Review: Rupert of Hentzau (novel)

Remember I mentioned The Prisoner of Zenda had a sequel? I've just finished reading the sequel, so here's a review of it.

Rupert of Hentzau was published in 1898, and takes place three years after the events of the first book. It's been adapted into several films, but has never been as popular as The Prisoner of Zenda.

The narrator is no longer Rudolf, for reasons that will become clear when you finish the book, but instead his friend Fritz. Unfortunately, Fritz isn't as good a narrator as Rudolf. This book doesn't bring the reader to the edge of their seat the way Zenda does.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!

Flavia is now Queen of Ruritania and married to King Rudolf. She and her husband have never loved each other, however, and she's still in love with not-king!Rudolf, who she hasn't seen for three years. She writes him a letter to give him a permanent farewell, and gives it to Fritz to deliver to Rudolf. Fritz is ambushed along the way by Rupert of Hentzau, who's still up to his old tricks. Rupert reads the letter and immediately sees a way to ruin Flavia and both Rudolfs. A race against time starts to retrieve the letter and foil Rupert's plots.

From the beginning, I knew this story wouldn't be as good as the original. But I was determined to give it a try, and I ended up enjoying it a lot. I admit spent most of the time impatiently waiting for Rupert's next appearance, though 😊 That's one problem with this book. Even though he's the title character and main villain, Rupert of Hentzau has far too few appearances for my liking.

In fact, Rupert is the most likeable character in this novel. He makes no pretensions to being anything other than a villain. The supposed heroes, meanwhile, have become a collection of jerks since the end of the first novel. I used to like Flavia, but the whole plot starts because she writes a love letter to a man who isn't her husband, and so I was very disappointed in what this novel did with her character. Not-king!Rudolf is no longer the awesome if out-of-his-depth hero of the first book, and Fritz and Sapt are just... dull.

The book still has some moments of drama. The death of King Rudolf took me completely by surprise. And it has its comical moments, like the embarrassing moment when not-king!Rudolf is seen climbing through a window by a whole crowd of aristocrats who think he's the king.

I have mixed feelings about Rupert's death. On the one hand, he was already defeated when Rudolf shot him. On the other, he had just tried to kill Rudolf, and would have tried again if he lived. On the other hand (I know, that makes no sense), I'm disappointed Rupert died at all. Yes, he richly deserved it, but he was such an awesome villain!

The last few chapters were the most dramatic and enjoyable. The weakest moment is when the author kills Rudolf off without revealing what his choice was. I understand why he did it, but it's still an anti-climax.

Yet I still cried all the way through the final chapter. I couldn't help it. I wasn't even sure what I was crying at -- Rupert's death, Rudolf's death, or the aftermath of Rudolf's death. But the funeral was so poignant and tragic that I burst into tears and kept crying even after the last sentence 😭

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: The Prisoner of Zenda (novel)

Some novels grab hold of you from the first sentence and refuse to let go until the end. This is one of them.

The Prisoner of Zenda is a novel by Anthony Hope, an author I'd never heard of until I picked up this book. It was published in 1894, and followed later by a sequel, Rupert of Hentzau. I haven't read the sequel yet, but I hope to get around to it soon. Both books have been adapted into several films.

There are some books that invented or popularised whole genres. Frankenstein did it for science fiction, Dracula for vampire novels, The Lord of the Rings for fantasy. The Prisoner of Zenda is one of those novels. It paved the way for a whole flood of novels set in small fictional countries. Ironically, very few of the settings in those novels bear much resemblance to the original Ruritania.

Our story begins with Rudolf Rassendyll, an English nobleman, going on a trip to the fictional country of Ruritania. Thanks to a scandal involving an ancestor, Rudolf is a distant cousin of the Ruritanian king, also called Rudolf, and the two men look very alike.

You can already see where this is going, can't you?

King Rudolf's half-brother Michael wants the throne, so he drugs the king before the coronation. The other Rudolf finds himself with no option but to pretend to be the king. He thinks it'll be just for a day. But Michael kidnaps the real king and locks him up in the castle of Zenda. So not-king!Rudolf has to find a plan to rescue King Rudolf without revealing the truth to the people... and before Michael kills the king.

Reading this book is like watching a film. It's more fast-paced and exciting than many action sequences on the screen. It has some hilarious moments, and some moments when my heart leapt into my throat and I was sure the truth would be revealed with disastrous consequences.

It also has some truly great characters.

At first I pitied Michael, who was barred from the line of succession because his parents had a morganatic marriage. But a few chapters in, I quickly began to despise him. King Rudolf isn't much better. Yes, his brother drugged and kidnapped him... but his brother would never have had a chance to do either if he hadn't spent the night before his coronation getting drunk.

Not-king!Rudolf (this is the easiest way I can find to distinguish between the two Rudolfs) is trying so hard to keep up this charade and rescue the king at the same time. And while doing that he manages to narrate one heck of a story, full of moments that are dramatic, comical, and both at once. I laughed so hard at his tea-table attack 😃

But my favourite character, without a doubt, is... the most villainous character. And who could blame me, I'd like to know, when the villain is as awesome as Rupert?

Common sense and morality both say that Rupert of Hentzau is despicable, irredeemable, and has committed the most horrible crimes. Yes, that's true. But he's also so brazen and daring, even while committing his crimes, that it's impossible not to be reluctantly impressed.

And then there's poor Princess Flavia. Out of all the characters in the novel, I felt the most sorry for her. She falls in love with the man she thinks is the king, and not-king!Rudolf can't explain the truth to her. Then she finally discovers who he really is... just before they have to part forever. Poor girl 😢

The Prisoner of Zenda is fairly short by Victorian standards -- twenty-two chapters. If you don't think that's short, please remember that Little Dorrit has seventy chapters, Vanity Fair has sixty-seven, and The Way We Live Now has a hundred. And let's not forget Les Misérables, which has five volumes and more than three hundred chapters.

So yes, Zenda is extremely short. It also moves at a much faster pace than any of the other novels mentioned.

I'm disappointed that it hasn't had a recent adaptation. There are no end of adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, and apparently there's a series of new Charles Dickens adaptations in the works, but The Prisoner of Zenda is being overlooked. Which is a shame, because if adapted well it would make a thrilling miniseries -- or even a full-length film.

If you want to read an exciting novel that you'll finish fairly quickly, I'd definitely recommend this book to you!

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: The Greatest Showman (2017)

It's November, which means I'm suffering through NaNoWriMo. (If you've never heard of NaNo, lucky you.) So while I panic about word counts, here's another review! 😃

There are some films that leave me with really mixed feelings. This is one of them.

The Greatest Showman is a musical that's a (very, very, very) fictionalised biography of Phineas Taylor ("P. T.") Barnum, who's famous for starting a now-defunct circus and creating a number of hoaxes. The musical doesn't even try to stick close to history. Notably, instead of showing Barnum's real, unpleasant, "anything-for-money" personality, it portrays him as a jolly, kindly chap who wants to help people.

I recognised exactly one of the actors, so I won't bother listing any of them.

The film begins with one of Barnum's shows. Then it flashes back to how he got there. Unlike in real life,  he didn't do this by cheating, lying and exploiting people. Instead, it's a heartwarming tale of how Barnum fell in love, married Charity, the girl he loved, in spite of her parents' objections, and created his circus to give "freaks" (as they were called then) a place to live.

Yeah, right.

Barnum with his wife and daughters.

The story gets further and further away from history from then on. It includes fictitious events like protests against the circus, a "star-crossed lovers" subplot between two people who never actually existed, and a one-sided romance between Barnum and Jenny Lind. And the film muddled the timeline of events so thoroughly that the opening of the circus, Jenny Lind's tour, and the fire at the circus building all apparently happened within months of each other. Wow, if that really happened it would have been the most eventful year in the 19th century.

Jenny Lind

(Side note: the filmmakers apparently forgot the real Jenny was a soprano. They dubbed the actress playing her anyway; would it have been so hard to dub her with a soprano? And Jenny Lind sang opera, not pop music. They should really have had her sing an aria from Lucia di Lammermoor. That would have had some basis in history.)

Some of the circus performers.

Phillip and Annie, the aforementioned star-crossed lovers. Their characters are bland, but their song "Rewrite the Stars" is pretty awesome. Not so much for the lyrics, but for the choreography.

After an arson attack on the circus building, Barnum decides to use a tent for the performances instead. And then we're back where the film started, with one of Barnum's shows. Phillip and Annie get a happy ending, Jenny Lind disappears, and Barnum goes to see his daughter's ballet recital. It's all the sort of glowing sentimentality calculated to make the viewer go "aww".

If only there was some substance behind the show.

My opinion of this film can be summed up in one word: "Kitsch!" (Yes, that is an Elisabeth das Musical reference. Somehow that show has become my standard for judging musicals.)

The Greatest Showman is glittery nonsense from beginning to end. It reminds me of musicals from the 30s and 40s, like Top Hat and White Christmas. Like them, it's full of absurd and implausible things that we're supposed to ignore. But unlike them, it pretends to be a true story. And that's the problem. The Greatest Showman bears as much resemblance to history as Twilight does to Dracula. Yet people who watch this film will get the impression that Barnum was a decent guy and Jenny Lind was a bitch. And that is a gross misrepresentation.

Some people defend the film by saying that it's obviously a fictionalised version of P. T. Barnum, and therefore we shouldn't be upset that it paints over his true colours. Frankly, this argument is nonsense. Take an extreme example, and let's imagine that someone made a musical portraying Stalin as a kindly, well-meaning chap. Would anyone try to defend such a thing by saying "it's just a fictionalised Stalin"? I certainly hope not. Yet somehow people think that argument, when applied to Barnum, makes everything all right.

I can ignore -- no, enjoy -- the ridiculousness and blatant escapism of the story. I do that every time I watch a Takarazuka production. But the problems with this film are always there. They're much harder to ignore and impossible to enjoy.

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

Rating: 3/10.

Review: Death Takes a Holiday (1934)

For today's second review, I'm going to review a film I only discovered recently. It's an old film -- the oldest film I've reviewed so far -- which might put some people off, but I don't think it counts as a period drama because it was set in roughly the same time period as when it was made. It's also quite suitable for Halloween, though it's nowhere near as dark as you might expect.

Death Takes a Holiday is based on a 1929 play of the same name, which in turn was an English version of the 1924 Italian play La Morte in Vacanza ("Death on Holiday"). The film has been remade at least twice. It's also been turned into a musical, which is how I learnt of its existence.

At first I thought the plot was really similar to Elisabeth das Musical, but on a second viewing I realised the only similarity between them is a personification of Death falling in love with a mortal. Elisabeth is primarily a dark pseudo-historical fairy-tale, while Death Takes a Holiday is more a fantasy/romance film.

I'm not familiar with many films of the 1930s, so I only recognised two of the actors:
Fredric March (Earl of Bothwell in Mary of Scotland) as Death
Henry Travers (Clarence in It's a Wonderful Life) as Baron Cesarea

The story begins with a group of friends having a race. Disaster nearly strikes when they meet a horse-drawn cart, but no one is injured and they continue to their home. But when they arrive at the house, Grazia, one of them, has a frightening encounter with a shadow. Shortly afterwards, Duke Lambert also meets the shadow. It's Death, and he intends to take a human form and stay with the Duke's family for three days.

Death (before taking a human form) and Duke Lambert

Death introduces himself to the family as Prince Sirki, a (now-deceased) guest they were expecting. Things start to go wrong almost at once. Grazia falls in love with Death, which annoys her fiancé Corrado. Meanwhile, Duke Lambert is terrified that someone will say or do something to anger Death and bring his wrath down on them.

Death (after taking a human form) and Grazia

Oh, and nothing can die while Death is on holiday. Not even flowers.

Finally Duke Lambert tells his family the truth about who Death is. Grazia reveals she knew all along, and goes with Death when he leaves.

Death (back in his Grim Reaper form) and Grazia

So, what's my overall opinion?

The film is pretty good, and the idea of Death taking a holiday and having to deal with everyday life is an interesting one. Apart from the obvious, there's remarkably little darkness or grimness in it. In fact it can be quite funny in parts. But there's the unfortunate fact that it's a very old film, and falls victim to the problems common to old films. Awkward lines, sometimes-wooden acting, and general melodrama appear to have been par for the course in the 30s. But its age makes it easy to forgive those flaws.

Is it available online?: There's a version on YouTube, but it's such poor quality that it's hardly worth watching it. A better-quality version is available on ok.ru -- a site I'd never heard of until I searched for this film, but it appears to be a Russian-based video site where you can watch several movies from the 1930s.

As mentioned earlier, there's a musical adaptation that premiered in 2011. Some songs and clips from this version can be found on YouTube. I'd love to see how it compares to the film, but annoyingly there's no full video of it (yet).

Rating: 6/10.

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.

Review: Pride and Prejudice (2005)

I never thought I would re-watch or review this travesty. But reviewing the infinitely-better 1995 version put me in a P+P mood, and one of my friends was raving about it, so common sense deserted me and I began to watch it again.

I had a great time watching it. I roared with laughter at every scene. By the time the credits rolled I had a stitch in my side.

There's only one problem. It isn't meant to be funny.

There's such a long list of recognisable actors that you'd expect the film would be good.
Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Lizzie. (Yes, really! And she's exactly as unsuited to the role as you'd think!)
Matthew Macfadyen (Arthur in Little Dorrit) as Mr. Darcy. (Another inexplicable casting choice.)
Rosamund Pike (Lady Harriett in Wives and Daughters) as Jane
Carey Mulligan (Ada in Bleak House 2005) as Kitty
Simon Woods (Dr. Harrison in Cranford) as Bingley
Claudie Blakley (Martha in Cranford) as Charlotte
Tom Hollander (Osborne in Wives and Daughters, and Cutler Beckett in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Mr. Collins (!)
Rupert Friend (Prince Albert in The Young Victoria) as Wickham
Judi Dench (Miss Matty in Cranford) as Lady Catherine (!!)
Penelope Wilton (Mrs. Hamley in Wives and Daughters) as Mrs. Gardiner
Peter Wight (Mr. Wilfer in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Mr. Gardiner
Donald Sutherland (the evil president in The Hunger Games whose name I can't remember and can't be bothered to look up) as Mr. Bennet
Jena Malone (that obnoxious brat in The Hunger Games -- it should be obvious by now that I don't care much about The Hunger Games) as Lydia

That's a pretty long list of (mostly) good actors. As for the film itself, I'll let Mr. Banks sum up this sorry spectacle.

From the opening scene it's obvious that the director didn't even read the book. The Bennets live on a farm. A farm that appears to be falling to pieces, no less. Mr. Bennet is a mumbling dotard, Mrs. Bennet is a pretty normal woman and nothing like the hilarious harpy of the book, and Lizzie is... Keira Knightley.

Brief tangent here: I've never had a high opinion of Keira Knightley. She's one of those actresses who only ever seem capable of one facial expression, and never show much emotion no matter how dramatic the situation is. Take her (lack of) acting in Curse of the Black Pearl, especially in the scene where Elizabeth has been captured by the ghost pirates. Anyone in their right mind would be visibly terrified. But Elizabeth gives her ultimatum then holds the medallion over the ship's side while showing all the emotion of a cabbage. Her "acting" is exactly the same here.

Things get progressively worse from there.

The ball where Elizabeth first meets Darcy bears a striking resemblance to a barn dance. Caroline Bingley wears the most anachronistic outfit I've seen outside of Mozart! das Musical. Mr. Bingley is an imbecile. In fact, I seriously wondered at first if Simon Woods was deliberately playing him as... mentally deficient, shall we say. It's especially jarring because I'd watched Cranford shortly before this film. His acting there is a thousand times better.

Darcy is pathetic. If I hadn't seen Little Dorrit, I'd have thought Matthew Macfadyen was a hopelessly wooden actor. This Darcy doesn't have the pride that Darcy is supposed to have, and his insult to Lizzie lacks all the impact it has in the book. Here, Lizzie is eavesdropping from under... a flight of stairs?, and he didn't know she could hear him.

Jane is the one character who's fairly similar to their book counterpart. But that just makes me feel sorry for her, because she doesn't deserve to be married to an idiot like this Bingley.

I held out some hope that things would improve when Mr. Collins appeared. Tom Hollander is a great actor, even though he's not the first name that would come to mind if I was asked to cast Mr. Collins. But no. He's the next one to fall victim to what I've dubbed "the Joe Wright curse". It's a malady that affects even good actors, reducing them to wooden acting and unconvincing characters, usually brought on by a terrible director.

I didn't expect this Mr. Collins to be the obsequious oil slick David Bamber so brilliantly made him. I just hoped that he would be as foolish and comical as in the book. Instead Mr. Collins is a flat, emotionless non-entity who's as funny as cold soup. His proposal (which for some reason happens at the breakfast table. Couldn't make this up if I tried!) is the worst thing I've seen for months. I didn't know if I should laugh or cringe. 🤷

On and on the film drags with no end in sight. We go straight from one event to the next without time to process what's just happened. Wickham is introduced, then disappears almost for the rest of the story. Charlotte and Mr. Collins get married. Lizzie meets Lady Catherine.

Judi Dench is a magnificent actress. If you need any proof, just watch Cranford. But she isn't Lady Catherine. No one but Barbara Leigh-Hunt will ever be Lady Catherine.

Surely Darcy's first proposal will be fairly accurate to the book? Surely not even this incompetent director could make a mess of it? HAHAHA no. If there's one thing this film has taught me, it's that things will always get worse.

Lizzie learns of Darcy's interference in Jane and Bingley's romance from an unconvincing Colonel Fitzwilliam. So far so good, right? Wrong. For some reason he tells her this in church, while he's sitting beside her. Wrong. Col. Fitzwilliam is Lady Catherine's nephew, and so he -- and Darcy, and Anne de Burgh -- would have sat with her in the family pew. Lizzie, meanwhile, would have sat with Charlotte in a different pew. Instead, Lady Catherine is sitting on her own, Darcy is sitting on his own, Anne de Burgh is nowhere to be seen, and the Colonel is sitting with Lizzie, who isn't sitting with Charlotte. Argh! *makes sounds of inarticulate rage*

Anyway, Lizzie storms off (in the middle of the service?). In the rain. To a building a long way from the church. And then Darcy appears out of nowhere to propose. It ends with them screaming at each other. Then we get a really weird scene of Lizzie apparently sleep-walking when Darcy arrives in the middle of the night to give her his letter. 😖

The film drags on even longer. Lydia runs away with Wickham, something that has absolutely no emotional impact in this version and doesn't matter anyway because the whole thing's cleared up in five minutes. Lady Catherine arrives in the middle of the night?! to have her argument with Lizzie, then Darcy and Lizzie meet in their nightclothes (😕), he proposes and speaks to her father, the end. Finally! But after all that, they didn't even show us the wedding? 😑

Some films exist only to remind viewers that any idiot can make a movie nowadays -- and worse, make a popular movie that many otherwise-sensible people rave about. This is one of those films. I wouldn't mind so much if it hadn't butchered a brilliant novel. Watch this film only if you need something to laugh at.

Is it available online?: Who cares?

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Pride and Prejudice (1995)

It's about time I reviewed one of my favourite series of all time. Feel free to join me in fangirling over -- I mean, reviewing -- the amazing, the brilliant, the hilarious Pride and Prejudice miniseries! (AKA, the only good adaptation this novel has ever had.)

Pride and Prejudice is based on a novel by Jane Austen, obviously. It's her second novel, published in 1813. The series sticks very close to the book, taking whole scenes directly from it, and its few differences are usually for the best.

For many of the actors, I've only seen some of their other films/series. And almost everyone knows the cast anyway, so I won't bother listing them 🙂

I'm sure everyone knows the plot, so I'll just give a brief overview then move on to what I thought of the series.

The village of Meryton is excited to hear that a rich young gentleman, Mr. Bingley, is moving into the neighbourhood. Mrs. Bennet is especially excited because he's unmarried, and she immediately decides he must marry one of her daughters.

Mr. Bennet, Jane, Lizzie, and Mrs. Bennet. Mary, Kitty and Lydia are there too, hidden behind Mrs. Bennet's hat.

Jane, the oldest Bennet girl, falls in love with Mr. Bingley. Mr. Darcy, Bingley's friend, unwillingly starts to fall in love with Elizabeth Bennet at the same time. Lizzie hasn't a clue, and doesn't like Mr. Darcy anyway. She becomes more and more interested in Mr. Wickham, who claims to have been mistreated by Darcy.

Mr. Hurst, Mrs. Hurst, Mr. Darcy, Caroline Bingley, and Mr. Bingley

Mr. Wickham. Ugh. Every time I see this creep I want to punch that smug look off his face.

Jane and Lizzie

Added to this mess is Mr. Collins, who wants to marry Lizzie; Bingley's sisters, who don't want their brother to marry Jane; and Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Darcy's aunt, who strongly disapproves of Elizabeth.

Mr. Collins

Lady Catherine

Hilarity ensues... until it doesn't.

Lydia, the youngest and most obnoxious Bennet sister, runs away with Wickham. The family is disgraced, until Mr. Darcy insists Wickham marries Lydia. By this time Lizzie has fallen in love with Darcy, and Jane and Bingley are engaged, so both couples have a double wedding and everyone lives happily ever after. Aww 😍

Is this the greatest period drama ever? Quite possibly, though I admit I think Cranford a better contender for that title. There's plenty of comedy in Pride and Prejudice, but not much that will leave you a sobbing wreck.

P+P perfectly captures the wit and humour of Jane Austen's writing, and it's one of the most faithful-to-the-book dramas ever made. Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, and Lady Catherine are all exactly as hilarious as in the book. Wickham is a perfect copy of his book counterpart from the moment he oozes onto the screen. Jane and Bingley have the sweetest, cutest romance imaginable, and Lizzie and Darcy perfectly show their gradual change from dislike to love.

There are a few things I don't like, though. The most obvious one is the costumes. Yes, low-cut dresses are historically accurate for the period. But this series takes that to extremes. Almost every single dress has a plunging neckline, and there comes a point when it's obviously not for historical accuracy.

Another thing is the portrayal of Mary Bennet. In the book, it's clear that Mary reads and quotes books because she wants to make herself look smart, rather than because she truly enjoys reading. This aspect of her character is removed from the series, where it looks like she's being made fun of because she's a bookworm. As a bookworm myself, this annoys me endlessly.

Is it available online?: It used to be on YouTube, but now there are only a few clips from it. I'm not sure if it can be found anywhere else.

Rating: 9/10.