The Wide Window Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

Dear Reader,

when we like to read reviews of our favourite television shows or movies, we like to see what others think.  However, I find it difficult to believe that A Series of Unfortunate Events is anybody's favourite television show, as it focuses on the Baudelaire orphans who encounter much misfortune in their lives.  In this challenging chronicle, they meet a relative who's scared of everything, Violently Ferocious Dreadful leeches, a powerful hurricane and peppermints.  I have no idea why would you want to read a review of such thing, so I implore you to be please click off this screen now.

The Wide Window begins in classic A Series of Unfortunate Events form with a parody of a news report informing the viewer of everything that has happened so far.  The news anchors then hand over to Lemony Snicket, (Patrick Warburton) who introduces the current story to the audience.  The Baudelaire orphans have arrived on the shores of Lake Lachrymose to stay with their latest relative, Aunt Josephine (Alfre Woodard.) Aunt Josephine has a nervous disposition - a phrase which here means that "she is absolutely afraid of everything, from being electrocuted by the telephone to having the stove burst into flames if it is turned one." Aunt Josephine is also a complete grammar Nazi - a phrase which here means "somebody who takes complete delight in correcting somebody's grammar." I'll discuss Woodard's excellent performance later, but for now, I'll just say that she did a great job as Aunt Josephine.  She was hilarious without being over the top.  All of her little nervous ticks and twitches did well to enhance her character.

Whilst the Baudelaires are becoming acquainted with Aunt Josephine, we also learn much more about "Mother" (Cobie Smulders) and "Father." (Will Arnett) We find out that they are indeed husband and wife, proving my theory that they were Kit and Jacques Snicket, unquestionably wrong.  However, beyond this, we don't know much.  They are no longer in Peru, but ready to fly a Cessna back home.

At the same time, we also find out that the Baudelaires have an unknown friend in the form of Larry the Waiter who works at the Anxious Clown restaurant.  He also appears to be part of the mysterious organisation that the Baudelaire parents and Uncle Monty were part of.  The scenes with Larry contain important world-building, as we find out that he has deep ties to Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris) who has tracked the Baudelaires to Lake Lachrymose and has set up base in the Anxious Clown restaurant.  Whilst Larry was in the books, he was nothing more than a waiter, so I am interested in how he has been elevated to such an important role.  I am also intrigued at the further development of the secret organisation V.F.D.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Baudelaires also discover that Aunt Josephine is also connected to V.F.D, having known the Baudelaire parents and Uncle Monty for a long time.  However, we don't find out anymore, as Aunt Josephine refuses to speak anymore about it.  Instead, she goes shopping, to ensure that her and the Baudelaires have enough food to last Hurricane Herman.  Whilst she is away, the Baudelaires sneak around and find a photo of Uncle Monty, "Mother" and "Father," another couple next to them, Aunt Josephine and Larry the waiter, all standing in front of Lucky Smells Lumbermill.  I think that the unnamed couple standing next to "Mother" and "Father" are the Baudelaire parents and "Mother" and "Father" are simply red herrings.

Aunt Josephine returns to the house bringing back none other than Captain Sham, whom is really Count Olaf in disguise.  Whilst the Baudelaires instantly see through his disguise, Aunt Josephine falls for him "hook, line and sinker" - a phrase which here has nothing to do with fishing, but means that Aunt Josephine was completely fooled by Count Olaf.  Here, I find myself agreeing with Zach Handlen of A.V Club's comments concerning Aunt Josephine being so utterly tricked.  He argues that "the death of her beloved husband, Ike, has made her a shell of her former self," which I think makes sense.  It was odd that Uncle Monty was fooled by Count Olaf's disguise, despite how he was well-trained in espionage and secret disguises and codes.  

However, Ike's death has left Aunt Josephine so hurt and lonely that I think it makes perfect sense that she would fall for Captain Sham, in spite of how she received similar training to Uncle Monty, to the extent that she knew Olaf in a past life.  This also goes back to Woodard's great performance who portrayed Josephine as sympathetic, but also quite pitiful.  It's easy to feel sorry for her.  What I find is a bit weird is that Captain Sham, uses a lot of nautical slang, which Aunt Josephine doesn't seem to have a problem with.  Sure, she corrects the "it's/its" error on his business card, but she is perfectly okay with the rest of Captain Sham's grammatically incorrect speech.

However, Aunt Josephine doesn't live long to realise her mistake, as she kills herself, leaving the Baudelaires in the care of Captain Sham, which she writes in her suicide note.  SPOILER ALERT: she's not actually dead.  "Not Yet," anyway, as Lemony Snicket states, concluding the first part of the episode.  As far as first parts go, I'm not sure how keen I was on this one.  A lot of it seemed like just set-up and preparation for the second half.  Maybe it'd've been nicer, if we actually saw more things occurring.

Anyway, moving onto part 2, which opens on the hapless banker Mr Poe (K. Todd Pressman) coming to collect the Baudelaires to take them to brunch with Captain Sham, so that they can finalise the adoption proceedings.  As usual, Mr Poe refuses to believe the Baudelaires when they state that Captain Sham is really Count Olaf in disguise, and takes them to the Anxious Clown for lunch.  This is where we get one of the funnier scenes of the episode, as we see Larry the Clown desperately trying to help the Baudelaires, whilst Count Olaf's troupe keep a watchful eye on him.  Even though they don't really do too much in this episode, it's always great seeing them as an ensemble, which is where they work best.  Having said that, Larry is about as much use as Jacquelyn really.  He buys the Baudelaires sometime through feeding them peppermints, which they're allergic too, but doesn't do a whole lot else.

Whilst Mr Poe and Captain Sham stay in the Anxious Clown, the Baudelaires return to Aunt Josephine's home to figure out the real mystery that is happening.  A task not made easy by the fact that Hurricane Herman is now in full force.  However, this does little to deter the savvy Klaus, who soon deduces that Aunt Josephine left a secret code in her suicide note, revealing that she is alive and is hiding in Curdled Cave.  Klaus determines this just as Hurricane Herman begins to buffet the house and I'd agree with Zach Handlen, that this was one of the more unbelievable moments of the show.  

Yes, I know that a Series of Unfortunate Events is supposed to be Absurdist fiction, but when you see Klaus doing a ridiculous feet and the house rocking back and forth on its foundations, the boundaries of this genre are pushed a bit far.  Aunt Josephine's house is built on the edge of the cliff, which Hurricane Herman threatens to topple, before conveniently righting it, allow the Baudelaires enough time to escape.  All a bit too much for me.

Anyway, the Baudelaires then steal a sailboat to sail across Lake Lachrymose to rescue Aunt Josephine, leading to another great scene, involving Lemony Snicket.  In a brilliant lampooning of the "don't try this at home," messages, Snicket implores viewers to "don't steal sailboats and sail them across a lake in a hurricane," yet Warburton's voice is so full of exasperation, that it's implied that anybody who is stupid enough to do this, deserves any consequences they receive.

The Baudelaires reach Curdled Cave, where they find Aunt Josephine who reveals that Count Olaf forced her to write that note and told her to kill herself.  However, two things here don't match up for me.  Firstly, why would Count Olaf rely on Aunt Josephine to commit suicide, and not do the job himself? We know that he is perfectly capable of killing, so it is a bit strange that he wouldn't murder Josephine and have everyone else think it was a suicide.  Secondly, it is also a bit odd, that a woman too afraid to use a telephone, in case she is electrocuted, would be brave enough to defy a villain like Count Olaf, by faking her death and leaving a hidden code.

As the Baudelaires and Aunt Josephine are returning over Lake Lachrymose, they are attacked by the Lachrymose Leeches.  They escape their near predicament through Violet's ingenuity, but also by "Mother" and "Father" who happen to be flying their Cessna over Lake Lachrymose.  Violet has the idea of signalling for attention by creating a fire.  She tries to light a scarf on fire by refracting the beam of the Lighthouse through a spyglass, but the angle is wrong.  As "Mother" and "Father" fly past and observe what is happening through a pair of binoculars, the light first hits the binoculars, before hitting the spyglass, which is enough to set the scarf alight.  I didn't like this, as it is reminiscent of Deux Ex Machina - a Latin phrase which translates as the Machine of God, and has gone to signify an external device, which saves the protagonist at the last minute - a writing device that Snicket lampoons heavily in the later books.  I think it very much undermined Violet's Fabulously Delightful inventing ability.  It would have been better if she had set the scarf aflame without any external help whatsoever.

Anyway, the Baudelaires' signal attracts the attention of Captain Sham who rescues them in his signal boat.  The Baudelaires confront Captain Sham on his nefarious plot, claiming that they went to rescue Josephine, so that she can tell everybody the truth about what happened.  Josephine then exhibits incredible bravery by standing up to Captain Sham, confronting him on all of the evil he has committed.  However, this is all to little avail, as Captain Sham pushes her overboard to the leeches.  I have less of a problem with the courage that Josephine exhibits here, as it isn't as nearly sudden or abrupt.  It is made obvious that she has been inspired by the bravery of the Baudelaires.

Captain Sham takes the Baudelaires to shore, where they meet Mr Poe.  Just as it looks like the orphans will be adopted by Captain Sham, Sunny bites through his wooden peg leg, exposing him as Count Olaf.  As Mr Poe begins arguing with Count Olaf, the Baudelaires sneak into the back of a truck which is heading towards Lucky Smells Lumbermill.  This is another major deviation from the book series, but it is an intriguing development, and I look forward to seeing where the series goes from here.

V.F.D and Literary References

1. One of the News Anchors is called Vincent Fig Demetrios.

2. Damocles Dock, which serves Lake Lachrymose is named after the figure in Greek Mythology.

3. The taxi driver that takes the Baudelaires to Aunt Josephine's house espouses a literary analysis of Herman Melville's Moby Dick, and of course, Hurricane Herman, is named after Herman Melville.

4. When Aunt Josephine is shopping for food, we see one market trader crying out "Very Fresh Dill."

5. Aunt Josephine admits that her choice to leave the hidden code and fake her own death was a "Very Frightening Decision."

6. The Baudelaires quote Haruki Marukami concluding the second part of The Wide Window:

“And once the storm is over, you won’t remember how you made it through, how you managed to survive. You won’t even be sure, whether the storm is really over. But one thing is certain. When you come out of the storm, you won’t be the same person who walked in. That’s what this storm’s all about.”

How Big was the Flood and Why Doesn't God intervene?

Part One

The next ten questions of Bewes' book continue to concern themselves with The Universe we Inhabit. He broaches such topics as the origin of evil spirits, the end of the universe, what angels really are and why doesn't God intervene? However, just the same as my previous article, I will only be tackling a few of these questions.

12. How Big was the Flood?

A Mesopotamian Disaster, or a world catastrophe? The Flood continues to fuel speculation worldwide

Within this question, Bewes is addressing the story of Noah and the great Flood that is written about in Genesis 6-8.  God, seeing how humanity has become wicked, swears to destroy them all in a great flood, except for Noah and his family.  Even though I had to explain it, as Bewes rightly points out, it doesn't need to be explained, as it is "firmly embedded in the human memory on every continent." Bewes proceeds to explain that similar flood narratives exist in Hindu, Chinese, Cherokee and Babylonian traditions.  This was an idea that fascinated me.  In my own naivety, I didn't expect these biblical narratives to exist across the world, but it makes perfect sense when you think about how the bible was compiled.  These are ideas that I will explain further in later articles, but I think there's a common misconception that the bible was transcribed as it happened.  This wasn't strictly true.  Rather, it was written down about five hundred years after everything had occurred.  Before this, the stories had existed in an oral tradition, circulating for centuries, no doubt being embellished and altered, as time progressed.  When the bible was compiled, it was done so from a variety of sources by a variety of authors.

As for the size of the flood or whether it actually happened, this is, as Bewes argues, is not nearly important as to what the flood represents.* Bewes asserts that if we become obsessed with the technicalities of the flood, we distract ourselves from its true message: primarily, a warning for future generations, but also an example of behaviour for others to follow.  I find myself agreeing with Bewes' argument, and this is something else I will touch upon in the future, as I believe that too many people take the bible literally.  They interpret everything as it actually happened, when in actuality, a lot of the events are symbolic of bigger ideas.

19. Why doesn't God Intervene?

As I look at the violence and persecution of the world today, at the ethnic and sectarian strife, I long for God to intervene.  Surely he could put these things right at a single stroke?

Another common question in relation to Christianity.  If God is an omnipotent, omni-benevolent being, then why doesn't he wipe out all of the evil in the world? Bewes respond to this question with this argument:

"Many people long that violence and pain could be banished - but the answer to our question is itself a question: 'How Righteous are YOU?' What risk of you being wiped out with the rest of the evil-doers, if God was going to end the troubles just like that?

The Bible teaches that God is going to act at a single stroke.  In fact it keeps warning us that he will (Zephaniah 1:2, 18; Revelation 20:10, 14) But when it happens, it will only be on a day and time, known only to him (Matthew 24:36.) And it will be the end of the world."

Bewes continues by arguing that God far from being a wrathful being is also a patient one.  He doesn't want to wipe out humanity, but he will if he has to.  This is why he repeatedly sends us prophets and messengers to guide us in the right direction.  It is only when he has no other choice does he act on his words.  Obviously, Bewes is referring to the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ, but we see multiple instances of genocide in the bible, as God kills his people.  The obvious example is one we've already discussed: The Flood, but there was also the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, the ransacking of Canaan in the book of Joshua, and how he allows the Assyrian Empire to destroy Israel and the Babylonian Empire to destroy Judah.  Within these cities, the people had turned against God, despite how he sent them judges, prophets and kings to lead them back into the light.  God wants to believe that humanity will learn from their mistakes, but when they repeatedly disappoint them, he has no choice but to punish them.  Like any good disciplinarian, he has to follow through on his threats to maintain respect.

I think the problem with these ideas lie not within Bewes' argument, but within the actual question.  God gave us free will and, thus I believe that, he gave us the ability to solve our own problems.  By constantly complaining that an external force is not doing anything to help us with OUR own problems, we're shifting the responsibility away from us.  What would be better is if we took accountability for our own actions, rather than blame others for problems that are entirely our fault.

*I actually did a little research into whether the Flood did occur and I found a few sources, which assert a few different arguments for why it could have happened.

Jenna Millman, Bryan Taylor and Lauren Effron of ABC news published an article, which argues that evidence has been unearthed demonstrating that the great flood did occur.  Within it, they write about underwater archaeologist, Robert Ballard's findings.  Ballard used advanced robotic technology to investigate a theory made by students at Columbia University.  They argued that the Black Sea was "once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising sea." Upon investigation, Ballard and his team discovered an ancient shoreline with shells that carbon-dated to 5,000 BC, which is when scholars believed that the flood occurred.  Ballard went on to find pottery, man-made structures and also a shipwreck.

Millman et al also make reference to biblical archaeologist Eric Cline who argued that "the earlier Mesapotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending floods to wipe out humans," thus it can be argued that the biblical narrative was inspired by the Mesapotamian one.

Lorence G. Collins  follows a simple line of argument, asserting that whilst the flood may have occurred, whether it covered the entire Earth is a matter of perspective.  Collins argues that storms in Mesapotamia can lead to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers overflowing and flooding the surrounding areas.  If abundant rain fell across Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran, then this could lead to the tributaries all contributing to the volume of the floodplains of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.  After the flood had occurred and Noah was in his ark, due to the curvature of the Earth, he wouldn't be able to see the peaks of any hills, as the Earth's curvature prevents it.  Thus, from his perspective, it would have been like that the entire Earth had been flooded.

As always, leave your challenges, interpretations and thoughts below.  Read the two sources I cited for yourself and let me know what you think.

Amadeus Review

Number 104 on the top 1000 films of all time is Milos Forman's 1984 Amadeus.

Amadeus centres on the life and career of the 18th-century classical composer, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce.)  It is told from the perspective of his greatest rival Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham.)  Salieri, jealous of Mozart's success, befriends Mozart with the intention of murdering him and passing off Mozart's Requiem, as his own work.

Similar to other historical films, such as Braveheart, Amadeus takes a little, or in this case, a lot of creative license, in the name of creating an entertaining film.  It plays with the popular misconception that Salieri despised Mozart, when they were actually great friends, with Salieri going on to tutor Mozart's son.  However, this doesn't remove from the fact that Amadeus is a good, entertaining film.  What might take away from this is how Amadeus, like Braveheart, is three hours long, but unlike Braveheart, isn't entertaining throughout.  However, I'll come to this later.

The film open on an elderly Salieri attempting to commit suicide.  After his attempt fails, he is taken to a mental asylum.  The image of the mental asylum was a frightening one, as mental illness was something not well understood in the 18th century.  There were men locked in cages and others running amok.  Salieri, himself, is in his own private room and is visited by Father Vogler (Richard Frank) who intends to hear his confession.  This is where Salieri explains his long relationship with Mozart.  The rest of the film is told retrospectively from Salieri's perspective.

We discover that Salieri is part of the cultural elite in Vienna, as well as the court composer of Joseph II (Jeffrey Jones.) Salieri believes his musical successes are a gift from God, and when the child prodigy Mozart arrives on the scene, Salieri is keen to meet him thinking that his talents are also a gift from God.  This is where Salieri sees that despite Mozart's talent, he is obnoxious, immature and rude.

I feel that this is usually the case of many child geniuses and I think that Tom Hulce played the role well.  His portrayal of Mozart was no doubt annoying, especially with his irritating frilly laugh (a nice touch by Hulce) but I also think realistic of child geniuses and the pressures that they go through.  Mozart has many contentious relationships, including with his father and wife Constanza (Elizabeth Berridge.) I also enjoyed Berridge's portrayal of Constanza.  She was a loyal and loving wife, but her relationship to Mozart becomes increasingly strained.  This is the result of the family's finances growing and the Mozart's commissions decreasing.

When Mozart is commissioned by an undercover Salieri to write the Requiem, but also by Emanuel Schikander (Simon Callow) to write the Magic Flute, he becomes agitated and paranoid, pushing his marriage and health to breaking point.  Hulce portrays this relationship well and his transformation is good to see.  He goes from a talented, but spoilt brat into a dedicated and obsessive composer who prioritises his work over his health.  Eventually, the stress of his working life is enough to kill him.

Salieri's transformation was also powerful to see.  Initially, he is only mildly threatened by Mozart's talent, especially after Mozart upstages him by effortlessly playing his "March of Welcome," after only hearing it once.  Yet, Salieri becomes obsessed with defeating Mozart, believing that God is using Mozart to mock Salieri's own mediocrity.  Mediocrity is a big theme of the film and Salieri's greatest fear.  His obsession becomes his greatest downfall, as it transforms into guilt, leading to his internment at the mental asylum.  F. Murray Abraham did well to convey this and I think he was well deserving of the Oscar he won.

The regular cut of Amadeus is 2 and a half hours long.  I watched the Director's cut which is closer to 3 hours.  It did not need to be 3 hours.  At times, I found it quite tedious and on other occasions, I almost fell asleep.  By far the most boring sections were the actual operas and performances.  I know that this is a film about classical composers, so operas are bound to crop up, but they slowed down the pace of the film.  This is probably more of a personal criticism, as I've never had a great interest in operas, but I didn't find these sections very interesting.

The Reptile Room Review

Dear Reader,

if you are reading this review, I can only assume that you think the life of the Baudelaire orphans has improved.  Whilst this is an optimistic thought, it is a futile one, as only rarely do the the lives of the Baudelaires improve.  I am sorry to say that the second chapter of the Baudelaire orphans' lives is just as upsetting as the first, so I implore you t find a more enjoyable use of your time.

The Reptile Room picks up where The Bad Beginning leaves off.  With Lemony Snicket (Patrick Warburton) explaining why viewers should turn away from their screens.  You would think that after a couple of episodes, this would become tedious, but Patrick Warburton's excellent deadpan delivery, keeps it fresh and funny.

We see the inept banker Mr. Poe (K. Todd Pressman) take the Baudelaires to their next guardian Dr Montgomery Montgomery or Uncle Monty.  So far, I am liking Malina Weissman, Louis Hynes and Presley Smith, as Violet, Klaus and Sunny respectively.  Their portrayals of the Baudelaires are intelligent and mature, surprisingly so, after the tragedy they have just experienced.  With characters like this, it could be easy to portray them as deeply bitter, understandably so, but all three actors, especially Louis Hynes, play their roles with great sympathy.

We are then introduced to Uncle Monty (Aasif Mandvi) and we see that he is the epitome of a "mad scientist" - a phrase which here means "a man of learning who likes to rob graves at night, stitch the body part together and scream IT'S ALIVE." He is more than a mad scientist though, he is a Herpetologist, which means he studies reptiles.  Mandvi does well in his role, effortlessly bringing the eccentric scientist to life.  His presence fills the screen, as it is obvious that he is an interesting, jubilant man, with a few secrets to hide.

Speaking of secrets, we also immediately discover that Uncle Monty was intimately acquainted with the Baudelaire parents and also had some connection to a secret organisation.  When the Baudelaires see a blueprint of the maze surrounding Uncle Monty's house, they discover from above, it looks like the logo of V.F.D a.k.a the eye that decorates Count Olaf's ankle.  This early introduction of V.F.D is a novel addition to the TV and I'm interesting to see where it ends up.  As it original, it adds a nice mystery to be solved and keeps the audience guessing.

At this point, you may think that the Baudelaires live happily ever after, but as Lemony Snicket points out, happily ever afters only exist in stories meant for small children.  This, in itself, was a lovely reference to the TV series' source material, which is of course written for children.  The Baudelaire's happiness is interrupted by the arrival of Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris) who is disguised as Stephano, Uncle Monty's new lab assistant, after his old lab assistant Gustav, unexpectedly resigned.  Of course, we know that he was killed last episode, in an example of dramatic irony.  However, this disguise does little to fool the Baudelaires who confront Olaf about his scheme.  This is where we see Harris play the different elements of Olaf well.  At first, he is playing such a ridiculous character that it is difficult to take him seriously, but he then becomes instantly menacing, as he threatens to cut off one of Sunny's toes.  This is a Venemously, Feckless, Despicable thing to do, but it is enough to cover the Baudelaires into submission.  Uncle Monty is also seemingly not convinced by Stephano's disguise, but he has his own plans for Stephano.

Firstly, Uncle Monty plans to take Stephano and the BAudelaires to the movies, which is where we get one of the funnier moments of the episode.  Stephano confesses that he's always preferred long-form television to films, before staring into the camera.  This is an obvious reference to Netflix, which produced the series, but I also think a subtle dig at the failure of the film adaptation.  After this interaction, the Baudelaires, Uncle Monty and Stephano go to see Zombies in the Snow, which has a hidden message within it.  Not only does Jacquelyn, Mr Poe's former secretary and generally mysterious person, star in the film telling him to take the children to Peru.  We learn that the Baudelaires have more friends than they realise.  Book-readers will know that the schism, which split V.F.D into villains and volunteers, occurred long before the books actually began, but I think that in the series, the schism is still happening.

After the film has finished, Uncle Monty confronts Stephano is the parking lot, where I have to echo Zack Handlen of AV Club's criticism of this scene.  We already know that Uncle Monty is well-versed in the nature of secret codes, disguises and organisations.  He could well be on the volunteer side of V.F.D.  We find out that he has known who Stephan is all along - a spy from the Herpetological society, and not Count Olaf.  Count Olaf is as surprised as I was, and this just doesn't make sense.  For all the above reasons, it is implied that Uncle Monty is well trained in subterfuge, so he should be able to recognise Stephano for who he really was.

Anyway, after Uncle Monty sends Stephano away, he takes the children home and puts them to bed, which marks the end of the first part of the episode.

The second part opens, once again, with Lemony Snicket explaining how unless we've lost a loved one, we cannot imagine how it would feel.  The Baudelaires have already lost their parents, and I'm sorry to admit, have lost Uncle Monty as well, who has seemingly died of a snakebite from the Incredibly Deadly Viper.  Stephano then kidnaps the children in the hopes of whisking them away to Peru, when who should they run into, but Mr Poe.  Although, there is plenty of humour in the series, I think Mr Poe is the comedy relief, ue to his sheer incompetence, despite how he tries to do the right thing.  He refuses to listen to the Baudelaires, when they accuse Stephano of being Count Olaf, but he does insist that the proper authorities are called to investigate the case.  Cue the arrival of Count Olaf's henchpeople disguised as coroners, policemen and nurses.  Mr Poe quickly sends the children away, as the adults get on with the work.

In the books, typically only one henchperson appears at a time, but I'm glad the TV series is including them as an ensemble - a French word which here means "all together," as this is how they best function.  The henchpeople are a different form of character relief, as they prove that adults can be incompetent and get away with it, because they're adults.  For example, the Hench-person of Indeterminate Gender, despite playing a nurse, is afraid of being in a room with a dead body and the bald man with the long nose refers to the investigation as a murder, when it's supposed to be an accident. Although they are great separately, when they're all together, they're doubly hilarious and threatening.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Baudelaires are carrying out an investigation of their own to prove that Uncle Monty was murdered by Count Olaf.  Klaus studies Uncle Monty's research, Violet invents a lockpick to break into Stephano's suitcase and look for clues, whilst Sunny aims to create a distraction to keep the adults off her sibling's backs - a phrase which here means "keeping the adult's attention diverted away from her siblings, and has nothing to do with being on somebody's back.  This distraction sets up one of the funniest moments of the show, however, before I explain that, I have to once again use the hackneyed expression "meanwhile back at the ranch" to discuss the Incredibly Deadly Viper.  This snake is Uncle Monty's prized specimen and its name is a misnomer, a phrase which I'm sure you well know means "a name designed to make the snake sound scarier than it is, when it is actually one of the friendliest and least deadly animals in the animal kingdom." Sunny demonstrates this fact by playing with the snake in full view of the adults, thus also demonstrating that it was wrongly framed as Uncle Monty's successor.

This is where K. Todd Pressman shines as Mr Poe.  Upon seeing this scene, Mr Poe panics blurting out random gibberish, such as "good God, golly, Zeus and Hera, Nathaniel Hawthorne, grab the snake, don't touch it, call the police, call my wife." His physical comedy mixed with his timing makes this a hilarious scene.  After he calms down, Violet and Klaus enter and unmask both Stephano and his plot to murder Uncle Monty.  Olaf and his henchpeople make a quick escape with the Baudelaires following Olaf into the maze.  Although they soon lose him, they find Jacquelyn who has been disguised as a statue in the middle of the maze.  After revealing and doing very little, she proceed to pursue Count Olaf.  She swaps her revealing statue costume for a black number, but curiously leaves on the body paint.

The Baudelaires return to Mr Poe who makes an unconvincing promise that the authorities will catch up with Olaf before whisking them off to their next guardian.

We eventually catch up with Count Olaf who is on a ship to Peru, where he counters Jacquelyn.  The two have a brief fight culminating with Count Olaf jumping out the window.  The significance of this scene, I'm not quite sure, as well as the significance of Jacquelyn's character.

The episode ends on the characters of "Mother" (Cobie Smulders) and "Father" (Will Arnett) who have made it to Peru in the hopes of rendezvousing with Uncle Monty and the Baudelaires.  Their identity has also yet to be revealed.  I don't think that they are the Baudelaire parents, but rather Kit and Jacques Snicket, with "Mother" and "Father" being code names.  In this world of secret codes and organisations, it is certainly possible.

VFD and Literary References

"Very Fitting Definition."

"Verified Film Discount"

"Vitiated Film Distribution"

Mr Poe references Nathanial Hawthorne, the famous American Transcendentalist - "a phrase which here means, a group of 18 and 19th century American writers who rejected modern technology and society, in an attempt to return to nature and finding salvation within"

When Stephano is discussing Uncle Monty's snakes, he says that "the Virginian Woolfsnake could bludgeon you to death with a typewriter." This is a reference to the dreary and monotonous Modernist writer Virginia Woolf - "dreary and monotonous" is a phrase which here means, slow, boring prose where very little happens and the action is largely internalised within the character's minds."

Let me know any references I might have missed and your theories on who Mother and Father are.

How do women and animals fit into the bible? Why do evil and viruses exist?

A couple of months ago, I uploaded an article concerning my views about religion.  I said that I might come back and add to it.  However, I thought rather than return to it, I would write a new article, or in this case, a series of articles.  I recently bought the book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions, authored by Richard Bewes.  As I've been reading it, I've had my own ideas and feelings, so I thought I would compile them together in article.  Before I begin, I want to make a few prefaces.

Richard Bewes is Rector of All Souls Church, Langham Place.  This obviously means that he is biased towards Christians, and is, in some places, downright offensive to non-Christians.  I don't think his arguments would do much to persuade a staunch atheist.  I also want to clarify that whilst I am not a Christian or religious, I'm also not an Atheist.  I am open to the idea of religion and learning as much as I can.  I am currently rereading the bible, along with various guides, but I make no claims as to being a biblical scholar.  When Bewes references the bible, he is referring to the King James and the English Standard Versions.  In the rare occasion, that I refer to the bible, I am also referring to the King James Version, but also Today's New International Youth Version.

Although the book discusses the top 100 questions, I will only be responding to those that interested me the most.  I read the book in groups of ten questions, thus I will be responding to certain questions in a similar manner.  On occasion, I may also refer to my good friend Naomi who is a devout Christian and infinitely more knowledgeable about such things, than I am.

The first twenty questions are concerned with:

The Universe we Inhabit

Q.5 A woman's place?

Why was the first woman created second, as only a 'helper' for the man? This seems to place women on a lower footing altogether.

It's easy to regard the bible, and Christianity in general as patriarchal.  We refer to the God with the masculine pronoun of "he," and Catholicism has never been too keen on female priests.  True, you get denominations that are more progressive, I had a Protestant friend whose rector was a woman, but the argument remains that Christianity can be considered patriarchal.

This is something that the bible further evidences.  Female characters rarely have agency, with Ruth, Esther, Deborah and Mary being some of the few exceptions.  However, women are largely commodities, and when they're not, they're portrayed less than favourably e.g Jezebel and Delilah.  God has been compared to a jealous husband who wishes to punishes Judah and Israel who function as a promiscuous wife, who constantly prostitutes herself to foreign gods.    Of course, this is more of a statement of the gender politics of the time, rather than of Christianity, but this isn't a socio-political debate, but one about women fit into the bible.

Bewes identifies Genesis 1:27:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

He argues that this "gives us the definitive, over-arching statement, where the man and the woman counter-balance each other." Later he argues that Eve, unlike Adam, wasn't made from clay, but rather from Adam's rib.  Eve, and women, are equals, rather than underlings.  If Adam was made in God's image and God is perfect, it can be argued that Eve is a further refined depiction of this perfection.  Or maybe she's better.  This argument has the danger of falling into a defense of idolatry, which God detests, but Bewes also identifies that this signifies how man and woman came from the same essence.  We began the same, as we were created equal and were always meant to be equal.  Naomi made the interesting point that Adam and Eve were included to show how God relates to his people.  They're not meant to be seen as role models, but rather as vessels for God to demonstrate his love and power.  She also argued that Eve was created to provide companionship for Adam; she was essential for his existence.

6. Can you explain evil?

I get so discouraged by the evil on every side; the conflicts that seem to mount up, the undisciplined youth, corrupt leadership and terrorism worldwide.  Where does it come from? I see no hope.

This is a common question that I see in relation to Christianity.  If God is an omnipotent, perfect being, how could he allow evil to exist?  How could he have created it in the first place?

One of Bewes' explanations is how evil represents a defection, not a first cause.  He references Isaiah 14: 12-15, which describe Lucifer's expulsion from heaven.  Bewes continues by arguing that "i you are free to love, then you are also free to rebel.  So evil entered, not as something that had always existed, but as a deviation, a rebellion from the original first cause."

This is an argument that I cannot believe.  It sounds to me that he is arguing that evil exists, because we have strayed from the path that God has laid out for us.  There are two famous quotations that go against Bewes' argument:

"All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

"The world suffers not for the violence of the bad people, but for the silence of the good people."

Evil doesn't exist because we have strayed from our path, but rather because we have refused to stray from it.  Sometimes it is necessary to break convention and stand up for what's right.

James 4:17 reads "so then, if you know the good you ought to do and don't do it, you sin." This is generally known as the Sin of Omission.  If you have the opportunity to do good in the world and you don't, you are therefore committing a sin.

A common moral scenario sees the tale of three men.  One man, we'll call him Jim, is walking home one night down a dark alleyway.  He is then beaten and mugged by another man, let's call him Brian.  There is a third man, who I'll call Tom, who witnesses the whole affair, but does nothing to help.  Rather he chooses to carry on walking. Who is the worst man in this scenario? Brian for beating up Jim? Or Tom for doing nothing to stop him?

Q9. The Creation of Viruses?

If God created all things, why did he create these terrible viruses?

This question corresponded to the last one.  If God is a benevolent being, why would he create viruses that bring nothing but misery and pain?

Bewes argues, as does Naomi, that viruses are a warped aspect of creation.  They were originally good, but the fall of humanity changed that.  Bewes asserts that viruses exist to instill three things: a sense of humility, a sense of eternity and a sense of humanity.  Essentially, he is arguing that viruses exist to remind us that we all die as we're human, which means that we must make use of the time we have.  He makes the interesting point that "many millions of people never even began to think about God and his saving plan, until they or a loved one were struck by an apparently random virus."

Finally, he asserts that the presence of these viruses give us something worth fighting for: the eradication of these viruses.  He states: "if God declared war on evil, pain and death - and he has clearly done so in Christ - then we must allow the presence of such infection and disease to provoke us into fighting them in his name."

I can respect, if not agree with, all three of his arguments.  You're always hearing about people taking hedonistic joyrides or fulfilling their bucket lists, upon diagnosis of a terminal illness.  And yes, the eradication of these viruses has been a great unifying factor, even returning to the bible, where in Leviticus, there are numerous rules about personal hygiene and not touching the dead.  But from a moral standpoint, I would say these arguments are downright coldhearted.  Imagine explaining to a parent that the sacrifice of their terminally ill child will remind all of us how short our lives can be or that it will help to unite everyone together in defiance to this illness.  As true as this might be, I would also argue that this would be a cold comfort to any grieving parent.

10. Where do animals fit?

What is the purpose of animals in our world? How do they tie in with the human race?

Bewes makes the compelling argument that "we would not be able to get along in life without the aid of animals.  They help to run the world," he later compares them to God's angels, assisting and aiding humanity, as much as the angels do God.  Animals are vital to this world and we have a duty to protect them.  Genesis 1:27-28 state that:

"So God created man in his own image, [...] male and female, created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them [...] replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

When we read dominion, I think we incorrectly assume that this means that we have to dominate and wrestle the earth into our submission.  However, what God intended for us was to be caretakers of the planet.  He wanted us to rule it with compassion and kindness, not with an iron fist.

As I have stated before, I am not an expert.  Therefore, I welcome all challenges, criticisms, comments and interpretations.  Just keep it respectful.

A Series of Unfortunate Events- The Bad Beginning Review

Dear Reader,

you may have come to this review straight from my review of the movie A Series of Unfortunate Events, expecting a review of a film with infinitely happier material.  I am afraid that I must disappoint you here, as the Netflix Television adaptation of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events content is every bit as woeful and saddening.  I have committed myself to reviewing every chronicle of this tragic tale, but you dear reader are under no such obligation.  Therefore I implore you to spare yourself the pain of reading a review of this Valiantly Faithful Depiction of the torments of the Baudelaire children and instead read my reviews of Robot Wars, Hunted or The Returned.

At the beginning of January, Netflix released the first season of their adaptation of A Series of Unfortunate Events.  As a child, A Series of Unfortunate Events was one of my favourite book series, and in case you hadn't noticed, I was deeply disappointed by the 2004 film adaptation, thus I was hopeful that the TV series would be a vast improvement.  My hope was not in vain.  I loved this series.  Netflix has adapted the first four books: The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, The Wide Window and The Miserable Mill, into eight episodes, with each book spread across two forty-five minute segments.  Although the episodes were released in two parts, I'll be reviewing both parts in one review.

A Series of Unfortunate Events follows the story of the three Baudelaire orphans.  Violet (Malina Weissman) is the eldest child at fourteen and has a real knack for inventing things, Klaus (Louis Hynes) is twelve and is a keen researcher, and Sunny (Presley Smith) is an infant with four sharp teeth, which she likes to use to bite things.  Their parents and mansion both perish - perish means killed - in a terrible fire, leaving the Baudelaires in the care of Mr Poe (K. Todd Pressman) who is a banker and the executor of the Baudelaires' estate and the enormous fortune that the Baudelaire parents left behind.  Until Violet comes of age and can inherit the fortune, the Baudelaires are placed in the care of Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris) a Violent, Fiendish Demon, and untalented actor who wants nothing more than to steal the Baudelaire fortune.

Straight from the off, A Series of Unfortunate Events wonderfully captured the cadence of the book series written by Lemony Snicket (Patrick Warburton) - who as I'm sure you know is the non de plume of the author Daniel Handler.  The theme tune, sung by Neil Patrick Harris, is called Look Away and encapsulates Lemony Snicket's pleas that the viewers not subject themselves to such torment.  I also loved how the theme tune was shot to look like an old-time film, complete with a grainy sepia filter.  This gave the TV series that timeless feel, which exists in the book series.

Secondly, Lemony Snicket appears on screen, inserting himself into the action and breaking the fourth wall - a phrase which here means, "constantly defining words, dissecting popular expressions, espousing anecdotes of his life or pleading for viewers to stop watching" - thus providing much of the TV series black humour.  In this episode alone things get increasingly dark, from children becoming orphaned by terrible fires to audiences being subjected to Al Funcoot's catastrophically bad play, and Lemony Snicket provides some great comic relief.  He does this by reciting monologues, which are ripped straight from the pages of the books - a phrase which here means "narration that is recited word for word, and has nothing to do with tearing pages out of books, which is of course a terrible act of vandalism and should never be done to books, which are great fountains of knowledge.  The only exception would be if these books are poorly written and are about a young woman who undergoes a sexual awakening after her first experience of BDSM."

I agree with Zack Handlen of AV Club who argues that Patrick Warburton is completely up to the task.  His portrayal of Lemony Snicket reminds me of Humphrey Bogart or Fred Macmurray in an old noir film, made complete by his drab, dark suit.

This humour is carried over into the action of the series with the adult characters defining - defining is a word which here means, "explaining what certain words mean" - what certain words mean to the Baudelaire children.  Obviously, you could make the argument that this makes for awkward dialogue and indeed, a lot of the dialogue, especially from the Baudelaires sounds unnatural.  However, this all ties into the absurdist nature of the books.  It's supposed to sound like this.  The Baudelaires are supposed to be well-mannered and polite, certainly more so than the villainous adults that they encounter.

Villainous adult don't come any more villainous than Count Olaf who Neil Patrick Harris plays brilliantly.  He is exuberant and charismatic without being over the top or straying into pantomime territory.  He is also menacing, malevolent and malicious - a word that here means "menacing and malevolent." The commenter Velocityprime1 on A.V's Club review identified that Count Olaf dragging his finger across Violet's face stating that "I can touch anything I want" was threatening, which I would definitely agree with.  Even though we see Olaf strike Klaus across the face earlier, this was far more powerful, as the allusion of violence can be more effective at generating fear than seeing the act of violence itself.  Furthermore, as Count Olaf is the children's legal guardian, it is disturbing to see him touch the fourteen year old Violet in this manner.  Of course this disturbing element is only accentuated when it is revealed that he is scheming to literally marry Violet, whilst performing The Marvellous Marriage, whilst the audience thinks it is only a figurative marriage.

Considering how Neil Patrick Harris has a background in musical theatre, he is a great choice to play Count Olaf, who is a considerably worse actor.  Count Olaf and his antics also helps to provide a lot of the show's humour especially his interaction with his henchmen/theatre troupe.  Count Olaf has five henchmen who are as incompetent, as they are threatening.  They are the Hook-Handed Man (Usman Ally) the two White-Face powdered woman (Jacequelin and Joyce Robbins) the man with the Long Nose and Bald head (John DeSantis) and the Person of Indeterminate Gender (Matty Cardaropole.) Far from being mere shadows of their boss or stage-props, they are frightening characters in their own rights.  I was initially disappointed that the person of indeterminate gender looks obviously like a man, but this was forgiven by his cynical and abrupt philosophical statements.

Joan Cusack is also great as Justice Strauss, one of the few adults who tries her best who actually helps the Baudelaires.  She is softly spoken and sweet, if largely ineffectual and misguided.  I've also noticed a lot of commenters praise the set design comparing it to a Tim Burton film.  The production of the series certainly brought to mind Sleepy Hollow and Edward Scissorhands, attaching a gothic tone to the season.  Count Olaf's house was filthy and dusty, whilst Justice Strauss' was brightly lit and clean.

With the episodes being a minimum of forty-five minutes, there is plenty of breathing space and nothing is too rushed.  This allowed for the Baudelaire children to receive their deserved screentime and for us to see their talents in full show, from Violet inventing a grappling hook to rescue Sunny to Klaus researching inheritance law to Lemony Snicket's many various asides. The added run-time also allowed for a number of original subplots, as well as Easter Eggs.  The most obvious was the two lines "Volunteer Fire Department" and "Vigorously Fixed Destination," which share the same initials as V.F.D.  Book readers will know that V.F.D is a massive part of the books and the fact that it's included within the first episode, rather than the fifth, adds another level of depth and intrigue to the TV series.  Other great Easter Eggs include Count Olaf's shock at hearing the word "lemony" and his confusion as to the disappearance of the Sugar Bowl.

The other two subplots follow the characters of Mother (Cobie Smulders) and Father (Will Arnett) and Mr Poe's secretary Jacequlyn (Sara Canning) and Gustav (Luke Camielleri.) We find out very little about Mother and Father, but we see that they are escaping from prison using a grappling hook to return home to their children.  We don't find out who their children are, but the obvious conclusion is that they are the Baudelaire parents who survived the fire.  If this is the truth, then this would be a massive deviation from the canon, which has been so faithfully adhered to.  However, I wonder if this is a red herring and whether the producers are going to pull the rug from under our feet.

The character of Jacequlyn is a unique creation of the TV series.  Initially, she appears to be nothing more than Mr Poe's more assuming secretary who is kidnapped, whilst Count Olaf manipulates Mr Poe into assuring the Baudelaire orphans are delivered to him rather than their Uncle Montgomery.  This in itself was a neat way of filling in the plot hole in the book of just why exactly the Baudelaires ended up in Count Olaf's care.  However, it is obvious that Jacequlyn is far more important as a lot of time is spent on her, too much time, as Zach Handlen argues, being tied to a tree before escaping and rendezvousing with Gustav.  Gustav meets an unfortunate end after he is shot by a poison dart, whilst standing literally on the edge of a pond.  His last words are "The World is Quiet Here," (book readers will know what this means,) but to new viewers, this is one mystery that is left unsolved, as is the true identities of Gustav and Jacequlyn.  It is obvious that they are trying to help the Baudelaires and are deeply concerned that they ended up in the care of Count Olaf, instead of Uncle Montgomery.  I think they are on the volunteer side of V.F.D, but let me know your own theories in the comments below.  Also let me know who you think Mother and Father are.

Lastly, we come to the many literary references and allusions.  These are littered throughout the books, but I wasn't aware of them as a child.  As I have become older and read more books, I can truly appreciate all of the allusions that Snicket has included.  The Baudelaire children are named after the French author Charles Baudelaire and Mr Poe, his wife Eleanora and his sons Albert and Edgar are a homage to the American gothic author Edgar Allan Poe.  When sampling the wedding cake, he says "let me eat cake," a reference to Marie Antoinette's famous line.  Lemony Snicket swore himself to document the woes of the Baudelaire children to honour the memory of their mother Beatrice, of whom Lemony Snicket has always had an unrequited love for.  Of course, he could stand for countless writers, but I would like to think of him as Petrarch, who held an unrequited love for a woman called Laura for over ten years.

This was a great start to the series and I am hooked, right from the first episode.  Tune in next week for my review of The Reptile Room, although I do implore you to fill your time with much happier enterprises.

Please let me know any Easter Eggs or literary references that I might have missed.

A Series of Unfortunate Events Film Review

I am sorry to inform you that this review is not from the Top 1000 greatest films of all time, nor is it from a happy occasion such as my dear mother's birthday.  Rather this is a review of the movie, a word which here means, a group of moving pictures stitched together for the purposes of entertainment, A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004.)  The subject matter of the movie is not happy and whilst it is my duty to review it, it is not your duty to read it.  Upon watching this film, I became miserable and distraught - words that here mean, so sad and upset that I am currently crying onto my keyboard, I do not wish for you, dear reader, to undergo the same heartbreak, so please read my reviews of Love Actually and Run Fatboy Run, or better yet watch the films themselves, as they are far happier than this melancholy tale.  This is your Very Final Dire warning to click off this review and watch a funny cat video.

A Series of Unfortunate Events is a children's book series that was written by Lemony Snicket - which as I'm sure you know is the penname of Daniel Handler who was the real author - and it remains one of my favourite book series.  This was why I was ecstatic to find out that they would be making a Netflix TV Series.  However, this review is not of the TV series, rather this review is of the film that preceded - a word which here means, came before - it.  Some comparisons of the two may sneak in, but any in-depth commentary will be saved for another time.  The film adapts the first three books: The Bad Beginning, the Reptile Room and the Wide Window.

A Series of Unfortunate Events focuses on Violet (Emily Browning,) Klaus (Liam Aikens) and Sunny Baudelaire (Kara and Shelby Hoffman.)  Violent is 14 and an inventor, Klaus is 12 and a lover of reading and researching and Sunny is an infant with very sharp teeth, which satisfy her love for biting things.  They experience a great tragedy - a word which here means, a terrible fire destroys their home, killing their parents - leaving them in the temporary care of Mr Poe (Timothy Spall.) Mr Poe is a banker and executor of Baudelaire estate.

The Baudelaire's parents have left behind a great fortune that Violet will inherit when she turns 18, but until then, it will remain in Mr Poe's care.  Although, Mr Poe is well-meaning, he is incompetent - a phrase which here means, having a good heart, but being unable to listen to common sense and not put the Baudelaire orphans in the care of the Villainously Fiendish Devil, Count Olaf (Jim Carrey) who wants nothing more than to steal away the Baudelaire's fortune.  After the orphans are taken out of his care, they are then entrusted to Dr. Montgomery Montgomery (Billy Connolly) and then Aunt Josephine Anwhistle (Meryl Streep.)

I am by no means, a book purist, - a phrase which here means, somebody who is such a big fan of a book, that they insist that the movie adaptation has to be identical, I realise that books have to be changed to make them suitable for the big screen.  I acknowledge that there are some films which are just as good or even better than their source material: the Lord of Rings, Life of Pi and The Godfather, and there are some books that are far superior than their movie adaptations: the Harry Potter series, The Beach, Stormbreaker and Hannibal.  However, when you love a book series, as much as I love A Series of Unfortunate Events, it is disappointing when the movie adaptation doesn't live up to it.  And as much as the film is a good film in its own right, it does not compare to the books.

Before I become a Harbinger of Doom, - a phrase which here means, a grumpy critic who likes to pull apart a popular and well-loved film - I would like to say a few things about the film that I did like.  Firstly, there was the performances.  Other than Jim Carrey, whom I'll come to later, I thought that the acting was all good.  Timothy Spall was great as the inept Mr Poe, and Billy Connolly played the eccentric Dr Montgomery Montgomery with charm, but I think it was Meryl Streep's portrayal of Aunt Josephine, which was the most faithful to the books.  Until I rewatched this film, I don't think I've ever realised just how tragic of a character she is.  In her youth, she used to be very adventurous, but upon the death of her husband, she has become afraid of everything and lost all joy in her life.  I think it could all be too easy to dislike or tire of a character like this, but Streep makes the character pitiful and quite sympathetic at times.

One of my favourite moments of the film - a phrase which means, a part of the film that I enjoyed the most - was right at the end, where Mr Poe confronts Count Olaf denouncing him as a greedy monster.  Count Olaf replies that it is actually Mr Poe who is the monster, as he refused to listen to the Baudelaires, due to the fact that they are children.  A big theme of the books is the idea of obedience to adult authority and how children's opinions are of no importance, and I think it's great that the film portrayed this theme so well.

Watch the scene for yourself here and go to 7:30

Although, the movie tried, I don't think that it conveyed the character of Lemony Snicket (Jude Law) well.  In the books, Lemony Snicket is far more than just the narrator/writer of the series.  He is a character in himself, often inserting himself into the scenes, and breaking the fourth wall - a phrase which here means speaking directly to the reader - through either defining difficult words to the reader (a device which often appears within the story too,) dissecting popular expressions or literary devices or giving Variously Funny Descriptions of different events in his life.  This provides a lot of the series' humour, but this didn't translate into the film.  The film begins with an animated short of a ghastly creation called The Happiest, Little Elf, which is quickly cut short and replaced by Snicket begging the viewer to leave the theatre and not to watch A Series of Unfortunate Events.  There are also a few occasions, where Snicket verbatim - a phrase which here means word for word - explains what certain phrases mean, but Snicket is mostly reduced to a narrator sitting in a clocktower, thus losing a lot of his presence and effect.  Lemony Snicket is a character which is in every way, just as interesting and important as the Baudelaires and I don't like how his role was so diminished in the film.  Not only does the film lose some of the depth that the books have, but it also loses some of the great deadpan humour.

I thought Jim Carey was very over-the-top as Count Olaf going so far to render him as a Pantomime villain.  This resulted in the character's dilution and a considerable loss of  menace.  I get that Count Olaf is supposed to be a talentless actor, but I think that Carey overdid it.  I also didn't like the portrayal of his theatre troupe who far from being threatening henchmen in their own right were reduced to little more than stage props and dressing.

Another scene I had a big problem with was when Count Olaf locks the Baudelaire children in his car and leaves it on a set of train tracks with an oncoming train only minutes away.  Obviously he does this to kill them and thus steal their fortune, yet this was a stupid idea, hurting Olaf's portrayal as an intelligent villain.  Olaf's intelligence is demonstrated through this film via his costumes and his Vicious Fetid Diabolical schemes to steal the Baudelaire's fortune.  He is intelligent enough to know that if he kills the Baudelaires, then he won't get a cent of their money.

Watch the scene for yourself here

My biggest problem with this film is how it compresses three books into one film meaning that everything is very rushed and some important details are sacrificed in the name of pacing and relevance.  It also hurts the Baudelaire's character development too.  From the offset, we see that they are talented and intelligent, using their skills to get them out of harm's way.  Yet in the film, this is substituted for luck and coincidence.

For example, in the Bad Beginning section, Count Olaf orders the Baudelaires to cook dinner for him and his theatre troupe.  They find a cookbook in his kitchen, which is a bit odd, considering how he doesn't have a strainer or cooking pot, and cook Pasta Puttanesca - a phrase which here means, a delicious Italian pasta dish consisting of anchovies, olives and garlic, cooked in a gorgeous tomato based sauce.  In the book, the Baudelaires visit their neighbour Justice Strauss (Catherine O'Hara) and borrow one of her cook books, where they discover the Puttanesca recipe.  By changing this, the film undermines how the Baudelaires use their initiative to help them.

Another example of this would be in the Reptile Room section, where after the Incredibly Deadly Viper is framed for biting and killing Dr Montgomery Montgomery, Sunny proves that there isn't anything dangerous about it by playing with it.  However, due to the rushed nature, there is no earlier scene, where we see Sunny become friends with the snake, as there is in the book.  Also there isn't any evidence of Klaus using his researching skills to discover that it was actually Count Olaf, disguised as a research assistant Stephano, who killed Dr Montgomery Montgomery by injecting him with the venom of the Mamba Du Mal, nor is there a scene of Violet inventing a picklock to break into Stephano's suitcase to find evidence.

Despite how the film cuts out a lot, it includes some interesting subplots, most notably the fact that the Baudelaire's parents, Dr Montgomery Montgomery and Aunt Josephine all knew each other in a past life.  This is presented in the Wide Window section, where Aunt Josephine hints that they were all part of a secret organisation.  Obviously, she is referring to how they were on the volunteer side of V.F.D, but, and I reach out to any eagle-eyed reader, was this in the books at all? It makes perfect sense if it is, but I found no evidence about it when I reread the novels.  Please let me know in the comments below.  Also be sure to keep a lookout for a couple of the very subtle nods to V.F.D.

The Wide Window section ends with another deviation of the book, which makes little sense within the film.  Count Olaf has adopted the guise of Captain Sham to gain the confidence of Aunt Josephine and force her into killing herself and leaving the Baudelaires in his care.  She fakes her death, goes into hiding, and leaves a hidden message for the Baudelaires which they decipher and quickly rescue her.  When they are sailing back across Lake Lachrymose and are being attacked by the Lachrymose Leeches, who should come rescue them, but Count Olaf.  However, he has discarded his Captain Sham costume, which made no sense to me, as he had no reason to get rid of it.  Nobody knew who he was.  On a smaller note, if Aunt Josephine is a grammar-Nazi on steroids and Captain Sham speaks in "sea-dog" slang, why, oh why, would she become so attracted to him? This was something else that made no sense to me.

Anyway, soon joining Count Olaf and the Baudelaires on the lake is Mr Poe (I wasn't really sure why he was there either.) Count Olaf pretends to save Klaus from the leeches, which is enough to convince Mr Poe to put them back into his care, but not before saying that the Baudelaire fortune will not go to Olaf unless he is married to Violet, thus giving Olaf the idea to perform a play called the Marvellous Marriage, where he intends to marry Violet for real.  However, his decision to put on this play seems very spontaneous, which contradicts - a word that here means doesn't make any sense compared to an earlier scene I am about to discuss - this earlier scene which I am about to discuss.  If we remember back to the silly car/train scene, we see quite clearly that there is a book about Inheritance Law.  If Olaf had this plan all along, then why did he wait so long to enact it? Again, I think this hurts his intelligence as a villain.

See for yourself at 1:16

In terms of blackmailing Violet to marry him, Olaf has Sunny kidnapped, put in a cage and dangled out of a tall tower, with the threat that she would be dropped to her death, if anything went wrong with the production.  The silly thing about this scene is how all of this happens off-screen.  In the books, Olaf has one of his henchman sneak Sunny out of the Baudelaire's bedroom, but in the film, it comes as a complete surprise to Klaus and Violet to find their baby sister missing.  Where did they think she had gone? Did they not notice that she was missing?

Finally, I really disliked the ending of the film, as it goes against the whole nature of the books.  Throughout the series, Snicket lampoons the literary devices that make up a traditional children's story, most notably, how all the characters live happily ever after.  This is a real story where the villains win and the heroes lose.  However, the film ends with some sentimental, cheesy monologue, performed by Snicket himself, about how fortunate the Baudelaires are to have each other, and how in the darkest situations, there is always hope.  This sentimentality is exactly what Snicket was writing against and contradicts the whole flavour of the film.

See for yourself here

I know that my review of this film might seem a Vile Foul Diatribe, but it's only because I love the books so much and a Series of Unfortunate Events fails to recapture its magic and wonder.  It is a good film in its own right and I'm glad that I gave it a second chance.  I'm also sure that non-readers of the book series will enjoy it, but it was nowhere near as good as it could have been.  Unlike, the Netflix TV adaptation, which is far superior, but that is another review for another time.  Until that time, dear reader, I wish you have a Very Fine Day, or at least a happier day than the Baudelaires generally experience.