Lost in Space (2018) – a review

The Robinson family has a chance to leave the devastated earth for a new colony in space. However, something goes amiss and they find themselves landed on a strange unknown planet where they have to bond together to survive the many adventures that lay before them.

I wasn’t around when the original Lost in Space was released. I did catch an episode or two during the retro-revival of the early ’00 together with a small documentary about how the show came to be (Star Trek – obviously). But I wasn’t there at the time when it was originally broadcast.

I do, however, remember the 1998 movie adaptation and I am more than willing to claim my position as one of the select few on this planet that actually likes this movie. True there are quite a few things wrong with this movie. But to counter it it also has a cool soundtrack remix, time-travel (yeah baby!), a CGI monkey that didn’t look terrible (debatable, I know), an action sequences through a crumbling planet, and my childhood crush Lacey Chabert looking all cool punk (not debatable).

Keep in mind that I saw this movie shortly after Mortal Kombat Annihilation;
so my standards on CGI were probably at an all time low.

But as time passes I must admit that this version of Lost in Space followes the ranks of other nostalgic movies. Meaning you only watch them every once in a while to remind yourself what you liked back then. And, yes, as you grow older the faults in this version become more and more obvious.

So with a movie version critically panned and a TV-show that was limited in scope of what it could show (being the '60s and all -cardboard decors) it is intriguing to find out how a 2018-version would go. Once thing's for sure: the purple-yellow spacesuits are out. Or are they?

Lost in Space: again.

Purple and yellow stayed apparently (well blue but who’s counting).

It's clear from the get go that this version of the beloved TV show wants to reference the old show once or twice but after that it goes its own 2018 path. Like the original show was as '60s as can get, the new version is as 2018 as can get.

The parents are on the verge of divorce. The technology used on the Jupiter 2 is often available today (3D printers, USB-drives, and so on). And there is a lot more violence and blood. It is clear that the creators of the show wanted 2018's Lost in Space to become the same kind of cultural time capsule as the previous rendition was. They certainly succeeded.

Having said that the balance is a bit off between happy-go lucky adventuring and rather grim events. At one moment the father character finds himself tackled by snake in a rather slapstick manner. The next moment a guy gets crushed by a truck –not so slapstick.

Sometimes this balance works (it worked in the 1998 movie), sometimes it doesn’t. I guess the show needs some time to perfect the formula. To do that it needs a better story.

But how's the story?

To be honest the story is rather weak to begin with: the whole mystery of the Robinsons getting lost in space basically hinges on two main questions all concerning Will Robinson: 1 – How did he pass the tests? 2 – What’s up with his robot? After the dear doctor comes along a third question might be added about her back-story. But, not everything needs to be explained.

However, for most of the time the Robinsons are all stuck on an Earth-like planet together with another ramshackle group of survivors. The show uses this momentum to focus on character bonding between the family members whilst dragging out the storyline in, extremely predictable fashion I might add, which would get their crashed ship back into space (and only then truly ‘lost’ – in the classical sense).

This, I believe, is a big problem for the show. For most of the time the characters try to bond when there isn’t truly a lot of bonding required. The kids all love their father. True mommy and daddy have some marriage issues but that doesn’t mean they don’t care deeply for each other. But that’s all the viewer is given because the adventures on the planet itself are rather boring (apart from a funny escape from a –rather precisely pinpointed crash into a- tar pit).

So in short the balance is a bit off: the focus on characters isn’t very interesting because none of them have big emotional hurdles to overcome. And the focus on getting off the planet is (due to the continuous form of follow up episodes) quite longspun.

In contrast the 1998 movie had far too many stories to tell (a civil war, time travel, infections and whatnot) whilst the 2018 series has too little.

The season would have benefitted from a shorter running-time in the current form of an ongoing tale. But, at the same time, I think that in an episode of the week format (Firefly would be a good example of such a kind of space-opera done right) it would blossom.

Intermezzo: Science Fiction versus Science Fact.

The last ten years or so Science Fiction has made way for Science Fact. Sure we still enjoy an alien or two. But by now we don’t want to see any unneeded tentacles. Each part of the aliens has to be there for a fully developed evolutionary reason. Thanks to the internet we humans became more knowledgeable and we want our entertainment to challenge us.

In the same vein we don’t accept silly science-fiction-airy things anymore (I blame Mythbusters). Like exploding fire hydrants, shocking a person to get his heart going again or, in the case of Lost in Space’s very first episode’s: rather strange temperature endurance;

Here the family Robinson are on an alien planet where they -immediately take their helmets off and- somehow manages to survive in temperatures that can freeze a lake in seconds whilst the air they breathe doesn’t become visible.

Blame it on the ‘alien planet-card’ but this bugged me (the same with the toxic smoke and the fire a few minutes later). However, as every cloud has a silver lining, this did prepare me for the rest of the season. Because Lost in Space is about family and adventure. Science and logic, I’m sorry to say aren’t the main ingredients.

If there’s a chariot on every Jupiter vessel why walk in the second episode?

Directing

Neil Marshall is perfectly in form as he directs the first two episodes of this show to the best of his capabilities (which means: not a perfect budget to get every heart’s desire but enough to go 'round).

You have to; the robots and the occasional CGI alien all require a big deal of the budget.

So for a viewer who has seen his fair amount of Marvel/Bruckheimer/Spielberg extravaganzas it is noticeable.

 But I reason: in a good way. This since it does allow focusing on the characters who,

as stated above, unfortunately don’t have many issues to overcome.

He's always at his best as he is challenged to bring something spectacular with little money. He delivers this masterfully by repeating shots and setting some clear landmarks on the alien planet just to highlight the scope of it all. Then there are the various usages for close-medium and long shots.

This is filming 101 he's teaching us and, as always in Marshall's work, he's not self-absorbed by overindulgence in long takes, trick shots, strange angles and whatnot. He's there to tell the story of the Robinsons.

 As the main producer Marshall stays on for the entire ride. Still, the premise of saving a buck stays the same. This, for instance, you notice during the fifth episode in which a very simple colour correct is used to make a grassy field with dandelions appear alien.

 I must admit that I didn’t truly enjoy the new rendition of the soundtrack as much as I should have.
 Maybe the original remix of Apollo 440 has embedded itself too deep into my personal playlist.

  
Characters and actors

The best characters, as always, are Penny and the Doctor. They were my favourites in the movie adaptation and they haven’t changed. Penny’s self-destructive smart mouth who constantly gets herself in trouble (more even than poor ‘Danger’ Will Robinson) is charming her way across the screen. Just seeing her trying to drive the chariot and muttering to herself is hilarious.

Then there’s the vile doctor Smith who constantly abuses a situation for her (this time around) own benefit. She truly is a figurative spider contrasting Oldman’s 1998 actual one. She’s constantly appears to be floating from place to place with no effort at all but all the while she’s planning and plotting.

In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever before seen the act of murder being done so absentmindedly simple.

She’s the scriptural Gemini; It is so much fun to see the storm coming for her on the horizon only to see her bullsh*t her way out of it.

That first confrontation with Don West was a wonderful back and forth that somehow ended in a: ‘Thank you for betraying me I guess’. This is something writers love to do: to write a character into a corner and then make him/her talk their way out of it.

But characters are nothing without the actors. Now some of the ‘one-line’ actors that sometimes pop up are beyond terrible. I don’t often cringe when I see (and hear) bad acting – but in this show I did. However, since the show is primarily focussed on the Robinson’s –and their acting is fine- this is just a minor annoyance.

Plus it features Shang Tsung himself (Cary-Hitoyuki Tagawas) as a nice guy for a change.

Each and every member of the main cast gets to use the emotional palette from left to right: crying at one moment only to be brave and arrogant the next.

Finally there will be some actual Christmas dinner conversations at the
Dame Maggie Smith-residence (Toby Stephens is her son).

Smith: “Well son, I’ve charmed all kinds of suits of armour to defend a magical school
– Angela Lansbury eat your heart out.”

Stephens: “Well I fought James Bond!”

Smith: “And died I might add…twice”

Stephens: “Only a little bit.”

Smith: “Plus you were Korean somehow…”

Stephens: “Which is a lot more difficult that changing into a cat!”

Smith: “I’ve been to Never never land!”

Stephens: “So what, I’ve been to space!”

Especially the juxtaposition between the scientist Maureen (Molly Parker) and the soldier John (Toby Stephens) works best as they both display brave –almost foolish- behaviour but with different underlying motivations. The actors show this in their own way without trapping themselves in clichés or overacting.

This juxtaposition between thought and action happens a lot within the family: the two sisters, the doctor and Will, Don and pretty much everybody.

As always in screenwriting it is the putting together of two vastly different characters that make the actors shine and the screen sparkle. This is exactly one of the strengths of Lost in Space. However, to repeat myself, it would have benefitted from a richer story.

Conclusion

Lost in space is a mixed bag for me. The acting and directing are fine but the overarching story is too little to merit a ten episode run. I argue that standalone episodes would be beneficial to the show.

Having this said it still is a charming show that does its own thing with very little looking back at the original. While, at the same time it is very much old fashioned Science Fiction. Lost in Space is a show for the entire family. For grandparents to reminisce over, the parents to complain at and the kids to ‘wow’ at.

Agatha Christie's: And then there were none - Which is the best movie version?

Ten strangers are invited to a mansion on a desolated location. Once there  the butler, on orders, puts on an audio-record which contains a mysterious voice that accuses each and every one of them of getting away with murder. A cruel joke perhaps if not for the unmistakable fact that after this event each and every one of them are killed off one by one. Now; who is the culprit? The last one standing? Or is there something more devious at play?

And then there were none (or ten little n*ggers/Ten little Indians as it was titled originally) is one of my all time favourite crime novels. Ten villains who all get their just reward; with just enough character-identification for me (the reader) to care for them.

One of the main reasons I love the novel has to be the simplicity of it all. If you ever read a crime novel or watched a crime TV-show or movie you'll agree with me that most of the time the suspects pile up. The detective interviews a person (a suspect), then he interviews another, and another. And in some badly written fiction it turns out that the last person he/she interviews is the culprit. In short, from the start of the story, you, the reader, don’t stand a chance.

In And then there were none it's different. From the getgo you get ten suspects of which one surely has to be the killer. So, from the very start the reader can focus all of his/her attention on solving the ongoing mystery. And the brilliance of the novel is of course that, in the end, chances are that you were wrong.

Moreover, because all the suspects are right there in the same house together the reader doesn’t have to read through all kinds of dillydallying of the detective going from subject A to B. No, it’s a mere matter of entering one room and asking: “Did you do it?” “No!” and then entering the next.

Intermezzo

Agatha Christie's: And then there were none was based on a turn of the century nursery rhyme called Ten little n*ggers. Naturally, when the first movie-version came out in 1945 this verbal degrading depiction of the African-American fellow man was frowned upon. So Hollywood changed it to Ten little Indians which, as it turned out, was just as racist to Native Americans. So –later- the title was changed again, this time to the suitable: And then there were none in which the nursery rhyme referred to ‘sailor boys’ – kids are allowed to die, I guess.

Now, I always preferred the original title. This because the time setting was a period in time where racism was commonplace. People of colour were considered lesser. And, for a movie-viewer, living in the today, people uttering racist slur like it's gospel creates a nice little balance between identification and abhorrence. In short, I believe, as a result of this choice, you'd like the characters but (because of the racism) not too much to mind them getting killed.

Going to the island

Before I go into the reason for this article I wish to highlight the structure of the novel. The novel takes place in 'real time'. Yet at the end we, the readers' are given a 'flash forwards' and a 'flash back'-which explains the whole ordeal. Naturally this is far too complex for any movie - so changes were made. Usually the culprit explains him/herself during the last act. I never liked this, but that’s the way it is.

Also, whenever Agatha Christie rewrote her stories to fit a play she often made them more manageable.
The good guys win, as it where. It’s like her novels were the true versions but the plays were the version she would tell her children.
I think, it took a good eighty years before people dared to go against her wishes and try their hand at the original ending.

In this article I will hold my carbon-copy book by my heart as I go through each version.

By now, in 2018 we've gotten quite a few versions of the same story. So in this little article I wish to take on each and every single version based on Christie's novel and tell you about what I liked and disliked about the adaptation. So without further ado, here it goes:

The 1945-version: And then there were none.

The first and, for a long time, only one to take place on an island.

This is one of the best cast versions out there. The judge, the doctor -each and every actor playing the part fits the literary counter. The only character that is a bit out of place is Lombart, who is way too nice in this version. In the novel’s version he is quite the ass (again, see my above statement about Agatha Christie rewriting her novels for plays).

Though it is a bit too serious at times (combined with the obligatory ‘40s overacting) the final twist is served deliciously.

But what I liked most about this movie is the ensemble as a whole. This is the one (and only) movie in which I actually believe that the entire group is thrown together as a haphazard bunch.

They don’t know each other. Some, instantly don’t like each other. But here they are.

I still don’t quite know how this movie managed this. However, by making this group of characters so ‘thrown together’ it does entice the mystery of it all. You simply have no idea (who the murderer could be)!

The 1965-version.

This version takes place in the French alps and it is already a lot more playful. Especially the interactive element this movie tries is quite a bit of fun: One minute for the viewer to guess who the culprit in it all is. Playful in a Pre-Elanor McQueen kind of way (google it!) this movie sets up the mystery and before the final solution asks the viewer to solve it.

This movie fully accepts that a lot of the people the viewers are about to see are going to die. But in a way there is quite a bit of fun to have in seeing characters die in various ways. From the start this movie hints at who are going to be the last few ‘Indians’. The rest of the cast is just happy cannon fodder.

Again the Lombart character is terribly cast. But then again we do have Shirley Eaton taking the movie as the woman protagonist.

I do like the fact that, after this, several versions took place on some other obscure location. It begs the question -where will we go next?

The 1974-version.

A desert in Syria is where this version takes place.

If there's one thing this version does right it has to be casting Oliver Reed as Philip Lombart. Lombart, in the novel, is an alpha-male. Previous versions casted a good looking man but without any meat on his bones. Oliver Reed, however, was a strong man with a great deal of muscles. The 1945-actor might punch me. Oliver would punch me to death and bury me afterwards. In short, I would say, that Reed was the perfect Lombart. And there are more well cast actors in this version (like Froebe, Lom and Attenborough).

Other things this version did right is the music and, of course, Orson Welles as the 'voice'.

Just the ‘walking up to the block’-scene one character does after she/he confesses the crime is (underlined by the music) marvellous to see.

The 1987-version (Desyat Negrityat).

Leave it up to the Russians to make the most accurate adaptation ever. It takes place on an island for starters.

If you need to make a book-report about the novel and you don't like to spent three (point) five hours reading the novel: spent two hours watching this version instead. It is a carbon copy (celluloid copy?) of the novel.

True, the ending is a bit rushed and the movie doesn't include the elastic string (so read the last twenty pages); but overall this is the ultimate version word for word.

However, because it is so literal it ‘forgets’ that it’s a movie after all. So the characters come across a bit uninteresting. You don’t care who lives or dies. It’s a bit like a monotone voice reading out the book in a radio play.

The 1989-version.

The African Jungle. Why not.

Sly Stalone's brother Frank is in this one. And even though he's not much of an actor he nails the part of Lombart. He is on equal footing to Reed's version - no doubt (even though his acting has a bit to want for).

The murders, in this version are far more comical than has been before. In previous adaptations each and every murder was considered with the righteous amount of  respect. In this 1989-version, however, the slasher-influence of the 80s has touched upon my beloved story. The victims are spread out in gruesome manner with all kinds a blood pouring out of them ‘but’ with a funny twist to it. For example: The person ‘crushed by a bear’ is hilarious in its gruesomeness.

This isn't a good adaptation unless you are a 'die hard' fan of either the original book or the the reassuring presence of Donald Pleasence.

The 2016-version.

Finally back on the island. And...finally, the original version -of sorts. The killer is still the same. But now the ending is like it was supposed to be. Now, without spoiling the 'who' in the 'dunnit' I can tell you that the actor/actress playing him/her is perfectly cast. This is the person I depicted in my mind's eye when I first read the novel.

For the rest this movie opts for the ‘insanity of it all’. Knowing you are going to die creates an interesting dilemma. You don’t want to die so you hold on to every strand of life you can grasp (the great party scene). Yet, at the same time you go looking for the culprit.

It’s this personal approach that I found to be the most interesting in this series. Here we have several people who are terrified. They go partying whilst mistrusting each other each second through –alcohol induced- second.

The 2016-version (being a mini-series) is the longest of the adaptations. Yet, at the same time, it does feel a bit lacking on the character department. Still, as faithfull adaptations go the 2016-version is on par with the Russian adaptation.

Conclusion

So which is the best version?

To start with the character Lombart I would certainly opt for the 1971 or 1989 version.

Then, I want the story to take place on the original island. I even want it to be called the original racist name (because of the ‘lips’ on a rock formation). So that leaves only three true versions: the 1945-one, 1988 and the 2016-one.

Finally I want characters to care for; but not too much to mind them getting killed. So that brings the 1964 and 1945 to the table.

I will go for the first (1945) adaptation. Yes it has the happy ending but, then again, each and every character is so well cast that it counters my wish for the original ending.

No matter how much I love the Russian version or the 2016-version. I need characters in my movie that I don’t want to die (too much). The 1945-version gave those to me. So strangly enough after all those remakes (and I do hope Hollywood does another one) my conclusion is this: stick to the original. See it here: (link).

Random musing 4.

The happytime murders
My biggest fears appear to be justified: the upcoming Harrytimes Murders is exactly the movie I do not want (I wrote about this fear before link). This movie has been in ‘pre-production hell’ for almost fifteen years (always a bad sign). But when I saw the concept art a few years back it connected with me. Here I saw the potential of a gritty film noir set in the ‘40s or ’50 and played absolutely straight.

However, as the latest trailer shows, what we will get is a tongue-in-cheek, foul mouthed, bodily fluids excreting, present time, wannabe parody.

It’s the difference between an eloquent play on words and a fart joke.
I honestly dislike that the moviemakers decided to go this route instead of the more challenging one I imagined for them. So let’s see what happens when the movie comes out.

The passage
On a more positive note, I did just see the trailer for the new tv-show The passage. Based on the book by Justin Cronin it appears that this season of the series wisely decided to adapt only the first two-hundred pages of the massive first novel.
A wise choice since these is quite a clear break in the story at that point.
It’s also fun to see an African-American girl play the main part. A nice change from the blond girl on the book cover.
And even though the trailer, pretty much, shows too much. It does look like the chemistry between the characters is right.
I might be checking out this series. If not for the fact that I’ve never gotten around to reading Cronin’s other two novels in the trilogy (the twelve and the city of mirrors).

The Alienist – a review

The body of a boy prostitute is found on the rafters of the (to be built) Brooklyn Bridge – New York.  A brilliant enthusiast for the human psyche Dr. Laszlo Kreizler (Daniel Brühl) takes on the challenge to find the murderer. Helped by a philandering newspaper artist John Moore (Luke Evans) and a police station secretary Sara Howard (Dakota Fanning) – they set out to catch the cruellest of murderers.

If anybody remembers it: the alienist is basically an 19th century rendition of profiler or Criminal Minds with a bit of Murdoch mysteries thrown into the mix. The bulk of the story involves Kreizler and his crew trying to construct a psychological profile of the killer as a means to catch him rather than follow eye-witness leads or clues  as a ‘normal’ detective would do.

In this sense it is rather unsatisfactory that the final ‘catching’ of the killer comes as a direct result of good old fashioned policework rather than the profile. But I shouldn’t be too hard on Kreizler and his crew; their profile does lead them into the right direction to look for those clues.

But this does bring me to my first critique of The alienist. As an adaptation of Caleb Carr's 1991 book (he’s also an executive producer) The Alienist arrived too late.

It is fun to read a lot of the disappointed reviews on IMDB compare the TV-outing to the original source material.

Never compare a movie to the book you will hardly ever find yourself liking the movie more.

Out of fashion

We are currently living in the superhero time. Marvel and DC are fighting for best spot in the summer blockbuster ranking and Pixar smartly uses this current superhero-hype to release their long overdue The Incredibles-sequel.

These hypes happen in all forms of media. Take books for instance: After Harry Potter and the philosopher’s stone a gazillion of young adult novels appeared in which the main teen character had to save the world. After The Davinci Code numerous books appeared about hidden historical mysteries.

Back in the early nineties it was serial-killers that were all the rage. The silence of the lambs just won best picture and other writers figured they could do the same. So, as a result, Deaver’s The Bone collector appeared and so did Carr’s The alienist.

All these books have the same modus operandi: a brilliant but flawed mind catching a brilliant (but flawed) serial killer.

This isn’t a bad thing per se. A story is a story. If a tale is written well I don’t mind about the tropes. It’s all in the hands of the writer.

I disliked Deaver’s The vanished man because the criminal was too intelligent.

But I do believe the timing has to be right!

Nowadays, I argue, the want for a ‘good ‘ol fashioned serial killer’ is at an all time low. Marvel and Star Wars kill entire planets in the blink of an eye. Serial killers are out of fashion for the mainstream audience.

Combine this with the overload of serial killer-movies and TV-shows we’ve gotten over the last twenty years and it becomes quite difficult to warm an audience for another stylish who-dun-it slasher.

Horror movies, however, will always keep serial killers because they are such an easy means to an (bloody) end.

At least, that is my view on things; because I started noticing a whole lot of flaws and tropes in The alienist that I wouldn’t have seen if the show really struck me.

It’s the same old song

‘Fresh’ isn’t the word to use when you are describing The Alienist. All the archetypes are there: the brilliant mind, the dumb but brave friend, the feminist female powerhouse (something an audience likes to see nowadays – rightfully so), the crooked cop, the straight as an arrow detective.

We’ve seen it all before.

But the show knows it!

In a post-post-modernism-way The alienist uses the most common elements of the era  to tell it’s creepy tale. These ‘elements’ are obvious from the start: The comparisons with Sherlock Holmes (the detective and his helper), Jack the Ripper (boy prostitutes instead of female prostitutes).

Jack the Ripper is directly referred to in this show (including that gruesome photograph of Kelly's mutilated body).

and H.H. Holmes (an almost superhuman urban killer). They are all there. This is the palette this show is playing with and the show (or book) never denies its origins.

The killer, apparently (I’m quite the knower of serial killers- I don’t know why really – movies I guess)

is based on a known killer called Albert Fish, also known as ‘The grey man’.

Criticasters could therefore diminish this television-series as a: ‘been there, done that!’. But I argue that television has NEVER been there so well.

The alienist is in every way an: update. It’s like this show takes all the movies and TV-shows from yesteryears set in the 19th century and, in its stride, shows the current viewer that which the original movie or TV-show didn’t have the means to do.

For instance, the nice cold open (that featured most of that particular episode’s budget). To set a story in the dimly lit rooms of 1895 you first need to convince the audience that they are living at that age. So there's a, dangerous, little horse ride. A steam train bustling through a crowded city. And then, of course (to entertain/ captures the Netflix audience) a tastily shot, but carnally executed, sex scene in a brothel.

The streets are filled with people (budget), the sex we all want (censor) and the effects of a steam train. These things couldn’t be done in ‘ye olden days’. The alienist updates those old movies like The Untouchables and The hound of the Baskervilles with a glint in the eye. The alienstis shows what ‘real’ life in the 19th century was like: because it has the technology (and budget) to create the cinematographic illusion.

Setting the first crime on top of the, to be build, Brooklyn Bridge looks to me like a direct call-back to Guy Ritchy's Sherlock Holmes.

But I guess it was in the original book as well.

There is something special about famous landmarks in scaffolding.

Like Remo William's: the adventure begins’s fight on top of lady liberty.

True detective prequel?

The alienist can be considered a prequel to True Detective. Produced by the very same Cary Joji Fukunaga this show too is focussed on detectives trying to solve a gruesome case.

Even the opening credits is reminiscent of True detective.

And like its predecessor there isn’t a lot of sleuthing involved on the viewer’s part. A lot of the stuff you can guess in advance. Or are simply handed to you on a silver platter.

Like True Detective before it The alienists does, occasionally, meander away from the main plotline in favour of philosophical debates or (‘deary me’) an action sequence.

You can see this in the various ‘jokes’ the show pulls per episode. There’s a boy getting a milk bath in the very same episode where two characters reveal that they were named after characters in Julius Caesar.
The man with the tick that appears to be a direct reference to Hitchcock’s The young and reckless. Or the creepy basement of Bellevue which is a direct reference to The silence of the lambs.

Then there are the deeper motives like: Bruhl’s character, who surrounds himself with (convicts) people who –each and every one has an issue with a parent. The fact that in one episode a boy dresses up like a woman and a woman dresses up like a man. The fact that the villain’s face is hardly ever seen. Or the fact that (SPOILER) combinations of two names echo the ongoing dualities the show highlights like: ‘old cop’ – ‘new cop’ or reason versus hearth, men versus women, et cetera.

But apart from this intriguing referencing The alienist does follow a well trotted path of crime stories before.

Some examples would be, the two main characters getting kidnapped by chloroform. The subplot between the two brothers and the communist girl (which doesn't really go anywhere). The crooked cop turning dangerous or the constant usage of a deux ex machima to save the day.

History lessons

As The alienist has the means to bring the nineteenth century to life in all its grittiness. The show also needs to bring all the commonly neglected details to the forefront. Yes, prostitution has always existed and will always remain. And it’s only in the last twenty years or so that the world (as a whole) decided to put a stop to child-prostitution.

But there are other things The alienist brings to light.

For starters there is a religious symbol on the wall in almost every room the show visits. This just to highlight how important religion was in those days.

Then there is New York itself (not referred to as ‘the big apple’ yet, that started in the 1940s). New York, for instance, was an immensely overcrowded city. Back then there was no TV. People were on the street. So, in every scene outside where our heroes are investigating there is somebody in the background to highlight this fact.

Then there’s the melting pot of different cultures. A Jewish neighbourhood, an Italian neighbourhood, et cetera. New York was (and is) a clash of cultures. There are the Brits, the Germans, the Polish, the Irish and many others walking the streets.

The show actually highlights this fact by contrast. At one point the investigators travel to the rural America. These two groups of people never really met. Which makes the city the immigrant blend where everybody is American. And the rurals considering themselves the 'Real' Americans.

Then there is the real history lesson. Like any time-travel-movie you want to meet some famous people along the way. The alienists provides in this. Theodor Roosevelt and J.P. Morgan both make an appearance. The ‘five-points’ are mentioned. There is a short scene of a first movie showing (by Edison - that thieving son of a...). Or a street fixer cart-machine which was actually a rather interesting thing to learn.

I love the fact that the elderly woman is constantly startled by that infernal ringing telephone.

Each segment ending with her claiming that the old days were better. History repeats.

But, then the show can’t help itself by having some fun by throwing some rudimentary investigative techniques into the mix: fingerprints analysis, handwriting analysis, sketch artist, containment of the crime-scene; it all makes an appearance. And eventhough the show is right in telling us that these techniques were indeed practices they weren’t a common ‘thing yet’ (let alone one team of investigators using all of them).

The stories they tell.

When you are telling a story set in the past you are bound to find some hurdles. Take racism for instance. A hundred years ago people of colour where generally considered lesser beings. So setting a story there and staying true to the time would mean that our protagonists -the people the audience identify with- should at times utter something racist. This creates a problem because you want the audience to like the main characters. So, more often than not, the choice is made to make a character less like his/her time.

In The alienist this happens as well. E.g. the Irish copper referring to a boy prostitute as an it. Which would be an acceptable expose of the times if not for the main officer on the case (Roosevelt) to put him in his place. It's a bit like making the 'real uncomfortable-ness of the time' comfortable for us present day viewers.

The other clearest example is Dakota Fanning’s feminist character. True, around that time all around the world women stood up for equality. But they weren’t that common back then. So it feels a bit convenient to add this character (even though the writer does give her a meaty story-arch).

Then there are all the other things that, back then were considered ‘lesser’, but are now generally accepted (e.g. homosexuality, God's view on perversion or sexual impulses). By letting the main character be unbothered by these human aspects makes him ‘unfit’ for his time. He’s a 2017 professor in the 19^th century. Thus it becomes rather preaching to the choir to me. I sometimes wish for reality/imperfection in period pieces.

The people who told the story

Acting wise The alienist is a slow-burn show - much like a flickering candle.

Bruhl has the meatiest part who - like Sherlock Holmes- pretty much invented the job he is practicing. And like Sherlock Holmes this supremely intelligent character has his little asocial behavioural issues.

As the season progresses layers of Bruhl's character are peeled away as he starts to learn about his own shortcomings. He begins to accept that, brilliant as he is, he lacks other skills and has his own problems. In this sense The alienist is also investigating himself. And The alienist: the show is investigating with him as the viewer learns more and more about his persona.

Even though this is a trick that movies often try to pull it is The alienist that brings this layered way of combining character driven en action driven storytelling that works so nicely. Because of the context of the show the way of how the story is actually told works -fits.

Bruhl plays him slowly and silently – often standing centre stage lost in thoughts. It works, just like his accent works in this melting pot of 19^th century New York.

It took me up to episode four to realize that our hero has a disadvantaged arm. Quite the sleuth I turned out to be.

The second standout character is Dakota Fanning’s role of the feminist in the wrong time. An archetype certainly but it works. Just seeing her smoke and hating her corset it are those little things movies and television love to throw in just to empower a woman but Fanning actually manages to make these tropes her own. She’s the kind of girl you expect to smoke.

My big time onscreen friend even makes a welcome appearance: Titanic foe David Warner.

I also wish to give a shout-out to Stevie (Matt Lintz) the brother of the Walking Dead's –“where the hell is she”- Sophia.

I saw his name on the opening credits and I wondered where I knew this name from.

He actually looks like his sister when he is dressed up like a girl (at least before the last time I saw her - I guess we all remember that scene).

The only character that didn’t quite fit for me was Teddy Roosevelt (Brian Geraghty). He is a bit sheepish as the war hero/ alpha male he is often described as. A bit of a stickler to the rules out of his dept instead of the real Theodor Roosevelt who shot down bears on a daily basis. But near the end he grows into the political game - but if there is a next season the man needs some meat to throw around.

Art is the eye of the perfectionist

To end with the trump card of the show: the visuals. This particular part is where The alienist shines brightest. There are so many details in this show it would be a task to name them all. Just the various posters plastered around town highlight this attention to detail.

The alienists has a massive number of executive producers and the money they put in shows. Crane-shots,  Drone-shots, CGI backdrops each and every (current) trick in the book is used to make old New York come to life.

Truth be told the show only had the budget of one fully dressed street. They sometimes refurbish this street so it appears like another street, but they don't fool me - it's the same street.

This, I rather enjoyed in The alienist. It struck me as a call back to 'old Hollywood' wherein they would just plant a decor to be used over and over - and people will believe it! Which is absolutely true.

In short: The alienist steals a lot of story elements but then coats it in amazing production design. Truly the effects on backgrounds are remarkable.

Conclusion

Overall, the alienist is a great show that, unfortunately, uses a lot of bits and pieces from previous outings. The story might not be fresh and new anymore. It may not be original but it certainly is entertaining and visually lavish.

Winchester – A review

A self-destructing psychiatrist Dr. Price is asked by the board of the Winchester automated guns and rifles organization to assess the mental state of Miss. Winchester – the widow of the owner of the company. This because the board’s concern about the lady’s continues quest to build and add to her hundred-room mansion. Once at ‘the house that spirits built’ Dr. Price finds himself questioning his own sanity as supernatural events occur.

Now these kinds of ghost stories I like; which is: creepy stuff and no blood and gore. Yes the ‘classics’ (tropes) are all there: gaslight, empty hallways, creepy children singing nursery rhymes, people walking very slowly to where the danger might be lurking, et cetera, et cetera.

But that doesn’t matter if the movie has an intriguing plot at its core. The plot of Winchester is a doozy. It is rather cleverly written with all the little bits and pieces falling together at exactly the right time. Maybe a bit too perfect in the end for the cynics amongst us – but I’m willing to let that go.

Too fast? – the hallway

Now, I do believe -maybe script wise that’s why I’m putting this thought here- that some essential scenes were cut from the final movie. Running at an easy ninety-minutes I can’t help but feel that this movie could have done with some extra character exploration (or house exploration).

The theatrical version doesn’t suffer too much from this lack. But, when striving for perfection, it would have benefited the movie if it lasted a little longer. Now the ghosts appear right off the bat which makes the madam Winchester character far less ambiguous as either sane or unstable.

Then again, you are watching a horror-movie so you might have already guessed her state of mind.

Then there's the greatest visual power (apart from acting which I’ll get to) Winchester brings: the marvellous house. Anybody like me who once read a ‘readers digest’ booklet on world mysteries knows about the house that spirits built.

Anybody who read Stephen King knows it as well.

It’s one of those fascinating American haunted house stories like Amityville and H.H. Holmes’s house of horrors.

The idea of a building that has over a hundred rooms with all kinds of hallways, corridors and stairs (leading nowhere) is a cinematographic dream. You can have chase sequences, you can play with styles and decors even a colour palette. In this sense it’s a shame that Winchester doesn’t make full use of the enormity of the mansion. The movie only shows around seven set locations within the house which diminishes the effect of this building being insanely large.

Something the (several) overhead-shots only barely make up for.

Again, here, I feel that Winchester would have benefitted from an additional scene or two just highlighting the scope of the house. How? (e.g.) Letting a kid play hide and seek is always a tried and tested method for a moviemaker to showcase the setting in a ghost story.

Acting and directing –the heart of the house.

But that’s enough nitpicking on my behalf because we come to acting. Great acting always depends on a great script. Now, a great actor can make a bad script better – but never perfect. But then if the story is solid nobody truly minds the dialogue that is written on the page.

Winchester is like this. The dialogue is lovely but not very impressive; it is the overall mystery that hooks the viewer. The actors know this. Across the board they play perfectly against each other with always keeping an eye on the grand scheme of things. It’s a ghost story after all; the mystery of it all is front and centre and the emotional input brought forth by the actors supports this.

Especially Jason Clarke has fun playing a –pretty much- 19th century loser. Who gradually changes from a Laudanum addicted man-child miscreant to an adult force of good.

But, yes it is Hellen Mirren’s show. The minute she’s on stage in her black gown (another classic genre trope) she’s having an absolute blast playing this elderly aristocrat that could/could not be talking to spirits. It’s clear from her screen presence that she wants to be in this movie. She wants to tell this ghost story and she uses her skills to make it so (while enjoying herself playing dress-up).

Directing, then, is fresh. Because it is a new house there is no need for any mouldy darkness like in, for instance, the woman in black. The Winchester mansion is in tip-top condition so the directing uses that element. A lot of ghost scenes, therefore, are –a feast for the eyes- well lit. Some even take place during daytime.

In a cinematic ghost story world currently ruled by the shadow-filled rooms of Insidious and The Conjuring it is refreshing to have well lit rooms.

The same goes for the usage of disturbing angles. I’m always a sucker for the so-called ‘Dutch angle’ in ghost-movies whenever something strange happens. But it has been done to death a bit as of late. So again it is refreshing to see a movie that simply doesn’t use them.

That doesn’t mean the directing doesn’t like a trope or two. The jump scares are a bit much in this movie.

And again the film takes too little time to make full use of suspense and tension.

And by the end of it the budget this movie had shows as Winchester mansion goes in full tilt (as the house in Burnt Offerings did).

Conclusion – leave through the kitchen.

But all those tropes are fine by me; I already got a lovely ghost story that’s been solidly written, well acted, well directed and a visual feast for the eyes. The only downside is that it could’ve been even better if it didn’t feel so rushed.

A series of unfortunate events: season 2 –a review

Oh what terrible things will become the poor unfortunate Baudelaire-orphans? What wickedness does the dreadful count Olaf have in store for them? As the second season (of three) shows us: more of the hilariously insane, dreadfully absurd and morbidly fascinating- I loathe this show in every positive way!

The writer is the writer

It was clear from the start that this series would have an end-date. The real Lemony Snicket was/is writing the screenplays. And when the real Lemony Snickets says it’s: the end, it is THE END.

This, I believe is a very positive thing. I don’t want my stories to linger on. I want a start, a journey and an end.  Maybe a small epilogue or two but the minute the finish line has been crossed the story is over. After all, what would’ve become of the story of Romeo en Julia if the story kept on going after their needless deaths?

Lemony Snicket knows this full well. He lets the children get close to the solution (answer) to all their worries and the minute they can almost grasp it then, like a prankster pulling the string on a wallet, he takes it away and lets the story continue for another book or so.

That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t understand the inevitable trap-falls in the grand scheme of things. You can’t have the Baudelaire’s hopping from one guardian to another indefinitely. At one moment in time the children have to take action into their own hands. Realizing fully well that no guardian can protect them from their maleficent Count Olaf the Baudelaire orphans –Snicket lets them- break the storytelling-mould at the exact halfway point of the story which brings the show a breath of fresh air needed. Now suddenly all options are open again. Now guardians might actually survive...

Dreadful silliness and a song or two

The second season of A series of unfortunate events gives us more of the same but with a clear destination in sight. That’s one of the many things that raises it above others.

Plus it features Nathan Fillion being awesome.

To be honest, this second season landed (to me) a bit like a brick. There it was – all new episodes. But strangely enough it helped. In my last review I was a bit too caught up in comparing this television-outing with its (brilliant) cinematic counterpart (2004).

Now time had settled my mind. Suddenly I realized that Lemony Snicket’s: a series of unfortunate events is an American tale through and through. In the original (wannabe Harry Potter-) movie Lemony Snicket is played by a backlit Jude Law and his soothing voice.

But Jude Law is British through and through. Now, after a season of the TV-outing, I realized that this doesn’t fit. The story needs Patrick Warburton. An All-American bloke who is wise but American. And like all Americans (archetypes) he’s nostalgic, caring and, above all, brave.

In this second season I realized that the soothing voice to tell this story is (and should be) an ‘average Joe’. Not a person who knows all because he’s brilliant. But rather a person who knows all because he lived through it. The grease-monkey versus the scholar. The United States versus Great-Brittan.

Having said that it is obvious that the writer loves the ‘ol’ isles’ with a passion. The show is filled to the brim with absurdities that wouldn’t be misplaces in a Monty Python-sketch. Moreover, the constant struggle between hierarchies that is one of the pillars of British fiction returns time and again as the struggle between the youngsters and the adults.

But now I’m divulging into literary critique.

The first episode of the season starts off brilliantly with a wonderful –tongue in cheek- joke on how the kids have grown.

Referencing itself. Is this the influence of post-post-modernist movies like Deadpool 
sneaking into the rest of cinematic and televised fiction?
'We've been waiting for so long it looks like Sunny grew' (to paraphrase).
Yes she did! Yet, the absurdity of the show is what allows this.

And immediately goes off by dropping two fan-favourite bombshells of villains. First there is the head of the ill forsaken school principal Nero who goes on writing letters to Mozart on why he won’t answer him.

Which reminded me of this website I once came across.

And then there’s Carmelita Spats. A little girl in pink with tap-dance shoes who comes across as if Shirley Temple had Rosemary’s baby as a sister. She steals every scene she’s in being so wonderfully over the top obnoxious. This is a part that could easily have gone wrong but she manages it.

A little game to play whenever you see a crowd scene with children
(the Harry Potter-movies are particularly good for this game):
who is looking directly into the camera and who is trying desperately not to (but fails).
It always happens and ASOUE is no exception.

The unhappy tales of Violet and Klaus are the stage for one outlandish villain to the next. With Neil Patrick Harris being far more comfortable in his role in this season (as is his insane troupe) that he actually allows some cracks in the Olaf visage. He’s still a caricature but humanity is seeping in at times. He becomes interesting.

He also has two of my favourite lines:

'Luminous is a term I invented for things that glow in the dark' I think the writer(s) just couldn't help himself mocking a well known (unfortunate) real-life case of somebody saying something similar.

and

‘F! you!...insist.’

Which preceeds a fun little song and dance routine in episode 3 - leave it up to Harris to go all out.

But with the stage set for glorious villains –which includes Mr. Poe and his terrible wife- the ‘good’ tend to suffer. It is true that the two new kids are fine but, alas, a bit underused. With the bits and pieces you get you have to like them enough to remember them throughout the show. But they don't have enough screen-time to develop into characters of their own.

Violet and Klaus then (again at the halfway-point) do get to shine. Klaus gets to play dress up into an Oxford doctor holding an eloquent monologue about the variety of blades. And Violet fixes things to her heart’s desire. The minute these kids decide to fight back the show gives them and Count Olaf the momentum to elevate their pigeonholed characters.

Especially in the final two episodes (which must’ve been a great shoot for all involved). Those two episodes shine.

As always each two episodes take on one of the Snicket books.

The dark side of the tragic tale

I didn’t like everything this season.

I personally could do without one or two of the special effects (though I loved Sunny the secretary) like the super-duper-book-thrower librarian or Sunny’s escape-play in the elevator episode. This was truly too absurd for me and reminded me of some of the more bizarre Palin and Jones sketches in Monty Python. But then again, these toddler segments are just so over the top silly and ludicrous that you (if you roll your eyes, they'll just roll back again) do reground the bleak show about a murderous orphan chasing madman back to the silliness of it all.

Second, I must admit that the silliness does, sometimes, overtake the show. For instance the fact that the good guys of the secret organization are constantly outsmarted by the villains. The way I try to reason this for myself is by assuming that these people are so good that they cannot see evil plotting if their lives (literally) depended on it. Just as the common folk can't recognize Count Olaf in one of his silly costumes.

That's what ASOUE essentially is. Adults are stupid, kids are smart.

Well, considering Carmelita Spats, I would argue only kids with an enormous fortune are smart.
Hmmm. Maybe that's not the lesson to take from this show.

To end this segment with the two weaker episodes of the season: the Vile Village. They are brilliant as always but storywise the fatigue -for me- finally set in. Now I simply could not believe the stupidity of the grown-ups (one the side of good, bad and inbreeding backwards). Also it now started to annoy me that I didn't get any answers. How long can the show keep dangling that carrot in front of me? Luckily after these two episodes Klaus, Violet and Sunny went off on their own. The breath of fresh air the show needed.

A cliffhanger is only depressing if the cliff is coming towards you.

But the above is just nitpicking in a flawless show. It is the attention to details in the background that make this show such a delicious watch. 'Cake sniffers anonymous' the changing of Goodie, Goodie, books. The weird pictures and paintings in Nero's office. Or the symbol of the eye in the sky when Violet and Clause (and Sunny) drive away at the end of episode 6. A feast for the eyes.

And then there’s the true, no hold bars, horror this show actually delivers in the final four episodes. Which is something I, as a horror-buff, can certainly appreciate.

Taking clear reference from the classics (as The Shining) it manages to parody and terrify at the same time –which is an amazing feat.

A series of unfortunate events: season 2 now knows its strengths and its weaknesses. I don’t really know how they pulled it off but I’m starting to believe that this series is going to be, by me at least, considered one of the best televised tales of the last ten years.

Now isn’t that a horrible happy thought?