HBO’s “Game of Thrones” has won acclaim for its portrayal of a gritty, violent fantasy universe filled with warring families and political betrayal, where even main characters are not immune from a sudden, grisly death. However, England’s real-life history is actually just as shocking and violent, and the infamous Wars of the Roses more than match the level of betrayal and scandal found in “Game of Thrones.”
Shakespeare dramatized this bloody period in his plays “Henry VI” and “Richard III,” which were adapted by the BBC and released earlier this year as “The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses,” starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Judi Dench, and a number of other prestigious actors. It’s shot as a film using actual sets such as castles and battlefields, rather than as a traditional stage play. It’s a lavish, well-acted dramatization that’s perfect for any fan of history, Shakespeare, or medieval period dramas like “Game of Thrones.”
Confession time: I haven’t always been a big Shakespeare fan. I had to read a couple of his plays in high school and didn’t enjoy them at the time. However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to appreciate his works a lot more, and I’ve found watching Shakespeare instead of simply reading it takes it to a different level. Hearing the dialogue and seeing the actors’ expressions made the plays more understandable for me. A friend of mine recently loaned me “The Hollow Crown: The Wars of the Roses,” and it’s one of the best Shakespeare dramatizations I’ve seen. Even if you aren’t a hardcore Shakespeare fan, it’s still worth a watch.
The Wars of the Roses were actually a somewhat confusing period in England’s history, with a lot of political maneuvering and plotting. To simplify the plot, at the time of the plays there’s some debate about who should be the rightful king of England. Henry VI (be warned, there’s a lot of Henrys here) leads the house of Lancaster, and Richard (there’s a lot of Richards too) leads the house of York. Nobles express their loyalty to either side by wearing either a white rose (York) or red rose (Lancaster). This conflict leads to a devastating civil war, and there is conflict even amongst the allies in the two houses. Since people often switch sides, you’re never quite sure who to trust.
Benedict Cumberbatch leads the cast as Richard III, the son of Richard of York who initially allies with his brothers but later schemes against them to take the crown. He’s not really a good guy (as least according to this historical interpretation), but he’s fascinating to watch. Another favorite character was Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, played by Hugh Bonneville (best known as Lord Grantham from “Downton Abbey”), one of the few characters who is actually trying to do the right thing. Seeing the plays made me want to read more about these historical figures, to see what actually happened versus what may have been embellished or altered for the plays. Supposedly there’s some debate about just how evil Richard III really was, and some scholars argue he has fallen victim to revisionist history.
I feel that Shakespeare’s tragedies, such as “Macbeth” and “Julius Caesar,” and his comedies, like “Much Ado About Nothing,” sometimes get more attention than his historical plays. The names don’t automatically sound super interesting to modern audiences: “Richard II,” “Henry IV,” “Henry V,” “Henry VI,” “Richard III” (I told you there were a lot of Henrys and Richards). However, the themes in these plays are still quite relevant. We still have politicians plotting and scheming and trying to gain more power, and we don’t always know which side is worthy of our trust (if either).
I learned “The Wars of the Roses” is actually the second part of the BBC’s “The Hollow Crown” series (though it can still stand on its own). I’m looking forward to checking out the previous plays, which star Tom Hiddleston and Jeremy Irons.
No longer just a place to stream past TV shows and movies, Netflix has been producing some really great original content, proving it can compete with the major networks and cable stations. While shows like “House of Cards,” “Orange is the New Black,” and “Stranger Things” have been receiving good feedback from fans and critics, my personal favorite Netflix Originals have come from their partnership with Marvel. With the latest Marvel/Netflix show, “Luke Cage,” premiering later this month, I thought this might be a good time to take a look at some of the past and upcoming Marvel/Netflix shows.
I’ve found that if a movie is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (75 percent or higher), it’s generally pretty good. And conversely, if a movie is really rotten (like, below 30 percent), it’s generally pretty bad. However, there are some movies that I dearly love and even own that were absolutely trashed on Rotten Tomatoes. I actually blogged about some of these movies 
If you found the summer blockbuster season to be a little lackluster this year, never fear! Hollywood’s line-up of fall/winter movies is almost here, and it’s packed full of must-see movies and some potential breakout hits. Although it was tough to narrow down the list, here are the seven movies I’m most looking forward to later this year.
Mid to late August is sometimes seen as a dumping ground for movies Hollywood doesn’t have a lot of confidence in. Either the quality is mediocre or the studio fears it will become a flop. These movies just can’t compete with the big-ticket summer blockbusters. However, every once in a while you’ll find a hidden, late-summer gem, and one of those movies is “Kubo and the Two Strings,” out in theaters this past weekend. Although “Kubo” debuted at the box office in fourth place with just $12.6 million, this imaginative, beautifully-animated film is worth seeking out.
Well, that was…interesting. I was trying to come up with a sentence to summarize my thoughts on the 2016 summer blockbuster season, and that’s what I ended up with. As a whole, this summer seemed to have a larger number of misfires than normal, and quite a few major releases that either failed to perform at the box office or live up to audience expectations.
Although “Captain America: Civil War” and “Star Trek: Beyond” were always the films I was most looking forward to this summer, “Suicide Squad” was my dark horse pick for biggest surprise hit. It had a “Guardians of the Galaxy” vibe: it looked risky, funny, and creative — and in this case, also really, really dark. It may be in the superhero genre, but these characters definitely aren’t “heroes.” “Suicide Squad” promised a round-up of notorious DC Comics villains who are recruited, against their will, to team up and try to save the world without killing each other first (and you thought the Avengers had problems).
Super spies Jason Bourne and James Bond may share the same initials, but that’s pretty much where the similarities stop. James Bond is the type of spy we all secretly daydream about being: he drives a fancy car, travels to exotic locations, has a bunch of cool gadgets, and always manages to arrive in style. He gets in just enough danger to keep things exciting, but we never doubt he’ll save the day.
It’s now three years into the USS Enterprise’s five-year mission, and the crew is beginning to feel a little…strained. They have encountered numerous wonders in their journey through the stars, experienced thrilling adventures, and witnessed the awe-inspiring beauty of deep space. However, they’ve also learned that space can be as cold and lonely as it is fascinating, and when you are venturing this far from home into the uncharted vastness of the universe, it is all too easy to get lost — both literally and figuratively.
To wrap up my summer Star Trek blog-a-thon, before “Star Trek: Beyond” hits theaters this weekend, I decided to watch my first Next Generation movie, titled — appropriately enough — “First Contact.” I’ve watched a few Next Generation episodes before but hadn’t ever delved into the movies featuring that cast. Although the Original Series crew will always be my favorite, Captain Jean-Luc Picard (played by Patrick Stewart) is one of my favorite Enterprise captains.