adaptation review

The Houses as Bookworms
  • Gryffindor: absolutely adores books but still wishes they read more, takes really aesthetic book photos, doesn’t waste their time on a book they know they won’t like, pretty critical about book to movie adaptations, considers other people’s reviews before picking up a book, reads their books in class even when they probably shouldn’t, loves borrowing books from others
  • Hufflepuff: will plow through book after book and then not read for an entire month, attempts to organize books alphabetically or by colour but in the end just tries to squeeze them in anywhere, probably re-reads more old books than they read new books, only presents they want are books, may not finish books super quickly but loves them nonetheless
  • Ravenclaw: reads books at an alarming rate, can and will read on any form of transportation, wears glasses, instead of listening to music they’re actually listening to audio books, starts reading a good book but then gets distracted by another and completely forgets about the old one, usually critical of the protagonist.
  • Slytherin: attempts to read over 20 books at the same time, ships everything, loves it when they’re friends read a book that they recommend,they have to finish the whole series no matter what, gets defensive when someone doesn’t recognize them as a reader, wants to read all the books their friends have read so they can contribute their own opinions to discussions
‘American Gods’ Review: Starz’s Adaptation Of Neil Gaiman Novel Simply Divine
By Dominic Patten

Starz’s cunning adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s novel American Gods may be the most ambitious and successful series the premium cabler has launched since it hit the reset button a few years back.

The eight-episode series executive produced by Bryan Fuller and Michael Green that debuts April 30 is do-not-miss television lived large on the big-picture topics and themes of our time as old-world deities and new-world manifestations spar and war across the American cultural tundra. Updated to 2017 from the 2001 publication of Gaiman’s cinematic yet seemingly unfilmable book, this Gods soars where the likes of David Cronenberg’s 1991 Naked Lunch adaptation sank, unveiling a challenging and exceptional result.

In fact, led by Ian McShane and a career-redefining performance from Ricky Whittle, American Gods may also be the best thing Fuller or Green have ever done – and those guys were behind NBC’s Hannibal and the R-rated blockbuster Logan, respectively. …


Arrival (2016)

Directed by Denis Villeneuve

Cinematography by Bradford Young

Review: Anne with an ‘E’ (Spoilers)

So I had just finished the Netflix series Anne with an ‘E’ with my Mum (who watched all of it a week prior to me) and I feel as if I need to give a consensus as a child who read all the books and felt that the 1985 adaptation was as close to perfect as anyone could get. I also see my younger self as a little Anne Shirley which is why I am so fiercely protective of this series and any adaptation of said series. So lets get to it:

My Praises

-The Cast: Although I do have an enternal love for Megan Follows, Jonathan Crombie, Colleen Dewhurst, and Richard Farnsworth as their respective characters; I could not imagine another better cast as the one in Anne with an 'E’. Newcomer Amybeth McNulty undeniably shines as the fierce and imaginative Anne Shirley. She captures Anne completely with even the slightest of expressions. Lucas Jade Zumann becomes Gilbert “Heart-Eyes” Blythe with his loving smirk and utter adoration of Anne. I also commend Geraldine James for making such an exquisite Marilla. James nailed Marilla’s sterness and sensitivity. Lastly, Corrine Koslo made Rachel Lynde my absolute fave and I have no problems with that.
-The Soundtrack: That upbeat and vibrant Celtic music.
-The Cinematography: It felt like I was truly experiencing the world through Anne’s eyes. So stunning to watch.
-The Episode Titles: I just loved this little detail they added in making all the episode titles Jane Eyre quotes. Since it is my favourite novel of all time, it did make me squeal a little everytime they mentioned it in the show.
-The Directing: Speechless, honestly. Props to the 5/7 female directors. We honestly do not see enough of them in this day and age.
-The Feminism!: That theme of feminism that underlyed throughout the show was something that made it stick. In a young girl’s coming-of-age story, there always should be a bit of feminism and girl empowerment to make it relatable. It was also Marilla’s coming-of-age in a way as well, becoming a “Mother in a Modern World”.
-Anne & Diana’s Adorable Friendship: Bossom Friends till the end.

My Criticism

-The Anne and Gilbert Love Story: Now before you all throw your hands 'round my throat, hear me out. These two are my precious babies. They are the teenage Lizzie and Darcy. Now Lizzie didn’t talk to Darcy because “a friend liked him”. No. Lizzie didn’t talk to Darcy because of her own stupid pride. Just like Anne. I have no idea why the writers thought of that “friend obligation” thingo. Anne was stupidly proud and ignored Gilbert because of that. Gilbert also was a bit of a twat when he pulled her hair and called her “carrots” (fucking iconic) not all soft and gentle. But the rest they got right. Except for the last episode (which a will get to..) where they called “truce”. Anne and Gilbert did not call “truce” until like 3 years later. Apart from that, the kids had amazing chemistry and were extremely adorable. Could have had extra time with spelling bees and stuff though.
-The Theives: I seriously have no clue. I was literally like this at that strange cliffhanger ending “!?!?!?!?!?”. It was really out of place.
-Gilbert working on the Docks: This honestly just made me really fucking mad. How is this going to change Anne and Gil’s relationship!? Is he coming back to school!? Is he going to become a doctor!!??
-The Lack of Anne’s Pride and Vanity: I wanted the Anne who accidentally dyed her hair green and climbed the roof of the school! The one who was so incredibly proud and vain. It made her relatable.

Overall, I think the pluses outweight the minuses. Y'all should give it a watch ASAP. Nothing will ever top the 1985 adaptation (or ya know the books) but this one certainly gives it a run for its money.


Here’s my review or something of the live action american adaptation of the 1995 anime film, Ghost in the Shell. Ghost in the Shell is a japanese franchise of manga and anime that has some very interesting themes in its stories. Unfortunately, this adaptation isn’t that great and is downright offensive at a point.

REBLOGS appreciated!


Silence (2016)

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto

Lost in a Book

This was my first experience reading something written by the lovely Jennifer Donnelly, and I was SO impressed. She captures and embodies the text’s iconic characters beautifully - perfectly, even. This is the sort of story that I’ve been waiting quite literally my entire life for - a little glimpse into what happened before the curse was broken, and more insight into the development of Belle and the Beast/Prince Adam’s relationship.

The book portrays their love, and their love of everyone else so wonderfully. I simply can’t rave enough about all of the little scenes between Belle/the Beast and Chip; they were so precious! That’s a dynamic that I’ve always loved, and I’m so glad that Donnelly expanded upon it even further than the films do. It almost makes you wonder, why didn’t Chip break the curse? He and the Beast share the sweetest familial love that I’ve ever seen.

Bravo! I sincerely hope, deep in my heart, that Miss Donnelly may grace us with more “Beauty and the Beast” inspired stories - perhaps, even, a sequel to the 2017 film? The way she writes the characters is so phenomenal. I would LOVE to see what she could do with the after-curse dynamic.

For anyone who is a fan of the new film, or even the 1991 original, I highly recommend giving this book a shot. It’s a must-read, relatable tale for bookworms everywhere.

For all those law, pre-law, “I’m doing one law class this semester send help" students? 

This one’s for you. 


  • Speed Reading 
  • Predominantly case law driven areas (c.f. textbook guided) 
  • Common Law Jurisdiction (though easily applicable to Civil Law)
  • Anyone who is staring down the barrel of a fuckton of reading

Masterposts are posted every other Monday (asia pacific)/ Sunday (everywhere else). See previous masterposts here. Feel free to request topics here.

Next topic: getting through readings



Ask yourself - What the fuck do I need this case for? 

  • Legal Principle: The case establishes the authoritative principle in the area 
  • Facts: The case illustrates the factual application of a legal principle/ example of unique application/ distinguishable
  • Precedent/ Historic: important in development of legal principle. 
  • Specific Judge: majority vs. dissent, subsequent interpretation + application 

 What does the headnote say? 

  •  Headnotes work like handy summaries to guide you through the cesspool of text 
  • Usually will include: Legal Principle, Key Facts, Split (see below), Paragraph Numbers/ Page Numbers to key passages 
  • + (when you’re in a rush and cbf sometimes the headnote is enough to give you a sense of what was decided in the case!) 

What is the ratio? 

Yeah this sounds like a fucking legal studies 101, but seriously look for the ratio. There’s nothing worse than getting to the final page and finding out that you were reading the dissenting judgment when you didn’t need to! 

  • Start with the headnote. The headnote will tell you who agreed with who, and on what legal question. Remember a judge in the majority may choose to dissent on one aspect of the judgment yet agree on others. Same with dissenting judges. 
  • Compare. May be useful to compare and contrast the dissent with the majority (esp. if the dissent has been commented on in later cases)  

Scan through the judgment 

  • Headings: Look for specific headings (if any! We all know of some judges who are allergic to headings) 
  • Start from the conclusion/ end of the judgment
  •  Use the paragraphs in the headnote
  • Ctrl+F is your best friend 

Writing Case Notes 

  • Keywords, summarise, judges (spelt correctly!) 
  • Its rare that you’ll need to copy and paste a direct quote (or lord forbid a paragraph) into your exam notes. 
  • Organise by element
  • Remember - what was the purpose of reading this case?!?! What did it illustrate? Why should I include it in my notes? 

Ok…what else?

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Wait, 1998 film had Enjolras and Cosette become a thing? Did... did Marius exist? Did Enjolras still die? WHAT ELSE DID THEY CHANGE?

No no no 
ALAS no 

okay here’s the thing 

in the 1998 film, THIS was Enjolras: 

HEY YEAH HELL YEAH, right?   Like, maybe a little older than the role really calls for but YEAH LET’S SEE WHERE THIS GOES–
…except it goes nowhere. Because Marius gets, like, ALL his plot, except for the whole “dying” bit. Marius is the effective leader of the revolutionary group, the main organizer and leading hero, AND he has the romantic lead plot.  I don’t remember if Enjolras even had any lines? But I remember Younger Pilf, already solidly Team Revolution, barely being able to realize he was supposed to be Enjolras.

Oh, and this is Marius: 

So. Yeah. 

1998 Les Mis is a weird darn movie. 


I feel like if more people read this book, the world might be a better place. Just this forward was so so good.

I would be burning through it faster but I keep having to stop every couple of pages and think for awhile, and find someone to talk about it with.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

After my first review was for a movie I kind of hated, I’ve decided to review one of my favorites. 

When I was younger, I was a total dweeb about this book. I would gift it to friends for their birthdays and it inspired me to make mixtape cds for my crushes. I was a total loser. The movie inspired a very different reaction from me, but one that was no less meaningful. 

Anyways, here’s what I have to say about it.

As the novel’s author, Steven Chbosky was the perfect person to adapt it to the screen, serving as the screenplay writer, director, and producer. He knows how to use the cinematic tools at his disposal to create a desired effect. Everything that felt real and true about the novel has made its way onto the screen.

The movie exists in a time and place that’s difficult to pinpoint. The novel occurs in the early 90s, yet the movie is unfettered by any period trappings or anachronisms, and the 80s music helps set the mood rather than the era. It exists in a vacuum; it doesn’t try to define the generation that has grown up with it or the generation that it depicts, instead it feels broader, and more timeless.

Some scenes are wonderfully cinematic and are able to express the emotions through images and sound. Charlie’s crush on Sam is apparent during their first meeting, but at the dance his feelings are portrayed through a song as he watches she and Patrick do their routine. For the first drive through the tunnel, the lighting and camera placement makes us feel as if we are flying alongside Sam. Instead of feeling trite and silly, it captures the moment of elation and, dare I say it, infiniteness perfectly. The movement of the truck in relation to the camera and the walls of the tunnel creates a striking image that is complimented by one of Bowie’s greatest and most rousing songs. The depiction of Charlie’s acid trip is another lovely moment, the effects creating an accurate feeling of trippiness, while the music enforces his crippling depression and isolation.

The soundtrack is aces. Like many of us in high school, this movie feels defined by the music it loves and puts onto mix-tapes or playlists. Cocteau Twins, Sonic Youth, The Smiths, XTC, Pavement, David Bowie, Dexy’s Midnight Runners; these are all great artists and great songs!

As in The Breakfast Club, there’s not one character that I can entirely relate to, yet there are countless moments that capture the emotions and circumstances that feel awfully familiar. It’s a time of discovery and excitement, but also of fear and loneliness. I’m not sure that adolescence is an easy time for anyone, even those with the complete support of their family and friends. That makes it easier, to be certain, but that doesn’t make their stories any less worthy.

Sure, it falls into some clichés, and after all these years I still don’t know how I feel about the revelation at the end, but these are issues that have never bothered me much beyond a slight twinge while watching it. To me, this film is not about what happens, but how, and the emotions they elicit.

I’m not a teenager anymore, and the issues the characters face are beyond the realm of what the average person will go through, but it captures the essence and mood of being young, of wanting to connect with and be understood by the people who mean something to you. Age and experience turns many of us into practical and rational adults, and thanks goodness for that, but I’m glad this movie exists and has seemingly captured that youthful hopefulness that we can all experience every now and then.

Les Mis 2k PART 3.2: I Always Cry at Badly Adapted Weddings

ALL. RIGHT. Everyone’s dead who’s Supposed to die (or ‘dead’ in the case of Gavroche etc) , and we’ve still got like…an hour to go…okay.  I can DO this. 

Okay so Valjean’s already sooooort oooof?? Tried to confess his past?? to GILLENORMAND, before the wedding? This Valjean keeps his identity secret about as well as Daredevil does 

Also there’s a whole exchange where he’s like  "Cosette is a gardener’s daughter" and Gillenormand was like LES GASPS AND SHOCKS , what are you telling me?? a LABORER’S daughter? Oh noes!, and then Valjean shows him the money and Gillenormand is like WELL GOD WAS A GARDENER WHOOOHOO and that is pretty good but it doesn’t get over the WEIRDNESS of Valjean being like “No I’m not a I spent a lot of time around uniforms but I’m not a soldier if you ;) know what I ;) mean…no I’ve known a lot of strong men who performed great deeds, I was with them ;) if you know what I mean;) , but I ’m not one of them ;)”  Like I get that Valjean is trying to hint that he was a convict (TO GILLENORMAND??)  but he honestly makes it sound more like he was a Kept Man, which would at least have been an interesting twist

Keep reading

Emma (The Austen Project #3) Book Review

Title: Emma (The Austen Project #3)

Author: Alexander McCall Smith

Summary: The summer after she graduates from university, Emma Woodhouse returns home to the village of Highbury, where she will live with her health-conscious father until she is ready to launch her interior-design business and strike out on her own. In the meantime, she will do what she does best: offer guidance to those less wise than she is in the ways of the world. Happily, this summer brings many new faces to Highbury and into the sphere of Emma’s not always perfectly felicitous council: Harriet Smith, a naïve teacher’s assistant at the ESL school run by the hippie-ish Mrs. Goddard; Frank Churchill, the attractive stepson of Emma’s former governess; and, of course, the perfect Jane Fairfax. 

Rating: 3 Stars

Review: Why oh why do I keep doing this to myself?! It’s as Einstein famously said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I have this masochistic desire to read Jane Austen modern adaptations. Every year it’s the same song and dance, “Oh this one looks better than the others, let’s give it a try.” I need to just stop. Is there a support group for readers like me? Who keep believing this adaptation of Pride and Prejudice or Emma will live up to the source-material.

In my defense I honestly thought this was going to be different than the other times. Before it’s always been Pride and Prejudice adaptations and here was a reinterpretation of Emma, my favorite Jane Austen novel. Clueless did a great job of it so there was hope. And Alexander McCall Smith is a great author with such a quintessential British voice which should work well in an adaptation of something just so British. In the end, the only redeeming quality of this book was McCall Smith’s style of writing. I love that dry British humor that shone through beautifully in his prose. And it raised my rating from maybe 2 stars up to 3. Because in the end it wasn’t a painful read, but he ruined some of my favorite characters and I’ll admit I’ve taken it personally.

Emma, the novel and the character, are probably Austen’s most controversial creations. I know just as many people who can’t stand Emma Woodhouse as people who adore her. As you might have guessed I’m firmly in the camp of ardent defenders. Yes she is deeply flawed, and yes she makes some massive mistakes in the book. However, Emma never had malicious intents and she always thought she was genuinely helping. She was a product of a privileged upbringing and along with that came a naïveté. I would argue that Emma is Jane Austen’s best written coming of age story where you can see the character learn and grow in such a satisfying way. By the end she’s learned from her mistakes and puts so much effort into rectifying all the mistakes. She’s become self-aware, repentant, and a better person.

However, all of that is lost in McCall Smith’s adaptation. His version of Emma has lost that sympathetic quality she possessed in the original book. Her actions don’t come from a place of naïve goodness but more from boredom and a manipulative nature. There’s also a jealous streak in McCall Smith’s Emma which is very unlikable, and it’s even present at the end when she’s supposed to have redeemed herself. It is also clear that McCall Smith was trying to keep his novel under a certain page limit and therefore he sacrifices a lot of scenes and character development which cheapens the story. For example, all the nuance in the Frank Churchill storyline is gone and this happened across the board to all the differing storylines going on underneath the surface of the novel; and all the supporting cast of characters suffer from the cuts. It cheapens them to two-dimensional characters whose motives are unclear. And don’t even get me started on the heinous crime perpetuated on Mr. George Knightley. Everything from his and Emma’s interactions are gone except for his scolding her for behaving badly. There are literally only three conversations between him and Emma in the entire adaptation, and two of them are about how poorly she’s acting. In the end when she comes to the realization that she loves Knightley in McCall Smith’s book the readers are left wondering, “Really? Now that just makes zero sense,” because the foundation was never built to support their relationship. There’s no real chemistry built up, he’s just depending on the reader’s knowledge and adoration for Austen’s original story in order to hold up his ending. If you never read Austen’s Emma and read McCall Smith’s Emma you’d be completely confused as to the ending.

I just find it unforgivable to write an adaptation to a beloved novel and get the characterizations of all the characters just so wrong. It feels like he needed to get the novel down to 300 pages and so he trimmed so much of the story you’re left with the lowest common denominators. And in a novel with so much nuance and depth you can’t allow that to happen, otherwise everyone comes off as terrible people. In the end I give this book 3 out of 5 stars. Alexander McCall Smith is still a wonderful author was such a great tone of voice in his writing and there were moments of wonderful wit. But on the other hand I’m furious with what he did to these beloved characters. If you want to indulge in a good Emma adaptation I would recommend you watch the wonderfully 90s Clueless or the delightful youtube series Emma Approved.

To adapt or not to adapt

or: what fans of the book “Still star-crossed” by Melinda Taub should know before diving into Shondaland’s tv adaptation.

First of all: this will contain spoilers for episode 1 of “Still star-crossed” and it will also contain MASSIVE spoilers for the book. This is going to be a incredibly long post with quotes from the book. So consider yourself warned.

As an avid book lover AND fellow tv/movie junkie I cringe when people with literary obsessions automatically tell you that “the book is better”. I’m aware that an adaptation of any book - may it be for the big or small screen - can never be 100% accurate. Whether for budget, screen time or other reasons there will always be limitations and while some films remain faithful to the writer’s original book I’m absolutely okay with adaptations that take the source material into new territory. (I’m looking at you there, Game of Thrones). BUT this only works for me if the film adaptation retains the heart and spirit of the novel. So, did “Still star-crossed” succeed? Yes and no.

The scenery (the show was filmed in small villages in Spain), costumes, CGI and also the cast is great, no doubt about that. I really enjoyed the race-blind casting - it means that the actors are hired for their talent, not their looks. Representation IS important. Period. Shonda Rhimes herself famously said after winning the “Diversity Award” that she’s “Making TV look like the world looks.” And she’s damn right.

These are not the differences from the book that I will discuss. Frankly it doesn’t matter that Romeo, Rosaline, Escalus and Livia are POC because that has no significance to the plot whatsoever. And I also won’t talk about the creative decision not to let the characters speak Shakespearean lines because it IS a mainstream television show and therefore it kinda made sense to simplify the language to make it more appealing for a broader audience.

Having said that I have to point out that there are mayor differences in the tv show that directly influence certain plot points and even character traits and motivations. Here we go:

Rosaline’s character:

Rosaline: the serving girl! One minute into the adaptation and I was already shaking my head in disbelief. I don’t know what compelled the writers to make her and Livia servants. Maybe they did it to emphasise the difference in status between them and the other Capulet’s or maybe they used the stereotypical “Cinderella” trope because it’s very popular in US media. (The American Dream Ladies and Gentleman!). It was so cliché that it was cringe-worthy. In the novel Rosaline and Livia are honorable and respected maidens that have their own (modest) estate/household and a monthly income. They are not wealthy but they are independent. It’s emphasised a couple of times in the book that the headstrong Rosaline “keeps her own counsel”. The “Dutchess Francesca”, matriarch of the Capulet family, even states that “Though keepst thine own counsel. […] Thou and thy sister need less care than my hounds.

But that’s not the only significant difference from the book. Rosaline’s character is a lively, witty young woman who is practically the only person in Verona that’s able to keep her temper in check. This is emphasised in Benvolio’s musings about her: “Benvoli was beginning to admire her ability to smile when she clearly longed to strange someone.” And that’s one reason why Escalus forces her betrothal to Benvolio. “Escalus could see her growing irritation. Still her voice remained even and low. […] Rosaline could not be made angry unless she choose to be. Quite possibly the only Capulet ever born with such control.” In the book Escalus admits that he could marry Livia to Benvolio but “Livia would cause a riot”. In the show we don’t see any of Rosaline’s wit and mirth (yet). She’s rather grim, sober, even aggressive and a bit cold. And that was a huge disappointment to me. Hopefully that will change in upcoming episodes - especially in her playful (dare I say flirtatious) interactions with Benvolio. *fingers-crossed*

Rosaline’s and Livia:

They have a very close, playful and even funny relationship in the book which also falls completely flat in the show. A pity. But maybe that’ll change in future episodes, too.


Escalus is 16 when his father dies in the novel. Rosaline is 13. They are established as old childhood friends but even at that point they have no interaction (or romance) at all because Escalus fears it might be improper. I have a huge problem with the established “secret romance” in the show because it’s lazily written, cheesy, melodramatic and SUCH a cliché (sighs). Seeing Escalus characterized as an obviously lovesick puppy (in front of the whole court!) was mildly disturbing. I should have been prepared for that, I know. It’s a “Shondaland” show after all. But that’s not my point at all - the problem I have with their tv-relationship is that it cheapens EVERY development that comes later. (Escalus’ betrayal at the ball, him blackmailing her and also the scene where he actually confesses his love.) The writers took the easy way out and that really is a shame.

Isabella, Escalus sister, is married in the novel to the cousin of “Sir Benedict” from “Much Ado About Nothing” (I loved those little references to other Shakespeare plays in the book but I don’t expect them to be in the show.). Her marriage is an important plot point at one moment in the third act of the book. Her husband comes to aid when Verona is attacked. I don’t know how they will weasel their way out of that in the show even though I’m sure they’ll find a way. (Whether it’s plausible or not.)

Changes from the original play “Romeo & Juliet”:

The episode starts with Romeo & Juliet’s wedding and rushes forward in such a hurry that you really don’t know what’s happening - and then suddenly it’s all over anyway. I really don’t know what the point of that was. Every child knows this story. They could have started the episode at their funeral. Anyway, I wouldn’t go as far as some people on the imdb reviews to call it an “attack on Shakespeare’s legacy” but they took some liberties with the original play from 1597 and I’m not sure how I feel about that. One example: Juliet stabs herself with Romeo’s dagger in the play, but poison’s herself in the show. I have no serious problem with that (stabbing herself would be bloody and they can’t show gore and explicit violence on the Show). But it makes her death far less dramatic. I can see why hardcore Shakespeare lovers could get a knot in their knickers for changing little details like that. In the play Juliet’s nurse and Romeo’s friend “Balthasar” are the only witnesses to Romeo & Juliet’s wedding. In the adaptation Benvolio and Rosaline are present instead, which I totally get. And to be fair: it was in the trailers. BUT that changes one of the first conflicts in the story and also Benvolio’s and Rosaline’s motivations towards each other. Which brings me to:


In one of the first chapters in the book Rosaline gets attacked by Montagues in the cemetery where Juliet is buried. Benvolio fights five men and saves her - not knowing who she is. They kinda did that in the show, right? Yes, but the difference is that in the book Rosaline and Benvolio have never met before. Benvolio knows Rosaline only as the heartless woman Romeo endlessly pined for and who cruelly refused Romeo. And he resents her for that because he believes that if she simply accepted Romeo’s advances, Romeo and Mercutio would still be alive. He makes her personally responsible for his friend’s death, even says so in her face and believes her to be a “Capulet harlot” . Later in the book, when Benvolio (sort of) apologizes to her and admits that she’s not responsible for Romeo’s death she is - to her own surprise - visibly relieved and it is the first cornerstone for a possible friendship because she realises that she trusts him and wonders “had she been waiting so pathetically for his forgiveness?”. Despite that I’m surprisingly pleased with Wade Briggs portrayal. He is very likeable and - even though they didn’t have a lot of screen time together yet - has great chemisty with Lashana Lynch who plays Rosaline.

So, does that all mean the show is unwatchable? No, not at all. Undoubtedly the pilot had some pacing problems. I think it tried to introduce too many characters and plot lines at once and that was the reason why the characters sort of fell flat. But that is something that could be fixed in the next episodes… provided that they don’t cancel it. It’s enjoyable, (cheesy), guilty-pleasure television to keep your mind occupied for an hour. And apart from that it’s always a pleasure watching Anthony Head (he plays Lord Capulet) so there’s that. Cheers & have fun watching.

P.S. The book is better. There, I said it.


Still star-crossed by Melinda Taub (2013)

Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet (1597)

Les Mis 2k pt 2.1: The Trainwreck Rolls On

In Which this miniseries goes from Kinda Disappointing to Horrifically Missing the Point. This was a wild ride and I am Not Recovered.

-THE GORBEAU RAID THE GORBEAU RAID is…very confusing, how confusing let me count the ways 

-okay so it actually starts with our Eternally Preadolescent Gavroche showing Marius the sewers by following Thenardier? Apparently Patron Minette in this just uses the sewers as their permanent base, and Marius …sends Gavroche back to the apartment to deal with the imminent MASS GANG HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND ASSAULT while Marius goes to get the police. You got this, actual child!

Keep reading

Slackin’ with the Sleuth: Reviewing Netflix’s “A Series of Unfortunate Events”

As much as we like to pontificate over bad page-to-screen adaptations, the idea of involving the original author in the delicate process of translating literature to film language is not as fullproof as one might think. Does said author even understand what made his book work? Not necessarily. Would a novelist know what makes a good movie tick? Rarely, if ever.

But when a second adaptation of “A Series Of Unfortunate Events” came along, and when Daniel Handler became part of its writing team, fans across the globe allowed themselves a faint breath of optimism. Daniel had written no less than two original movie scripts before (Rick and Kill the poor), and his unfortunate experience on the first adaptation had given him a testing round, so to speak: this time, he would know what worked and what didn’t. With the last book in the series published over a decade ago, he even had a chance to, perhaps, improve and revise the source material.

The end result is aggravating, baffling, conceited, dreadful, exasperating, flacid, grim, horrifying, irritating, jittery, klutzy, long-winded, malicious, nerve-wracking, ostentatious, petty, querulous, rash, sinister, tepid, unrefined, vapid, wasteful, xylophone, yamn-inducing, zonked — and probably the best thing you’ll watch this year.

Keep reading