end with a revue of varying length. As far as I can tell, for one-act shows, the revue is about an hour long and separate from the musical that preceded it. For two-act shows like this one, the revue is much shorter and is an assortment of songs from the musical. The actresses wear very (very) glittery costumes as they dance and sing.

Some of the glittery, glittery costumes 😍

Ernest in Love is not the sort of musical you'd watch if you want a gripping plot or excellent songs. But as a hilarious farce with enjoyable songs, it's perfect. It's certainly very good at cheering up unhappy writers 😃

Is it available online?: ...Yes, but better not say where.

Rating: 6/10.