Review: Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Logically a horror film from the 1960s should be cheesy and unintentionally hilarious. Who'd have thought one could be so terrifying?

Night of the Living Dead is a 1968 film made with an obviously very low budget, complete with unconvincing special effects. (Luckily someone had the sense to make sure there aren't many special effects.) In spite of that it spawned many sequels and remakes, as well as changing the entire horror genre.

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

Nowadays the film is fairly predictable. Zombies attack, they trap a group of strangers, people die. But even being predictable doesn't stop it being frightening.

I have a rather embarrassing confession to make: I've never seen most of the classic horror films. Since Halloween is approaching I'm making an effort to change that. And since this is widely considered the zombie film, I thought I might as well start with it. To be honest I didn't have high expectations in spite of its fame. One look at the year it was made and I thought it couldn't possibly be scary.

Oh boy, was I wrong. It might be tame compared to later zombie films/series (the violence is never as graphic or convincing as Kingdom, for example), but it's still honestly chilling. Some parts of it really are the stuff of nightmares. The zombie child, for example. And the twist ending is in a way even more horrifying than the zombie attacks 😱

This is one of the best films to watch if you want to be scared out of your wits this Halloween!

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube.

Rating: 8/10.

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: 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 Turn of the Screw (novel)

Sometimes elaborate prose in Victorian novels is very well done. Other times it's a meandering mess that leaves you wondering "What's that supposed to mean?" This book doesn't just fall into the latter category, it dives headlong into it.

The Turn of the Screw is an 1898 novella by Henry James. It's been adapted into an opera, two ballets, and several films and miniseries.

The story begins when our nameless heroine accepts a job as a governess. Her employer asks her to take care of his niece and nephew, and to never contact him again. That should set alarm bells ringing at once. She takes the job anyway, only to quickly realise there's something sinister lurking in the house and targeting the children.

For some reason many readers think the story is very ambiguous. I can understand their confusion, since much of the writing is as clear as mud. But the actual plot is simple enough: ghosts are haunting the children. It baffles me to see academics trying to prove it's actually about the governess going insane. Why would anyone want to find a mundane explanation for a horror story when there's a perfectly good supernatural one?

What's even more confusing is the writing itself. Henry James was either paid by the word, or believed he should always use eighty words where one would do. (I haven't read any of his other works, so I don't know if he did this regularly.) If you took away all the digressions and needlessly-complicated passages you'd shorten the story to about two chapters -- and it would be all the better for it. The novella isn't very long, but wading through yet more dull passages that have nothing to do with the plot makes reading it a chore. After a while I gave up and skipped ahead to the parts that were actually about the ghosts.

By far the weakest parts are the characters and the ending. The characters have no personalities and are practically interchangeable. As for the ending, the governess drives one of the ghosts away and then Miles dies. For no reason. It ends there and you're left to wonder what the hell you just read.

This book is slow, plodding, and more than twice as long as it should be. As horror stories go I didn't even find it particularly scary. It's just plain dull.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 2/10.

Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

I forgot to post on Sunday, then meant to post on Monday and forgot again 😑

My reaction when I first heard of this film's existence was one word: "What." It's the sort of thing that makes you wonder if an asylum inmate thought it up. This singularly unfunny parody is one of the worst films I've ever watched. Yet somehow it's still better than the 2005 version.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a 2016 film based on someone's Frankenstein-esque butchery of Jane Austen's masterpiece. I've never read the, ahem, "novel" of the same name. I have no intentions of ever reading it. The film was quite enough.

I recognised several of the cast:
Lily James (Ella in Cinderella 2015) as Elizabeth
Douglas Booth (Pip in Great Expectations 2011) as Bingley
Charles Dance (Mr. Tulkinghorn in Bleak House 2005) as Mr. Bennet (?!)
Matt Smith (the Eleventh Doctor in Doctor Who) as Mr. Collins

As for the "plot", I don't know how to describe it. I made a list of comments while watching it, so they'll have to do.

The morbid twist on the novel's famous opening lines made me giggle while rolling my eyes.

For some reason Mr. Darcy is now a colonel. Honestly, my first thought was, "Why not use Colonel Fitzwilliam instead?"

I'm sorry to say this Darcy is one of the least convincing. It's painfully obvious he was trying to imitate Colin Firth and instead is imitating a brick wall. And his untidy hairstyle is just embarrassing.

On the one hand the zombie scene is honestly scary. On the other, it falls into the same trap as this film's very existence: WHAT IS IT DOING IN AN AUSTEN ADAPTATION?

The exposition over the opening credits is frankly boring. (I prefer when horror films don't try to explain where the horror comes from. It becomes so much more frightening when it's an unexplained mystery.)

On the subject of terrible casting, the Bennet parents are atrocious. Like the 2005 abomination, Mrs. Bennet is a perfectly normal woman when she shouldn't be. As for Mr. Bennet, I'd like to know who thought Charles Dance of all people was a good choice for the role.

Also like the 2005 abomination, the first ball bears a striking resemblance to a barn dance. The Bennets aren't peasants! They wouldn't go to such a crowded, undignified event! And it's utterly ludicrous to think Bingley's sisters, Darcy, or even Bingley himself would ever darken the doors of that place.

At least they remembered both of Bingley's sisters. I wasn't expecting that much accuracy.

In this version Lizzie deliberately eavesdrops on Darcy and Bingley, while Darcy is even more insulting towards her than in the novel. This makes both Darcy and Lizzie less sympathetic.

Oh, for goodness' sake. They expect us to believe Jane could cut off a zombie's arm with a knife? A knife. Not a sword. Not even a very large knife. As anyone knows if they've done any research on weapons at all, you need a very sharp, preferably long blade swung with a lot of force to cut through bone. (Why yes, I do research a lot of disturbing things for my writing. Why do you ask?) I know, I know. It's a trivial detail. Yet I find trivial implausibilities are more distracting than blatant inaccuracies.

The film decides to increase the drama by having everyone worry Jane's been bitten instead of just catching a cold. Darcy goes into her room (breaking a dozen rules of propriety!) and is prepared to kill her (???!!!!!). I didn't know if I've ever seen something so utterly ridiculous that still somehow makes sense... as much as anything in this film ever makes sense.

Apparently most zombie fighters train in Japan. At a time when Japan was closed to the outside world. And Darcy mispronounces Kyoto. It's "kyo-to", not "kee-o-to". (Okay, so this is an understandable mistake for people who know nothing about Japanese pronunciation. Yet it drives me up the wall.)

This film follows the 2005 one's lead in the "Miss Bennet, Miss Bennet and Miss Bennet" nonsense. That's so utterly wrong it makes me cringe. Only the oldest daughter present -- Mary, in this case -- would be called Miss Bennet! The others would be addressed as Miss Catherine Bennet and Miss Lydia Bennet! Learn a time period's basic etiquette before setting a film during that time!

Like many film adaptations and "adaptations" of classic novels, this mess charges ahead like a runaway train, frantically cramming as much as it can into less than two hours. That doesn't work well with straightforward versions. It works even less well with a film that's trying to add the zombie apocalypse to the already-lengthy source material.

Matt Smith's Mr. Collins -- renamed Parson Collins, for reasons known only to whoever dreamed up this madness -- is almost as oily as David Bamber's. Certainly he's better than Tom Hollander. (Which is damning by faint praise. My cat could be a better Mr. Collins than Tom Hollander was.)

Mr. Collins, about the zombies: "Before we know it they'll be running for Parliament." It says a great deal about all our politicians and every single party in existence that a Parliament full of zombies would be an improvement on the dictatorship we have now. At least the zombies would make no bones about wanting to kill us all and wouldn't pretend they care about us and want us to be safe.

This Wickham very nearly reaches the smug vileness of 1995!Wickham. My metre for judging Wickhams is "does he make me want to reach into the screen and wring his neck the minute he appears?" In this case the answer is yes, so for once the casting department did a good job.

Bizarrely Wickham does turn up at Bingley's party. Why? Darcy would have him thrown out if he came anywhere near the place!

It doesn't take a genius to guess who the zombies' "new friend" is. That just makes it even more stupid of Wickham to go there. Why go to a place he just sent zombies to attack?

Darcy shoving a zombie into the oven should be a grim scene, but all I could think of was the end of Sweeney Todd. ♫And life is for the alive, my dear...♫

Like in the 2005 version, Mr. Collins decides the middle of a meal is the perfect time to propose to Lizzie. *facepalm* Then it turns out Mrs. Bennet was listening at the door. *facepalms again* Mr. Bennet's "an unhappy alternative lies before you" speech lacks all the humour of the book and 1995 series. *facepalms yet again*

Wickham and Lizzie ride off together. Unchaperoned. Not only is this enough to ruin Lizzie's reputation, it's the height of stupidity for her to run off like that in the middle of a zombie apocalypse!

Lady Catherine is much too young. And not nearly as Lady Catherine-ish as she should be.

Wickham continues to pop up in the most unlikely places. There's no way in hell he'd ever be allowed near Rosings. Ever. And in this version he's the one who tells Lizzie about Darcy separating Bingley and Jane. That noise you just heard was me screaming in rage.

Darcy's proposal is one of the least convincing things I've ever seen. And that's before they break out the fisticuffs. Of course they had to shoehorn in a scene of Darcy jumping in a lake.

Wickham manages to be even more despicable here than in the book. I really didn't think that was possible! Yet Darcy becomes just as bad when he feeds human brains to the zombies. Seriously?! He turned them into a bloodthirsty horde that nearly killed him, Lydia, and Elizabeth -- not to mention any other unfortunate people who got in their way -- just to stop Wickham?

The final battle is -- incredibly -- the most ridiculous thing in the whole film. A battle of any sort has no business being in anything that claims to be based on an Austen novel. The "blow up the bridge" part is impossible to take seriously. Unfortunately they play it seriously. It's never a good sign when a parody doesn't let you laugh with it. You're left with no choice but to laugh at it, and then it stops being a parody and becomes a travesty.

That bizarre mid-credits scene ruins the otherwise relatively acceptable wedding and happy ending.

Literally the only good thing about it is that the premise is so insane that I started it without high expectations -- or any expectations at all. And unlike the 2005 film, it doesn't pretend to be a faithful adaptation. One of the worst parts about it is how the cast play it completely seriously. As a result I'm left wondering if they failed to realise it's a parody, and the entire film comes over as a joke at their expense.

Is it available online?: I hope not.

Rating: 1/10.

Review: 1984 (novel)

Is this a novel or a newspaper?

1984 is a 1949 novel by George Orwell. Along with Animal Farm it's one of his most famous works. Parts of it have become entrenched in the English language (even if people don't realise where they come from). "Big Brother" and "thoughtcrime" are among the most recognisable. The novel has been adapted into at least two films and several radio versions.

The story follows Winston Smith, who has a job rewriting history for the Ministry of Truth (a misnomer if ever there was one!), as he tries to oppose the monstrous government he's living under.

Honestly, Winston, Julia, and all the other characters are the least interesting part of the book. What truly interests me is the horrific world they live in -- a world that every day looks more and more like ours. Mass surveillance? It's here. Propaganda? Everywhere you look. The "Clap for Carers" mania is essentially two minutes' hate without the hate (yet). Censorship? Videos criticising the lockdown have been removed from YouTube. An oppressive government? Reality has surpassed the novel; every single government has become Oceania in all but name.

I didn't enjoy this book. It was a tremendous struggle to finish and I don't want to read it again. But it's a book you absolutely should read. It'll terrify you, and hopefully it will make you think.

Rating: I honestly don't know how to rate it. 7/10 or 8/10, I suppose.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

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.

Review: Annihilation (2018)

Every so often you find a film that can't decide what genre it wants to be. Such films are almost always a mess. This one is even more of a mess than I expected.

Annihilation is a 2018 science fiction/horror/goodness-knows-what-else film very loosely based on the novel of the same name by Jeff VanderMeer. The novel is part of a trilogy, but the film is a standalone.

I only recognised three of the actors:
Natalie Portman (Jane in Thor) as Lena
Oscar Isaac (Poe in Star Wars) as Kane
Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok) as Josie

Early in the film the main problem with it becomes only too apparent. The story keeps jumping around between the past and present. On its own that's not a problem, but the story also makes no sense. It feels like the writer, director, and actors all had different ideas of what the film was about.

Another major problem is the characters. To put it bluntly, they might as well be cardboard cutouts. They're interchangeable, unmemorable, and impossible to care anything for. I fast-forwarded until the main characters go into the Shimmer. Only then does the story become interesting.

The scenes in the Shimmer are really the only part of the film worth watching. They're incredibly eerie, beautiful, and terrifying. (In fact it was through seeing GIFs on Tumblr of the Shimmer that I first learnt of this film's existence. Let's just say I'd rather look at the GIFs than the film itself.) The bear attack is the most memorable, nightmarish thing I've seen for a long time.

Unfortunately, towards the end the film disintegrates into even more chaos. The alien's existence was easy to see coming. Its defeat and apparent death made sense. But then that final scene comes along and turns an underwhelming film into a mind-boggling mess. I wracked my brains trying to figure out what it meant. All I got was a headache.

If you want to watch a science fiction film, there are far better ones out there. (Pun unintentional.) If you decide to watch this film anyway, you're probably better off if you only watch the scenes in the Shimmer and stop the film as soon as the alien dies. That way you'll see the good parts without the boring or incomprehensible.

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

Rating: 4/10.

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: The Signal-Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 9/10.

Review: Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

"Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd..." Except you can't, at least not in song form, because this film made the thoroughly disappointing decision to cut "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" 😒

Even the opening credits are gory!

This was the first version of Sweeney Todd I ever saw. I was vaguely aware of what the stage play was about -- I thought it was about a murderer who bakes his victims into pies -- but I didn't know any of the songs or the full plot. After watching the film I decided I didn't like the musical. It was much too gory, and the final twist made no sense. Fast-forward several years, and I watched the 1982 production of the musical. I was shocked. It's an interesting story! It has some great songs! The final twist actually does make sense! So, armed with my new knowledge of the stage version, I rewatched the film. This time I enjoyed it much more.

Recognisable actors include:
Johnny Depp (Ichabod in Sleepy Hollow 1999) as Sweeney Todd
Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter) as Mrs. Lovett
Jamie Campbell Bower (Grindelwald in Harry Potter) as Anthony
Alan Rickman (Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility 1995) as Judge Turpin
Timothy Spall (Charles Cheeryble in Nicholas Nickleby 2002) as the Beadle
Laura Michelle Kelly (Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings musical) as Lucy
Sacha Baron Cohen (Thénardier in Les Misérables 2012) as Pirelli

The story starts with Sweeney and Anthony arriving in London. We immediately discover one of the main problems with this film. The actors, shall we say, weren't chosen for their singing ability. No one is absolutely atrocious, and you can listen to their singing without cringing, but when compared to stage performances the singing in the film is pretty poor.

Anthony

Sweeney Todd

The lighting is also poor. I've seen black-and-white films that have clearer pictures. There's no need to be so gloomy that the viewer can barely see a thing. The stage version manages to be both grim and well-lit.

Not only is "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" missing, so are most of the beggar woman's lines. On the one hand, we can do without hearing a lot of what she says. On the other, this means she has very few appearances before her death, which is why I thought the final twist made no sense. Someone should have realised this before they cut so many of her scenes.

We get to see Mrs. Lovett's pie shop in all its *ahem* "glory". Complete with meat of unidentifiable origin and insects crawling over the place. It's really a wonder she didn't kill plenty of customers on her own, with the atrocious hygiene in her kitchen.

Mrs. Lovett

"Poor Thing" is even more depressing and horrifying in the film than in the stage versions. All those people staring, and poor Lucy's screams... *shudders*

"Johanna" is one of my favourite songs in the show. I vaguely remembered the film made it creepy (you could argue it's creepy on-stage too, but the film makes it creepier). Thankfully the film doesn't ruin it. Anthony singing while covered in blood is unsettling, but downright tame by the standards of this film.

The film takes full advantage of its special effects to make the deaths as gory as possible. There is no need for so many close-ups of Sweeney cutting people's throats!

"A Little Priest" is a real let-down. When done right it's priceless black comedy. When done wrong it's just dull. Even the puns in this version aren't particularly funny. I think the main problem is how seriously it's played. This song isn't meant to be serious. It's meant to make the audience laugh, and that's completely missing here.

Johanna is reduced to a non-entity in the film. Most of her songs are removed, and she only gets about a quarter of her scenes. "Johanna (Quartet)" becomes "Johanna (Trio)". Even the scene in the madhouse loses most of its emotional impact. Very, very disappointing.

At least "By the Sea" is still relatively funny 🙂 Notice the "relatively". Most Mrs. Lovetts are very over-the-top in this song. This Mrs. Lovett is far too calm and restrained.

The dream sequence is comically absurd 😄 And the only time in the film there are any bright colours!

Judge Turpin's death is nauseating. Yes, he deserved it, but... good grief. All that blood 😱 The beggar woman's death should be tragic. Instead it's just another grisly murder in a film full of grisly murders, and even learning who she really was isn't as shocking as it should be. I'm glad the film removed Toby singing "Pat-A-Cake", though. That always struck me as incredibly silly under the circumstances.

The film ends with Sweeney's death, with no epilogue to be seen. Anthony and Johanna are completely forgotten about. Really? Here if anywhere is an excellent place to put "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd". But no, not a line of it to be heard. Just the occasional instrumental excerpt from it 😒

As a musical film on its own, this is a fairly good (though gruesome) movie. As an adaptation of the stage play, it falls pretty far short of what I'd expect. It's best to watch at least one stage production before watching this film. You'll have a better idea of how the story should be performed, and you won't be left scratching your head at some plot twists.

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

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Lore (Podcast)

Happy Halloween from your friendly neighbourhood reviewer! 😃 No tricks, but I've a treat: instead of one review today, you'll get two!

For the first one, I'm going to do something different. Rather than review a book or series, I'll review a podcast I recently started listening to. Its subject matter makes it perfect for a review posted on Halloween.

Lore has been running since 2015, with a new episode posted every other week. Each episode describes one or more real life horror story. Some of the stories investigate urban legends, others focus on true crimes, and still others are about (supposedly) supernatural events. Sometimes it's possible that an otherworldly force or being is responsible. Other times the crimes are clearly the work of human monsters.

Among the stories covered or mentioned are well-known events like the Donner Party and Salem Witch Trials. Other, lesser-known stories include the apparently-haunted Hoosac Tunnel, and the ghost stories told of Owls Head Lighthouse.

I don't know if I believe in ghosts or not, but the podcast describes several events that make me wonder. Some events clearly have a plausible, non-supernatural explanation. The story about Robert the doll, on the other hand, is hard to explain in any way that doesn't boil down to "the doll is evil and somehow animate".

There are a few factual errors I spotted in the podcast. For example, it repeats the old story that the Salem Witch Trials were because men felt threatened by women and accused them of being witches. In reality, both men and women were tried in the witch trials, and the women were usually accused by other women.

On other occasions, the podcast goes out of its way to suggest the supernatural explanation is the most plausible, when there may or may not be a normal explanation that's just as likely.

Overall, though, the podcast is eerie, frightening, and perfect for listening to around Halloween. Warning: do NOT listen to it late at night. Painful experience taught me you will spend half the night wide awake, jumping at the slightest noise. And you'll need a strong stomach to listen to some of the episodes. Especially the one about the Danvers State Hospital.

Is it available online?: It's a podcast, so obviously it is! All the episodes can be heard here.

Rating: 6/10.