Review: The King's Woman

Once upon a time I was naïve enough to think Goodbye My Princess was unusual among C-dramas for being a tragedy. I've learnt better now. Turns out about half of all historical C-dramas are tragedies or have extremely bittersweet endings -- and that might be understating it a bit.

The King's Woman (秦时丽人明月心 or Qín Shí Lí Rén Míng Yuè Xīn in Chinese) is a 2017 series very loosely based on the novel The Legend of Qin: Li Ji Story by Shi Ren Wen. It's even more loosely based on historical events.

I only recognised the two main actors, both from Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms:

Dilraba Dilmurat (Bai Feng Jiu in TMOPB) as Gongsun Li

Vin Zhang (Li Jing in TMOPB) as Ying Zheng

Years ago Gongsun Li rescued Ying Zheng. When they meet again years later, Ying Zheng is King of Qin (and incidentally future first emperor of China), and he's determined to make Gongsun Li marry him. She's in love with Jing Ke, but she reluctantly agrees to marry Ying Zheng to save Jing Ke's life. Cue much misery for Gongsun Li and Jing Ke plotting to assassinate Ying Zheng.

Gongsun Li

Ying Zheng. Ugh.

From the beginning I knew this series wouldn't end well. There were times when I felt like giving up and not bothering to finish it. I never expected to hate any Cdrama lead as much as I hate Cheng Yin from Goodbye My Princess... until Ying Zheng came along. As despicable as Cheng Yin was, at least he never murdered children.

And there's one other major difference between Ying Zheng and Cheng Yin: the latter's behaviour is portrayed as reprehensible and his relationship with Xiao Feng is never treated as a romance. The relationship between Gongsun Li and Ying Zheng on the other hand is portrayed as true love. Maybe some people can accept a romance that starts with the man forcing the woman to marry him and threatening to murder her unborn child, but I most certainly can't.

I finished watching the series mainly out of curiosity to see just how badly it would end. When it was over I almost regretted spending so much time on it. Yes, the series has its good moments, but as already stated the romance is fatally flawed from the start. And as for the ending, Gongsun Li's death is pointless tragedy. After everything she's already suffered I wanted her to escape and live happily ever after, far away from Ying Zheng. Instead she dies just to make Ying Zheng more miserable. I'm all for making Ying Zheng miserable, but not at the cost of Gongsun Li's life 😒

As you might have guessed I kept comparing it to Goodbye My Princess. When it comes to Cdramas about a deeply dysfunctional royal marriage, I prefer GMP to The King's Woman. This series can't decide if it's condemning Ying Zheng's actions or portraying him as the hero.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube and Viki. Both have English subtitles of varying quality.

Rating: 5/10.

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

(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: Kingdom Season 2

I finished this series last week. If I tried to review it then the post would have been nothing but incoherent screaming. So I left it until now, when there's a chance of more coherency and less screaming.

The opening credits and title card are exactly the same as the first season's. Quite disappointing. I thought there might be a few changes at least.

Far, far too many series experience a dramatic decrease in quality in their second season. I braced myself for that to happen in this case. The most I hoped for was something of similar quality to Return to Cranford: just average, somewhat disappointing, but not atrocious.

Turns out I was wrong. It's every bit as good as the first season. In some ways it might even be better.

The first episode picks up where the last one left off: with Lee Chang, Mu Yeong and Yeong Shin facing a horde of zombies in one place, while Seo Bi and Beom Pal are trapped by more zombies somewhere else. From then on the plot follows their attempts to end the plague and confront the people whose actions created the zombies.

Each episode found new and exciting ways to terrify or nauseate me. I thought nothing could be more reprehensible than Yeong Shin tricking dozens of people into cannibalism, until Queen Consort Cho came along and proved me wrong. I also thought nothing could be more gruesome than the zombie attacks in the first season. That tongue-eating scene proved me wrong. Just thinking about it still makes me shudder 😰

Never has any series given me as many near-heart-attacks as the last episode does 😱 I spent most of the second half torn between wanting to watch it and wanting to hide behind the sofa. The epilogue is the most chilling part of all. Once again it ends on a cliffhanger. Unfortunately there's no third season yet. So we're left to wonder if another king is going to become a zombie, and why in the world anyone would deliberately unleash the plague.

I think the best way to describe my feelings about this series is by saying I desperately want season three and I'll be furious if we don't get it. Sure, Kingdom scares the hell out of me, but I still want more!

Is it available online?: On Netflix, probably.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: Mozart L'Opera Rock (2010)

What is it about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart that makes people think, "His life needs to be turned into an embarrassingly bad musical"? First Mozart! das Musical, now this... thing.

Mozart L'Opera Rock (French for Mozart the Rock Opera) is a 2009 musical very loosely based on the life of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. While Mozart! das Musical focused on his clashes with Colloredo, this one focuses instead on his life in general and his (fictional) rivalry with Antonio Salieri.

I didn't recognise any of the cast, so let's move on to what I thought while I was watching the show.

The opening scene looks like something out of a horror movie. Red costumes, red lights, red background, incredibly ominous Latin(?) chanting... is this musical inspired by Mozart or Dante's Inferno?

Some of the extras' costumes look relatively accurate. (From a distance. In poor lighting. As long as you don't look too hard.) All the other costumes give Mozart! das Musical a run for its money. Seriously? Eighteenth-century clothes and hairstyles could be incredibly beautiful and elaborate. (Of course they could also be incredibly tacky; there have been fashion victims in every era.) Historically accurate costumes would not only be more logical; from an aesthetic standpoint I'd vastly prefer them to those modern eyesores.

For that matter, the real Mozart's life was dramatic enough without adding completely fictional rivalries. The real Colloredo did nothing to deserve his portrayal in MdM. The real Salieri did even less to deserve his portrayal here.

The way the camera zooms around in front of the stage is better suited to filming a concert than a musical. It's very distracting. Speaking of the filming, why the sudden cuts to the, er, musicians playing off-stage? (I hesitate to call them an orchestra; they appear to be a few drums, an electric guitar, and not much else. Less an orchestra, more a rock band who somehow ended up playing at the same time as a musical.)

Leopold Mozart sounds like he has a sore throat. The whole time he was "singing" my only thought was, "Someone give that man a throat lozenge!"

Just because it's a musical doesn't mean there has to be a song in every other scene. That tavern song is one of the most pointless musical numbers I've ever seen.

One minute the story is an underwhelming pseudo-historical "biography", the next it takes a bizarre detour into science fiction. I rolled my eyes so hard it's a miracle they didn't fall out. "Bim bam bim boum" is unexpectedly terrifying. Aloysia's alternatively blank and deranged expressions, the demented ballet sequence, the (lack of) lighting... I have to wonder if it was originally written for some sci-fi/horror musical.

The brief excerpts of historically-accurate music and opera only make the rest of the show much more jarring. It should be either entirely modern or entirely historical, not some Frankenstein-esque combination!

Some of the costumes are so crazy there's only one proper response: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This snail hat and pink hair, for instance.

Is it a snail's shell? Is it an ice cream cone? No, it's something dreamed up by a misguided milliner.

Even by musical standards the relationship between Constanze and Wolfgang is absurdly abrupt. She sees him once, when he's infatuated with her sister and barely even notices her, and immediately falls in love with him 🙄

The choreography is a mess. Half the time it's nothing but the actors and actresses wandering around the stage and waving their arms.

What the hell is that clown doing dancing around the stage? Did the director think he was adapting It? On the same note, why is Anna Maria Mozart's death witnessed by people in plague doctor and Venice carnival masks? Make it make sense, someone. Please.

Act 1 ends with another crazy ballet sequence. Will things be any saner in act 2? Hell no. The clown reappears within minutes. It's all downhill from there.

The only historically accurate part of the entire musical is the Webers running a boarding house. Honestly I'm amazed they bothered. The rest of the show bears as much resemblance to history as a dilapidated cottage does to Buckingham Palace.

Leopold Mozart's funeral would be sad if it wasn't for the dancers with horned headdresses(?) leaping around behind Nannerl. Similarly, the mysterious man who tells Wolfgang to write a requiem would be much more sinister without that ridiculous mask and weird voice.

The part where the actors run through the audience in "Victime de ma victoire" is so chaotic and poorly-lit it's impossible to actually see them. And Wolfgang's death is a chaotic mess of flashing lights and people running around.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually prefer Mozart! das Musical to this show. Partly it's because of the languages. I know I'm in the minority, but to me French looks and sounds incredibly ugly. On the other hand German looks intimidating yet sounds much more pleasant. And on a more practical note, I know more German than French. But to get back to the musicals, the other reason I prefer MDM is the music itself. That version actually sounds like a musical. This one sounds like a rock concert with a threadbare plot strung between the songs.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles, in case you feel like being hopelessly confused for two hours.

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Kingdom (2019) Season 1

Lately I'm watching and reading an unusual amount of horror. Some so-called horror films and books aren't scary at all. Others are. This is one of the ones that are.

Kingdom (킹덤 or Kingdeom in Korean) is a 2019 period drama/horror K-drama based on the webcomic The Kingdom of the Gods. I haven't read the webcomic so I don't know how accurate an adaptation it is.

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

No one is allowed to see the king. The queen claims he has smallpox. Crown Prince Lee Chang suspects something more sinister is happening. He goes to find a physician who may be able to tell him what's really wrong. Unfortunately he arrives just in time to be caught up in the zombie apocalypse -- and his father has already become a zombie.

This is the shortest Asian drama I've ever seen. It has only six episodes, each one less than an hour long. Yet so much happens in it that it feels much longer. And unlike some series the characters' bad decisions actually make sense. Far too often I see characters in horror stories doing the worst possible thing for the stupidest reasons. Here, Beom-pal thought removing the corpses was the best thing to do for obvious reasons. In any other story he'd have been right. It's just a pity he didn't know he was dealing with zombies. Same goes for most of the other characters. (Except that imbecile who brought a zombie onto the boat. That's near the top of the "worst decisions ever made in horror stories" list 😒)

Only two things irk me about it. One, the plague is caused by a plant. As I've said before, I prefer horror stories that don't explain where the monsters come from and don't have mundane explanations when supernatural ones would do. Two, the first season ends with a cliffhanger. Our heroes are facing a horde of zombies, their plan has failed, they're in mortal danger... and that's where the last episode ends. It was frustrating enough for me, and I started the first episode of season two almost immediately after finishing it. I can only imagine how awful that must have been for people who watched it before the second season aired.

Overall, though, this is one of the best -- and most terrifying -- horror series I've ever seen.

Is it available online?: I'm pretty sure it's on Netflix.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: The Longest Day in Chang'an

Every so often you come across a good series that's just too long. I suppose I should have expected it, considering the title. But seriously, forty-eight episodes (mostly) covering a single day?!

The Longest Day in Chang'an is a 2019 Chinese drama based on the novel of the same name by Bo Yong Ma. Unlike most Chinese period dramas, the setting is apparently very historically accurate. (The plot, on the other hand, is fiction. Though many of the characters were real people.)

I only recognised one actor, and he's one of the last people I expected to see in a Chinese drama:

Djimon Hounsou (Korath in Guardians of the Galaxy) as Ge Lao

On the surface the plot seems simple enough. A group of terrorists sneak into Chang'an, capital of the Tang dynasty, a day before the Lantern Festival. Their goal is to blow up the Lantern Tower and kill the emperor -- and hundreds of other people. Li Bi, head of the Peacekeeper Corps, recruits Zhang Xiao Jing, a condemned criminal, to help him find the terrorists.

Li Bi

Zhang Xiao Jing

Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that. A story that could have been told in about thirty episodes is stretched out to fill forty-eight. Unfortunately the result is that it frequently drags. I had to keep reminding myself that most of the events were happening in a single day. It felt more like the series covered at least a week. Until approximately the last ten episodes there was very little sense of urgency because everything was happening so darn slowly.

What's even worse is the placement of the flashbacks. They interrupt the story right when events are starting to speed up. Picture this: Long Bo and his cronies have placed explosives in the Lantern Tower. Li Bi is held hostage there. Zhang Xiao Jing is still trying to find the terrorists. Then the next episode leaves them hanging (literally, in Li Bi's case) and is almost entirely a flashback. My response was incoherent rage. Seriously?! They end an episode with a cliffhanger and then don't resolve it in the next episode? 😠

The series is unexpectedly dark and gory, especially for a C-drama. When I started it I never thought it would include nightmarish things like Tan Qi being buried alive or Yu Chang cutting off her own arm 😱

Overall it's a fairly good series. All the actors do an excellent job, and the cinematography is incredible. I enjoyed it a lot. I just would have enjoyed it more if it was shorter, and if they'd handled the flashbacks better.

Is it available online?: The first three episodes are on YouTube. The whole series is on Viki, and apparently also on Amazon Prime. (Currently only the first six episodes are available to the general public on Viki. You need to be a paying member to watch the rest of it.)

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Magnificent Century Season 1

It took me ages to make any progress with this drama. At last, after many breaks when I just couldn't be bothered watching it, I've decided to drop it. Here are my thoughts on what I did watch, and why I lost interest.

The Magnificent Century/Muhteşem Yüzyıl is a Turkish series that aired from 2011 to 2014. It was followed by a sequel, The Magnificent Century: Kösem, in 2015.

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

The series revolves around Alexandra/Hürrem, starting when she's kidnapped and forced to become one of the Sultan's concubines. She eventually becomes Suleiman's legal wife, in spite of the other concubines plotting against her.

As I said in my first impressions of the series, the main problem with the story is how it pretends a deeply dysfunctional relationship is a grand romance. (I have no idea what happened historically; this is entirely the series' highly fictionalised version of events.) Alexandra loses her parents, her fiancé, her home, her language, her religion, and even her name when she's brought to the palace, but she's only upset about any of this for about half an episode. Then she falls in "love" with Suleiman and starts plotting to gain his favour like all the rest of the concubines.

In any other series that would be the grim, depressing tragedy of a woman who has everything taken from her and has no choice but to adapt to her new "home" to survive. This series pretends everything's just fine and dandy and look, Suleiman really loves Hürrem even though she's just one of God-knows-how-many concubines! Not to mention that part where he slept with Hürrem's former friend while Hürrem was giving birth to his child. There's no way to view that as a romance. It's more disturbing than some true crime documentaries I've seen.

The series doesn't even have the benefit of being interesting. It's incredibly repetitive. Every episode was another rehash of the "Mahidevran plots again Hürrem" story. Nor could I sympathise with any of the characters. They're all doing their best to destroy their own and everyone else's lives, and after the first two episodes all of them blurred together.

So, after eight painful and infuriating episodes, I've given up this series and have no intention of ever returning to it.

Is it available online?: It's on YouTube. I can't be bothered giving a link.

Rating: 1/10.

Review: The Terror (2018)

I watched this series last year and meant to review it after finishing it. Of course, being the scatterbrain I am, I promptly forgot all about it until now. I known I've forgotten a lot about the series, but I remember enough to give my general thoughts on it.

The Terror is a 2018 period drama/horror miniseries, based on the 2007 novel of the same name, which in turn is loosely based on Franklin's lost expedition. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how closely it sticks to it. A second season aired in 2019; it was unrelated to the novel and set in an entirely different place and era.

I only recognised a few actors:
Jared Harris (King George VI in The Crown) as Crozier
Tobias Menzies (Prince Philip in The Crown season three) as Fitzjames
Ciarán Hinds (Edward Rochester in Jane Eyre 1997) as Franklin
Alistair Petrie (Major Gordon in Cranford) as the doctor
John Lynch (Nemo in Bleak House 2005) as Bridgens

The series starts with the expedition's two ships, Terror and Erebus, getting stuck in ice. Things quickly go from bad to worse when a monstrous bear starts hunting the crew -- and an equally monstrous member of the expedition starts killing those lucky enough to escape the bear.

I have to admit, it was a chore to stay interested in the series. The very first scene makes it clear almost everyone's going to die. That removed all suspense at once, and all that remained was to see how they died. It also meant I didn't care for any of the characters. What's the point of getting attached to people who you know will die horribly? (And very few of them are likeable anyway.)

After reading the plot summary I expected the Tuunbaq would be the main villain. Well, it's certainly one of them, but Hickey is arguably even worse. Not to mention the Tuunbaq has surprisingly little screentime. And its death is a real anticlimax. The rest of the series built it up as some supernatural monster that can eat souls, then it... eats Hickey and chokes to death. Or maybe he poisoned it; he was certainly vile enough. Either way, that left me wondering just what it was supposed to be. A real animal? A spirit? Some weird combination of the two?

The series has its good moments. (Since it's a horror series, "good" means everything from "suspenseful" to "terrifying".) The Tuunbaq's attacks stand out. I would probably have been more interested if it hadn't revealed the characters' fates in the first five minutes. As it is, it's not one of my favourites, and I'm not likely to watch it again.

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

Rating: 5/10.

(Not Really a) Review: First Impressions of The Magnificent Century

After several years of thinking "I want to watch this" and promptly forgetting all about it, I've finally managed to start this series.

The Magnificent Century is a Turkish historical fiction series based on the life of Hürrem, wife of Suleiman the Magnificent. This is the first time I've ever watched a Turkish drama. The first thing that struck me was how long the episodes are. Episode one alone is over one hour and forty minutes. I've seen films that aren't that long. Somehow I suspect it will take me ages to finish the series.

To be honest, I've never given much thought to Turkish history. What I knew about it before this series could be boiled down to three things: the Turks fought Dracula (the historical figure, not the fictional vampire named after him); whoever got the throne murdered all his brothers; and Turkey has a habit of committing genocide and lying about it. Even if the series isn't historically accurate, it still taught me about the sultanate of women and the existence of people I'd never heard of before.

Even if the story is sometimes predictable, the series is worth watching for the costumes alone. (Fun fact: I only learnt it existed by seeing pictures of the costumes on Pinterest and Tumblr.)

I've only watched the first episode, and I can already tell what my biggest problem will be with the story. Alexandra, later renamed Hürrem, was kidnapped from her home, taken to a foreign country, and made one of Suleiman's concubines against her will. It looks ominously like the series is going to portray their relationship as some grand romance. No, no, no. Setting aside whatever happened in real life, the series' version of events is disturbingly reminiscent of Stockholm syndrome.

So far I'm ambivalent towards this series. It's not utterly atrocious, but I doubt it will ever be one of my favourites. I'll write a longer review when (if) I finish it.

Review: The Historian (novel)

After reading a few other reviews I expected this novel would be good. Unfortunately I was disappointed.

The Historian is a 2005 novel by Elizabeth Kostova. It's a mixture of so many genres that it's impossible to list them all. Most importantly it's one of the many works that combine the fictional Count Dracula created by Bram Stoker with the historical figure Vlad the Impaler.

Within a few chapters the main problem with the book becomes all too clear. There are three different narrators. All of them use the first person. None have distinct characters or voices. It took me ages to figure out who was speaking when. Very confusing!

Related to that is the complete lack of any memorable characters. Everyone is just a puppet acting out what the author tells them to, with no individuality or even personality. Not even the first person narration makes them seem real; they all have the exact same outlook and style of writing.

But by far the worst offence is the portrayal of Dracula. People have conflated Count Dracula with his historical namesake for decades -- with very mixed results. This is definitely one of the less successful examples. The book completely fails to make him a convincing threat as either a vampire or a human. He made so little impression on me that I can't even remember what his goal was. And as for his apparent death, it's one of the biggest anti-climaxes I've ever read. If all it took to "kill" him was to distract him while someone shoots him, why wasn't he killed years ago?

From beginning to end this book is confusing, meandering, and boring. A thorough disappointment.

Is it available online?: I don't care enough to check.

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Goodbye My Princess

What an awful week this has been. It was so bad I nearly decided not to bother writing a review today. But I recently finished this series, so I might as well review it now.

This is the first C-drama I've watched that's a tragedy. Most other series have at least a bittersweet ending. This one's ending is entirely bitter. Strangest of all, some people still call it a romantic comedy.

Knowing what to call this drama is a puzzle. Remember how Ashes of Love had multiple titles? So does this one. It's called Goodbye My Princess and Eastern Palace in English, Dōng Gōng in Pinyin, and 東宮/东宫 (depending on whether you use traditional or simplified characters) in Chinese. Whatever you want to call it, it's a 2019 series based on the novel Eastern Palace by Fei Wo Si Cun.

I only recognised one actor:
Zan Jin Zhu (Jin Guangyao in The Untamed) as Zhao Shi Xuan

At first the series looks like a typical "character conceals their identity" romance drama. Princess Xiao Feng, our heroine, meets a man who claims to be a merchant. He's actually Prince Cheng Yin from a rival kingdom. They fall in love and get married. Happily ever after, right? Nope. Everything goes horribly wrong. Short summary of what happens next: Cheng Yin kills Xiao Feng's grandfather, Xiao Feng attempts suicide, both of them lose their memories, they fall in love and get married again, and Cheng Yin ruins everything again. "Happily ever after"? This series doesn't know the meaning of the words.

Now, a few words about the characters.

Xiao Feng

From the first episode Xiao Feng was my favourite character. She's so brave and she suffers so much that I spent most of the series hoping she would finally escape Cheng Yin. The last episode dashed those hopes. I still can't think of (SPOILER!) her suicide without tearing up 😭

Cheng Yin

One word: ugh. Cheng Yin is one of those characters who had the potential to be good, and instead became the villain. His love for Xiao Feng starts out cute and innocent. It very quickly becomes possessiveness and an obsession that refuses to let her go even when she tries to escape. I'm horrified but almost impressed at thoroughly he ruins her life and his own. Anyone can mess up a second chance, but it takes real talent to start again and then destroy everything the exact same way as the first time.

Gu Jian

At first I was basically indifferent to Gu Jian. Then they brought him back from the (almost) dead under circumstances utterly implausible even for Cdramas. I can believe he survived being stabbed. I can believe, with some more difficulty, that he survived being thrown off a huge cliff. But I cannot believe that he, a normal human in a non-fantasy series, survived both. As for his personality, he made so little impression that I can only say he'd have been better for Xiao Feng than Cheng Yin was. (Which really isn't saying much. Just about anyone would be better for Xiao Feng than Cheng Yin.)

Se Se

Is it possible? A character who I loathe as much as Cheng Yin? I certainly didn't think any character could manage it. Cheng Yin disgusts me so much that he's on a level very few characters can stoop to reach. Yet Se Se does just that. She's as obsessed with Cheng Yin as he is with Xiao Feng. That's bad enough (what self-respecting woman could ever consider Cheng Yin a suitable husband?!), but she also makes Xiao Feng's life even more miserable than it already was.

Shi Xuan

If ever there was a case of wasted potential... Zan Jin Zhu was so good in The Untamed (and by "good" I mean "excellent"; he went from adorable to downright terrifying in no seconds flat) that I was delighted to learn he was in this series. I expected he would play a major character, or at least an important one. Instead Shi Xuan has very few scenes and virtually nothing to do. Most disappointing 😞

The empress, proof that historical accuracy can be a very bad thing.

When the empress first appeared I had to stop the video and stare for a minute. All I could think was "What the hell is that make-up????" So I had to consult Google. Turns out her... unique... appearance is based on a style of make-up worn during the Tang dynasty. Goodness knows why someone chose that style for the empress; the series isn't even set in the Tang dynasty.

There are a few things that annoyed me about the series. One was the existence of the River of Forgetfulness. There are no other fantasy elements to be seen, but there really is a river that can make people forget things? That stretched my disbelief almost to breaking point. Another was the Shuobo subplot. It contributes very little to the main plot, except to make life even harder for Xiao Feng. But fortunately those annoyances are minor things.

If you want a fluffy romance with a happy ending, this is definitely not the series for you. If you don't mind a series that's frequently depressing and has an absolutely heartbreaking end, you might enjoy this one.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles. (There are two versions on YouTube; a shortened 52-episode one, and a longer 55-episode one. I watched the longer version.)

Rating: 9/10.

Review: Rob Roy (novel)

Believe it or not, it's possible (but very rare) for a book's plot to be implausible, contrived and poorly-thought-out... and for the book to still be interesting and enjoyable. This is one of those books.

Rob Roy is an 1817 novel by Sir Walter Scott. It's part of his Waverley series (which isn't a series in the modern sense; the books have similar settings and themes, not the same characters or stories). Several films with the book's title have been made, but none of them are actual adaptations of it.

Despite being the title character, Rob Roy isn't the narrator or the main character. He doesn't even appear until a quarter of the way through. Instead the main character is Frank Osbaldistone. A disagreement with his father leads to Frank being sent to stay with his uncle, while his sinister cousin Rashleigh takes his place in his father's business. Unsurprisingly Rashleigh turns out to be a crook, and Frank ends up fleeing to Scotland in search of some way to undo the damage Rashleigh's done. Along the way he meets and is helped by Rob Roy, and falls in love with the mysterious Diana Vernon.

The plot, as already mentioned, is by far the weakest part of the story. The characters aren't much better. Rob Roy is the only one who truly leaves an impression. Frank was so dull that I couldn't even remember his name after I finished the book. Diana is an interesting character but an unconvincing love interest. And Rashleigh, the main villain, is offstage (off-page?) for most of the story.

Most irritating of all are the frequent -- and lengthy -- paragraphs written entirely in a nigh-incomprehensible Scottish accent. You'd need a translator to understand half of what Andrew Fairservice says.

Yet in spite of all these drawbacks, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this book. The story is so exciting that you hardly notice how contrived the events are. I knew at the start that it was going to end with Frank marrying Diana and Rashleigh getting his just desserts, but it was still entertaining to see how that happened.

If you don't mind wading through the elaborate prose (to say nothing of the Scottish accents) and just want to read a fun historical novel without too much plot, this is the book for you!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Belgravia (novel)

Happy December! I hope my readers had a far less stressful November than I did 😄

Belgravia is a 2016 novel by Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey. (Which does not bode well for its quality or historical accuracy.) Next year it will be adapted into a miniseries.

The main plot takes place in 1840s London. But it's shaped by events that happened years earlier, in Belgium shortly before the Battle of Waterloo. The story revolves around a scandal involving two very different families, and the different ways they try to deal with it or cover it up.

I started this book not expecting much. Everyone knows how Downton Abbey turned into a train-wreck, and honestly that "From the author of Downton Abbey" logo on the cover made me reluctant to read it. When I finished the first chapter I thought, "Well, it's not too bad so far. Might as well continue." I continued to read. I finished the book. And when I finished it I was left with a new conviction: Julian Fellowes is unable to write anything consistently good.

Belgravia, much like Downton, starts out a fairly decent period drama. It's not the greatest, but it's not absolute trash. I enjoyed the first two or three chapters. Then, like Downton, the quality deteriorates. Rapidly. Before long the plot became a shambling mess, the characters lost any realism they had, and I only read on to see how it ended. I skipped whole scenes to get to the resolution.

Surprisingly the book manages an unforeseen and actually interesting twist near the end: the discovery that the scandal didn't actually exist. Not in the way everyone thought it did, anyway. That was the only thing I didn't see coming. Everything else was predictable. A predictable plot isn't always a bad thing, but it's certainly not going to keep a reader interested for long.

The resolution of the villains' subplots is the part I hated most. John tried to murder Charles, and he gets off scot-free. All right, so he's in financial difficulties, but that's hardly any retribution for all his vileness. Susan outright gets rewarded for her sins. Oliver is an absolute idiot who stirs up trouble out of petty jealousy... and he gets rewarded too. Argh!

I can safely say I will never reread this book. And it's extremely unlikely I'll bother to watch the miniseries. There are far better period drama to read and watch.

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

Rating: 2/10.

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: Noble Blood (podcast)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it available online?: Yes, here.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Assassin (2015)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 2/10.