Review: Pacific Rim Uprising

I watched this film immediately after Pacific Rim. In hindsight maybe I should have waited a while. I might have been able to enjoy it better if the first one wasn't so fresh in my mind.

Pacific Rim Uprising (sometimes punctuated as Pacific Rim: Uprising) is the 2018 sequel to Pacific Rim. It has a new director and new characters, two things that nine times out of ten mark a decrease in quality.

I only recognised one of the new actors:

John Boyega (Finn in Star Wars) as Jake

The film is set ten years after the first one. The Kaiju are gone, and the Jaegars are going to be replaced by drones. Unfortunately it turns out that (SPOILER!) Newt of all people has become a traitor and is working with the Precursors. Yes, you read that right. No, it doesn't make much more sense in the film. Cue Kaiju going on the rampage and Jaegars fighting them again.

It's a struggle to find anything good to say about this film. The special effects were impressive, but as for the plot...

Everything that made the first film good is sadly missing. No sign of Raleigh, Mako unceremoniously killed off, a collection of uninteresting new characters, far too many subplots, and a dearth of Kaiju-Jaegar battles. I watched the first film precisely because I wanted to see giant robots fighting giant monsters, and this film only has one battle in the whole thing! A fairly long battle, yes, but it's still not enough. As for Mako's aforementioned fate, few fictional deaths have been more pointless or more infuriating 😠

Sequels have a depressing tendency to be underwhelming. This is one of the most underwhelming ones I've ever seen.

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

Rating: 4/10

Review: Pacific Rim

 Forgot to post on Wednesday, and then I forgot to post yesterday too 😑 

Pacific Rim is a 2013 science fiction film directed by Guillermo del Toro. Although not actually based on an existing work, it's inspired by the plethora of monster movies and anime about giant robots. A sequel was released in 2018, and is currently at the top of my to-watch list.

I only recognised three actors. Weirdly enough, I recognised two from Charles Dickens adaptations -- not exactly the sort of association you'd expect.

Charlie Hunnam (Nicholas in Nicholas Nickleby 2002) as Raleigh

Burn Gorman (Guppy in Bleak House 2005) as Gottlieb

Idris Elba (Heimdall in Thor 2011) as Stacker

Kaiju (giant monsters, in case someone somewhere doesn't know what that means) are invading Earth. Humans build and pilot giant robots called Jaegers to destroy them. Unfortunately some idiots decide to stop building Jaegers, so when the monsters next attack it's up to our heroes and a few old Jaegers to defeat them.

I watched this film solely because I was bored and it looked cool. Giant robots fighting giant monsters are bound to be entertaining, if nothing else. It must be said the plot is predictable. (I guessed what was going to happen in the climax about half-way through.) I had no high expectations for the film. So imagine my surprise when it turned out to be good. Very good. It's like a Marvel film from back when the MCU was made of actual films instead of money-making monstrosities.

As long as you don't expect an original plot and don't mind occasionally cheesy dialogue, this film is thoroughly entertaining and has some great moments. The battles with the Kaiju are among my favourite film scenes ever!

Is it available online?: It probably is somewhere, but I don't know where.

Rating: 7/10

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: 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.

(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: 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.

Review: Journey to the Centre of the Earth (novel)

Jules Verne was a good author. Unfortunately his works have been subjected to many, many terrible translations.

Journey to the Centre of the Earth is an 1864 novel by Jules Verne. It's the third of his Extraordinary Voyages novels, and one of his best-known works. It's been adapted into at least four films and three miniseries. None of the adaptations stay close to the book.

The basic story is the same in both the original novel and the bad translations. Professor Lidenbrock and his nephew Axel find a mysterious message from a long-dead explorer claiming to have reached the centre of the earth. They immediately -- and reluctantly, in Axel's case -- go to Iceland, climb into a volcano, and set off for the earth's centre.

The translation I read made mincemeat of the novel, yet it still managed to be an interesting story. Unfortunately I can't read anything more complicated than basic French, and I don't know how to find a good translation. I suspect the translator responsible for what I read also couldn't read French. To start with, they changed the characters' names. Lidenbrock became Hardwigg and Axel became Harry. Apparently they also added scenes. I couldn't make heads or tails of Axel/Harry's bizarre dream(?) about a giant ape until I learnt it wasn't in the original novel.

I realised pretty quickly that I'd got one of the worst translations. When you read translated novels regularly you learn to spot the hallmarks of a subpar translator. If you're lucky you'll just get clunky prose. If you're unlucky, most of it's complete gibberish. But I persevered. As long as I reminded myself that the bad writing was the translator's fault and not Verne's, I could almost ignore it and focus on the plot.

Luckily the plot itself makes up for the translation. Sure, it's not at all plausible or scientifically accurate -- something the characters themselves comment on. But it's so interesting I had trouble putting it down.

If you find a good translation, this book is definitely worth reading. Unfortunately it's very difficult to tell which translations are good and which ones shouldn't be touched with a barge-pole. Even if you get one of the worse ones, you'll probably still enjoy the story -- though some scenes might leave you scratching your head.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg. (Apparently this version is one of the better translations.)

Rating: The version I read gets 2/10. The story itself gets 7/10.

(Not Really a) Review: The Three K-dramas I've Watched So Far

As you probably know by now, I've watched several Chinese dramas. Korean dramas, on the other hand, are a rabbit hole I haven't really fallen down yet. Here are my thoughts on the three dramas I have seen.

Goblin (also called Guardian: The Lonely and Great God) is one of the most famous K-dramas ever made. It's also the first one I watched from beginning to end. My thoughts: ...well, it's certainly good. At times it's heartwarming, at times it's depressing, and some parts of it made me roar with laughter.

There's just one problem. The far-too-large (and too obvious) age gap between the main couple. I simply can't ship an immortal man with a girl who's still in high school. Not only that, but their interactions feel far more friendly/familial than romantic. I would have enjoyed the series more if it had removed the romance and instead focused on the zany antics of the immortal goblin and the grim reaper who somewhat reluctantly become housemates.

Rating: 7/10.

Scholar Who Walks the Night is based on the manhwa of the same name (which I haven't read yet). If it stays close to the source, then the manhwa isn't very good. If it doesn't, then the adaptation isn't very good. Basically, it's about vampires. In Joseon. Fighting over who gets the throne. Insane though that premise is, it could have been turned into something quite good. Unfortunately most of the series is silly and/or boring.

Ironically the best part of it is the villain. I fast-forwarded each episode until I found Gwi's next scene. He's a manipulative, despicable monster, but he's much more interesting than the heroes. I was honestly disappointed when he died.

Rating: 4/10.

The King in Love (also called The King Loves) is based on the novel of the same name, which in turn is loosely based on historical events. Verdict: yet another series with a clumsily shoehorned-in love triangle. The historical and political part of the story is interesting. But at least twice in every episode the plot comes to a screeching halt while Won, San and Rin angst and sulk about their romantic woes.

By far the worst part is the ending. We never find out how Rin survived that fall. I'd just accepted he was dead when suddenly he reappears without a word of explanation. There went my suspension of disbelief 😒

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Silver Chair (novel)

Camp NaNoWriMo starts on Wednesday. Depending on how well it goes, I may not be able to keep to the posting schedule. So this might be the last review until it's over.

The Silver Chair is the sixth novel of the Narnia series, but when it was published in 1953 it was the fourth book. It was adapted by the BBC in 1990. A film version is reportedly being made. (Don't hold your breath waiting for it.)

Like most of the books, the plot starts when people from our world find themselves in Narnia. Unlike the others, the Pevensies are nowhere to be seen. Instead the main characters are Eustace Scrubb, whose experience on the Dawn Treader has made him a much nicer boy, and Jill Pole, who's never appeared in earlier books.

As usual years have passed in Narnia. Caspian is now an old man, Trumpkin is mostly deaf and even more crabby than before, and Caspian's nameless wife is long dead. His son Rilian has mysteriously disappeared. So Aslan calls Jill and Eustace, gives Jill four signs she mustn't forget, and sends them to find Rilian. Their trip takes them to never-before-seen parts of Narnia, accompanied by a member of a never-before-seen species: Puddleglum, a wonderfully, well, glum Marsh-wiggle.

The book isn't quite as good as the earlier installments. When I first read it I was disappointed the Pevensies were barely even mentioned. The Marsh-wiggles are sadly underused. They're mentioned only in this book (The Last Battle doesn't count), and Puddleglum is the only one who ever actually appears. C. S. Lewis had a habit of creating fascinating parts of Narnia's world and then never elaborating on them. (The same thing happened with the winged horses way back in The Magician's Nephew.)

But it has enough good points for it to be my third-favourite book. It gives a glimpse of how large the world of Narnia really is; something that's easy to forget when Narnia itself is usually the focus of the stories. And Puddleglum is one of my favourite characters in the whole series. His delightfully gloomy comments are always good for a laugh 😆

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

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Mary Poppins (novel)

I picked up this book expecting it would be like the Disney film. I was in for a surprise.

Mary Poppins is a 1934 novel by P. L. Travers, the first in a series of eight books. Aside from the most famous adaptation, it was also adapted into a Russian film and a radio drama. Not to mention a stage musical based on the Disney film.

The basic story is exactly what you'd expect. Mary Poppins becomes the nanny of Jane and Michael Banks, takes them on extraordinary adventures, and uses her umbrella to fly away at the end. But almost everything else is different.

First, Mary Poppins' personality is much harsher and colder than her film counterpart's. I can't picture this Mary Poppins ever singing "A Spoonful of Sugar" or "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". This was the most jarring difference. It took me a long time to warm up to this version of the character.

Next, the Banks have four children, not two. Bert exists, but he doesn't have the film version's character. (Thankfully he doesn't have the atrocious accent either.)

But by far the most unexpected are the adventures Mary Poppins takes the children on. They don't ride merry-go-round horses or get sucked up chimneys here. Instead they see a woman and her daughters climbing up ladders to turn sweet-wrappers into stars(!) and travel around the world with a compass. Though they do have a tea party on the ceiling.

I recognised some incidents and characters from the film. But by and large the film and the book are two different stories with different settings. Not quite what I expected, but still entertaining. You'll probably enjoy this book as long as you know beforehand that it's not much like the film.

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

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Charlotte's Web (novel)

For a while I wasn't sure if I'd be able to post this review today. Luckily I managed it! This was the first book that ever made me cry. So what better book to review during NaNoWriMo, when I definitely feel like crying?

Charlotte's Web is a 1952 children's novel by E. B. White. It's his best-known, most popular novel, and it's been adapted into two films and a stage musical. (Goodness knows how anyone adapted a book about talking animals onto a stage!)

Almost everyone knows the plot even if they haven't read the book. A pig named Wilbur befriends a spider named Charlotte, who writes words in her web to save his life. (Can you tell how much fun I have thinking up the shortest plot summaries imaginable? 😄) If you haven't read it the plot frankly sounds silly and childish. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every time I read it I find something new to laugh at or cry over. Every. Single. Time. Wilbur's attempt at talking logic with a sheep, the morbidly amusing scene when he discovers Charlotte's diet, and the family's struggles to get him into the crate always make me grin. And then there are the sad parts. A certain incident is the worst one, but the bittersweet final scene and Fern losing interest in visiting Wilbur also make me tear up 😢

Speaking of that scene... Whyyyyyyyyyyyy? 😭😭 As a small child I sobbed for hours after Charlotte died. It still makes me cry like a baby, though not for quite as long 😭

Charlotte's Web is one of the rare children's books that can be enjoyed by adults as much as by children. And reading it as an adult doesn't make it any less heart-breaking 😢

Is it available online?: No, not as far as I know.

Rating: 10/10.

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.

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: 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: The Hobbit (novel)

The Lord of the Rings books are better than the films. Is the book of The Hobbit better than the films? Unquestionably yes, in some respects. But in others, not so much.

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is the prequel to The Lord of the Rings, and the first published part of Tolkien's Legendarium. It was first published in 1937. It's been adapted into several audiobooks, at least one stage version, an opera, a comic book, a cartoon, and a trilogy of films.

Unlike LOTR, The Hobbit is clearly a children's book. In some ways it reminds me more of Grimm's fairy tales than part of Tolkien's Legendarium. We're introduced to Bilbo Baggins, the title character, who reluctantly agrees to help a group of Dwarves reclaim their home and gold from Smaug the dragon. Along the way they have many adventures, both hair-raising and humourous (and sometimes both at once; the trolls would be terrifying if they weren't so stupid!).

From the very first page Bilbo was my favourite character. His exasperation with his uninvited guests, his reaction to all the perils he faces on the journey, his gradual character development from being an easily-frightened tagalong to facing Smaug twice and escaping unharmed... In some ways I actually like Bilbo better than Frodo.

Smaug, even though he's a monster who gets his richly deserved comeuppance shortly after his first appearance, is my second favourite character. Maybe it's because I just like dragons. Or maybe it's because of how he has an actual personality instead of being just a plot device.

There's no shortage of creepy characters and incidents in this book, but Gollum takes the cake. My heart was in my mouth the whole time I read his riddling contest with Bilbo 😨 And knowing what the Ring is makes it terrifying even when it isn't doing anything except turning Bilbo invisible.

As I mentioned earlier, the films improve on the book in some ways. Gandalf's random disappearances in the book serve no real purpose except to get him out of the way when his powers would solve a problem quickly. We're told at the end he was fighting a Necromancer, but this is basically an afterthought to explain where he was. I prefer the films' version, where we get to see him and the White Council fight Sauron. Also, Bilbo is unconscious for most of the Battle of Five Armies in the book. He hears what happened second-hand, which doesn't make for a very exciting conclusion. The films actually show the battle, and the events leading to Thorin's, Fíli's and Kíli's deaths.

Speaking of Thorin's death, I cried so hard I couldn't see the page 😭 Fíli's and Kíli's deaths don't have quite as much impact, because we don't get to know them well in the book.

The Hobbit suffers slightly from being much shorter than LOTR and not having nearly as much character development or world-building in it. The reader doesn't grasp how vast and amazing Middle-Earth is in this book. But I love it almost as much as LOTR even with those flaws 😄

Is it available online?: I doubt it.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

I was excited when I first heard about this film, but then I almost forgot it existed until I saw the DVD in a shop last year. When I finally did watch it I found it didn't live up to my expectations. Even after watching it several times I'm not sure what I think of it.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is something of a prequel to the Harry Potter series. Unlike Harry Potter, it isn't based on a specific book, but it's set in the same universe about sixty years before the main series begins.

This is mostly a (not very coherent) list of things I liked, didn't like, or just noticed. Warning: Spoilers ahead!

I recognised only two actors:
Eddie Redmayne (Marius in Les Misérables 2012) as Newt
Johnny Depp (Jack in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Grindelwald

The opening scene is frightening for how unexpected it is. One second a group of wizards are outside an evil-looking castle(?), the next a fireball kills them. The first time I watched the film I thought one of the titular fantastic beasts was responsible, and I didn't know why some random guy with spiky hair was lurking around. On subsequent viewings that scene still freaks me out. Though Grindelwald's hairstyle is so weird it detracts from the seriousness of what just happened 😖

I like the newspapers. It's fun to try to read them as they appear and disappear!

No matter how many times I watch this film I always grin like an idiot when Newt first appears 😃 LOL at the suitcase snapping open on the boat. I have to wonder how many times that happened on the journey over. The idea of Newt chasing his creatures around the ship is hilarious 😆

Newt... and his suitcase. (If he only knew the trouble that thing's about to cause!)

Newt in general is hilarious, actually. His answers to the customs officer's questions are so awkward it's a miracle he wasn't arrested on the spot 😆

The Obscurus's first appearance is scary because of how little we see of it/him 😨 The film's abrupt switch from "Graves" watching it to Newt sight-seeing is unfortunately jarring. That's one of the problems with this film: Newt's story and the Obscurial sub-plot don't always go well together. One plot is comical, the other definitely isn't. And then there's Mary Lou, who's so over-the-top it's often impossible to take her seriously.

The Niffler is the cutest thief ever to burgle its way on-screen 😆 I laughed so hard when Newt and Jacob got mistaken for bank robbers because of it! In fact, most the animals are utterly adorable. The newly-hatched Occamy makes me go "Aww!" every time I see it.

The Niffler

Really, how could Newt possibly expect Jacob would just stand there after he said he'd seen too much? *facepalm* Newt's one of the most awkward and socially inept characters I've ever seen. Which is probably why I like him so much 😄

I really don't like the film's decision to use "No-Maj" instead of "Muggle". It sounds incredibly silly 😒 Okay, so they try to explain it as the American word for Muggle, but why bother to fix what isn't broken? On the bright side, I like the interiors of MACUSA. They're suitably magical and impressive.

The chaos the creatures cause when they get loose is my favourite part of the film. I'm never sure who I feel more sorry for: Newt, who's technically responsible for the accident, or Tina, Queenie and Jacob, who get dragged into it by being nearby.

Tina

"Graves" is easily the most sinister character in the film. His manipulation of poor Credence gives me chills 😨 Knowing who he really is makes his scenes even worse.

Even in the rest of the film was rubbish, it would be worth watching for the creatures alone! Especially the Thunderbird. I shriek with excitement every time he appears.

Newt and Frank the Thunderbird

The Niffler continues to make Newt and Jacob look like robbers. Newt chasing it around the jewellery shop is one of the funniest scenes in the film. I laughed especially hard at Jacob's reactions as he watches this.

Every time the Obscurus appears the film suddenly stops being a comedy about escaped animals and gains elements of horror. As already mentioned the result is... uneven. One minute Jacob and Newt have just caught two of the escapees and unknowingly been caught themselves by Tina. The next, the Obscurus attacks a meeting and kills someone. After that the story takes a dark turn and doesn't go back to the relatively light tone of the first half. The darkest scene is where Tina is nearly lowered into something (acid?) that can burn through metal 😱

In the middle of the "rampaging Obscurus" sub-plot the film suddenly remembers about the search for the final missing creature. This is a cool scene, especially Tina jumping over the Occamy, but it feels out of place here.

Only in the film's climax do we get a good look at what the Obscurus actually looks like. Yikes! It's like something straight out of a horror film. The way it clings to the railway station wall and how it forms itself into shapes that look eerily like skeletons make it nightmarish to look at, and knowing it's slowly killing Credence makes it terrifying to think about.

The Obscurus

Credence's apparent death always makes me cry 😢 Though it's very nearly overshadowed by what happens shortly after. Why in the name of all that's holy was Gellert Grindelwald masquerading as Graves? What was he hoping to achieve? How did no one notice? That plot twist makes no darn sense 😑 His outlandish appearance (that hairstyle should be destroyed with fire!) and nonsensical remarks make this even worse.

At least the rebuilding of New York is cool to watch, and Frank makes it even cooler 😄 I wish we got to see more of him.

I'm honestly not that interested in Jacob and Queenie's romance (I want to see magical creatures, not yet another romance plot in a fantasy film! 😒), but the scene where they say goodbye is pretty sad 😢 Newt and Tina's romance also strikes me as unnecessary (why do people insist on shoehorning romance into stories that don't need it?), but their goodbye is so cute! 😍 And I love how Newt gives Jacob the money to finally open his bakery!

This film has two good ideas that belong to completely different genres: a suitcase full of magical creatures waiting to escape, and a monstrous parasite destroying its host. Put together, those ideas clash with each other until the film can't decide what it's trying to be. If it had focused on one story only, or if it had managed the shift in story-lines and tones better, this would have been a great film. As it is, it's good, but not the best film in the Harry Potter universe.

Is it available online?: I doubt it.

Rating: 6/10. (Newt and his creatures get 9/10; the rest of the film brings the rating down.)

Review: Prince Caspian (novel)

Of the Chronicles of Narnia books, this is probably the only one I don't feel very strongly about, one way or the other.

I admit, I chose this cover only because it has Reepicheep on it 😊

Prince Caspian is both the fourth and the second installment of the Narnia series. It was published second, but it's chronologically fourth. It was first published in 1951. It's been adapted into a miniseries, a film, and a stage adaptation.

A year has passed since their first trip to Narnia when the Pevensies are called back to it. They find far longer has passed in Narnia. Several hundred years, in fact. Narnia is now ruled by the Telmarines. King Miraz tries to have his nephew Prince Caspian killed, but Caspian escapes and -- with the help of a group of Narnians and the Pevensies -- fights to overthrow his uncle.

The main problem with the book is that the circumstances leading up to Caspian's escape are narrated by Trumpkin after they happened. The Pevensies are left sitting in Cair Paravel while we get an extended flashback to why they're in Narnia, which confused me endlessly when I was trying to figure out what was happening when. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered trying to work out a timeline when Narnia's time is nothing like ours. It only leads to headaches.

I cheered when Lucy and Susan meet Aslan, but what happened afterwards left me scratching my head. What on earth was the point of characters from Greek Mythology suddenly appearing in Narnia? And why are they having a party when there's a literal battle raging a short distance away? 😕

Miraz's death is a real anti-climax. I expected him to die in battle with Peter. Instead he's betrayed and murdered by his own lords. But at least the walking trees coming to the rescue was awesome!

By far my favourite thing about this book is Reepicheep. In the words of film!Lucy (and at the risk of offending him), "Oh my gosh, he's so cute!" 😄 I don't even like mice, but Reepicheep is absolutely adorable. He's also the source of most of the book's humour, like when Dr. Cornelius wondered if he was a grasshopper 😆

The book has its flaws, but I enjoy it anyway. And it's certainly better than its film adaptation, which is... disappointing.

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

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Charmed Life

I was expecting this book to be something like Howl's Moving Castle. In some ways it is. And in some ways it isn't.

Charmed Life is a 1977 book by Diana Wynne Jones, the first in the Chrestomanci series. As far as I can tell, it's never been adapted to film. Which is a pity, because if it was adapted well it would make a good film.

The main character is Eric "Cat" Chant, an orphaned boy who, with his sister Gwendolen, goes to stay with the mysterious Chrestomanci, a powerful wizard. Gwendolen is an aspiring witch and wants Chrestomanci to teach her. Cat doesn't think he has any magical powers at all. Then Gwendolen disappears, and is replaced with a lookalike named Janet. Cat and Janet try to keep Chrestomanci from learning about this.

When the book starts it's a comical but occasionally morbid story about witches, magic, and doubles from other worlds. But as it progresses, it becomes darker and darker. The discovery that Gwendolen stole Cat's lives to gain more power is the most disturbing thing in it 😨 The climax, when she returns with a group of her "friends", is almost as frightening. But at the same time, there are some comical moments. The animated window-people in the church had me in stitches 😄

I haven't read any of the sequels yet, but I enjoyed this book so much that I hope to read the whole series.

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

Rating: 9/10.

Review: How to Train Your Dragon (novel)

The film of HTTYD is one of my favourite films ever. The book, on the other hand, is decidedly underwhelming.

How to Train Your Dragon, written by Cressida Cowell, was published in 2003, the first in a series of twelve books (though apparently there was a prequel that had some of the same characters, but no dragons). It's the inspiration for the much better-known and generally just better 2010 animated film and the franchise that spawned.

Our hero is Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, a young Viking who has to train a dragon as for a coming-of-age ceremony. Yes, here he has to train a dragon, instead of kill one. The dragon he ends up with is Toothless, who isn't a Night Fury, isn't big enough to ride, and isn't very likeable. And Hiccup and Toothless end up killing a gigantic dragon that threatens the village, but it bears little resemblance to the climactic battle of the film.

This is one of the rare cases where an adaptation is an improvement on the source material. I spent most of the book thoroughly bored and unable to like any of the characters. The film, on the other hand, is never boring and keeps me cheering on Hiccup and Toothless from beginning to end.

Maybe the problem is that the book is clearly written for young children, and I was a teenager when I first read it. The film isn't really a children's film, despite what certain people believe of all animated films. Yes, it's mostly aimed at children, but anyone can enjoy it no matter how old they are. That trait is conspicuously absent from the book.

Or maybe I didn't enjoy the book because I watched the film first, and expected the book to be much the same. Anyone who expects that will be bitterly disappointed.

If you don't expect too much and try to overlook the book's failings, you'll probably enjoy it more than I did. But if you want to see Hiccup and Toothless's story play out like in the film, you'll definitely not like this book.

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

Rating: 3/10.