Review: David Copperfield (novel)

Finally I finished this novel, so obviously it's time to review it 😄

While looking for a photo to put here I discovered possibly the most disturbing piece of cover art ever put on a classic novel: this. Apparently someone thought this is a horror novel about a headless ghost. If I wake up screaming tonight, I'll know what to blame.

David Copperfield is Charles Dickens' eighth novel, first published in 1850. It's the most autobiographical of his novels. Even while it was still being serialised it was adapted into several stage plays. Since then it's inspired at least four miniseries, two cartoons, seven films, and a number of audiobooks or radio dramas.

The already-reviewed 1999 miniseries sticks fairly close to the book, with only a few exceptions. (And a lot removed. Can't adapt the entire thing into only two episodes, after all!) This lead to the curious situation of comparing the book to the adaptation instead of the other way round 😄 

The main character, obviously, is David Copperfield. (It's very easy to forget that at times.) It doesn't have an immediately-identifiable plot; instead it's the story of David's life, starting with his birth and ending with him as a successful author. Along the way he meets many characters who are frankly more interesting than him, from his, ahem, eccentric Aunt Betsey Trotwood to the loathsome Uriah Heep.

For approximately the first half of the book David is definitely the main character; the story revolves around his evil stepfather, his awful school, and the turn for the better his life takes when he goes to his aunt for help. But then he becomes little more than a bystander as dozens of other characters take over the story. There were times when I thought the second half of the book should be renamed "The Micawbers, the Peggottys, and the Downfall of Uriah Heep, narrated by David Copperfield". Since this is a Dickens novel, all these other characters are so entertaining and distinctive that I don't mind them taking over the story. (Frankly they're much more interesting than David is!)

The main thing I disliked about the book is how utterly unmemorable David is. Everyone else has at least one instantly identifiable trait: Aunt Betsey hates donkeys, Mr. Micawber is obsessed with writing letters, Mrs. Gummidge is almost constantly complaining... Even Dora, imbecile though she is, has a distinct character. When I try to think about David, all that comes to mind is his terrible judge of character (as shown when he befriends Steerforth and marries Dora). David might as well be a plot device for all the impact he has on some subplots. When he proposes to Agnes I'm left wondering how such a sensible woman could ever like him enough to marry him.

Another thing I disliked was how the Murdstones get no comeuppance. They drive David's mother to her death, then Mr. Murdstone marries another woman and they start it all over again. When they're last mentioned, he's married yet another woman and is doing the exact same thing 😨 Steerforth dies, Uriah Heep goes to prison, but two of the vilest characters in the book are still at large and ruining lives. Why didn't Dickens kill them off?!

On the bright side, I love the rest of the characters (Aunt Betsey, Peggotty and Miss Mowcher especially) so much that I can overlook how dull David is 😄 This isn't my favourite Dickens book, but it's in the top five.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

(Not Really a) Review: First Impressions of Sanditon (2019)

Jane Austen adaptations are a very mixed bag. On the one hand you get classics like the 1995 versions of Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice. On the other you get abominations like Pride and Prejudice (2005). Take a wild guess which category this one falls into.

"Jane Austen's"? Really? "Brought to life"? Really?

Sanditon is a miniseries named after an unfinished Jane Austen novel. I've never read the published version of the novel, or any of the attempts other authors have made to complete it. To be honest I haven't watched the series yet either. (I'm not a fan of watching things while they're still airing.) But it's clear from simply reading about this series and looking at GIFs and stills from it that it isn't a Jane Austen adaptation.

I didn't even know it was being made until I read a newspaper boasting about how (paraphrased) "this Austen adaptation replaces dull conversations with nudity". I did a double take. Surely I'd misread that. Unfortunately I hadn't. So I googled the series, hoping the article was lying to attract viewers. It wasn't.

There are so many things wrong with this series that I don't know where to begin. Might as well start with the nudity. WHAT IN GOD'S NAME WERE THEY THINKING? This shows exactly what's wrong with the film- and series-making industry nowadays. They think no one will want to watch their shows unless they shoehorn nakedness in somewhere. Actually, nothing is more likely to make me avoid a film or series like the plague.

Next up is Charlotte's hairstyles. Take a look at that eyesore of a DVD cover. Charlotte's hair is loose and hanging down her back. Wrong. Think of P&P. How many times did Jane or Elizabeth wear their hair loose in public? That's right: never. How many times does Charlotte wear her hair like that? Goodness knows. But it happens far too often.

Apparently there are a pair of sinister siblings living in a gloomy house. Yet more proof that this isn't a Jane Austen adaptation. Even in Northanger Abbey, her parody of Gothic novels, she never seriously used Gothic themes and characters. This subplot would make sense in a Brontë adaptation. But in Jane Austen?! 😒

Why did the series-makers say this is based on an Austen novel? By all means, make a series riddled with historical inaccuracies and naked men. Throw an entire city of sinister people and gloomy houses if you feel like it. But don't call it Sanditon. Don't associate with Jane Austen. Present it as an original story that isn't meant to be accurate. Then maybe its flaws would be forgiveable.

I can say with certainty that this isn't a series I'm eager to watch. The only reason I'll ever suffer through it is if I want something to laugh at.

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Noble Blood (podcast)

Lore is the only podcast I listen to frequently (or at all, really). The only reason I started this one is because it's a sort of spin-off of Lore.

Noble Blood is the latest of several podcasts associated with Lore. It started earlier this year, and currently has six episodes. I've only listened to the first two.

Like Lore, this podcast deals with historical events. Unlike Lore, none of the events covered are ghost stories. Instead they're about royalty or nobility. That doesn't mean they're not as chilling and grim as the folklore and whispers of supernatural activity, though. The first episode is about Marie Antoinette. Specifically, about her imprisonment and murder. It's exactly as horrifying as you'd expect.

I must say I'm not overly fond of the music or the narrator's way of speaking. The music doesn't always fit the events being discussed, and the narrator's way of running sentences together makes it hard to tell when she's stopped one sentence and started another. I find it very distracting when I try to decipher a long, rambling phrase only to realise it's two different sentences.

Though when I can ignore that, the podcast is interesting and educational. I never knew much about Marie Antoinette or Charles II before, and the same goes for the people mentioned in the other episodes. Of course, this also means that I don't know how historically accurate the podcast is. I'm going to assume it's reasonably accurate. If anyone knows differently, feel free to correct me.

If you want to listen to a historical podcast, you might enjoy this one. Warning: it's not quite as disturbing as Lore, but it has its gruesome moments.

Is it available online?: Yes, here.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Untamed

A month ago there were only two series I would rate 10/10: Cranford and Bleak House. This series has just joined them.

The Untamed (陈情令/Chén Qíng Lìng) is a 2019 Chinese series, loosely based on the novel Mo Dao Zu Shi by Mo Xiang Tong Xiu. The most glaringly obvious difference is that the series doesn't adapt the romance between the two main characters. I've never read the novel or seen its other adaptations, so I don't know what other differences there are. (Plenty, according to other people's comments.)

I didn't recognise any of the actors, so on to the plot.

Unfortunately the first episode is terribly confusing. I couldn't understand anything that was happening. My thoughts were mostly variations of "Who is this?" or "What are they doing?". All I knew for certain was that a monster was terrorising a family, a group of cultivators (a word I didn't understand then) were trying to get rid of it, and someone had died and come back to life. I almost gave up on the series before it had properly started.

The second episode is just as confusing, I'm sorry to say. But in its final minutes we go back in time to what happened before the series starts. It's one of the longest flashbacks ever; it lasts until episode thirty-three. Luckily it's when the story both starts making sense and becomes interesting. (Why, why did they not start with the sixteen-years-ago storyline, and then jump forward to where the first episode began?) Come to think of it, you could probably start watching the series with episode three then go back and watch the first two after episode thirty-three.

Anyway, on to the plot. Wei Wuxian arrives in Cloud Recesses, where he meets Lan Wangji. Their relationship gets off to a bad start of the "fighting on the rooftop because Wei Wuxian broke the rules" kind. But before long they're very close friends. The series might not have been able to adapt their romance, but it has plenty of subtext.

Wei Wuxian

Lan Wangji

Naturally things go horribly wrong. First a war breaks out, then Wei Wuxian tries to protect innocent civilians and gets vilified for it, then he commits suicide after his friends and his sister are killed. Sixteen years later he's brought back from the dead and meets Lan Wangji again. Much trouble, adorableness, scheming, and implausible fight scenes ensue. And of course there's plenty of heartbreak.

This is one of those shows that's an emotional rollercoaster. It's even worse than Cranford because it includes horror and violence as well as tragedy. When you watch an episode you never know what the next scene will be. Comical? Tragic? Nightmarish? Tragic and nightmarish? Episode thirty-three in particular is hard to watch 😭 Wei Wuxian's descent into despair gives me chills. Especially the way he swings between laughing and crying as he watches the carnage the Yin Tiger Amulet caused.

If you can get through the bewildering first episodes, and don't mind frequent violence, gore, and unconvincing special effects, you'll probably enjoy this series. I certainly did 😄

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles. Pretty bad subtitles, but it'll give you the general idea.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: Anne of Avonlea (novel)

I had no idea what to review today. Even when I sat down to start writing this one I didn't know what it would be about. At last I decided to review this book.

Anne of Avonlea is a 1909 novel by L. M. Montgomery, the first of many sequels to Anne of Green Gables. (Incidentally, it was also the first Anne novel I ever read.) It's been adapted into a 1975 miniseries and a 1987 film.

The story picks up shortly after the first book ended. Anne Shirley has just become the teacher at Avonlea school. We follow her lessons, her struggles with some pupils and parents, her friendships, and the inevitable scrapes she gets into. Along the way we renew our acquaintance with many of Avonlea's residents and meet some newcomers. There's just one problem: the writing often falls into the trap of gooey sentimentality that Anne of Green Gables avoided.

L. M. Montgomery only wrote this book because readers demanded more about Anne. Unfortunately it shows. Some of the characters, including Anne herself, aren't quite as memorable as they were in the first book. Gilbert hardly appears at all, which has the unfortunate side-effect of making Anne's developing love for him come almost out of nowhere. (Anne of the Island, the third book in the series, shows their romance much better.) The newcomers range from the distinctive and comical, like Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, to the flat and underdeveloped, like Miss Lavender and Paul Irving.

All I can remember about Miss Lavender is she's a kindred spirit who calls all her maids Charlotta. Paul is basically a male version of eleven-year-old Anne, but not nearly as interesting. The subplot involving Miss Lavender marrying Paul's father is sweet but doesn't stick in my mind as much as some other romantic subplots L. M. Montgomery wrote.

Much of the book is more like a series of connected short stories than a novel. There's Anne and her friends' attempts to improve Avonlea, and Anne teaching the students, and Marilla's struggles with the twins, but all of these feel like plots on their own instead of all part of the same story. At least all these subplots have enough entertaining moments to keep the reader interested. The incident of the cow in Mr. Harrison's field and Anne's trouble with the henhouse roof are the scenes that stick in my mind the most 😄

Anne of Avonlea isn't quite as good as Anne of Green Gables. It would probably be possible to skip this book entirely without missing much. But it has its good points in spite of its flaws, and I enjoy it enough to reread it on occasion.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: How To Train Your Dragon (2010)

Some people have the frankly ridiculous idea that animated films can only be enjoyed by children. Those people have clearly never seen this film, or its sequels.

How to Train Your Dragon is a 2010 film based on the book of the same name by Cressida Cowell. It was followed by two sequels and several cartoon series.

I hadn't even heard of the books when I first watched this film. All I saw was "dragon" in the title, and thought it might be worth watching. Before any of the characters even appeared I decided I liked it based on the music alone. And before long it became one of my favourite non-Disney films.

As you can probably guess from the title, the film is about a boy who trains a dragon. Well, sort of. That's only part of it. The main character has the improbable name of Hiccup(!), and he lives in a village of Vikings that bear little resemblance to actual Vikings. Not least because they're constantly under attack by dragons. Instead of talking more about the plot, this review will be mostly a rambling list of things I like about the film.

Hiccup's "This is Berk" monologue has gotten so firmly stuck in my head that I could recite it from memory 😄 I especially love "It's located solidly on the meridian of misery". (I've been to a few places that fit that description!)

There's no denying this film has its pretty goofy moments, even during the dragon attack. The teenagers walking in front of a fireball is so over-the-top that it's hilarious. But unlike some films the goofiness doesn't distract from the more serious parts, like Toothless's first appearance. Not even knowing Hiccup will befriend him later makes his attack any less dramatic.

How did Hiccup see Toothless before his next attack? I have to lean reallllllly close to the screen and stare with all my might before I can spot him.

Hiccup and Toothless's first meeting gives me chills even though there's nothing truly frightening about it. (Although Hiccup might disagree!) The way Toothless lunges at Hiccup as soon as he's free is the only potentially scary part of the scene, and even then you just have to look at the film's title to know Hiccup's in no danger. But there's something so eerie about Toothless watching as Hiccup talks about killing him. The music just adds to it.

The music is incredible all through the film. Even if you aren't interested in the film, you should definitely listen to its soundtrack. (Why did it not win an award? 😒)

Astrid and the other teenagers (with the exception of Fishlegs) are my least favourite characters for most of the film. The way they treat Hiccup always makes me furious! At least Astrid becomes more likable later. (In the second film she actually becomes my third-favourite character after Hiccup and Toothless!) Can't say the same for Snotlout or the twins. Or Stoick, for that matter. Good intentions don't excuse the way he ignores Hiccup. And the way he literally brushes him aside after the disastrous fight... 😠

"Forbidden Friendship" is the cutest scene in the film, with some of the best music in an already great score. I love how Toothless watches Hiccup drawing then decides "I'm going to do that too!"

Toothless and Hiccup

I roared with laughter when Hiccup gets dragged along on Toothless's flight 😆 And everything about the dragon training scenes is hilarious when no one can understand how Hiccup knows so much about dragons! To say nothing of the time Astrid almost catches him and Toothless 😆

"Test Drive" is awesome and terrifying 😨 Even when I know they'll be all right, I shudder when Hiccup falls off Toothless. How in the world did Hiccup get them safely through those rocks? *shudders*

Of the two characters I started off disliking and only grew to like later, Astrid only becomes less obnoxious after her flight with Hiccup and Toothless. Stoick takes even longer to undergo character development, but more about that later.

Most of the film is relatively light-hearted. All that changes the minute the Red Death appears. (What's that thing's name? The book calls it the Green Death, but the film's Wikipedia entry calls it the Red Death. As if that's not confusing enough, it isn't green or red.) Not many films manage such a change in tone very well. Not even this one. It has just enough violence beforehand that more violence isn't completely shocking. Yet nothing earlier in the film prepared the viewer for the Red Death's existence, let alone everything that follows. It's not quite as bad as the uneven tone of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, but it's jarring.

Things get even more depressing pretty quickly. I cry every time Toothless is captured 😢 And "You're not my son" is the saddest line in the film 😭

Okay, so it's unrealistic that the captive dragons would be willing to let the teenagers ride them after attacking them during training. But it's cool enough that I just don't care 😄

The fight with the Red Death is one of those scenes that are frightening even while they make me cheer. Stoick finally stops being a jerk! Hiccup and Toothless get the Red Death to follow them! They use its own fire-breathing against it! And then it turns into a fireball 😨

The aftermath of the battle is so sad 😭 So is the moment when Hiccup realises what happened to him 😭😭 But then the film practically forgets about this when he discovers Berk is full of dragons. There are two major flaws with the ending. First, we don't get to see much of Hiccup's reaction to losing a leg. Second, Stoick's a jerk for so long that his welcoming all the dragons into the village comes out of nowhere. (Same goes for all the other villagers who suddenly have no problem with this, too.) The mending of his relationship with Hiccup makes sense, but the other part stretches my suspension of disbelief.

In spite of that, I love the film's ending. Hiccup's second "This is Berk" monologue is the perfect way to show how much things have changed since the start. And Hiccup and Toothless flying up into the sky is one of my favourite final scenes of any film!

Obviously the film doesn't stick too closely to the book. For once this is a very good thing. The book is frankly boring. The film definitely isn't. I recommend it to anyone who likes fantasy, dragons, amazing music, or just an enjoyable film -- especially if you think you're too old to watch animated films. It might just change your mind.

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

Rating: 9/10.

Review: Anne With An E

This isn't an adaptation. It's butchery.

I was cautiously interested when I heard a new version of Anne of Green Gables was being made. I knew it would never compare to the brilliant 1985 film, but I thought it might be good enough. Then I read more about it, and other people's reactions to it. I was horrified. Surely it couldn't be as bad as that! Oh yes it could. It's worse.

What better title card for Anne of Green Gables than a stick with writing on it? To say nothing of the unexpectedly creepy credits.

I hesitate to say this is based on Anne of Green Gables, because it isn't. Someone took the names and setting of the book and attached them to characters L. M. Montgomery was too good a writer to invent.

I didn't recognise any of the actors. This series has not made me eager to seek out their other performances.

Episode one starts with... some guy in (what I mistook for) a cowboy hat galloping across a beach? Huh? I paused the video and double-checked to make sure I wasn't watching a Western by mistake. Then the scene randomly cuts to the opening credits, which only need eerie music to make them perfect for a horror show. Played over them is a song that's better fitted to a series about country music than something supposedly based on Anne of Green Gables.

Marilla and Matthew are nothing like their book counterparts. Marilla's personality bears a striking resemblance to Aunt Ruth's in Emily of New Moon. Matthew doesn't have a personality at all. And Anne is the worst of the lot. Instead of the cheerful, imaginative, occasionally hot-tempered girl who gained her author worldwide popularity, this "Anne" is your typical modern emo teen who whines about everything. She's as much like Anne Shirley as I'm like Queen Victoria.

In the book Matthew and Anne's first meeting is funny and heartwarming. She's so excited to meet him and she talks endlessly. He's terrified of approaching her, bewildered by her being there at all, but warms up to her after a while. Here Matthew just looks mildly surprised, and Anne immediately goes all "woe is me! I'm already a disappointment to you!". I'd expect that sort of whinging from one of Avonlea's much-maligned Pyes, not from Anne.

Rachel Lynde is yet another disappointment. This series does the impossible and makes her boring. How? It takes real talent to turn one of Avonlea's most memorable residents into a non-entity who says a few lines and leaves no impression. The scriptwriter and director are so unbelievably bad at their jobs that I'm honestly in awe.

Someone decided L. M. Montgomery's excellent prose wasn't good enough for them. So they wrote new dialogue. The effect is like William McGonagall rewriting Shakespeare's sonnets. Anne's speech at the breakfast table ("howling wilderness"! "I'm glad it's a pretty morning"! 😆) had me in stitches. All right, so Anne is supposed to have her moments of melodrama. But the book, and a good actress (read: Megan Follows), can make her melodrama endearing rather than ridiculous. Anne's actress here plays all her scenes completely straight, and elevates them from "bad" to "amazingly, pricelessly bad".

I considered abandoning the series in the middle of the first episode. But I wanted to see how the series portrayed Gilbert. So I skipped ahead to the second episode and fast-forwarded in search of Gilbert -- or the caricature that bore his name.

Another absurdity is the episode titles. Literary references work well as titles, provided they fit the themes of the story using them as a title. A Jane Eyre quote would be a good title for a Gothic story, but for an Anne of Green Gables episode?

What on earth is happening five minutes into episode two? Some random strangers appear (I assume they were introduced in the second half of episode one, but who knows) and a child almost chokes to death. It took me ages to connect this with the incident of Diana's sister having croup. That happens quite far into the book, after Anne accidentally set Diana drunk, and it resolves the "forbidden from seeing Diana" subplot. It has no business being placed near the start of an adaptation. As for Diana, it goes without saying that this version of her is nothing like the book's. I didn't know she was Diana until I realised what was happening.

A boy and his dying father appear shortly after this. I had no idea who they were and thought they must be inventions of the series-makers. No, apparently the boy is Gilbert. He has all the personality of a cardboard box and -- most damning of all -- he doesn't have book!Gilbert's dramatic first appearance. I suppose the director thought Anne breaking a slate over Gilbert's head was "too violent" and "setting a bad example" or some similar tripe.

Well, now that I know what Gilbert's like, I've had more than enough of this series. I haven't watched a full episode and I hope never to see it again.

Is it available online?: Who cares?

Rating: 0/10.

Review: Our Mutual Friend (novel)

Just when you think no Charles Dickens novel could possibly be as complicated as Bleak House...

Our Mutual Friend is Charles Dickens' last completed novel, first published as a book in 1865. Even by Dickens' standards it's an incredibly grim, depressing book. It's been adapted into two silent films, three miniseries, and two radio dramas.

There are so many interconnected plots it's hard to tell which is the main one. Then there are subplots that aren't connected to one part of the story but are connected to another, and more characters than are in some entire series. One plot revolves around Lizzie Hexam, who goes into hiding to escape both of the men pursuing her. Another plot is about Mr. and Mrs. Boffin, who've just inherited a fortune after the death of John Harmon. Connected with this plot is Bella Wilfer, who's only interested in getting money, and who doesn't like John Rokesmith, the Boffins' secretary. Yet another plot, largely unconnected with any of the above, is about Lizzie's friends Jenny Wren and Mr. Riah, who get involved in the schemes of the loathsome Mr. Fledgeby. And that's not even mentioning Eugene Wrayburn, or Riderhood, or the Lammles, or Mr. Wegg and Mr. Venus...

Some books are so complicated you need to either read them quickly or keep a chart of who's who. (Or watch an adaptation first, so you have a general idea of the plot. Not the 1998 series, though; you'd better know at least the main plots to watch it.) I managed to read this book in less than two weeks, and even then I forgot things that had happened earlier. (How on earth did people cope when it was originally being serialised?)

Our Mutual Friend has some of Dickens' most biting satire. But after reading it twice I can't help feeling that he could have shortened the novel by at least fifty pages if he hadn't created whole characters and subplots for the purpose of satire. The Veneerings in general and the Parliament chapters in particular have little effect on the plot. The 1998 series cut them out almost entirely without losing much. Even their eventual downfall happens off-screen, after the book ends. Same goes for Fledgeby, though at least we see him get his comeuppance.

Mr. Boffin's apparent descent into miserliness isn't a bad plot in theory. Neither is the discovery he was acting. But in practice, it has so little foreshadowing that it left me blinking in confusion and wondering what just happened. (Not to mention the fact Mr. Boffin never struck me as the sort of character who could convincingly play a part for so long.) Bella's switch from a money-obsessed brat to a more admirable character is much better written.

On the bright side, Lizzie and Bella are two of my favourite Dickens heroines. Mr. Venus is one of my favourite minor characters ever, with his wonderfully morbid "art" and the black comedy it brings. (To paraphrase Pride and Prejudice: "Teeth in the teacup? Happy thought indeed." 😆) Eugene spends most of the book as a jerk, but he changes for the better towards the end. And John Rokesmith is one of those characters who I simultaneously want to hug and want to yell at them to just tell the truth already! Seriously, half the plots would have been resolved chapters earlier if he had admitted his identity and explained what really happened.

If you want to read this book you'd better be prepared for a loooooong, often confusing, and almost constantly depressing story. I enjoyed it in spite of that, but other people might not.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: The Assassin (2015)

I heard a lot of good things about this film before I watched it. Now that I've seen it, I can only assume the people who praised it expected a very different sort of film to the one I expected to see.

The Assassin (刺客聶隱娘/Cì Kè Niè Yǐn Niáng, "The Assassin Niè Yǐn Niáng") is a 2015 Chinese film. It's (apparently loosely) based on Nie Yin Niang, a ninth-century martial arts story.

I didn't recognise any of the actors, so let's go straight to the plot. (Or lack thereof.)

The Wikipedia summary of this film made it sound full of drama. An assassin is ordered to kill her cousin, but instead she decides to protect him. Bound to be an exciting story, wouldn't you think? Well, that is the film's plot. But all the drama is conspicuous by its absence.

The film starts with a black-and-white prologue. Nie Yin Niang, the title character, goes to kill a government official. She decides to spare his life because his son is there, and as punishment she's ordered to kill her cousin Tian Ji'an. It's a lot more boring than it sounds. And it just gets worse.

Now, maybe I have unrealistic expectations, but when I watch a film I want to see the plot develop and get to know the characters. This film does neither. Nie Yin Niang has virtually no personality beyond "not willing to kill a guy in front of a child". Her decision not to kill Tian Ji'an makes very little sense because the viewer has no idea what she's like or what her thought process is (beyond "don't plunge the kingdom into even more chaos"). As for Tian Ji'an, the only thing I remember about him is his rooftop fight with Nie Yin Niang. Nothing else was memorable enough to stick with me.

Said rooftop fight is one of the few dramatic scenes in the film. The rest is just loooooong shots of scenery, or people talking about things (talking but not doing anything 😑), or Nie Yin Niang spying on people. Actually, one thing this film is really good at is creating a feeling of paranoia in the viewer. Nie Yin Niang's spying is pretty creepy. Just as eerie are those scenes where the camera focuses on one thing for ages, as if something's about to jump out and attack.

I felt like I was watching a horror film that forgot the horror. For several minutes the focus is on a curtain or something equally mundane. It doesn't move. It doesn't show the rest of the set. Surely there's some reason for making the viewer stare at that curtain? Surely someone's hiding behind it? Surely something's about to happen? Then the camera moves away and nothing happens. Again and again the film does this. Again and again I was sure there was a reason for it. Again and again it was a complete anticlimax. This was the second most frustrating thing about the film.

The first most frustrating thing was the plot. It had the potential to be exciting. Instead it moves at the speed of a snail that's got stuck in glue. It goes on and on and on yet nothing happens. From beginning to end I was thoroughly bored.

Really, the best that can be said of this film is that the scenery is pretty. I felt like I was watching an extended mood-board instead of a film. Unfortunately that's the only thing I liked about it. Goodness knows why it got so many good reviews.

Is it available online?: I don't know.

Rating: 2/10.