Review: The Signal-Man

Happy Halloween in advance! Today I'll review one of Charles Dickens' lesser-known short stories, which is very suitable for this time of year.

The Signal-Man is a short story by Charles Dickens, first published in 1866. It's been adapted into at least one film and several radio dramas. Andrew Lloyd Webber made two attempts to make it into a musical/opera. Neither was successful (possibly a good thing).

The story's about a signal-man who sees a ghostly figure before disasters on the railway. He tells the narrator about the times he sees it, and the tragedies that followed. It's a lot more frightening than that description makes it sound. The end is especially chilling 😨

Dickens is so well-known for his loooong novels that it's hard to believe he wrote short stories. Not only that, but a story with only one plot, no subplots, and amazingly few characters. This story is so unlike his usual works that it hardly seems like Dickens at all. Yet considering its genre, the shortness and lack of subplots work in its favour. From start to finish it's incredibly eerie. The ending is easy to see coming, but no less terrifying because of it.

If you want a ghost story to read on Halloween, try this one! It might not be one of Dickens' more famous stories, but it's certainly one of his eeriest.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg in a collection of other Dickens ghost stories.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: The King's Speech (2010)

Everything I heard about this film made me expect it would be outstanding. Now I've watched it, and it's left me disappointed.

That's one of the worst title-cards I've ever seen. The writing is so tiny you practically need a magnifying glass to see it!

The King's Speech is a 2010 film based on real events. It depicts the future King George VI's struggles with a speech impediment, and his attempts to overcome it.

I recognised several actors:

Colin Firth (Darcy in Pride and Prejudice 1995) as Prince Albert/King George VI

Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter) as Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother)

Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Lionel Logue

Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice 1995) as Myrtle Logue

Timothy Spall (Mr. Venus in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Winston Churchill

Derek Jacobi (the King in Cinderella 2015) as the Archbishop

Michael Gambon (Squire Hamley in Wives and Daughters) as King George V

The opening scene left me scratching my head. As if the underwhelming title-card wasn't enough, there's some weirdo gargling onscreen. Before I could figure out what was happening the film had already moved on to Bertie's attempt at giving a speech. Poor guy 😢 Speaking in public is one of my worst nightmares, and I don't even have a speech impediment. I can only imagine how horrifying it is to someone with one.

Elizabeth (who I always think of as the Queen Mother even though she isn't in the film) goes to Lionel Logue, a speech therapist who might be able to help Bertie. My favourite parts of the film were the Logues' reactions to realising who Lionel's patient is. Especially the scene where Mrs. Logue walks in and sees the queen in her house 😆

Like The Crown, which could almost be seen as a follow-on to this film, the main problem is the characters. There are exactly four truly likable characters: Bertie, Elizabeth, and their daughters. (Even then I have reservations about liking Margaret. She's tolerable only because she's a child and not the selfish brat she became.) Logue means well, but his methods are frankly bizarre. Edward and Wallis are so revolting that I felt like yelling at the screen every time they appeared 😠 And everyone else is either a jerk or just there in the background.

On the subject of Logue's bizarre methods, the constant swearing is extremely off-putting 😒 When I watch a film I like to actually watch it. Not skip every few minutes.

This film is best described as "average but not great". I liked some parts of it and hated others. But I'm not in a hurry to watch it again.

Is it available online?: I don't think so.

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Black Beauty (novel)

Some people have the idea that books about talking animals are solely for children. Those people have clearly never read this book.

Black Beauty is Anna Sewell's only novel, published in 1877 shortly before her death. It's been adapted into at least five films, two miniseries, and several cartoons. She wrote it specifically to make people treat their horses better. (This was the Victorian era after all, when almost everyone owned or hired a horse at some point in their lives, and when standards of how to treat animals were much lower.) Unlike many books written with a specific purpose, Black Beauty actually did improve how horses were treated.

Almost everyone knows what the book is about. It revolves around the title character as he's sold from owner to owner, some of them good and others very bad. Unlike the later "pony novels" that it partially inspired, the story is often bleak and depressing.

What I can't understand is how anyone would think it's a children's novel. Anna Sewell makes no attempt to gloss over how cruelly horses were treated. She wrote to horrify people into improving those conditions, after all, so the suffering caused by brutality (or ignorance, in the case of Joe making Beauty sick) is shown clearly. Nowadays, with laws against animal cruelty, it's hard to believe horses could ever be so badly treated; this book shows a particularly ugly side of history that's often forgotten or overlooked. Yes, children can read it, and should be encouraged to read it, but it's not aimed exclusively at them.

A lot of this book is utterly heart-breaking. Especially the way Beauty and his friends are treated by some of their owners 😭 Even the happy ending makes me tear up!

People who dismiss it as "just another children's book about horses" are missing out on an excellent novel. If you've never read it before, you absolutely should.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: Corpse Bride (2005)

Halloween is just around the corner! If you're anything like me, that means you're rewatching your favourite spooky films. This is one of mine.

Corpse Bride is a 2005 stop-motion animated film, based on a Russian folktale. It's very similar in appearance and atmosphere to The Nightmare Before Christmas. But it isn't a sequel or spin-off of Nightmare. I made that mistake when I first watched it and spent much of the film wondering why no one mentioned Halloween Town. (In my defence, I was eleven.)

Like a lot of my reviews, this is basically a rambling list of things I liked or disliked about the film. Right up at the top of the "things I liked" list: the theme music. It's so beautifully eerie! I'm not so enthusiastic about some of the songs, but more about that later.

The plot revolves around Victor, who's engaged to marry Victoria, but who accidentally ends up married to Emily instead. Problem is, Emily's dead. And she drags Victor down to the land of the dead after their "marriage". Meanwhile, Victoria's loathsome parents try to marry her off to the repulsive Lord Barkis. It all works out in the end... sort of.

Emily and Victor

The characters are extremely stylised to the point of being caricatures. It fits such a spooky film, but some people might find it off-putting. Victor, Emily and Victoria aren't too bad, but the less said about the utterly hideous background characters, the better. This film manages to make you wish most of the characters were skeletons just so they'd look normal. Case in point: Victoria's parents.

...I'll let this picture speak for itself.

Can't say I like all the songs. Some are memorable, while others dive into speak-singing. As for some of the singers... how should I put this? Let's just say, singing is not their greatest talent.

Even though Emily's not trying to hurt Victor, her first appearance is pretty darn creepy 😨 Especially when he turns around and she's right there! But once you get used to the creepiness of the corpses, they're actually more likable than most of the living characters. They're certainly funnier, in a very dark sort of way. And the scene where they return to the land of the living is priceless 😆

This is pretty dark for a family film, and that's reflected in its humour. Almost all the funny moments are black comedy of some sort. (The only real exception is that town crier who's determined to humiliate Victor.) Who'd have thought a maggot living in a corpse's head would be so hilarious? On a much more serious note, who'd have thought that a film aimed at children would include a character who murdered his bride-to-be? 😱

I don't like this film quite as much as The Nightmare Before Christmas, but it's still a good film, and perfect for watching in October.

Is it available online?: No, I don't think so.

Rating: 7/10.

(Not Really a) Review: Which Pride and Prejudice Adaptation is the Best?

I'm trying something completely new today. Instead of reviewing just one work, I'll compare the different versions of Pride and Prejudice that I've seen. Which one is best? (You probably already know the answer.) Which one is worst? (Again, you probably know. What you might not know is that it has competition.)

First and more importantly: the novel itself. Without this book, none of the other versions would exist. It's the historical romance novel in many people's minds. Most of the thousands of Regency novels written since owe something to it. Mention Jane Austen and this is the book everyone will think of. In short, it's practically perfect in every way 😍

Verdict: The absolute best.

Next up: the 1940 film. Starring actors who don't suit their characters at all, wearing costumes from the wrong era and country. Features a Lady Catherine who's amusing in all the wrong ways, and a Lizzie and Darcy who are utterly unconvincing.

Verdict: I used to think this was the worst Pride and Prejudice adaptation. It's since moved up the list to second-worst.

Third time's the charm? Nope. The best I can say for the 1980 miniseries is that it's not as bad as some versions. Frankly, it's dull. I struggled to stay awake through it. Where are the memorable characters and witty dialogue of the novel?

Verdict: Not good. Not terrible. Just average and disappointing.

Finally! The 1995 miniseries is very nearly as good as the novel. I love every minute of it. I have whole episodes memorised. This series is the perfect example not only of how to properly adapt Pride and Prejudice, but of how to properly adapt any novel.

Verdict: Best. Version. Ever.

And last of all here's the worst. I've already said everything that can be said about the 2005 film. So let me summarise: KILL IT. KILL IT WITH FIRE.

Verdict: Utter abomination.

I hope you enjoyed this series of mini-reviews! (Or should that be miniseries of reviews?) Note that this only includes P&P adaptations I've seen. There are plenty of others I haven't seen. But I think it's safe to say none of those others will ever be better than the 1995 series 😄

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (novel)

Like The Horse and His Boy, this book doesn't follow the usual plot of a Narnia book. In fact, it doesn't really have a plot at all.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is the third-published book in the Chronicles of Narnia, but chronologically it's the fifth. It was published in 1952. It's been adapted into a miniseries, a film, at least two musicals, and several audiobooks.

It takes place shortly after Prince Caspian. Unusually, not much time has passed for either the Pevensies or the Narnians. Caspian is still king and has set out on a voyage in the Dawn Treader to find seven missing lords. Edmund and Lucy -- and their odious cousin Eustace Clarence Scrubb, who almost deserves his name -- fall into Narnia through a painting. They have a series of adventures with Caspian as the Dawn Treader travels to different islands. Along the way Eustace makes a nuisance of himself, until an encounter with treasure leaves him completely changed -- in more ways than one.

This book is virtually nothing like the rest of the series. There's no villain to defeat. Unless you count the pirates, the sea serpent, the island of dreams, and so on, but those are more obstacles than real villains. Aslan barely appears in the story. Peter and Susan are nowhere to be seen. None of the story takes place in Narnia itself. And it doesn't have a plot as such. It just describes the different islands the Dawn Treader visits and the adventures its crew have there. Some of those adventures are light-hearted, like the meeting with the Dufflepuds. Others are more serious, like Dragon Island and Deathwater Island.

A book without a plot all-too-easily becomes a meandering mess. Luckily this book avoids that trap. It may not be just as exciting as The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but it's enjoyable to read and gives the reader a glimpse into just how vast the world of Narnia is. I was amused to discover that Narnia is literally a flat world, and you can actually sail to the end of it. The idea that Narnian stars are people is a fascinating one, and I wish C. S. Lewis had written more about them. But my favourite part of the book is Eustace's redemption.

He starts out almost as bad as Edmund in LWW. If there's something to be grumbled about, you can be sure Eustace will do enough grumbling for the entire crew. He spends half the book as a selfish, utterly self-absorbed little pest who makes you long to box his ears. But then, like Edmund, his actions cause him much misery and the experience leaves him a much better person.

The book's ending is one of the most depressing in the series, when Edmund and Lucy are told they can't return to Narnia. I was not happy with this when I first read it. "Seriously? First Peter and Susan, now Edmund and Lucy?!" I understand why Lewis chose to end it like this, but it's still sad 😢

This is probably the lightest book in the series, and it doesn't require much knowledge of the previous novels. Is it the best Narnia book? No. But it's certainly not the worst.

Is it available online?: I doubt it.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Howl's Moving Castle (2004)

Finally, after several years of thinking "I should watch this" and promptly forgetting to, I sat down and watched this film. It isn't what I expected.

Howl's Moving Castle is a 2004 animated film by Studio Ghibli, based on Diana Wynne Jones' novel of the same name. There's both a Japanese version and a version dubbed into English. I watched the Japanese version with English subtitles.

I wrote this review while watching the film, so it's basically a list of things I thought as I watched it. Probably not a coherent list, but anyway.

The moving castle is the very first thing we see in the film. It looks a lot more monstrous and dilapidated than I pictured it in the book. (Admittedly, I haven't read the book since I reviewed it a while ago. I'm sure I've forgotten a few things.)

...Why are there planes flying around? I definitely don't remember them in the book 😒 To say nothing of all the trains, cars and steam-powered buses. And the soldiers everywhere. Clearly the film has changed quite a lot.

They kept Sophie and Howl's first meeting! But changed the circumstances. I'm torn between cheering at Howl protecting Sophie, and grumbling at the difference from the book. At least the flying scene is cool. That's one change I actually don't mind.

After Sophie leaves Lettie we get a weird scene of two masked puppets(?) carrying a sedan chair. Then someone in the chair gathers black sludge(??) wearing hats(???) into a jug(????). What in the world is happening? I assume this is the Witch of the Waste's first appearance, but it left me scratching my head.

I love the animation! There are a few scenes where I completely forgot about what was happening and focused on how incredibly beautiful the animation is 😍 Makes it all the more jarring when the Witch of the Waste appears. She's utterly revolting, even more than I imagined in the book!

Like in the book, the Witch of the Waste curses Sophie and turns her into an old woman. Like in the book, this leads to her staying with Howl. And like in the book, she meets the scarecrow along the way. I was expecting the scarecrow to look at least mildly frightening. Instead he's actually almost cute. The constant grin is rather off-putting, though.

Calcifer is also a lot cuter than I expected. But he's just as funny as his book counterpart 😄 For some reason Michael is a small child instead of a teenager. This is another change I definitely don't approve of. Why did they make such an unnecessary change, anyway? And what's all this about a war?

Howl's reaction to Sophie inviting herself into the castle is much calmer than I expected. They aren't nearly as sarcastic to each other here as in the book. Very disappointing 😞

What on earth is that scene where Howl-as-a-bird is chased by bats wearing hats? Clearly the film treats the book's plot as a guideline that it isn't essential to follow. It's never a good sign when an adaptation has that attitude.

The film hasn't explained yet that Sophie is a witch too, so the scene where she's returned to her real appearance makes no sense 😒 Especially when seconds later she's an old woman again. The film also doesn't explain what's going on with this war they've added to the plot. The book managed just fine without airships dropping bombs and flyers; why did the film decide it needed them?

Howl is as dramatic as his book counterpart, even though he's not as sarcastic. I roared with laughter when he throws a fit after dying his hair 😆 And I liked his post-tantrum conversation with Sophie. Especially when he comes up with the "pretend you're my mother" scheme.

I don't remember any Madame Suliman in the book. What happened to Mrs. Penstemmon? And why is there yet another villain when we already have the Witch of the Waste and Miss Angorian (who apparently isn't in the film)? As for that weird fireworks display and Howl turning into a bird... the mind boggles. This was the moment when I stopped expecting the film to be anything like the book.

For some reason the Witch of the Waste loses her memory and ends up in Howl's castle. Goodness knows why. And Sophie switches back to her young self apparently without noticing it, for reasons that aren't explained. Or is that a dream sequence? I've given up trying to understand this film.

I love the scene where Howl and Calcifer change the castle's interior! And Howl showing Sophie the field of flowers is so cute 😍

Those blob-shadow things are disgusting to look at, and their attack on the castle is pretty horrifying 😨 Exactly nothing in the film's climax is in the book; not the bombs, not Howl as some sort of bird monster, not the blob men, not the Witch of the Waste lounging around in Howl's castle. I try to remind myself the film isn't a faithful adaptation, but this still grates on me.

At least the end is sort of like the book's. The scarecrow's curse is broken, the Witch of the Waste won't cause any more trouble, and Howl and Sophie will live happily ever after.

I didn't enjoy this film nearly as much as I expected to. I thought it would be close to the book, but instead it has the same characters and a different plot. Maybe if I hadn't read the book I'd enjoy it more. As it is, though, I kept getting annoyed by all the differences.

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

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Way We Live Now (novel)

When I watch a film or series I generally try to read the book it was based on. I started this book shortly after finishing the miniseries. I've only just finished it.

The Way We Live Now is the longest of Anthony Trollope's many novels, first published in 1875. It's been adapted into two miniseries and a radio drama.

The novel's main plot is about the conman Augustus Melmotte, who arrives in London and immediately starts swindling people. Its many subplots revolve around the loathsome Sir Felix Carbury; his less despicable but quite boring sister Hetta; Paul, the man Hetta wants to marry; Mrs. Hurtle, the woman who wants Paul to marry her; and Ruby, an idiot in love with Felix.

It makes no pretensions of being anything but a satirical novel, and in the process it falls into the same trap as Dickens' Our Mutual Friend: whole subplots exist solely for the sake of satire. Probably they were compelling reading for Trollope's contemporaries. Unfortunately, I found them downright dull. The entire "Hetta thinks Paul is betraying her" subplot drags on and on and on until I gave up reading and skipped ahead. Same goes for the Felix/Ruby/John love triangle.

The truly interesting part of the novel is about Melmotte, his family, and his eventual downfall. About half-way through I started skimming over the rest of the story to focus on the parts about them. Marie, Melmotte's daughter, is one of the few sympathetic characters in the whole thing. I'm glad she got some sort of happy ending, and a chance to get away from the mess her father made.

Maybe it's because it took me ages to finish this novel, with long gaps in-between each chapter. Or maybe my opinion of it was coloured by the underwhelming 2001 series. Whatever the reason, I didn't enjoy this book as much as I expected to. Perhaps some time in the future I'll try rereading it and see if my opinion changes. For now, though, it's not one of my favourite books.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Chronicles of Avonlea (novel)

Anne of Green Gables is well-known. Its sequels are more obscure. And most obscure of all are the short story collections L. M. Montgomery wrote about the village of Avonlea.

Chronicles of Avonlea is a book of twelve short stories set in and around Avonlea. It was first published in 1912, although some of the stories were written before L. M. Montgomery started Anne of Green Gables. She simply changed a few details to make these stories fit in. Some of the stories are adapted in the series Road to Avonlea, and a few events are referred to in other Anne books.

The plots range from an elderly woman who longs to hear an old friend sing, to an uncomfortable walk home leading to a quarrel finally ending. Romance plays a part in most of the stories. But not the sort of romance you might expect; instead of being about young people falling in love, they're about grown-up and middle-aged people getting married after overcoming obstacles like pride, disagreements, and a controlling older sister.

I have to admit, when I saw the title Chronicles of Avonlea I thought it would be about Anne, Marilla, Rachel Lynde, and other characters who appear in the Anne books. Instead it's about characters who are rarely or never mentioned in the main books. Anne herself hardly appears at all, but she helps bring about the marriage of one couple and attends the (highly unusual) wedding of another. I can't decide if I like the glimpse into new people's lives or if I'd like to see more of the characters I already know.

One of the stories comes perilously close to the sort of mawkish sentimentality common in Victorian and Edwardian literature. Strange, because L. M. Montgomery generally avoids falling into that trap. The rest are full of her brilliant descriptions, ability to let you know a character within minutes of their first appearance ("If they merely announce that they are going to peel the potatoes for dinner their hearers realize that there is no possible escape for the potatoes."), and humourous lines. (Mr. Leonard's "I'm very sorry for the Baptists" comment is my favourite 😆) Two stories in particular stuck in my mind long after I finished the book -- "Each in His Own Tongue" and "The Quarantine at Alexander Abraham's" -- for very different reasons!

This book isn't quite as good as any of the Anne books. But it's heartwarming and entertaining, and I enjoyed it from beginning to end.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 8/10.