I Capture the Castle

My friend Jess and I decided that for Christmas last year we would exchange books so we actually ended up with a present we wanted (although, I don't think mine was quite as successful as hers so, sorry Jess!) And this was the book she gave me, informing me immediately that it was her favourite book, so if I didn't like it I must lie to her. Luckily though, it was great.

I actually finished the book about two weeks ago but I haven't had the time or motivation to write a review until now, but I will try to remember as much as I can. Actually the review might work better this way; it will certainly be shorter, which in some ways is a good thing, otherwise I can go on and on.

Anyway, the book. I'll be honest, from reading the blurb I was dubious about what would be inside. Names such as Topaz, Cassandra and Rose would normally have me planting the book straight back on the bookshelf without another glance (I guess that's a reason why getting recommendations from friends is great because it means you can discover things which otherwise you wouldn't touch with a barge pole). The basic plot is this: "Cassandra Mortmain lives with her bohemian and impoverished family in a crumbling castle in the middle of nowhere. She records her life with her beautiful, bored sister, Rose, her fadingly glamorous stepmother, Topaz, her little brother, Thomas, and her eccentric novelist father who suffers from a financially crippling writer's block. However, all their lives are turned upside down when the American heirs to the castle arrive and Cassandra finds herself falling in love for the first time". - at least she thinks she does, but I'll get to that later. 

Henry Cavill as Stephen

'I Capture the Castle' is written by Dodie Smith, the author of '101 Dalmatians'  which immediately suggests that it's going to be worth a read, and it came in at 82 in the BBC's Big Read survey of 2003.   I could talk about the opening sentence - "I write this sitting in the kitchen sink" - for pages, it's just brilliant.  It also sets you up for the tone of the first half of the book, which is cheery and interesting. 

However, I have to admit, good as this book was, Cassandra (the narrator) became ridiculously infuriating for the second half of the book after she had 'fallen in love'. The book is aimed at a teenage audience, I'm 17 so this does apply to me, but I couldn't really relate to Cassandra. She suddenly decided that she is in love with a man whom she has never thought of before, and really it's a ridiculous infatuation and completely unrealistic and annoying. The family's servant/ friend, Stephen, is said to have been obviously in love with Cassandra since they were very young, he's lovely and apparently so handsome he could be a movie-star. So what is Cassandra's problem? Topaz even questions her at one point, saying that when she was Cassandra's age she would have jumped at the chance to be with someone like Stephen. And any girl in their right mind would, especially if he looked anything like Henry Cavill, who plays him in the 2003 adaptation. So, in this respect, Cassandra wasn't much like any 17 year old I know, perhaps it would be more if her attentions were directed towards Stephen.

I do think, though, the troubles described by Smith, although set in the 1940s, are still relevant today and Cassandra is quite a deep character. In fact, the more I think about it, her lack of love for Stephen is more understandable in relation to her whole character; she isn't the average 17 year old as she has quirks and attributes which make her a little different, and it's the admittance of those quirks which most teenagers struggle to let out. I know so many people who are afraid to be themselves simply because they're scared of what people will think of them and, unfortunately, this can sometimes follow through into adulthood. This is, in some ways, what I think Smith is trying to tackle: the fear of letting ourselves out into society and the ridiculous amount of power we all allow other people, strangers, to have on our lives. And in this way, I really like Cassandra; she's a fantastic and refreshing reminder to be yourself and damn the consequences.

Because of this I'm incredibly happy I read this book and I'd recommend it to anybody. Smith sews a story of life lessons which can be unpicked by the reader, without the need to preach, and in doing so she created a fantastic story which, although infuriating at times, is suitable for all ages and refreshingly original. Smith's writing is fantastic and the ultimately serious message under a fun and interesting plot is brilliantly constructed. Smith's final message of undying hope is displayed perfectly in the quote: "I love. I have loved. I will love". 8/10. (So much for the shorter length of this review, I must try harder next time).

A Street Cat Named Bob

Yes, it sounds like a children's book; no, it's not. I really liked this book, I expected a lot and it was so uplifting. It's also left me seriously tempted to trek to London through all the snow to hunt down 'Bob the Big Issue cat'. I'm not joking.

The basic premise of the story is: "When James Bowen found an injured  ginger street cat curled up in the hallway of his sheltered accommodation he had no idea just how much his life was about to change. James was living hand to mouth on the streets of London and the last thing he needed was a pet. Yet James couldn't resist the strikingly intelligent tom cat, whom he quickly christened Bob. Soon the two were inseparable and their diverse, comic and occasionally dangerous adventures would transform both their lives, slowly healing the scars of each other's troubled pasts."

This is the first non-fiction book I've ever managed to finish, which I think says something about it. It really feels like more of a fiction book, only told in the first person. For me this was a positive, and I'm not sure if other non-fiction books are written like this, but I suppose some might find it a little annoying. I also noticed one reviewer commented that "the word 'I' was used far too much", but to be honest I think that's a little harsh; the author and owner of Bob, James, is an inexperienced writer, and he tells the story in an endearing manner, at least in the case of Bob, which, for me, really works well.

I must admit that I wouldn't have picked this book up if my Godfather hadn't suggested it, and the great Amazon reviews helped too. I am glad I did though, although you can tell that Bowen hasn't really written before; in places the book does drag, particularly the beginning, and it is a little repetitive at times. 

Overall, what I think makes this book a success is simply Bob, the cat. Without Bob, firstly there wouldn't be a book at all, but to be honest I don't think Bowen is really that likable when not portrayed through his own eyes. Just looking at some of the YouTube videos (just type in 'Bob the Big Issue cat' to find a load) Bowen comes across as being very pushy and rude, although this is probably needed when on the streets, I don't really think it's fair to charge people for a photo with Bob as Bowen has now started doing. He even states in the book that he doesn't think this would be the right course of action, yet he does it anyway. It kind of makes me question how much he is adapting the truth throughout the book to make the reader warm to him. 

I have gone on about the negatives of 'A Street Cat Named Bob' a bit which I didn't intend to do, especially since I really enjoyed the book. But the more I think about it, the more the negatives are jumping out at me. That's probably the point though; this isn't a book that needs, or benefits from, deep thought. It really is the definition of light-reading. It's a book I could see many people taking on holiday, just to take a break from everything. And in this it does well, it's just so uplifting and really makes you feel that anything is possible. As much as I'm not all that keen on Bowen his story really is inspiring, and what he's overcome in life is fantastic. That Bob made this possible is brilliant and the street cat really has captured the hearts of Londoners and Britons alike. 

I'm going to post a link of Bowen and Bob on 'This Morning' below. In this clip Bowen actually presents himself as much nicer than in other videos and he gets across the story quite well, although it is a bit annoying that the interviewers keep interrupting, but ahh well it's not the end of the world. You also get to see Bob giving high fives at the end. He's so cute! 7/10.

 

Les Miserables

I've just been to see this film for the second time since it was released on Friday and I thought I would wait until now to write my review of it. This is likely to be quite long so, I'm sorry, but it needs to be done. Also this post will contain **SPOILERS**.

Hugh Jackman was absolutely amazing! Although not vocally as talented as Alfie Boe he definitely had all the emotion needed to play Valjean and finally, a convict who is scary, not saintly! Jackman's journey was acted so well and it really felt like the character had changed so much by the end - some actors portray Valjean as good at the beginning which just doesn't work for me. I was sightly concerned when I heard the audio of 'Bring Him Home' as there is no doubt that he has to strain to make the notes, but when combined with the visuals it was stunning - although the addition of an eye of Valjean's shoulder throughout the scene, presumably meant to represent the eye of God, wasn't quite subtle enough for my taste, but some might like it.

Russell Crowe really doesn't deserve the criticism he's getting at all. I went into the cinema having read reviews and was expecting to hate him, but, actually, he was one of my favourite parts about this movie. I loved that there were similarities between 'Stars' and 'Javert's Suicide' and I'm so happy Hooper thought to include the Notre Dame and Palaice de Justice on either side of the screen as Javert jumped off the bridge as it really shows his struggle between morality and duty as Hugo intended it. He really was brilliant and the emotion constantly in his eyes was fantastic.

Anne Hathaway so deserves all the credit she's getting for her Fantine. 'I dreamed a dream' was heartbreaking, but the song that hit me more was 'Come to me' in which Fantine dies and hallucinates about Cosette, her daughter. Actually having little Cosette 'present' in that scene made it all the more powerful and touching. It was just so good and she really left a lasting impression.
Eddie Redmayne broke my heart during 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables'. At first I really missed the spirits of his dead friends but when I think about it his loneliness was really emphasised by their absence. Additionally his stutters in "A Heart Full of Love", and jumping through the street throughout "In My Life", were brilliant touches. Finally a Marius who could stand up for himself as well as having that tender side!

Amanda Seyfried was definitely the weak point for me. Although her singing was more like book Cosette, it still wasn't quite there and I found myself regretting that little Cosette had grown up (Isabelle Allan was a brilliant young Cosette and was so cute with Valjean). However, Seyfried's scenes with Jackman were brilliant and her reaction to Valjean's death was one of the best I've seen.
Samantha Barks: of course she was amazing, we couldn't really expect anything less with the experience she has of playing Eponine. But she really did step it up for the movie and every time she was on screen you could just tell the whole audience's hearts were breaking for her. 'On My Own' was particularly good.
Fra Fee, Alastair Brammer and Killian Donneley were my favourite parts of the whole film; they were incredible! Particularly Fee and Donneley's reaction to Gavroche's going over the barricade and getting shot. Yeah, that just about broke me in two... at least until Hadley Fraser appeared on screen two seconds later. Ahh that face! Proving no part is small, Hadley's reaction to Gavroche's death and shooting the students was basically perfect, and for the first time it actually seemed like the National Guard were sorry for what they were having to do. Finally!
Daniel Huttlestone was a fantastic Gavroche and completely in line with Hugo's creation. I still haven't quite recovered from his death, but at all other times he was hilarious. Hopefully he'll be one to look out for in the West End in the future.
The opening chords gave me chills and I didn't stop trembling for quite a while into the film when I first saw it - I actually had to physically make myself sit still, it was becoming a little embarrassing. The orchestra the whole way through is amazing, and although it will always be considered secondary to the singing, I think it deserves a mention.
The Epilogue absolutely floored me and I couldn't actually see through tears for half of it (I'm not really a crier so this is saying something!). Colm Wilkinson not only coming back as the bishop but also as a ghost to take Valjean to Heaven was just too perfect and emphasised Valjean's journey from a resentful convict seeking revenge to an honorable man. Ahh I can't cope...
Overall this is without doubt the best film I've ever seen and probably ever will see - I think I ran out of superlatives to describe it a long time ago. Even the weak points are better than any movie I've witnessed before and I just loved it. Everything was perfect and it was the little things more than anything else that completely made the film. I adored that Hooper thought to include so much from the book that just wouldn't make sense on stage to give the film so much more scope and meaning. Many people have said that the film has made them understand the story better than the stage show did, and I can see why that would be since the detail included just wouldn't be feasible on stage. I'm so happy that this film has made Les Mis more widely available and the songs will be stuck in you're head for weeks after you see it. 10/10.

The Phantom of the Opera

This book is absolutely amazing. There, I said it. I really wasn't expecting a lot from 'The Phantom of the Opera' since many critics are of the opinion that the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical made something good  out of bad source material. However, having now read the book, I would strongly disagree with this, and looking at the Amazon reviews it seems that other people feel the same way. 

For those who don't know 'The Phantom of the Opera' tells the story of a mysterious 'Opera Ghost' who haunts the Paris Opera and becomes obsessed with beautiful singer Christine Daae. Under the Phantom's tuition Christine's singing reaches new heights. However, Christine is also loved by Raoul the Viscount de Chagny and it soon comes to light that the Phantom is a lot more dangerous than he at first seemed.

There is a huge difference between the book and the musical; the end result is the same but the way each story gets there is completely different. The minor characters are also different and I would say perhaps more interesting in the show; Leroux focuses all his energy on the Phantom, Christine and Raoul and so the other characters do suffer. However, I don't think this affects the story at all because, presumably, these characters' parts were only enlarged because a musical with just three characters might have been a little boring. It works very well in the novel.

Erik - 'The Phantom'

'The Phantom of the Opera' is the first book I have read in a long time that I haven't been able to put down, and when I had to, I couldn't wait to pick it up again and find out what happened. At only 278 pages, this book never goes off on tangents - lines such as "perhaps the reader might find it useful to know how the bottom and sides of this structure had been built" had me worried that Leroux would turn the next 10 pages of the book into something Victor Hugo-esque, but it was okay, the diversion only lasted four lines.

I also appreciated Leroux's use of cliff-hangers, especially towards the end of the novel - it's a technique that's been strangely lacking in many of the books I've read recently. Lines such as "we've landed in his torture chamber" definitely added to the 'unputdownable' nature of this book. 

However, some of the phrases used by Leroux were perhaps overused and I got annoyed by the way characters all too frequently "burst out laughing" at completely inappropriate moments. This may have just been a problem with translation, however, as it is possible that this is phrased a lot better in the french language. There was also repetition of Raoul being told to "[not] forget!... keep one hand up" at the level of his eyes to stop being strangled by the Phantom. Although the latter was actually quite clever as it appears that it is foreshadowing the ending which is in fact very inventive and not what I was expecting at all. 

Christine and Raoul

Simultaneously to being a great story, 'The Phantom of the Opera' also makes you think about your perceptions of others and how what you say and do can have a lasting effect on them. Leroux cleverly takes the reader through each characters' story in a way that makes you understand and sympathise with each of them in turn; in the space of ten pages it becomes clear why the Phantom acted as he did throughout the novel and why he did what he did to Christine and Raoul. 

I would recommend 'The Phantom of the Opera' to anyone, especially fans of the musical, as the book gives far more understanding of the characters and their motivations. I also liked that it was clear in the book who Christine was in love with as this is not made clear in the musical; always having thought Christine loves Raoul I was happy that it was this way in the novel. I wasn't at all keen on Raoul to begin with - he comes across as a grumpy teenager who assumes he is in love with a woman who has recently shot to fame - but he really grew on me as the book went on and by the end he was definitely my favourite character. 'Phantom' examines the shallowness of human nature and is summed up in the quotation: "If Erik [the Phantom] was handsome, Christine, would you love me?" 10/10.

Life of Pi Movie (2012)

So I went to see this movie with a few friends this afternoon (you can find my review of the book below or in December 2012 in the archive to the right) and I was really quite impressed. Our first thoughts as the lights went up were that it was worth seeing in 3D and that the film was visually stunning.

The plot of the film stayed pretty close to that of the book: 16-year-old Pi's family decide to relocate to Canada from India and sell the animals from their zoo to make money for this move. However, on the journey the ship sinks, leaving Pi as the lone survivor on a lifeboat with only a 450-pound Bengal tiger (interestingly named Richard Parker) for company. Director Ang Lee understandably cut plot lines that clearly wouldn't have worked for film - for example, when both Pi and Richard Parker go blind. 

Right from the beginning I was intrigued to know how they would portray the ending of the book, considering the film is a PG  you could be pretty certain that they wouldn't show it as a flash back as the rest of the film had been. Instead the camera zoomed in on Suraj Sharma, playing the young Pi, and showed him against a white background as he tells his other story. This scene actually reminded me a lot of the scene in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 when Harry is attacked by Voldemort and wakes up to meet Dumbledore in a deserted, bright white imitation of King's Cross station. I quite liked that there was a similarity between these two scenes as it showed that Pi was in another world when telling this story and the white was clearly meant to show his closeness with God. This part of the book was tenderly dealt with, meaning the film is accessible to all ages; if this part of the film had been acted out I think it would have probably been too gory and violent for younger audiences.

I was a little concerned about the lead, Suraj Sharma, before viewing this film as many people had commented that his dialogue is a little difficult to understand. However, I didn't find this a problem and I actually thought he was very, very good in the title role - especially when the fact that he is on screen alone for the majority of the film is taken into account. How on earth he managed to react so well and with such reality to a tiger that wasn't there is beyond me. 

The CGI in this film was absolutely sensational and made the whole thing so beautiful to look at; without this I think the film would have suffered and definitely wouldn't have had the same impact on viewers come the end of the movie. Although my friend thought the tiger was unrealistic, I was actually quite impressed at how life-like they made it look, especially when he was jumping or moving about the boat. This brings me on to another point about the tiger, and I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but the near constant lunging of the tiger towards the beginning of the film made many of us jump about 5 ft out of our seats. Personally, I think this added to the enjoyment of the movie as it enabled the viewer to feel just a tiny amount of what Pi was feeling at the time, which is quite a difficult thing to do with such an unusual plot.

However, there were a few things that I wasn't that happy with in the 'Life of Pi' movie. Although Pi's childhood and background is interesting and in some areas necessary, I think this part of the film went on a little bit too long - I would guess it took up at least a quarter of the two hours. I was also a little bit unsure about the addition of a relationship in Pi's life before his family's move as this wasn't in the book and I didn't think it was really necessary at first. However, as this short part of the film went on it grew on me and it did add to Pi's sense of loss at having to leave Pondicherry and his family's zoo. Also, although I do think it was worth paying extra for 3D in the case of this film, surprisingly I'm not sure this addition was used to it's full extent; I frequently found myself forgetting that it was in 3D at all which, in my opinion, shouldn't happen in a 3D movie. 

So, overall this film was really very good and it was also nice to see actors such as Gerard Depardieu in cameo roles on the ship before the rest of the film was left in the hands of the fantastic Suraj Sharma. The acting was brilliant from all and the scenes flowed very well between the past and present, with the adult Pi, Irrfan Khan, and the writer, Rafe Spall, providing some welcome comic relief, as well as some very wise words at times: "I suppose in the end, the whole of life becomes an act of letting go, but what always hurts the most is not taking a moment to say goodbye", for example. The only other thing I would have liked to have seen would be Yann Martel (the original author of life of Pi) playing the writer in the film; it would have been a nice touch and almost as if the story had come full circle. But never mind, the actor playing the writer was also very good and the film really brought the book to life. 8/10.

The Hundred-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared

I imagine like most people, I was first drawn to this book due to the unusual but brilliant title. It just immediately sounds like a fun and interesting book. And thank god it was - to be honest, after a while the endless depressing books that are available now-a-days become ridiculously tiresome, so it was nice to read something cheerful for a change. Although that's not to say that this book is without its action - there are a few murders along the way, but they're handled with in such a way that makes the book light and fun. 

The basic premise of this book is of 100-year-old swede Allan Karlsson who one day, minutes before his 100th birthday party, decides that his life without vodka in an old people's home is not worth staying for, and so he climbs out of the window and, well, he disappears. He then goes on to steal a suit case which leads to his being hunted down by an infamous criminal gang and the police. Every other chapter goes back in time to chart Allan's incredible life, in which he mixed closely with President Harry Truman, Stalin and Churchill to name a few, as well as being a key figure in some of the most momentous events of the 20th Century.

A great thing about this book is that the protagonist Allan Karlsson is so relatable, although perhaps not to my own generation, but there are elements of Allan in anybody over the age of, say, 75. Personally, I found the book funnier because I could see so much of my grandpa in the main character. The author Jonas Jonasson just presents his protagonist in such a likable, if at times unrealistic, light. 

However, a problem I did have was this book was that it was a bit repetitive in places as Allan just kept on meeting world leaders over and over again, and the situation always resulted in the same thing. So, yes it did get a little boring in places. And, to tell the truth, I couldn't wait until it finished because I wanted to get on and read other books. So perhaps, as some other readers have suggested, the One Hundred-Year-Old man is just that little bit too long and lacking in ideas; although the overall idea is very original and, personally, I've never read anything like it before, perhaps the only new idea is the main plot as all the sub-plots are repeated a little too often. 

This book is basically 'Forrest Gump' fast-forwarded a few decades and with more emphasis on global events. There's also the fact that the plot is constantly switching between the past and the present which has the potential to make the reader feel a little uneasy but Jonasson handles this well and so the plot flows as naturally as is possible. Although I would say that both the past and present elements of the story are written so well that, when it was again time to switch between the two, I was a little disappointed and annoyed about the diversion until I got a few pages into the new chapter. 

I think what made the book for me, though, was the fantastic ending; it completely brings you back down to earth again after the slightly strange story, but not in a bad way. The ending is happy and I think the quotation printed at the beginning sums up the whole book pretty well: "Things are what they are, and what ever will be will be". This is really such a cheerful book and  it's definitely worth a read just for that; I think Jonasson was trying to leave the reader with the thought that, when the next opportunity comes, we too should try climbing out of the window to see where it takes us. And in this, Jonasson succeeded. 7/10.

Emma (2009)

After receiving an HMV gift voucher for Christmas from my aunt and uncle, I decided that I would replenish my period drama collection (not the 'coolest' thing I've ever done, but then I'm not really) and first on my list was the 2009 BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's 'Emma'.

The basic plot of 'Emma' is this: "Emma Woodhouse, beautiful, clever, and rich, has very little to concern her. When her governess marries advantageously, Emma congratulates herself on her great success as a matchmaker. So, when she meets the pretty, naive, and socially inferior Harriet, Emma is ready to practise her skills again - ignoring warnings of the harm she could cause from friend and neighbour, Mr Knightley.

As she sets about meddling with the affairs of the village of Highbury, Emma carves a trail of confusion, disappointment and disaster that risks Harriet’s happiness, and much to her surprise, her own happiness too. As our heroine embarks on a journey that challenges her naivety and her social preconceptions it leads her to realise that she has become so focused on the lives of others that she has failed to see what’s in front of her own eyes.." (Amazon)

Since buying it yesterday, I've watched this 4-hour-long mini-series twice the whole way through, and it's brilliant. I just love it. Although, in general, I'm not much of an Austen fan - I can't abide the book 'Pride and Prejudice', although I enjoyed the 1995 Colin Firth adaptation, and I found 'Sense and Sensibility' really quite boring. However, after watching this version of 'Emma', I'm strongly considering giving the book a go. 

One of the greatest things about this adaptation is that it's absolutely hilarious. The humour is subtle in places and more obvious in others, providing a nice mix which makes it watchable for all. Mostly, the comic moments are making fun of the society of Austen's time and so what makes it funnier is that the characters in the series aren't supposed to know that they're being made fun of.

Another factor that I loved about this adaptation was the almost constant presence of beautiful men in this series. Mr Knightly, Mr Elton and Frank Churchill all completely make the series for me, and the parts are so brilliantly acted. Jonny Lee Miller as Knightly was particularly brilliant and basically I'm going to spend my life waiting for my very own Mr Knightly, as much of a long shot as that is. The dancing scene (shown below) is just complete perfection and the tiny adjustments of facial expressions from both Miller and Romola Garai (playing Emma) say so much. The music in the scene is also absolutely beautiful, and the whole scene put together never fails to make me smile and cheer me up when I'm feeling down. 

Emma's hypochondriac father is played in this series by the fantastic Michael Gambon (from Harry Potter). However, it was odd at times to hear the fearless Dumbledore worrying about who might catch a cold if they went to the seaside. I suppose this added to the comedy in some ways and was a testament to Gambon's ability to act diverse characters. 

If I had to find a problem with this series - it's hard to find one - I did find the ending a little contradictory as, one moment Harriet is proclaiming her love for one man, and the next she has completely forgotten him and marries another man, whom she, only a few minutes before, said she could never contemplate being with. I'm not sure if this is a fault in the book, or simply a problem of lack of time in the series resulting in cuts having to be made and stories not being explained as well as they could have been. Either way, this doesn't really detract that much from the story as the ending is so beautiful. I just love it.

I will admit though, this story is quite 'girly' since it's a romance and I'm not sure if many men would be that keen on it - at least they probably would't admit to liking it. But, for me, this is pretty much as good as period drama gets and it was absolutely fantastic; I would recommend it to any of my friends, and the series has the ability to cheer you up, even when you're feeling at your lowest. 9/10.

Downton Abbey: A Journey to the Highlands

I'll start with the warning that there will be **SPOILERS** in this post because I can't really write this review without them; some very significant things happened which I don't want to just gloss over. 

On the whole I was thoroughly disappointed with this Downton episode, especially when compared to the epic that was last years Christmas special. I think one of the major problems was the simple fact that it was set at the height of summer, not Christmas. Part of the beauty of last years episode was that it was seasonal and there was an enormous Christmas tree; everything was festive and happy and there were so many more issues to be addressed so the story could be developed. In comparison, this year the family and some servants journeyed to Scotland to stay with the Earl of Grantham's friend, 'Shrimpie' (really Downton, 'Shrimpie'?). Meanwhile, the majority of the servants stayed home at Downton abbey, using the two hour episode to go to  the fair. Yay. Allotting two hours (actually much less than that considering there was one minute of adverts for every three minutes of Downton yesterday, seriously ITV?) to the show was absolutely fine with me, in fact, I was thrilled. But when it came to it, absolutely nothing happened in the whole show before the final three minutes, which then left me so depressed I wished I hadn't bothered.

This is Christmassy...

And why did this Christmas special leave me so depressed? Matthew died. Julian Fellowes killed off the main character. What are they playing at? I mean, I respect that Dan Stevens (the actor who played Matthew) had decided to end his contract after three series, but did they really have to kill him off in such a dramatic manner, not a minute after meeting his son and heir for the first, and last, time. And at Christmas? Throughout series 3 it would appear that Downton has turned into an upper-class Eastenders - a child can't be born without one of their parents dying minutes later. My point is that last years episode left me happy and contented at the end of Christmas day, whereas, this year, I was left numb and in shock, with only a box of Quality Street to cheer me up. Even Fellowes' attempt to add Christmas cheer with the birth of Mary and Matthew's first child (I think he was attempting to go for the juxtaposition of this scene with the birth of Jesus) fell flat due to the death of the father immediately afterwards. Viewers were barely allowed to enjoy the scene of the happy family together for a minute before foreshadowing comments began pouring in and everybody immediately knew what was going to happen. Great. Very Christmassy.

... This is not.

Another problem I have is that Fellowes' writing of the series has become almost painful. The most cringe-worthy lines in the past series including Matthew's lines that "now [he and Mary] can start making babies", to a comment in the Christmas special: "I know you're nice because I've seen you naked". I mean really? How much more cheesy can the writing get? And since when has seeing someone naked been a good way to judge how nice a person is?

I feel I should mention some of the positives of the episode though: the setting was beautiful, although perhaps lacking in that very little of the episode was shot at Highclere Castle (the location of Downton Abbey); the costumes were, as always, stunning and exactly on period. I also feel I should mention Lesley Nicol (Mrs. Patmore) and Phyllis Logan (Mrs. Hughes) for their fantastic acting in this episode - the scenes they shared were brilliant and very funny. This actually brings me on to another disappointment with this episode: there was very little from Dame Maggie Smith. The usually hilarious Dowager Countess was barely used and, as a result, this episode was hugely lacking in the comedy aspect which, considering the lack of action and bleak ending, was sorely missed.

The 2011 Christmas Special... more of this please

I'm going to stop now because this post has basically been one long rant. But, the point I'm trying to make is this, since when did Christmas specials turn into bleak, depressing shows that make you want to go and die in a hole, rather than programmes that make you happy and contented? Quiet honestly, I would take a 'Vicar of Dibley' box set over these depressing new Downton episodes any day (luckily a Christmas special of the former show was programmed after the latter to cheer me up again). I just don't understand why, as the series has gone on, the story lines have become more and more bleak; what was once a relaxing escapism has now become more like an episode of Casualty. Although, as I saw somebody mention earlier today, the blood used was very realistic, which of course makes up for everything. 

Don't get me wrong, I adore Downton. It's been my favourite show for a while now, but I don't know if I can take much more of the empty plot lines before a dramatic death in the last minutes. So, considering how great I know Downton can be (last years Christmas special I'm looking at you), I'm going to be harsh: 5/10.

Hugo (2011)

Sitting today wrapping Christmas presents I decided I needed a distraction, and what did Sky Anytime have in store for me? Martin Scorsese's 2011 movie 'Hugo'. Starring 'The Boy in Striped Pajamas'' Asa Butterfield, 'Hugo' was adapted from Brian Selznick's novel 'The Invention of Hugo Cabret', which is, I believe, based on the true story of Georges Melies, a french pioneer filmmaker. The summary given of the film on Amazon is this: "Hugo is the astonishing adventure of a wily and resourceful orphan boy whose quest to unlock a secret left to him by his father will transform Hugo and all those around him". I would say that's a pretty good description as there are quite a few layers to the story - reflected in the rather long run time of 126 minutes - however, I was very disappointed to see the film has only reached 3.5 stars on the website as I would say it was worth far more than this.

Butterfield puts in another fantastic performance and it always strikes me that he can act far beyond his years, easily and tactfully tackling tender subjects, such as the Holocaust in 'The Boy in Striped Pajamas' and orphanage in 'Hugo'. He really is a fantastic actor and I hope he'll continue to be brilliant in all of his future projects. 

Another great actor in the film came in the form of  the hilarious and incredibly versatile Sacha Baron Cohen as the Station Inspector. Cohen appears to have an unerring ability to act any role thrown at him, from the comical character of the Station Inspector in 'Hugo' (although he is also given tender moments, for example when explaining to Lisette how he came to have a permanently injured leg) to the evil Pirelli in 'Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street' and Thenardier in the upcoming 'Les Miserables' film.

This film is absolutely full of fantastic actors, Ben Kingsley, Jude Law and Ray Winstone are among those in addition to the above mentioned. And, despite having a relatively minor role, Jude Law's character has a huge influence on the story as Hugo's father; this element of the story is also absolutely heart breaking and, as always, Law is fantastic. 

However, some people have said that this film shouldn't have been rated a U as some elements of it are a little scary. For example, a major part of the story are figures called automatons (shown below), basically miniature human figures made out of metal, kind of a cross between the robots in 'I-robot' and a Svengali doll, whose staring eyes are actually quite scary and, I imagine, could frighten any children watching the film without an adult. There are also a couple of scenes in which Hugo is dreaming which could scare younger viewers, and actually had me jumping out of my seat and yelling at the television, so perhaps it would have been better if the film was rated PG. But, if I'm honest, I think this is an unimportant detail.

Hugo's automaton

The cinematography in this film was fantastic; scenes inside and outside clocks and panoramic views of Paris jump out at me as those which were the best scenic shots. It really is a beautiful film that was brilliantly put together, flowing seamlessly between different scenes, often following a running Hugo through the station or streets of Paris, which I really liked as it allows the viewer to feel as though they are part of the film. I suppose setting the film in a train station was also a key element in this as it would be entirely plausible to see the audience as passing strangers on their own journeys, simply taking a moment to stop and watch the events going on around them. 

So basically, this is a fantastic film which I would highly recommend to anyone - don't be put off by the fact that it's a U if you're 'not into' kids films, this one really is brilliant and actually surprisingly complex for a children's movie. I was also very pleasantly surprised at the sneaky 'Les Mis' mention when young girl Isabelle announces "I feel like Jean Valjean" when on her way to the clock tower with Hugo; this pretty much made the film for me as I'm such a huge 'Les Miserables' fan. 

I have decided since my last review that it would make sense for me to start rating the things I review out of ten as well, so for Hugo: 9/10.

Life of Pi

I decided to read this book before seeing the new Ang Lee film, scheduled for release on 20 December 2012 here in the UK. I was really excited to read it after the high praise given by reviewers on Amazon and the proclamation that "this book will make you believe in God" - with a statement like that it's got to be a good book right?

And it was a good book, it really was, if a little confusing, and not only in terms of plot. The basic premise is of a boy, Pi Patel (so called due to teasing when he was a child) who's ship sinks when his family are moving their zoo from India to Canada. The rest of the story is that of Pi on a life boat for almost 300 days.. with a 450-pound Royal Bengal tiger, interestingly named Richard Parker., for company. (It may sound stupid but I didn't actually realise tigers were as dangerous as is made out in the book, but as it turns out, they are - and it's quite an important element of the story, so, yes, tigers are dangerous). From the plot alone you can see that, at over 450 pages long, the book has the potential to get very boring in places, and it did, but what confused me most was that there was always something pulling me in and drawing me back to carry on with the book. There's something about this book that just won't let you put it down.

Yann Martel's writing was certainly a factor in urging me to continue reading; it was clear he was writing about something he truly believes in, his writing has reason and purpose and Martel just comes across as being really quite wise. Some of the most inspirational quotes include "if there's only one nation in the sky, shouldn't all passports be valid for it?" and "love is hard to believe, ask any lover. Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist. God is hard to believe, ask any believer. What is your problem with hard to believe?" I should also mention, as you can probably see from the quotes, this book is very religious so if your not into that kind of thing, maybe this book isn't for you, although I would still strongly recommend it. 

The ending to 'Life of Pi' is one of the best I have ever read. Unlike most books, the story doesn't just end - there's an enormous twist which, if you've invested in the story, could completely change the way you think about life. However, that's the thing with this book. You have to go into it wanting it to be more than just a nice story, you need to completely invest in the characters and open yourself up to Yann Martel's narrative. You have to want to be caught up in the story, and, I'm afraid, this is something I didn't do - I didn't particularly want to be preached to. Supposedly Pi's story is meant to seem irrational and unreliable, but this thought never even occurred to me - at times I supposed, due to lack of food, he must be a little delirious but, other than that, I had absolute trust in him and his narration. Apparently this affects interpretation of the ending of the story - which is supposed to pack a punch but, in all honesty, it left me completely baffled. It took until I googled 'Life of Pi ending' and read some discussion on the topic for me to really understand the message Martel was trying to get across and, once I understood, the book still managed to pack that punch. I look at that as another great thing about this book: perhaps it's supposed to leave you utterly bewildered to begin with, before shedding a little light after extra thought on the subject. I guess this also means that, based on interpretation, the book can be different for every single reader but still resonate. It's universal.

Surprisingly, considering the subject matter, 'Life of Pi' also had some quite amusing moments. For example the story of how Pi came to be known as Pi, and the closing chapters which feature a Japanese comedy duo. In this way Martel cleverly changes the mood between bleak and cheerful almost seamlessly. 

So, overall, 'Life of Pi' is a good book, perhaps with some less riveting bits, but it makes you think. Although I'm not sure it will stay with me as long as it promised to, it was definitely worth the read. I would also agree with the statement that it's an "unfilmable" story, so the film should be an interesting one - it definitely looks like it'll be visually stunning.