Review: Thor Ragnarok

The Marvel Cinematic Universe, like everything associated with Disney, has been steadily deteriorating. The warning signs were there in The Avengers, which in hindsight was one of the last good films in the entire MCU. Now the people in charge only care about making money, and the films are increasingly incoherent nightmares.

I couldn't be bothered looking up a screenshot of the title card. This ugly, chaotic, explosion-in-a-paint-factory-esque thing is a perfect summary of the film itself anyway.

Thor Ragnarok is a strong contender for "worst MCU movie". I'd say it's even on the list of worst movies ever made. It claims to be the third instalment of the Thor series while disregarding everything about the previous films. 

I first watched it about a year after it was released. Back then I found it mildly entertaining but a real let-down. Recently I made the mistake of watching it again. It was one of the most horrifying experiences I've ever had. I had to immediately rewatch Thor (2011) to remember what these characters are supposed to be like.

To quote my TVTropes review, written in 2018:

The first scene has Thor in a cage for reasons never fully explained, talking to a skeleton. Huh? Then he starts snarking at Surtur, something that would be more in-character for Loki than Thor. Actually, the first time I watched it I thought that was Loki, in disguise as Thor. But no, it's Thor.

Then, in the space of minutes, Thor goes back to Asgard, reveals Loki has taken Odin's place, and sets off with Loki to find Odin, who dies just after they find him, and whose death is immediately followed by the appearance of Hela, whose existence in the MCU was never mentioned before this film. Talk about fast-moving.

There was one thing that I absolutely hated, though. Loki, as usual, tries to betray Thor, and Thor responds by... electrifying him. And then walks off, leaving Loki in pain with no way of stopping the pain. And this is never brought up again! Loki -- Loki, of all people -- seems to completely forgive Thor for it!

...As you can tell, I didn't exactly give it a ringing endorsement back in 2018. Now, in 2020, my opinion of it is even worse. The entire film is one unfunny joke after another. Loki even makes a joke about his attempted suicide. The Warriors Three are unceremoniously killed off and forgotten about. Characters do utterly uncharacteristic things. The film's "heroine" kidnaps people and sells them to be forced to fight to the death.

What sort of idiot could possibly make a film this bad? Turns out the director (who plays a major character in the film, something that IMO just screams "egotism" and reminds me of terrible self-insert fanfiction) also made a comedy about Hitler. Yes, really. (I watched a one-minute clip because I couldn't believe it was true. That clip did what the goriest deaths in Jaws and Jurassic Park have never done: it made me physically sick.) That tells you all you need to know about him. And the fact Marvel ever hired him and allowed this film to be made tells you all you need to know about them.

I had already lost interest in the new Marvel movies. Rewatching this mess was just the final nail in the coffin.

Is it available online?: I hope not.

Rating: 0/10

Review: Black Beauty (1994)

Some people seem to think that films with animal characters can't be anything but cutesy froth. These people really need to watch this film.

Black Beauty is a 1994 film based on the 1877 novel of the same name by Anna Sewell. It takes some liberties with the novel, notably by making the animals unable to speak while still leaving Black Beauty as the narrator.

Recognisable actors include:
Jim Carter (Captain Brown in Cranford) as John
Andrew Knott (Dickon in The Secret Garden 1993) as Joe
Sean Bean (Boromir in The Lord of the Rings) as Farmer Grey
David Thewlis (Remus Lupin in Harry Potter) as Jerry
Peter Davison (the Fifth Doctor in Doctor Who) as Squire Gordon
Alun Armstrong (Inspector Bucket in Bleak House) as Reuben
Eleanor Bron (Miss Minchin in A Little Princess 1995) as Lady Wexmire

You probably already know the film's plot. The titular horse is sold from owner to owner, often being mistreated but very rarely finding a kind owner. Eventually he reunites with his old friend Joe and lives happily ever after. 

No one would think a film about a horse would be utterly heart-breaking, but this one is. Ginger's fate and some of Black Beauty's owners are especially nightmarish 😨 And then there's Black Beauty and Joe's reunion, which always reduces me to a sobbing mess 😭 As both a film on its own and an adaptation of the novel I love it except for one thing. The narration.

For some reason the director decided the horses wouldn't talk like they do in the book. Maybe someone thought it would be silly to see horses "talking" -- though that didn't stop the makers of certain films with talking animals (*cough*Babe*cough*). Instead they had the genius idea of having Black Beauty narrate the film. That might have worked if the narration hadn't been comically overblown. Worse, it often describes what's happening onscreen, as if someone was afraid the viewers might not have been paying attention. The result is as painful as nails on a blackboard. Sometimes I solve this problem by turning the sound down when the narration gets especially unbearable. Other times I just fast-forward the most cringe-inducing parts.

On the bright side, at least the film generally stays close to the novel. That's more than I can say for some "adaptations" of Black Beauty.

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

Rating: 7/10

Review: Mike and Psmith

For a short novel this has an abundance of titles. I've never read a novel with three to six (depending on how you count them) different titles before, and it's so confusing that I hope I never will again.

The novel currently called Mike and Psmith was first published under the name Mike in 1909. It was in two parts that were given different titles: Jackson Junior and The Lost Lambs. Both parts were later given new titles: Mike at Wrykyn and Enter Psmith. The second half, which had already had two titles, was then renamed again and became Mike and Psmith. What a mess!

Whatever you want to call it, the novel introduced one of P. G. Wodehouse's famous characters: Rupert Psmith, the hero of four novels. (His surname was "Smith" before he decided to alter the spelling, and it's still pronounced that way.) Apparently Wodehouse thought this book was his best work. I have to disagree. It's good, yes, but not as good as his Jeeves and Wooster stories.

The plot is a fairly straight-forward school story. Mike has been sent against his will to a new school, where he meets and befriends Psmith, has disagreements with a teacher, nearly gets caught climbing a drainpipe (it's a long story), is falsely accused of painting a dog (ditto), and eventually plays cricket for the school.

I greatly enjoyed the novel except for one thing. Too much cricket! As someone who knows nothing about any sort of sport, I was hopelessly lost during the lengthy passages devoted to the cricket games. When Mike talks about the results of a game he might as well have been speaking ancient Greek for all I understood. Unfortunately about half of the book is dedicated to cricket. I skipped as much as I could.

Apart from that this is a thoroughly entertaining novel with much of Wodehouse's trademark humour. The fiasco of Mike's shoes is my favourite scene, with the confusion over who actually painted the dog as a close second 😆

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 9/10

Review: Lost Love in Times

Dramas where someone gets amnesia and falls in love with the same person twice. This one puts its own spin on an oft-used trope: instead of amnesia, a character creates an alternate universe and falls in love with the same person twice.

Lost Love in Times (醉玲珑, AKA Zuì Líng Lóng, AKA "Drunk Ling Long" or "Exquisite Drunkenness") is a 2017 Chinese series based on the novel of the same name by Shi Si Ye. It has a sequel which I haven't watched yet, mainly because I can't find it on YouTube.

I only recognised two actors:

Shi Shi Liu (Xin Yue in Sound of the Desert) as Qing Chen

Yi Jun Liu (Xie Yu in Nirvana in Fire) as Yuan An

The series is set in a fantasy version of ancient China where sorcerers protect the royal family of Great Wei. Within the first five episodes our heroes, Qing Chen and Yuan Ling, fall in love and get married... well, try to. Yuan Ling's half-brother Yuan Zhan decides the middle of the wedding is the perfect time to stage a coup. Chaos ensues. Qing Chen uses a spell to create an alternate universe, only to discover that nothing is how she remembers it, no one knows who she is, and Yuan Zhan has undergone a complete change of character. The remaining fifty-one episodes are about Qing Chen adjusting to life in the AU and falling in love with Yuan Ling again, while dealing with endless schemes from the people living in the palace.

My main problem with the series is the costumes. Especially the truly bizarre headdresses. A few examples:

Qing Chen and a headdress that defies description.

Tao Yao and Xi Xie wearing what I've nicknamed "triceratops hats". (You have to admit, those things do look slightly triceratops-ish.)

Yuan Zhan with a flying saucer on his head.

Not pictured: the equally strange headgear Yuan Ling and Yuan Che don on occasion. Or the garish outfits certain characters wear. Seriously, costume department, what were you thinking? On the bright side the scenery is incredible. I can only assume someone used up so much of the budget on it that they had virtually nothing left for the costumes.

Once I managed to look past the ugly costumes and not be distracted by the breath-taking scenery I found myself enjoying the series much more than I expected from my first impression. Qing Chen and Yuan Ling are adorable together 😍 They were my OTP from the start, and not even in the AU when Yuan Zhan is 1) a decent person and 2) in love with Qing Chen made me change my mind. And Yuan Che is adorable. I was very confused when he disappeared without explanation towards the end. Apparently he's the main character of the sequel, but I wish there was some mention of him in the last episodes. Even if just to confirm he's still alive 😒

Yuan Ling

Yuan Che

Of course, then there are the villains. I absolutely loathe Yuan An. He's Xie Yu all over again. Apparently this actor specialises in playing scumbags who attempt to murder their adopted children.

Yuan An

Yuan Ming is no better. I wish he had died much earlier, before he got poor Yuan Ji killed 😢

Yuan Ming and Yuan Ji

Overall I loved this series, apart from a few minor quibbles, and I wish I could find the sequel somewhere. I want to know what happened to Yuan Che!

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: Jennings Novels

 Nothing like some comedic novels to brighten your day! (Especially when there's nothing humorous to be seen in the real world...)

Cover of the first novel

Jennings is a series of twenty-four novels by Anthony Buckeridge, published between 1950 and 1994. Apparently the series (renamed "Stompa", for reasons that probably made sense to the translators) is very popular in Norway and has inspired several Norwegian films. The books were also adapted into two English series, both of which are now lost.

All of the stories have the same basic premise. Jennings and his friend Darbishire get into trouble of some sort, usually involving their short-tempered teacher Mr. Wilkins. Jennings thinks of a way to get out of trouble. Inevitably he gets further into it, or gets entangled in a whole new problem. At last he finds an unexpected solution. Rinse and repeat several times in each novel. Sometimes it's Jennings' friends who get into trouble instead, and there'll usually be at least one person who's completely misunderstood everything with hilarious results. (Case in point: the confusion about the doctor and the vet in The Jennings Report.)

I first discovered some of these books as a child. Last year a friend was kind enough to give me several more, and I had a great time reading them and roaring with laughter over them. It's impossible to choose my favourite book in the series. Anyone who thinks school stories are just for children are sadly missing out on some of the funniest books ever written.

If you want a series of fairly short and absolutely hilarious books, try this one!

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

Rating: 10/10.

(Not Really a) Review: First Impressions of Mulan (2020)

When will Disney learn to stop making unnecessary remakes?

Mulan is the latest in Disney's sorry saga of so-called remakes. It pretends to be based on the 1998 animated film of the same name. At the same time it also pretends to be more accurate to the original story of Mulan. It fails at both, and also at being a good remake of any sort.

I haven't watched the film, but I saw the trailer and read its TVTropes page. From what I've seen I have no intention of ever watching the film.

Some of the best things about the original Mulan were its music and its villain. The remake isn't a musical and it completely changed the villain. When I read the plot summary I was left wondering if this was actually meant to be a version of Mulan at all. Why didn't the director just change the names and make a completely new film?

Remakes in general are on very shaky ground. Stay too close to the original film and they might as well never have been made. Stray too far from it and they stop being the same story at all. And when the original film was so good that a remake can't possibly improve on it, why waste all that time and money?

Disney remakes are notoriously terrible. Maleficent, although a badly-flawed film, is somewhat pardonable because it at least offered a completely different take on the original Sleeping Beauty. Cinderella and The Lion King... the best I can say for them is that they're just mediocre. The remake of Beauty and the Beast was unbearably awful. So is Mulan. And judging by Disney's current obsession with endless remakes, they'll make many, many more unbearably awful films 😒

Review: Ivanhoe (novel)

As a historical novel this is one of the least accurate around. If nothing else it's proof that occasionally -- very, very occasionally -- a historically inaccurate novel can still be good. Very good.

Ivanhoe is an 1819 novel by Sir Walter Scott. It's one of the Waverley novels, which aren't a series in the modern sense but have similar themes and (sometimes) settings. It's one of his most popular novels, and has been adapted into multiple films, operas, and miniseries.

Despite what you'd think, the main character is not Wilfred of Ivanhoe. In fact he's injured for almost the entire novel, and only becomes important in the beginning and at the end. There are two "main" plots, which overlap to a degree but have separate main characters. One is loosely based on history and is about Richard the Lionheart returning to reclaim his throne from his vile brother John. The other is entirely fictional and is about Bois-Guilbert's obsession with Rebecca, and how he almost gets poor Rebecca killed.

It's amazing how much of the modern-day Robin Hood stories come from this novel. Sir Walter was the first author to place Robin Hood in the same time period as King Richard and Prince John, and the first person to associate him with Locksley. So in a way all the modern Robin Hood adaptations are indirect Ivanhoe adaptations. Of course, none of it's historically accurate. Neither is the feud between Saxons and Normans. Or Rebecca almost being burned as a witch. Or anything else, really.

This book is set in a completely fictional version of the Middle Ages. Yet it's such a great story that I can't bring myself to care. Would a historically accurate novel have such dramatic moments as the tournament, the attack on Front-de-Boeuf's castle, or Rebecca's "trial"? No, and it's hard to imagine any historically accurate events that would make a story half as compelling.

Honestly, the only thing I'd change if I could is Bois-Guilbert's death. That's one of the most disappointing anti-climaxes I've ever read.

Ivanhoe has a well-deserved spot on my list of favourite books. I've read it so many times that I know everything that's going to happen. But not even knowing can make it any less exciting.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: War and Peace (2016)

This is the third version of War and Peace I've tried. The others are the book itself and a sadly boring opera. This is the only one I've finished -- which says more about how short it is than about its quality.

War and Peace is a 2016 miniseries based on the novel of the same name. BBC period dramas are usually good. This is a notable exception.

I recognised several actors:

Lily James (Ella in Cinderella 2015) as Natasha

Tuppence Middleton (Amelia Haversham in Dickensian) as Helene

Stephen Rea (Inspector Bucket in Dickensian) as Vassily

Callum Turner (Theseus in The Crimes of Grindelwald) as Anatole

Kenneth Cranham (Wegg in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as a minor character whose name I can't remember

Gillian Anderson (Lady Dedlock in Bleak House 2005) as Anna

When I gave up on trying to get through the book I wondered why Tolstoy is considered a good author. This series made me wonder even more. From what I've seen he's only notable for writing very long, very boring novels in which nothing ever happens.

Like the book itself the series suffers from a complete inability to decide who the main characters are and what the plot is. One minute the story follows the start of Pierre's disastrous marriage to Helene, the next it's about Napoleon's invasion, and the next everyone's at a party. None of these subplots ever feel like they belong in the same book/series. It's like someone -- either Tolstoy or the director -- tried and failed to imitate Dickens by thinking up as many subplots as possible.

One of the worst things are the costumes. Very few of them bear even the slightest resemblance to what people would actually have worn in the early nineteenth century. That alone makes it clear the series-makers just didn't care. Just as bad is the nudity and incest. I find it very, very hard to believe Tolstoy wrote about either, so for once the blame is entirely on the director/scriptwriter/whoever thought of that.

It wouldn't be so bad if I cared about the characters. Just one sympathetic character would be enough to keep me interested. But all of them are either dull or disgusting, and it was a real struggle to get through the whole series. Honestly I wish I hadn't bothered. It wasn't worth the time or effort.

Is it available online?: Who cares?

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Love and Destiny

Usually it's easy to tell if something is a spin-off or a remake of a previous work. This is one of the few times when a series is technically both.

Love and Destiny (宸汐缘; Chén Xī Yuán) is a 2019 Chinese series. It's not actually based on an existing work, but it's somehow related to Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms. In essence it's the same story but with different characters and a slightly different plot.

I only recognised one actress:
Ni Ni (Feng Zhi Wei in The Rise of Phoenixes) as Ling Xi

Ling Xi, our heroine, stumbles upon a man frozen in ice and accidentally wakes him. Turns out he's Jiu Chen, the god of war, and he's been there for ten thousand years. Ling Xi starts working for him, and ends up falling in love with him. Obstacles in the path of their romance include secrets about Ling Xi's parents and Jiu Chen's crazy stalker.

Ling Xi

Jiu Chen

This is a very odd series. It's too different from Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms to be a remake and it's too similar to be a spin-off. Basically it's an AU fanfic of TMOPB, starring the author's OCs. (That sentence probably makes no sense at all unless you've read and/or written plenty of fanfiction.) Like far too many AU fanfics starring OCs, it's nowhere near as good as the original.

My first problem with it is how the story drags. Whole subplots and at least three characters could be removed and the story would still make sense. My second problem is that Jiu Chen and Ling Xi simply aren't believable as a romantic couple. Their interactions are much more like a teacher or an older relative dealing with someone who means well but has more enthusiasm than common sense. It doesn't help that Jiu Chen is obviously years older than Ling Xi. Connected to this is my third problem: very few of the characters are interesting. When I don't care about the characters or the romance, there's not much to make me keep watching a series.

Somewhat reluctantly I stuck with it to the end. The best I can say about it is that the costumes, sets, and OST are all beautiful. Everything else is decidedly underwhelming. Certainly it'll never take Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms' place as one of my favourite C-dramas.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Viki. It's also on YouTube, but last time I checked not all of the episodes had English subtitles.

Rating: 4/10.