A series of unfortunate events (the series) – A review

After an unfortunate event Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire find themselves orphaned and in the care of the sinister and vile Count Olaf whose only goal is to get his grubby hands on the Baudelaire fortune.

It’s up to Sunny’s biting skills, Klaus’s reading and Violet’s inventions to escape the clutches of Count Olaf time and time again as they try to solve the mystery their parents left behind for them to discover.

The 2004 version of Lemony Snicket: as series of unfortunate events was a nice treat for any of the weary movie buffs like me. Obviously produced as a competitor to the highly lucrative Harry Potter franchise it took the daring step to tell a dark and, actually playfully, dreadful children’s’ story. This wasn’t some teenaged nickelodeon movie in which the main lesson to be learned was that you need the right boyfriend for junior prom. No; this was a dark tale of three siblings fighting for their lives in a world run by adults who, each and every one of them, failed to see that being an adult doesn’t automatically bring wisdom.
 

Now in the words of the author of the books (Daniel Handler). The initial production of this movie didn’t go without a hitch. There were troubles all over. So, in a later interview, he stated quite correctly that he was pleased that the movie didn’t turn out as bad as he expected it to be. And he’s right! Even though the original A series of unfortunate events-adaptation failed at the box-office (a daring move doesn’t automatically mean that the average audience warms up to it), it did gain quite a cult following in the years since.
 

This had everything to do with the perfect casting of every single acting part. The children were perfect, the family members were perfect (I adore Meryl Streep in this one); but above all the biggest respect has to go to Jim Carrey who played his version of Count Olaf in a deliciously villainous manner.

I would even argue that, comparing this movie to, let’s say, the Harry Potter adaptations, that the script of A series of unfortunate events is actually one of the better book-to-screen adaptation. Using the three first books as the source material this movie goes through the action on such a comfortable pace that there isn’t enough momentum to get too emotionally attached to the terrible things that happen to the Baudelaire orphans and their kinsmen.

The screenplay

So why this lengthy introduction about the first adaptation? Because this time something fundamentally different happened. The author himself (again Daniel Handler) wrote the screenplay. Now he was involved in the original adaptation, but –as I said- there were numerous problems along the way. Here he actually get to do it his own way and it brings a richer, yet similar, version of the stories.

To start with the most obvious one. The Lemony Snicket-books are filled with wordplay. And the television version is equally bursting at the seams. This was mostly lacking in the first version (but not missed). Here however it works to highlight the absurdity of the situation (even if said situation is dripping in blood).

There is, however, a drawback to note as well. Filling up a two hour movie is a simple enough task. However, filling up eight forty minute episodes is a bit more problematic. The episode: The reptile room –part two, for instance, does have a tendency to meander a bit by over explaining stuff the audience doesn’t need to know. But since a television-show is more than mere screenplay these moments of ‘plot stalling’ are easily filled up by sets and acting.

One nitpick: I loathe coincidental coincidences. So the whole overflying airplane helping out the children to create a fire in episode six. No, not for me.

Acting

Neil Patrick Harris had big shoes to fill after Jim Carrey’s turn. But he does so marvelously. He constantly shifts between being a theatrical nincompoop and a knife-wielding madman.
While in other characters (or shows) this might unbalance the whole a bit – here it feels fitting. It’s the absurdity of this fictional world that creates the legroom for this character to maneuver in.

Having said that I do have to mention that his Count Olaf make-up doesn’t really work for me. In comparison with Jim Carrey’s (flexible face) turn Neil Patrick Harris’s Olaf still looks like a man in make-up. Fortunately the elaborate dress-ups this Olaf character gets up to in later episodes work far better.

The children then are pretty much at the same level as the previous version. I would say that this Klaus is a bit better than the 2004 version. And that Emily Browning was a bit better Violet than the current actress. But this is hardly noteworthy. Above all they are sweet, smart and relatable. Which is exactly what you need in protagonists.

Though I do think that the Violet-character would benefit from being a bit more protective in the next season. In the movie it was the collapsing of Aunt Josephine’s house (and the exploding doorknob) that made the Violet character stronger. Here, however, that scene was (somewhat) given to the Klaus character.

Also, I hated to lose those 'magical' predictions coming true as in the 2004-version.

Matty Cardarople, for one, is fun as the

’Henchperson of Indeterminate Gender’

though he plays pretty much the same character

as he did in Jurassic World. 

Now there’s a possibility: the Baudelaires

versus Raptors…

I do love, though, that this show didn't bother with trying to coach the toddler (Sunny). Babies can't act - so why try it? Besides, seeing the child make all these silly non-contextual baby-faces works for the absurdity of the show.
 

Now there are some characters who do take a bit of getting used to if you’ve seen the first movie. Billy Connolly, to me, was brilliant as Dr. Montgomery Montgomery. So it’s a bit difficult to see another actor take on this part. Nonetheless both actors played the character exactly right: caring, brave and hopelessly naïve.
 

K. Todd Freeman’s Poe, then, is a bit of a mixed bag for me when I compare him to Timothy Spall in the first movie. In the 2004 version Mr. Poe was the ultimate pencil pusher. This was because he wasn’t on screen enough to be investable. Freeman’s version, however, does have a lot of screen time. And, at times, he becomes a bit overacting due to it all. There’s only so much naivety one can muster. I would say that some scenes in The reptile room –part two, is a showcasing of overacting. Whereas in other scenes he plays the character just right.

His wife, though, is absolutely hilarious in her egocentricity. At times I didn’t know whether I wanted to laugh or slap her in the face. 

And, then, there’s the last big change: In the original movie Lemony Snicket was played by a (heavily backlit) shadow of Jude Law’s soothing voice. Here Lemony Snicket is front and center as played by Patrick Warburton. It’s a new approach that I liked. This Mr. Snicket is our stone-faced guide through the perilous story of the Baudelaire orphans (wearing a bathing suit when needed) who adds a nice little explanation here and there.

Design

This strange twenties-setting the A series of unfortunate events take place in is the main reason why I love the first movie. This is a world of steam trains, electronic contraptions and (probably) computers that nobody knows how to operate. In short: books are still on paper.

The miserable mill, for instance, is a feast for the eyes. Every bit of the scenery is as depressing as it can get and - one of the fun parts of this set design - every machine you see has a purpose.
 

Including two -my technical eye immediately spotted those – high risk chains.

And together with the witty script, the silly acting and the mystery; the setting is the final ingredient in this deliciously poisonous cocktail.

Conclusion

The biggest reason to watch Netflix’s A series of Unfortunate events has to be the absurd dark humor and the set design. There is some mystery to it all (just enough mystery to set up the next season) but that shouldn’t be the biggest draw.
 

All the actors are highly invested to bring the best portrayals of the character to the screen – and they all succeed (except baby Sunny –this is a joke).
  

If there is one main critique it has to be that the source material is a bit too stretched at times. Which is sometimes a good thing because it allows characters to have silly fun. However if (in the case of Mr. Poe overreacting) if it doesn't work for you you'll occasionally find yourself staring at your watch.
 

I loved the finale song. Every disastrous unhappy tale should end with an inequitable depressing lyric set to an upbeat tune.

Next season promises us no more dillydallying between caretakers and probably the answer to a mystery or two. But then again in A series of unfortunate events it’s the misery we are looking for, not the mystery.

Harry Potter and the cursed child – a review.

Let’s try a book review for a change!

Nineteen years after the battle of Hogwarts Harry Potter's son Albus Severus Potter is going on the Hogwart's express for his first year at Hogwart's school of magic and wizardy. There he makes a friend named Scorpious Malfoy and together they start an adventure through time, magic and prophecy.

Disclaimer: I read the book. I haven't seen the play. But I do know my way around theatre. Sufficient to say a book is as different from a theatre-performance as a theatre-performance is to a movie. Each has their own ways of 'doing' things. As a philosopher once said: ‘A theatre-show is like a butcher's knife as a movie is to a scalpel’ (paraphrasing of course). Sufficient to say is that during this spoiler free review I will try to focus on the letters on the page -but I won't be able to help myself, at times, to focus a bit on the, to me unseen, played-out version.

I got this one at Christmas; and I, pretty much, read through it in one go (as a lot of plays it’s quite an easy read).

Is it a good play? No, it’s not Shakespeare! Is it a good part of the Harry Potter series? Yes, definitely –though there are some things I disliked or wondered about.

Those two statements above should be taken with a grain of salt. Harry Potter and the cursed child has no intention of being a Shakespearian-story. A lot of the action that takes place in the play/book hinges on ’new’ technology like wires, puppetry and Virtual Reality (I guess, I haven’t seen the play) to create a show, a spectacle if you will. And for that purpose the story is more than adequate. Adequate enough -I would say- to be a full grown part of the Harry Potter-saga.

Just to clarify; a small side note here. Shakespeare can also be found guilty of spectacle. He wrote what people wanted him to write. Heck, the whole globe theatre burned down after the first performance of Henry the VIII - spectacle. So this whole comparison of mine is off key. But to emphasize the statement that I want to make: Harry Potter and the cursed child relies more on giving people what they want, instead of being its own! And that, to me, if you consider this a fault, is the fault!

What I liked

Let’s start with one or two things I liked: I love, adore, what-a-sweet-let-me-pinch-your-cheek-adorable is the Scorpious character. He’s funny, witty and entirely against the character you’d expect. Even though the play is called ‘Harry Potter’ it might as well be called ‘Scorpious’ because he’s just as much a main character as Albus and Harry.

Albus then is a bit more sulky and therefore a tad more difficult to identify with. Nonetheless the pages allow the reader (and I expect the viewer) to invest in him.

Harry and the ol’ gang then are refreshing to read. You think you know them by now

and yes it is paramount that you know the Harry Potter-books by heart if you go and watch this show/read this play.

and still they manage to surprise you with character quirks that feel strange and familiar at the same time. I think the best example of this is in the Ron/Hermione dynamic. Hermione is a smart woman but she makes some crucial mistakes in this play –so she’s fallible and that makes her human. Ron, on the other hand, is a prankster, a bit of a fool. But not when it comes to his wife and children, then he’s dead serious. It’s this balance this couple strikes that exemplifies the layers of the (beloved) characters.

Another thing I liked (on a personal level) is the time-travel subplot.

 

This review is meant to be spoiler free but I think I can get away with this one.

I love time-travel stories. And Harry Potter and the cursed child doesn’t disappoint. Though I must admit that –as time travel stories go- this one isn’t the strongest of the bunch (Azkaban’s one is much stronger). Nonetheless as a ‘means’ to get to the aforementioned ‘spectacle’ this plot works perfectly. And, at times, I certainly wondered how the stage play would produce several effects required (like, for instance, a whole underwater scene)?

A last bit of things I certainly loved is the expansion of the lore. This is where the internet has truly become a dangerous place to be if you wish to remain unspoilered. Sufficient to say I like the new elements and rules added to the Harry Potter universe (go trolley-lady!).

What I disliked

Then what did I dislike? I loved the characters, the lore and the time-travel. I even fantasized about the effects the show might pull off. Then what did I dislike?

I said before that this wish for spectacle places the focus more on the effects of the stage play than the written story ‘underneath’. And since this is a book review it are the words I’m reviewing; not the effects or the acting of a show I’ve never seen. But it happens a bit too often, for my taste, that Harry Potter and the cursed child shoehorns in (fan favorite) characters just to satisfy the audience. Hagrid shows up for a second or two, so does Umbridge and even uncle Vernon. These characters don’t have a lot to add to the core story. They are just there and then they’re gone.

The basic rule of writing is that every character needs to have a purpose. These three examples of characters do have a purpose in the seven books –but not in this play. Here they serve nothing more than a  cameo.

What else did I dislike? Well this is where spoiler-free gets rather tricky. Something happens near to end that reminded me about something I wrote before in my review of The lone ranger. In this movie a whole tribe of native American’s are slaughtered for no other reason but to show how evil the villains are. The same happens in Indiana Jones and the crystal skull. And a whole planet or two in Star Wars the force awakens. And I don’t like this plot device! Killing people the viewer/reader doesn’t even know about/hasn’t had time to invest in –doesn’t work for me.

The same (sort of) thing happens in Harry Potter and the cursed child. An unknown character gets hurt in some way or another just because and I am left feeling both intrigued and empathic to know who this character is –but denied any knowledge.

Then, as a final bit of critique, I would like to add the fast pace of the story. Again it is spectacle (with a rotating stage no less), but some scenes are a bit too short for me.

More so, I would have preferred a bit of character description at the start of the book, plus some kind of description of the stage. For me it always remained a bit of a guessing game how old certain characters were.

Conclusion

So three big plusses and three minor minuses. Harry Potter and the cursed child, to me, is a worthy follow-up to the Harry Potter series. Though I think it is a story that needs to be seen instead of read. Reading it is a rewarding expansion on beloved characters and the lore of this magical world. Watching it though, is –I expect- a thrill ride for the senses!

Fantastic Beasts and where to find them - a review

In the year 1926 Newt Scamander comes of the boat in New York-city carrying a suitcase full of magical creatures he collected over the years. Not only do these beings escape; but there is a dark power brewing in the city that never sleeps. It’s up to Newt and his (new) friends to put an end to all this chaos.

When you get right down to it the Harry Potter movie adaptations were all pretty much filtered down to the most basics of story just to make room for all the effects. This is a logical choice because we ‘muggles’ in the theater need a moment to get accustomed to all the magical marvel at display. But, alas, that does mean that all those little insights into characters and side-quests –though lovely in the books- had to be abandoned for the movies. So the idea of the writer of the original books to pen the screenplay for this one is, in this sense, a perfect choice. Yes; the screenplay for this movie was written by miss. Griffindor herself: J.K. Rowling.

Screenplay

However -as you might have noticed from my above hesitation- the screenplay of this movie has one or two faults. To start with the lesser first. A lot of the explanations happen a bit too fast. J.K. Rowling takes no prisoners and dives headfirst into the magical realm. But this does create certain issues; especially noticeable around the various characters who are penned down instantly and then hardly change. So for instance the wizard president being rather two dimensional in her thinking and therefore coming across as a bit of a cut-out character. The same goes for the baddie who lacks motivation for his actions -not a singular moment does he truly utter a speech as to 'why' he's doing this. Because J.K. Rowling has so much information to give some elements of a good story (in this example character development) suffer a bit.

But then, this is very forgivable. What did. 'bug' me -staying with the creature theme of things- is that this movie is basically two storylines that happen side by side. Now this is a bold move for any film but only if, in the end, they tie up perfectly (take Heat for example). It’s like two trains on different tracks travelling in the same direction. But instead of the trains clashing in the finale the main character just gently hops onto the next once his magical beasts are collected. It's not bad or anything but rather something I’d have liked to see streamlined some more. Stress the finale of one story strand to feed the upcoming obstacles in the second. It's like a magic trick it all rests on the 'prestige'

Who said movies don't teach me anything?

In fantastic beasts (…), however, it doesn’t quite work. In the end there is no reason why Newt 'hops' onto the second storyline. It's not his problem, nor his responsibility. Nor is there any reason given why Colin Farrell's character would hate Newt and even want him dead 

SPOILER - there are, of course, the hidden ones (I do hope Potheads have been paying attention). I'll spoil what I noticed here:

The deadly hallows pendant he gives to Credence.

The fact that Dumbledore (Grindlewalds former lover) tried to help Newt from being expelled as said in the interrogation scene.

And, continuing on that - The homosexual tension between Graves and Credence (this wasn’t master/apprentice stuff – this was a slash fan-fiction wildfire).

And, finally, the simple fact that Graves was far more powerful then he let on throughout the movie (doing things without his wand for instance).

As a final note: I must admit I love the cameo in the end (hated his hairdo though).

By the way; is it just me or are there a lot of sexual allegories running throughout this movie? The boy is being punished as boys who ‘fondled’ with themselves were punished in the old days. And then the whole idea of abstinence from magic? In real life abstinence does tend cause boys to have the occasional –er- ‘physical outburst’.

This, unfortunately unbalances the story a bit. On the one hand it is a happy tale about a guy who lost his pets. On the other it's a rather dark political story ridden with discrimination. And, in the end, they don’t mix as well as I hoped.

But if the next few movies delve deeper into the darker strands of the story (my personal preference) it would automatically sort things out for this part. The animal-capture then as a sort of introduction of the Newt character.

The effects

The effects then - they are brilliant. And I must admit I was a bit wary whether effects would ruin the underlining story. But it didn't. The menagerie parts were a bit long. And yes the story didn't really need the mobster storyline (or the death sentence storyline -talk about harsh politics; but understandable in the end).

But I liked this goblin run nightclub. I liked the menagerie. It was a nice little break the story needed. And the effects used in those parts are the heart of the movie. A real-life view of the wizarding world and its creatures –as it were.

To add to this I can’t stress the well-thought-out-ness of the creature development enough (and the effects of ruin and mayhem that accompanies them). Like Disney animators ordered a real-life model for Snowwhite or a lion for the Lion King it is fun to notice that, in this movie, these fantastical beasts are biologically thought out. Every limb, tooth and wing has a purpose as it were.

The acting

When it comes to the acting the movie comes to a bit of a standstill. None of the magical characters develop much throughout the movie. This has nothing to do with the top-notch acting. But rather with the way these characters are, or the main character was, written.

Eddy Redmayne's character (being the main character) kind of serves like a sieve on this one. His lack of character development makes all the other characters look ‘bad’.

Now, as I said above, a lot of secondary characters come across a bit two-dimensional, and I think that has to do with the Newt character. Newt doesn't really become another person at the end of the movie. He's awkward at the start and equally awkward at the end. But –I must stress- that's also a bit of the point. The minute he interacts with his creatures you see another side of the character. Then you see a loving, caring man. But with human interaction he is confided. And that’s a little problem; because Newt’s ‘awkwardness’ (being the main character and all) highlights the other character’ s lack of development.

Katherine Waterston’s character, therefore, doesn’t really get much of a development (this also has to do with her particular quest not having a satisfying finale). But the actress does her best to express her persona with all the nice little habits that accompany it (it’s especially fun to see her interact with her sister, just doing household stuff). And she’s a blast, even if her character is a bit uninteresting.

Then there’s Colin Farell as the villain. In one word, he’s having a: blast (again). True, his character also suffers from any development (see the spoiler above if you really want to know why). But then again we don’t always have to understand the villain.

Dan Fogler’s Jacob then is the most rounded of all the characters.

I always liked the actor since his turn in Fanboys (and later his cold death in Hannibal). So I was a bit biased to this character since I already liked the actor.

Unfortunately his role is pretty much the protagonist/identification for the audience. Which, to me, is something that the movie doesn’t really need. Now he does bring Newt out of his shell a bit. And he does –most certainly- serve other functions in the plot. But in the end, I do have to conclude that the best (humorous) character of the bunch is also the one less needed for the story.

Still, to repeat myself, they all bring their solid A-game to the movie no question.

One final thought though: I do wonder, though, about Jon Voight’s character. His part is almost a glorified cameo. Now, maybe he wanted to do it for his (many) grandkids – or maybe there’s something bigger going to happen with his character.

The directing

The directing is solid as expected. The sweeping shots the wizarding-world is now aligned with serve to increase the scope of the movie.  And David Yates is one director who knows how to appreciate the beauty of the sets he is on. There aren’t a lot of unnecessary close-ups and that is a good thing because I wanted to see the wizard world in action and this is exactly what the movie delivers (and the reason why I enjoyed the goblin nightclub).

I could even say (even though that would, probably, be dismissive of Yates’s skill set) that you have to be one tremendously inadequate director to mess this movie up. The art-direction, set design, costume and make-up are of the highest level. The admission fee, well worth it!

I have a deep reserved hatred for directors who don’t appreciate the mise-en-scene they are working with (I’m looking at Quantum of Solace for this one). But if you have a director that acknowledges what is in front of the camera I just sigh a breath of relieve and won’t bother writing about silly shots that suddenly break the most basic rules of the cinematographic note book (see if you’ll notice).

Conclusion:

J.K. Rowling already let slip that she's planning another two (three?) parts with this one. As far as I'm concerned the Harry Potter franchise can go on as long as the James Bond and Star Wars franchises. Fantastic Beasts and where to find them isn't a misfire per se. It's a solid entry in what we can now certainly call an ongoing series. But on the writing level there are some nuts and bolts J.K. Rowling needs to secure in the future. The directing and cinematographic style (and art directing of course) is utterly flawless.
 

I am left wondering now, though, whether there were witches at Woodstock?

Carolina Skeletons

I want to write a bit about the obscure movie Carolina Skeletons. I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Louis Gossett Jr. This because he always struck me as a lovable chap (especially when this Hollywood star appeared in a TV show in my country and showcased himself as the friendliest person alive –a big impression on a seven year old).

I’ve seen quite a few of his movies. Most of them can (unfortunately) be filed away in the category: ‘pays the bills’. But some, I think, were special. Carolina Skeletons is one of them.

Carolina Skeletons deals with James Bragg –an army man returning home in the south to care for his dying mother. On her deathbed she asks her son to find out the truth about the crime his older brother was convicted of. His older brother, Linus, was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of two young  Caucasian girls. As James delves deeper he uproots age old codes of apartheid and concealment.

The southern heat

There are several reasons why Carolina Skeletons is –to me- a must see film. But one is (definitely) front and centre. The story is based on a real-life case in which a fourteen year old African-American boy called George Junius Stinney Jr was executed on the electric chair –making him the youngest person in American history to receive the death penalty.

Now I’m not going to question whether he committed the crimes or not. But –based on this movie- I can’t help myself but wonder. I’ll leave it at that.

The strength of this movie resides in the time and setting. That moment in history when  southerners were trying to readjust to an equal world. Some do –like the sheriff; played quite tangible by Bruce Dern- and others don’t. 

Carolina’s Skeletons is almost a post-apocalyptic world in which neither side knows what to do with this new world before them. Some ‘whites’ are still as racist as they were years before. Some African-Americans have trouble committing to the idea that they are now equals in the world of white.

Combine this tension with the southern summer heath and the hunt for a killer to boot and you’ve got a highly interesting slow-burn thriller before you.

Now, I must admit, there are quite a few faults in this picture. The racism is played rather in-your-face. The burning cross comes by as expected. And, to be honest, there aren’t enough suspects to make this a real who-dun-it.

Trust me, fifteen minutes after the mother’s passing you’ll be able to guess who did it –and you’ll be right.

But then, this movie isn’t about the crime. It’s more about the injustice and the crooked fate African-American’s suffered in the south ever since slavery was abolished.

Louis Gossett Jr.’s character –being a decorated army man- knows racism. But he also knows that there are places in the world where he is actually an equal. So putting him in the aforementioned mix creates a wonderful two-sided tale: the way it is/was and the way it is perceived upon by men who know better.

Louis Gossett Jr. definitely knew this playing the character. And his performance balances nicely between ‘wanting to change’ and ‘holding back’. Which is brilliantly counter-played by Bruce Dern’s character who, in a sense, plays the opposite (‘Holding back’ versus ‘wanting to change’).

The two scenes

Which brings me to the second biggest scene of the movie. Poor little illiterate Linus is bribed to sign his own death warrant in exchange for food. This scene is played so caringly. Chris Blackwelder uses all his charm to coerce the little boy (and still you can spot the remorse in his eyes). And the boy signs a big black cross on the paper simply because he wants to be a good little boy (a good person in a world that considers him ‘lesser’).

And then there’s the number one scene: the execution. Two years before Spielberg took us into the gas chamber in Shindler’s List does a TV-movie dare to show the execution of a person (a fourteen year old boy, no less) from start to finish.

Combined with the previously mentioned scene this is brutal beyond believe. Here we have pure innocence in a dark cold world dying because he wanted to be good. It is gut wrenching.

And when I watched it (aged ten), I knew I was seeing something that I would never be able to forget for the rest of my life.

Of course -the critic in me has to point out- it is true that Carolina Skeletons does make quite an effort to make Linus the pure golden boy. In a contemporary take, I would expect, the movie to give Linus some faults and bad characteristics. But every version you would see: Linus’s demise should shock you to the core.

After that scene the rest of the movie wraps up rather quickly. The killer is found, the truth unraveled. And, no, the killer doesn’t come along easily.

A nice turn on the death sentence, I always found. Yes Linus was executed. But as an audience-member I really (really) wanted the true villain to die as well. I don’t think I would have ‘enjoyed’ (for want of a better word) the conclusion of this movie if the villain was still alive in lock-up.

So what concludes this little stream of thought? I haven’t mentioned directing, lighting, effects and only glanced at acting. I think sometimes a movie is just to be viewed. Forget all the stuff I, somewhat of a critic, am trying to give you and take that which the movie offers. Carolina Skeletons is an intriguing mystery set in the post-apartheid days of the American south in which a young boy was executed for the mere fact of not being the right skin color.