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: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

In general Sherlock Holmes stories that aren't based on something Doyle wrote are never much good. This is the exception to the rule.

Sherlock Holmes is a 2009 film that takes some of Doyle's characters and puts them in an original plot. It's full of references to other Holmes stories, and in some ways is more faithful to the books' versions of the characters than a lot of actual adaptations. It was followed by a 2011 sequel, Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, and apparently a third film is planned. Considering the sequel is almost ten years old, I'll believe there'll be a third film when it's in theatres and not before.

I've heard of several actors, but I only recognised three:

Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark in the MCU) as Sherlock (of all people!)
Mark Strong (Mr. Knightley in Emma 1996) as Lord Blackwood

Eddie Marsan (Mr. Pancks in Little Dorrit 2008) as Inspector Lestrade

From the beginning it's clear this isn't going to be a typical Holmes film. It starts with Holmes and Watson capturing Blackwood during an evil ritual and attempted murder. The first time I watched it I had to pause the video to remind myself it wasn't meant to be a faithful adaptation and there have been far worse and weirder Holmes films. Eventually I managed to suspend my disbelief and watched the whole film without complaining (much) about inaccuracies.

Blackwood's pretend magic powers are much less ridiculous than they seemed at first. The Victorian era -- and Arthur Conan Doyle himself -- was obsessed with the occult. So apart from a raised eyebrow or two I had no trouble with that. What I found hardest to accept was Sherlock himself. Robert Downey Jr. looks, sounds and acts nothing like the books' Holmes. There were times when I wondered why they named his character "Sherlock Holmes" instead of just inventing a new character and making the film a historical mystery instead of a pseudo-adaptation.

Yet to my surprise I actually enjoyed the film. Yes, it's weird. Yes, Arthur Conan Doyle would probably be furious if he saw it. But in spite of all that it's a surprisingly good film. Whatever else can be said of it, it's certainly much better than Sherlock. (Admittedly it would be hard to be worse.)

As long as you don't expect much and keep reminding yourself it's nowhere near a faithful adaptation, you'll probably enjoy this film.

Is it available online?: I doubt it.

Rating: 7/10

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: 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: Thor Ragnarok

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

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

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

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

To quote my TVTropes review, written in 2018:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it available online?: I hope not.

Rating: 0/10

Review: Black Beauty (1994)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 7/10

Review: Mike and Psmith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 9/10

Review: Lost Love in Times

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

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

I only recognised two actors:

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

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

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

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

Qing Chen and a headdress that defies description.

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

Yuan Zhan with a flying saucer on his head.

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

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

Yuan Ling

Yuan Che

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

Yuan An

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

Yuan Ming and Yuan Ji

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

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

Rating: 8/10.

Review: Jennings Novels

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

Cover of the first novel

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

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

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

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

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

Rating: 10/10.

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

When will Disney learn to stop making unnecessary remakes?

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Ivanhoe (novel)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 10/10.

Review: War and Peace (2016)

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

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

I recognised several actors:

Lily James (Ella in Cinderella 2015) as Natasha

Tuppence Middleton (Amelia Haversham in Dickensian) as Helene

Stephen Rea (Inspector Bucket in Dickensian) as Vassily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it available online?: Who cares?

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Love and Destiny

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

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

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

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

Ling Xi

Jiu Chen

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

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

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

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

Rating: 4/10.

(Not Really a) Review: First Impressions of Poirot

When I looked for period dramas I haven't seen yet, this series appeared in almost every list. At first I was reluctant to start a series where every episode is a different story. Now I've finally got around to starting it, and I wish I'd done it earlier.

Poirot (also called Agatha Christie's Poirot; apparently someone thought there are so many characters named Poirot that viewers might think it's based on some other author's works) is a long-running series that adapts all of Agatha Christie's stories about the title character. Yes, all of them. Unsurprisingly it lasted over twenty years, from 1989 to 2013.

I've never read any of the Poirot novels, and my only previous knowledge of the character was from Murder on the Orient Express. So while I know every episode is about Poirot solving a mystery, I don't know anything about the cases. Turns out that's a good thing. I've watched the first four episodes of the first series, and every time I waited with bated breath to learn whodunnit and why they did it. Only once have I correctly guessed who the criminal is before the case is solved.

I love almost everything about this series. It's unexpectedly funny; Hastings' obsession with tennis and the running joke about Poirot's uncomfortable shirt collars are just two of the things that made me laugh. The cases themselves always end with an unexpected solution. And of course for period drama fans there's the 1930s setting. So I can safely say that this is one series I'll keep watching.

Review: The Hunger Games (novels)

 I'm back at last! And I finished my novel 😊 Now for a review of a series I reread recently.

Why do dystopian novels always feel the need to shoehorn in a romance (or "romance") subplot? Not even 1984 was exempt from this. There are some genres where romance is just plain out-of-place. This is one of them.

The Hunger Games is a trilogy of novels by Suzanne Collins, published between 2008 and 2010. The books have been adapted into a series of films. A prequel was published this year. I haven't read it yet, and after reading the summary I'm not sure I want to.

Almost everyone knows the basic story by now. A dystopian government forces teenagers to fight to the death for the people's entertainment. It's done this for years, and finally someone does something to stop it.

My opinion of this series has changed every time I read it. When I first read the books shortly after they were published I loved them. Reread them a few years later and I was amazed at how boring they were. Now I've reread them for the third time, and I'm torn between both past opinions.

On the one hand, the depictions of the dystopian world of Panem and the fight to overthrow its evil government are riveting. On the other, every few chapters the plot grinds to a halt because Katniss can't decide which of her love interests she likes best. And that's the real problem with this series -- and with far, far too many others. Not only do many authors believe books have to include romance, they seem utterly convinced that there has to be a love triangle. Doesn't matter that hell has broken loose around the protagonists; they have to stop to angst over their romantic woes.

The Hunger Games isn't quite as bad an offender as certain other series. But it still has a pointless love triangle. Especially pointless because Gale and Peeta have virtually no distinguishing characteristics. There were times when I couldn't remember which of them I was reading about. By the third book I didn't even bother to read their scenes. This meant I didn't understand all of the plot, but it was that or be bored to death.

I like the books' world-building, plot, and (some of) the characters. If there was a version of the series that removed the love triangle and only focused on the story it would probably be one of my favourites. Unfortunately as it is, it's just average. I don't expect I'll reread it for a while.

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

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Hundred and One Dalmatians (novel)

July and Camp NaNo are almost here. Which means this will probably be the last review until after it's over. So I might as well choose a relatively light-hearted novel to review now. (Goodness knows I'll need as much light-heartedness as I can get to survive NaNo!)

The Hundred and One Dalmatians is a 1956 children's novel by Dodie Smith. It's her best-known work, even though most people think of the Disney film(s) rather than the book itself. A truly bizarre sequel, The Starlight Barking, followed in 1967 and was forgotten almost at once -- for very good reason.

In some ways the plot is the same as the more famous Disney adaptation. Cruella de Vil kidnaps fifteen Dalmatian puppies, and their parents set out to rescue them. But there are enough differences to surprise me when I first read it. Pongo's wife is called Missis; Perdita is a different dog entirely. The Radcliffs are called the Dearlys and their first names are never mentioned. There are two nannies instead of one. Cruella is married. The Badduns aren't the ones who kidnap the puppies. And instead of ninety-nine puppies plus two adults, there are ninety-seven puppies and four adults.

Not only is the book as funny as the animated film, it's even darker. Cruella and her henchmen are implied to be actual demons. As well as the "skin puppies for coats" plan, she's drowned over forty of her poor cat's kittens. (The cat gets her revenge in my favourite scene in the whole novel.)

Yes, the book's aimed at children. But I first read it as an adult, and I enjoyed every minute of it. The details about how the dogs communicate, how they see the world, and how they view humans as their pets make them incredibly, well, human while never forgetting they're dogs.

If you haven't read this book yet, you should find a copy as soon as possible. Even if you're no longer a child.

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

Rating: 9/10.

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.

(Not Really a) Review: The Five Most Overrated Novels

After many weeks of struggling I've finally given up on War and Peace. I made it to chapter forty-seven. Honestly I shouldn't have bothered reading forty-seven sentences of it, let alone chapters. So, inspired by that disaster, I've made a list of the five most overrated novels I've suffered through.

Already reviewed here. From what I've seen, Leo Tolstoy either wasn't a good author, or the English translations of his novels do him a disservice. After being bored to tears by both Anna Karenina and War and Peace, I'm inclined to think it's the former.

Already reviewed here. Unlike the other examples on this list, Great Expectations is actually a good novel. It's just not as good as some people claim. And it's certainly not the best of Dickens' works.

Already reviewed here. The Turn of the Screw is the least frightening, most boring horror novel I've ever read. And it drags on for aaaaaaaaaaaages. It can't decide if it wants to be a novel or a short story, and only succeeds in being too short for one and too long for the other.

I can sum The Great Gatsby up in one word: Yawn. Heavy-handed symbolism, threadbare plot, revolting characters, interminable dullness... In short it has everything I don't want in a novel. Of course, those flaws are probably the reason it's considered a classic, because some people believe only the most boring books ever written should become classics.

Middlemarch was one of the books I read out of morbid curiosity rather than interest. The miniseries adaptation was so bad that I thought the book had to be better. It isn't. If anything it's worse. Nothing ever happens in the entire sorry saga. Chapter after chapter it stumbles along without even trying to keep the reader's attention. Eventually I gave up in despair.

(Of course there are many more novels I consider overrated, but these are the five that immediately spring to mind.)

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.