"ADAPATATION" REVIEW: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

"In this book, not only is there no happy ending, there is no happy beginning and very few happy things in the middle."

Why am I always attracted to depressing books and bad movie adaptations? The last two posts I did were of really bad adaptations and a lot of my other reviews are of Stephen King (whose books are very depressing in general). This book adaption is not particularly "bad" as it still does try to at least stay faithful to the book. It's also not THAT bad of a movie. It's enjoyable enough if you've never read the books, and the movie did get me to start reading the books, so it's not all that bad even for book readers (well it's not Percy Jackson near bad). Anyways, A Series of Unfortunate Events is a series of gothic children's books published from 1999 to 2006, written by Daniel Handler, who goes by the penname Lemony Snicket (fun fact, in the book's universe, Snicket and Handler are two separate people and are active characters). The series revolves around Violet, Klaus, and Sunny Baudelaire, who have become orphans after their parents died in a fire. They are placed under the cares of numerous guardians, all the while trying to avoid Count Olaf, who wants their fortune. The Baudelaire orphans also in the process attempt to solve a mystery revolving around a secret organization called V.F.D. and their morals get very murky by the end of the book. The film was released in 2004 (before the final few books were released mind you) and was directed by Brad Silberling and is an adaptation of the first three books, The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window. The film actually won the Academic Award for Best Makeup, beating out The Passion of the Christ, presumably for the admittedly good makeup on Count Olaf. A series of sequels were originally planned, but was eventually cancelled for some reason (as it did generally well). 

In a much more successful effort, a Netflix series came out in 2017 with Neil Patrick Harris as Count Olaf (another weird but better casting choice), and I found that one to be more accurate, and actually much more fun to watch as a book reader. Perhaps I'll review the series on here someday as well.

This time, like the last two reviews, I won't be doing my usual structure for adaptation reviews, but I will just be talking about the book first, and then the movie, pointing out stuff they changed or added. At the end, I will still do my bit of talking about both of them, and the summative thoughts.

The Novel

I think I like the books because of how dark they are and how Snicket doesn't really skirt around dark topics with his child readers. He often talks about murder, kidnapping, loss, dealing with grief, and most of all, morality. Snicket is very upfront about the dark side of life and actually highlights it through his books. I also really liked that he likes to highlight the "greyness" of morality through his characters by making everyone be very morally dubious. Even the supposedly innocent Baudelaire children commit crimes and even the supposedly villainous Count Olaf does noble things. 

Snicket also emphasizes the "two sides to every story" idea a lot. There is a persistent theme of characters refusing to hear/acknowledge the full story because they're afraid of acknowledging the real truth. For example, the Baudelaires are given hints that their parents killed Count Olaf's parents, but they refuse to properly confront it, because they're hanging onto this belief that their parents could do no wrong. There are also a lot of instances where characters are told just one side of the story with the other side kept a secret by the adults. And Snicket uses this frustration of not knowing the whole story very well throughout the books similarly to the frustration of children never being believed by adults, another prevalent theme in the books. 

What I also found really interesting is that the most unlikable character throughout the entire books is the most "neutral" character. Arthur Poe is neither good or evil. He's just a family friend who manages the Baudelaire Orphans' affairs as the executor of their will. He never actively tries to harm them, and when push comes to shove, he at least tries to what's right. But despite all that, most readers end up hating him more than Count Olaf or any of the other villains in the story because of how "real" Poe is. As much as evil Olaf & co. are, most of them are charming in their love of villainy that you at least end up caring about what happens to them because you want to see these characters stick around. But with Mr. Poe, no matter how well-meaning he might be, he always sticks to the role of the stupid adult who can't ever see through Olaf's disguises (and remember that Olaf disguised himself as a woman at one point) and just becomes so insufferable that you kind of want him to die first since he's caused more trouble for the Baudelaires at one point or another. Even though he's not cruel or greedy, he's somehow a worse person than the actually criminal lunatics. Poe is obviously meant to represent how children are often frustrated that adults never take them seriously about anything, and Snicket really represented it well.

The book also really encourages reading and being well-read often helps the Baudelaires out of tricky situations, and is also an indicator of being a "noble person" in the books. Snicket makes a lot of literary allusions throughout the books. For example, the Baudelaires are named after the French poet Charles Baudelaire, Uncle Monty (who studies snakes) is probably a reference to the comedy troupe Monty Python, and there is a Nevermore Tree in a town full of crows, which is a clear reference to Edgar Allen Poe's The Raven, where the raven says "Nevermore" a lot. It's actually really interesting doing research into all the literary and historical allusions that Snicket used in the books. 

Overall, it's just a great book series. Maybe it's because I like dark, not-positive stuff, but I honestly found the series a great read. It's "realistic" in a very dark and cynical way. If you haven't read the books yet, even as an adult, I think you would enjoy it (unless you don't like depressing books).

The Film

One of the biggest flaws of this movie is Jim Carrey as Count Olaf. It's not that I don't like Jim Carrey; the problem is exactly that I love him as an actor. Count Olaf is many things in the book; but one thing he isn't is charismatic. With an actor like Jim Carrey who exudes charisma and likability, you're not going to get a very good villain, especially a villain you're supposed to loathe (even though I actually really liked Olaf cause he could be such a sarcastic bastard a lot of the times). Carrey is too likable and over-the-top in his acting to portray the sinister Count Olaf, whose soft-spoken nature is what makes him so terrifying. It's like casting Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor; both Eisenberg and Carrey are great actors, but neither are well-suited for the type of soft-spoken sinister villains their characters are supposed to be. Now that being said, Jim Carrey does actually manage to be intimidating in some scenes, but those are so overshadowed by him being as goofy as possible that you aren't scared by Count Olaf anymore. Now the series also softened Olaf down in the last book and made him slightly more likable, but they certainly didn't do it by making him a goofy idiot. If you've never read the book, Carrey works well in this weird universe as this over-the-top Riddler-esque villain but as an adaptation, Carrey is a horrible Olaf.

Apart from Jim Carrey, the rest of the cast performed reasonably well. Jude Law was fine as Snicket, and the actors they got for the Baudelaires were reasonably good, and Timothy Spall did a good job as the insufferable Mr. Poe. I can't help but feel that they misused Catherine O'Hara completely as Justice Strauss. Justice Strauss is a very important character in the first book who is meant to be the only positive figure in the children's' lives, and she was supposed to represent the frustration that the Baudelaires could have been saved from Olaf by Strauss right away but wasn't. But the movie had O'Hara appearance once at the start and disappear until the finale, where she does nothing but cry and run off the stage like a useless plot device. If they have Catherine O'Hara for her whole, is there a reason why they couldn't have had her actually do something?

The best actors in the movie were Billy Connelly as Uncle Monty and Meryl Streep as Aunt Josephine. Billy Connelly was the best choice for the jovial Uncle Monty, and even though Aasif Mandvi was good in the Netflix adaptation, he pales in comparison to Billy Connelly. Connelly really just brings a lot of joy and good cheer in the little screen time he has, and he makes a great Uncle Monty. With Aunt Josephine, again, Alfre Woodard was good in the Netflix version, but when you're up against Meryl Streep, it's hard to be better. Streep just takes the constantly scared Aunt Josephine and brings her to life on the big screen perfectly. I honestly can't think of a better casting choice then Connelly and Streep.

They really messed around with the story chronology. They took the ending of the first book and made it the ending of the whole movie (which means it comes after the events of The Wide Window). It was a weird choice and I wasn't a big fan of it. To make a reason for why the Baudelaires were taken out of Olaf's care in the first place, they had Olaf try to kill the orphans by parking his car on a train track; the Baudelaires survive this, and contact Mr. Poe, who actually recognizes the danger of the situation for once and removes them from Olaf's care. After offing Monty and Josephine, Olaf miraculously manages to get the orphans back and THEN does the whole marrying Violet thing (which is immensely creepy since Olaf keeps talking about wanting to spend their wedding night together - YIKES) and gets arrested. I get why they did this because obviously just ending the movie at the third book with no confirmed sequel would be stupid, and I can understand why they did this, and apart from that, the plot is actually super accurate, even though it's all pretty rushed. 

So... those spyglasses and the big glass eye. They weren't a thing in the books. Not sure why the writers thought spyglasses had to be a V.F.D. thing (but it carried into the Netflix version) since the tattoos were enough of an indicator that one was a volunteer. The spyglasses don't even serve a significant purpose apart from the orphans figuring out that their guardians were related to V.F.D., which never happens in the books until much later.

Also, the eye. Count Olaf's tattoo (oh yeah, Olaf has a tattoo of an eye on his left ankle) design actually changes. Originally, before V.F.D. was a thing, Olaf's eye tattoo looked like a regular eye:

But after Snicket came up with V.F.D., he changed the design quite drastically so that the eye is elaborately made up of the letters V.F.D.:

The books actually have both versions of the eye throughout the books, and decides to ignore the continuity error, and even in the later books, they use both designs of the eye to represent Olaf. The movie, despite having the secret organization plot, decides to go with the regular eye design and it's a BAD drawing of an eye at that:

See, this makes no sense to me; if you're going to make V.F.D. a central plot point, why make the eye design different? Granted, they never mention V.F.D. by name, but you would think the writers would at the very least do the better job of designing the eye.

On top of that, they claim that Count Olaf burnt down the Baudelaire Mansion using a big glass eye that works as a magnifying glass. The book certainly puts forth the POSSIBILITY that Olaf burnt down the mansion, but it was never 100% confirmed. Olaf even says the Baudelaires "don't know anything", implying that Olaf might not have done it. We as leader are LED to believe that conclusion only because the Baudelaires believe it (after all, he's been hounding after their fortunes since day one). But the whole point of the fire was the moral ambiguity of it all; just as Count Olaf could do noble things, the Baudelaire parents could also have done wicked things (in fact it's heavily implies they killed Olaf's parents) and so it's left to ambiguity who even burnt down the mansion. The book leaves many things open-ended and ambiguous and I'm not a fan of the fact 

I really wasn't a fan of the ending. IT'S TOO POSITIVE. I understand that they were trying to end on a bit of a happy note with the orphans realizing that they were fortunate to have each other, but the books portray that well-enough without making it all happy. The first few lines of the first book is literally "In this book, not only is there no happy ending, there is no happy beginning and very few happy things in the middle." It's called a series of UNFORTUNATE events for a reason; it's not meant to have much  positive moments and the letter at the end with the orphans feeling fortunate for having each other feels like a copout. Even at the end of the VERY LAST BOOK, it still doesn't have a very positive ending; it's all ambiguous. The ending just irks me with how out of tone it is with the rest of the movie.

Personal Opinions

The Novel:

The books are great. They're dark, but can be really funny with some of the dark comedy. And they aren't afraid to get grey when it comes to morality; no one is ever truly good or evil (save for a few characters), and even the orphans end up becoming horrible people who commit crimes. I also love the fact that the orphans always just rely on their own knowledge, inventiveness, and in Sunny's case her extremely sharp teeth to get out of dangerous situations. Each character is so resourceful in their own ways, and it's always a lot of fun to read about intelligent child protagonists. I would highly recommend the books and no matter how old you are, I think you will LOVE them.

The Film: 

Overall, it's not the WORST film. It was good enough that it got me interested in the books, so it's not all bad. But the movie really suffers from Jim Carrey's weird casting as Count Olaf. Don't get me wrong, I think Jim Carrey's a great actor, but I just think he was a horrible choice for Count Olaf; it's hard to see a character as a villain when that villain is basically being over-the-top Jim Carrey. Apart from that, the plot is surprisingly well kept to, but they got the tone all wrong. The ending is too "positive" and the serious scenes are just undercut by how goofy Olaf acts. The movie could've been a great adaptation if they had casted anyone BUT Carrey, but his style as Olaf just ruins the movie.

Overall Assessment

It was just so disappointing. The accuracy of the plot in general at the very least shows that the writers understood the material and tried to adapt it faithfully while putting their own spin on it. But I think that the writers took too MUCH liberty with the book. Apart from the general plot and character designs, it doesn't feel like a Snicket book at all. There are too much comedic moments happening whenever Olaf's on screen to give it the "doom and gloom" feel of the books at all. I honestly think the movie overall was fine, and even though I love Jim Carrey, I honestly think he ruined the movie. By having him as Olaf, the writing team probably had to write a bunch of goofy jokes in and they apparently let Carrey improvise a lot of his scenes, which 100% ruined it. It's really hard for me to say that Carrey ruined the movie, but he really did. It's still a fun movie; it's just not great compared to the book and that's why I don' watch it.

For my next review, I think I'm going to do a big review of an epic fantasy series written by Stephen King, The Dark Tower Series. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

"ADAPATATION" REVIEW: Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

"Deadlines just aren't real to me until I'm staring one in the face."

You know, I really wanted to avoid going back to this poor excuse for an adaptation. As a massive fan of the books, the movies are just frustrating and painful for me to watch. The Percy Jackson & the Olympians book series is a series of five books written by Rick Riordan focused on Greek myths, who would go on to write its sequel series The Heroes of Olympus which combine Roman myths with Greek myths. Riordan has also written the Egyptian-centered The Kane Chronicles, the Norse-centered Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard, and a spin-off series called The Trials of Apollo, focusing on Apollo and some Roman emperors. The books were extremely popular and widely praised, so a film adaptation seemed inevitable. In 2010, 5 years after the book's release in 2005 and 1 year after the final book in the series The Last Olympian was released, an adaptation in the name of Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief came out with Chris Columbus of the first two Harry Potter fame and the sequel Sea of Monsters was released in 2013. Both films are generally pretty poorly received, which is why no more sequels were made. This is unsurprising considering Rick Riordan seems to have had very little input in the final script (and Riordan reported didn't even bother watching the movies), and it makes me happy to see that there will be a Percy Jackson TV series coming to Disney+ and Rick will be heavily involved in it (likely as a Producer).

This time, like with Alice in Wonderland, I won't be doing my usual structure for adaptation reviews, but I will just be talking about the book first, and then the movie, pointing out stuff they changed or added. At the end, I will still do my bit of talking about both of them, and the summative thoughts.

The Novel

I always LOVED Greek Mythology, so loving the books wasn't obviously much of a surprise. One of the reasons I liked Percy Jackson is because of the ingenious world building; gods and monsters moving around to a different center of civilization every now and then, coexisting among us, was such a cool idea. On top of that, Rick is just amazing at writing characters. Every character has their strengths and flaws and they all make mistakes; and the main character Percy acts a lot like a regular teenager and makes a lot of dumb mistakes by not thinking things through properly.

Another cool thing was how well they integrated classic myths into modern society. For example, having Medusa being in charge of making garden statues was a clever way to incorporate her into the modern world; it makes sense that if Medusa wanted to blend in, a garden statue emporium would make perfect sense since it allows her to "make a living" with her powers. Another cool one was the Lotus Eaters in Vegas; the Lotus Eaters are meant to trap you with a great hedonistic lifestyle, and it makes sense for them to be based in Las Vegas (although interestingly these Lotus Eaters don't eat lotuses for some reason).

Another part I liked was how Rick treated the gods. In most modern depiction of Greek myths, Hades (my favourite Greek god) is always treated as the villain or like the Devil in Christianity (because he . If you really look at Greek mythology, Hades is probably the least problematic of the gods. Apart from him kidnapping Persephone (which in some versions is depicted as being consensual on Persephone's part), Hades mostly minds his own business in the Underworld and causes less trouble in comparison to Zeus or Aphrodite. How the film handled him was something I'll address later.

Rick also did a great job incorporating the smaller mythologies and gods as well. He cleverly pointed out how ignored the minor gods were and how tyrannical the gods were my making some of the neglected demigods and minor gods a major threat along with the Titans. In the process, he brought more attention to gods like Hypnos or Janus, who are super cool gods that are almost unfairly ignored by the major gods. 

An interesting point I'd like to make about Kronos is how he's referred to as the Titan of Time and it's implied that time "chrono" comes from "Kronos/Chronos". But as a matter of fact, there are multiple sources that place Chronos (who is the personification of Time) and Cronus/Kronos (the Titan of the Harvest and the father to Zeus) as two completely different figures. The similarity between the two names often led to the combination of two being one and the same, which is why Father Time as a figure is often depicted with a harvesting scythe (the symbol of Cronus) and likely why Rick has Kronos as the Titan of Time. I personally like that Rick made Kronos also the Titan of Time because it makes Kronos a bigger threat; let's face it, being able to control time is more dangerous in comparison to harvest. 

Overall, Percy Jackson is a book series that can do no wrong for me and Rick Riordan in my opinion has never written a bad book (some of his books are lesser in quality perhaps, but still very good).

Now let's see how Chris Columbus managed to mess this up.

The Film

It just baffled me that the movie was such a horrible adaptation of the book. Chris Columbus is responsible for the first two Home Alone movies, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the first two Harry Potter movies. Not to mention his was producer and/or writer for The Goonies, Night at the Museum, The Help, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban! You would think since he did such a good job at adapting the Harry Potter books (although admittedly the first two Potter books are some of the weaker books in the franchise), he would be able to do just as well with Percy Jackson! But even though the movie he made was halfway decent, as an adaptation it was an absolute train wreck.

First off is the casting. I get that finding good child actors are hard but the characters are meant to be TWELVE. Aging them up for 16 is fine I guess, but then they went and casted a 22 year old to play Annabeth. Logan Lerman does work decently for Percy, and the other actors are reasonably good.

I was also very disappointed at how they made the gods look. In the book, the gods all wear modern clothing to show they've changed with the times. For example, Poseidon wears Hawaiian Shirts and pants and Zeus wears a pinstripe suit. The movie just has them wearing full armour, which is pretty disappointing since the way the gods and monsters shifted with the times was a major draw factor of the books for me.  

Another disappointing exclusion was Dionysus, AKA Mr. D. Dionysus is the director of Camp Half-Blood who's been cursed by Zeus to never be able to drink. He was a funny character in the book and they have him played by Stanley Tucci in the sequel movie Sea of Monsters, so no reason for him to NOT be in the movie. 

Clarisse the daughter of Ares is also gone. She's actually a super cool character who plays the main "bully role" but truly shows her worth and heroism in the last few books as a powerful ally. Again, she's in the sequel movie, so WHY ISN'T SHE IN THIS ONE???

They made the entire journey a treasure hunt to find these pearls (which you can use to escape the underworld) and each pearl has a "monster guardian" that you have to defeat. Now while this can be a cool premise for some films, by doing this, they're completely misunderstanding the whole point of Greek Mythology. The items you pick up and the monsters you fight are almost never intentional and Rick understood that. All the enemies they fight are ones they happen to come across by accident and having this type of "treasure hunt" style quest where they seek out monsters on purpose doesn't feel like Greek Mythology at all. And I don't even understand why they had to make it like this since the original book had a perfectly good reason for the gang to get the pearls. 

They also really play fast and loose with the Mist. In the book, the Mist is just a magical "thing" that changes monstrous things in the eyes of mortals to make it all seem normal. There are some mortals like Percy's mom Sally who can see through the mist, but most mortals can't. The movie doesn't explain the Mist or even mention it, so we're supposed to believe that mortals can just see everything as it is. This brings up the question: How were they supposed to hide the Hydra in the museum? How were they supposed to cover up the lightning fight that damaged a few buildings? How are they supposed to explain away giant Poseidon at the start? This doesn't make any sense! They even make the Mist a thing in the sequel, SO WHY NOT INCLUDE IT IN THIS ONE?

And remember how I praised Rick for not making Kronos essentially the Devil? Well the movie makes Hades appear like the traditional "demon" and makes Underworld = Hell jokes ALL THE TIME (in the book and Greek mythology, the worst parts of Underworld are the Fields of Punishment and Tartarus; the rest are divided up into limbo and the place where heroes go). I also don't understand why Hades was made an antagonist. In the book, Hades is a neutral player who's been tricked into thinking Percy stole his Helm of Darkness and that's all he wants; and once Percy finds the Helm, Hades returns Percy's mother (who was a bargaining chip) graciously as he's an honourable god who keeps his word. Hades had no interest in the lightening bolt and his worst sin is holding Percy's mother hostage (who he promptly releases after he gets the Helm back).

The final fight was also extremely stupid. Luke and Percy fights on top of the Empire State Building and Luke tries to kill Percy with the light bolt. The book has the bolt so powerful that no one dared to take it out of its sheath considering it had the capability of a nuke. The movie has you believe that one whiny son of Hermes can control it enough to battle Percy, which is COMPLETELY IDIOTIC.

And I'm not even done with the final fight. That final fight wasn't in the book at all; in fact, Luke doesn't even get revealed as the villain until Percy returns to Camp. ARES (who's not even in the movie apart from the scene with all the gods) is the "main" antagonist of the first book. Ares was being influenced by Kronos, who convinced him to send Percy to the Underworld with the lightening bolt; if Percy died, Poseidon to wage war on Hades and Zeus would wage war on Hades for the bolt, Ares' reasoning being that war between family was the best kind. The book's big final fight is Percy fighting Ares and winning by using the ocean to his advantage. I was really disappointed that they left Ares out because he was such an interesting character and he was a really cool antagonist. But speaking of antagonists, Ares doesn't even compare to the REAL antagonist...

WHERE WAS KRONOS??? The movie would have you believe that Luke masterminded the whole plan to make gods go to war because he was angry at his father (the reason for his anger at Hermes isn't even in the movie). Kronos is there as a presence from book one. He's plotting from Tartarus and HE'S the one who masterminded the whole plan. The SEQUEL even has Kronos as a villain so I have no idea why he wasn't even mentioned. It makes NO SENSE not to include the big bad of the series in the first movie in any significant way! AT LEAST MENTION HIM IN A THROWAWAY LINE!

I could go on and on about how bad the movie is, but I've already taken too much space to rant about it. So now I'm gonna give my brief personal thoughts about the book and movie separately, and then do a summary thought.

Personal Opinions

The Novel:

The book series is one of my all-time favourites. I love mythologies in general and Rick does a brilliant job of taking the myths, combining them with modern-day, and creating a whole knew story using pre-existing myths as inspirations. All of Rick's books are 100% worth reading over and over again and I would recommend everyone to read it if you have a passing interest in mythology. I love these books, and I love mythology!

The Film: 

WHY IS IT SO BAD??? I had such high hopes for Chris Columbus, but then he just ruined it all for me. He took the general outline and crammed it with stuff that doesn't fit Greek mythology or the spirit of the books at all. I will never watch these again and I probably won't even be bothering with the sequel Sea of Monsters. They're decent movies on their own, but they don't work at all as an adaptation of the books or even as one relating to Greek-myths. Please stay away from these as much as you can. 

Overall Assessment

All I have to say is thank the GODS that Rick is writing the TV show. They took away creative control from Rick, and they messed up BIG TIME. If you want to watch it, I guess you can, but why do that when you can read the book? If you've read the book and haven't seen it yet, don't bother. It will ruin your childhood. There is a very good reason why no one in the fandom acknowledges the movies. They are THAT BAD.

For my next review, I will be reviewing another "adaptation" based on a childhood book series. And like the series title suggests, the movie's very UNFORTUNATE as in that it's A SERIES of random EVENTS that makes a weak effort to stay faithful to the book. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

"ADAPATATION" REVIEW: Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (2010)

"Curiouser and curiouser!"

Where do I even begin with this horrendous excuse for an adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, AKA Lewis Carroll? Considering I LOVE the original book, watching this movie was really hard for me. If you want a better adaptation of the book, watch the 1951 Disney production. If you want a better movie, go watch the 1951 Disney production. Although I really hate this movie and what it did to Carroll's work, I'm going to do a review about it anyways, because this gives me an excuse to depart from my usual method. This time, I won't be doing my usual structure for adaptation reviews, but I will just be talking about the book first, and then the movie, pointing out stuff they changed or added. At the end, I will still do my bit of talking about both of them, and the summative thoughts.

The Novel

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was written by British author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and published in 1865. One word to sum up this book would be "nonsense". The entire thing just makes no sense because it's not meant to. The world of Wonderland doesn't seem like it follows any rules, but the way the inhabitants think are weirdly logical; it's crazy logic, but it sort of makes sense. For example, the Mock Turtle at one point says that they called the old turtle teacher "tortoise" because "he taught us" (apparently in Carroll's dialect, both are pronounced like "to-toys). It's crazy and weird, but it kind of makes sense. At another point, Alice asks the Cheshire Cat which way she has to go from here. The conversation goes as follows:

"Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.

Alice: I don't much care where.

Cat: Then it doesn't much matter which way you go.

Alice: ...So long as I get somewhere. 

Cat: Oh, you're sure to do that, if only you walk long enough."

The way he thinks is clearly mad, but it's also not wrong. The logic makes sense in a really weird way.

And I think that's what's so attractive about Carroll's world. It's weird, crazy, and fun, but it also makes sense in a really crazy way. And it's really fun reading the book, finding yourself agreeing with what these characters are saying, and going, "Am I crazy too?" It's a wild ride to say the least. 

The novel doesn't really have a plot. It's very much an account of Alice's strange wandering through Wonderland, encountering different and interesting figures. And while most novels have a coherent plot and an active protagonist to follow, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland doesn't have either of those. Alice just aimless walks through Wonderland and it really doesn't have any point to it. The book is called Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but it's not structured as such. The book doesn't even have a character you could consider a "main villain"; and even though the Queen of Hearts often takes that role, she could not possibly be considered a villain, but more on that later. 

There are also a large amount of songs/poems in this book. Carroll apparently wrote most of, if not all of these himself, and while some of them are pretty fun, I skipped them during my second reading cause poems are not my thing. One of my particular favourites though is from the "sequel", Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. It's a nice little poem called "The Walrus and the Carpenter", which starts off pretty nice and then takes a crazy dark turn towards the end, which is probably why I liked it. The poems are actually very well written, and I have to give Carroll props for writing them. I just don't enjoy poems enough to say they're brilliant or whatever.

Another thing that makes Carroll's book so unique are its characters. Alice for example is an interesting character because of how bland she is. She's written as a self-insert for the readers, and since the focus was always in the world, Carroll intentionally wrote her as being bland; I think this was a really clever choice because Alice never overshadows any other characters or any scene she's in. Sometimes she could be the most interesting one in the room, but her character (just like you, the reader) gets so immersed in the world of Wonderland, she begins act almost as mad as the inhabitants by the end, which was extremely amusing to read about. But to be frankly honest, it's very hard to pinpoint exactly what made Alice such an interesting character because there aren't much characteristics to pinpoint from. We know nothing about Alice and while she generally takes the straight, principled stance, she could also act just as strangely as the Wonderland inhabitants, something I found very interesting.

Another important thing I will note is the Queen of Hearts. She's usually portrayed as the "big bad" of the book, but apart from her being prominent in the end and being kind of intimidating, she never poses a massive threat to Alice. Her threatening to execute everyone is true, but in the book it's implied that no one ever dies because the King just pardons everyone while the Queen isn't looking. And since she's also a playing card, she just isn't a big threat to Alice. She's the "biggest threat" of the book compared to any other adversities the Alice comes across, but she never comes across much threats anyways.

Wonderland is just so inherently interesting. The world works on weird logic, the characters are so much fun, and the plotless structure that the book had really works to its advantage and fleshes out the world greatly. Even its sequel Through the Looking-Glass (which I also intend to review) is equally great, even though the sequel does have a plot. Carroll is just a good writer, and the wacky illustrations by Sir John Tenniel help even more.

Now that I've talked about the original novel why it was so good, let's now tackle the "adaptation".

The Film

Even before we start, I can already see a glaring issue with the movie just by looking at the poster. The movie's supposedly called "Alice in Wonderland", so you would think they want to bring the focus on our protagonist. But by looking at the poster above, you see that THEY HAVE THE MAD HATTER FRONT AND CENTER. I don't even understand the movie's fascination with trying to make the Hatter a big character; in the book, he's there for a chapter, is very entertaining, and comes back towards the end to be funny again. Johnny Depp's portrayal doesn't match the Hatter of the book at all, and it's kind of clear that he's supposed to be the main draw of the movie. And the Hatter's role in the movie is increased A LOT, mainly because of a big change that I think ruined the movie completely. 

The movie is not an adaptation of the book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It's not even an adaptation of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. It's a weird sequel to the first book, even though the setting and the characters are nothing like they were in the book; but the movie claims that it's supposed to take place years after Alice's original visit to Wonderland, so I guess it's a weird sequel to it (but then again, Through the Looking-Glass book is barely a sequel to the original book anyways). 

Weirdly enough, the entire plot of the movie is based on a throwaway poem (that's sort of pertinent to the story of the book) from Through the Looking-Glass called "The Jabberwocky". The poem is about a young warrior (presumably Alice), who kills a Jabberwocky (a big dragon-like creature). The poem is mentioned maybe two or three times in the book, so using it as the main plot of the movie makes little to no sense. And unfortunately, the biggest weakness of the movie is that it has a plot. A lot of the books' whimsy and attraction comes from its plotless structure that gives you the sense of exploring the world of Wonderland freely, and by having a plot, it takes away from that. The 1951 Disney production was so good BECAUSE it was also plotless; Alice just wandered around until she woke up, and it works really well. The movie trying to have a plot just ruins the whole point of wonderland. 

Another issue is Alice, portrayed by Mia Wasikowska. Alice is actually just as bland as the book version of her. But the issue is, bland Alice doesn't work in the context of the film and because of that, she's not very likable. It's true that the novel Alice was supposed to be a bland stand-in for the reader. But the movie Alice is supposed to be a heroic knight character who is supposed to develop throughout the movie to become independent and do what she wants with her life. The problem is, Alice stays exactly the same level of bland the entire movie and acts like she's changed only right at the end. If they had shown a progression of character that warranted the line "Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast", I would have been fine; but they don't. Alice stays bland throughout the movie and there is not a single scene that shows her having that kind of character progression, which frustrated me.

Another thing I noticed was that Wonderland is just dark and gritty. They could've done something really WONDERFUL and turn Wonderland into an explosion of colours, which are now muted and dull. And the premise that the entire movie is about some revolution really annoys me because Tim Burton thought that Wonderland needed an action plot to make it interesting, when it just made it worse. Fantastical and nonsensical places like Wonderland should really only be told in the way that Carroll told it; by making the book about Alice wandering through the land, it lets you become immersed into the plot easily because there isn't a big plot distracting from the wonder of the land.

The movie's plot isn't bad (rather, it's really uncreative), and some of the acting's good, especially Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat and Sir Christopher Lee as the Jabberwocky. But the problem is that it's just not Wonderland. It's kind of a boring movie overall. It doesn't work well as an action/fantasy movie, and I frankly don't have that much to say about it because I frankly don't want to remember it.

Personal Opinions

The Novel:

The novel is one of my all-time favourites. I still re-read the novel every few months, and it's always a lot of fun. I just spend a few hours reading it and its sequel, and it's just a lot of fun. By making his book plotless, Carroll really allowed the reader to focus on nothing BUT Wonderland, which I think is why the book is still popular to this day. It's just so easy to fall into the book and let the scenarios play out in your mind with the help of Sir John Tenniel's brilliant illustrations and Carroll's fun prose. Carroll actually makes a lot of jokes in the book, and I've laughed out loud a lot of times just because it was that funny. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is, in my opinion, one of the best books I've ever read. It has the ability to make me want to go back and read it over and over again, a quality that's hard to find in many books. I would highly recommend it to everyone.

The Film: 

Don't bother with it. It's just a boring movie. The plot is pretty boring and uncreative, the acting is, although great for some actors, not that good either. It's not a fun movie to watch because nothing is interesting. I have not watched the sequel, and I never intend to. The sequel also looks equally boring, and once again based on a really obscure and insignificant concept from the novels. It fails as a movie and an adaptation.

Overall Assessment

The saddest thing about this movie is that it was made on a pretty good premise; it was an interesting idea to turn the movie into a pseudo-sequel to the events of the original story (even though the world is completely different), but they completely botched it. The things that made the world interesting are completely gone, and the charm of the novel and the unique "plotless" structure of the book are just completely killed by Burton's need to turn this into a fantasy action flick. It's not a good movie, nor a good adaptation. If you want to watch a GOOD Alice movie, go watch the 1951 Disney movie. It angers me so much that they took an amazing novel and somehow turned it into this horrible mess of a movie. I will eventually review Through the Looking-Glass since I also really liked that one, but I do not intend to review any other Wonderland movies made by Tim Burton.

For my next review, I'll be reviewing another "adaptation" that would consider "in-name-only", meaning that they took the very basic concept of the book and made a movie that barely resembles it in comparison. And for this one, I'm going to be talking about a book series that was a childhood classic to many. A series that brought Greek gods and monsters classing with the human world. A book series that is actually being made into a TV series. I think you've guessed what I'm talking about, and I'm going to be talking a LOT about what horrible job Chris Columbus did to the glorious works of Rick Riordan. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: The Time Machine by H.G. Wells

"We should strive to welcome change and challenges, because they are what help us grow. Without them we grow weak like the Eloi in comfort and security. We need to constantly be challenging ourselves in order to strengthen our character and increase our intelligence."

My last review was on the First Doctor of the television series Doctor Who, which revolves around the concept of time travel. In this post, I'll be talking about the concept of time travel and its father, H.G. Wells of The Invisible Man and War of the Worlds fame. Not only did Wells' novel almost single-handedly popularized and created the concept of time travel, but it also makes a commentary on society and the important of scientific evolution and advancement. The book I will be discussing is, of course, The Time Machine. Published in 1895, The Time Machine and Wells is credited to coining the term "time machine" and is credited with the popularization of the concept of time travel. In this review, I will be talking mainly about what I thought of the book in general and my thoughts on some specific elements. 

Overall, I thought it was a very well written book. It's extremely short at only 84 pages so it didn't take me very long to finish it and it kept me captivated the entire way. The book starts off little slowly with parts of it dedicated to science mumbo-jumbo that I really didn't get and wasn't interested in. But despite all that, science really isn't the main point of this book anyways (since HOW he figured out time travel doesn't really matter) so the science really doesn't matter. The book is more about social classes and how a lack of real challenge can make humans devolve, concluding that said challenge is what's crucial to human survival. 

The book tells the story of an unnamed Time Traveller (who I will be calling Doc so I don't have to type out the entire thing over and over) who invents a time machine in Victorian England and travels to the year 802,701. There, he encounters two races of beings: the Eloi, who are small, childlike, but still refined and elegant human-like beings who live on a completely fruit-based diet in a dilapidated city, and the Morlocks, an ape-like group of creatures that live underground and has an extreme hatred towards sunlight. Doc is stranded because someone has taken his time machine and eventually begins to explore the society he is in. He notices that the Eloi are terrified of the dark and refuses to address the mysterious disappearances of several of their people at night. He also notes that the entire place has become rather primitive, with no signs of technology and the world a garden.

Doc eventually ventures down one of the Morlock tunnels and discovers gears and machinery underground that works to make the aboveground world of the Eloi possible. Therefore, he concludes that the relationship between the Eloi and the Morlocks are that of a lord and servant where the Eloi are the rich upper class evolved into never needing to be physical or intellectual while the Morlocks are the lower class labourers who have evolved into working underground, constantly in submission. However, Doc soon learns that the dynamic between the two groups are actually quite different then as he previously imagined. 

Doc discovers that because of the lack of any real meat to be found, the Morlocks are eating the Eloi at night (which explains why the Eloi are terrified of the dark and the mysterious disappearances of the Eloi). This means that the relationship between the Eloi and the Morlocks are more akin to livestock and ranchers, with the Morlocks keeping the Eloi alive for the sole purpose of eating them. And because the wealthy-descended Eloi are so used to not working or facing any real change, they eventually reached the point where they couldn't fend off against the hard-working, surviving, more intelligent Morlocks. 

This Eloi-Morlock relationship definitely is one of Wells' political messages; as a socialist, Wells advocated for the abolition of class divides, and it certainly shows in The Time Machine. He uses the two groups' relationship to warn the people that if the rich continue to live their easy lives, there will come a point where they become so lazy and entitled that the hardworking lower class people will eventually dominate over them. Wells' emphasis on the importance of constant challenges to fertilize human growth is clearly illustrated in the quote above where Wells specifically write "We need to constantly be challenging ourselves in order to strengthen our character and increase our intelligence." And his view that humans were "de-evolving" was probably what caused him to advocate for eugenics.

I think that the argument Wells makes here is a completely valid one. Nearly every great human achievements throughout history were made through competition and challenge. The US sent men on the moon because they were in competition with the USSR, for example. The human race thrives on challenge because without challenge, nothing motivates us as people to grow any more. If things had been perfect with no conflicts whatsoever since the beginning of time, mankind would likely still be living in the Stone Age. This was something that I really liked about Wells; how he sent an important or interesting message of some sort in each of his books for us to think about (for example, in The Invisible Man, Wells' message is that humans are capable of doing evil things we never imagined if given the ability and chance to do so).

Although I'm not the biggest fan of science fiction, I think that The Time Machine is one of the best sci-fi novels I've ever read. Wells' concept of time travel is fascinating for the 1890s, but what's even more interesting is the food for thought that the Well leaves for the readers at the end, about how human race depends on challenges and difficulties to grow, even though those are the things we seek to eradicate. It's also extremely well-written and it has aged extremely well. I've found that some older books have a tendency to drag in many places, but The Time Machine was a great page turner, and it kept me engaged and interested the entire way through. If you like sci-fi or any H.G. Wells novels, I would greatly recommend The Time Machine, and even if you aren't a big sci-fi fan, I would still recommend this novel to you because as much the book is science fiction, it's also political and philosophical in many ways and I think anyone with some interest in those areas can enjoy this book.

For my next review, I'm going to be doing an adaptation review about a very old book concerning a rabbit hole, deck of cards, and a wonderland written by a man named Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

DOCTOR WHO REVIEW: The First Doctor - William Hartnell (1963–1966)

THE ORIGINAL TARDIS TEAM: 

(FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) William Russell as Ian Chesterton, William Hartnell as the Doctor, Jacqueline Hill as Barbara Wright, and Carole Ann Ford as Susan Foreman

"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine."

In Memory of William Hartnell, the First Doctor (1908 - 1975)

You will ALWAYS be our First Doctor no matter what.

In the year of 1963, fifty-five year old veteran actor William Hartnell stepped into the role of Doctor Who and helped the launching of a series that would last for many years to come. Fairly undeveloped as a character, the First Doctor is never named as a Time Lord and his ship the TARDIS while referred to as such, is often referred simply as "the ship" by the Doctor most of the time. Hartnell's era of the series, led by Verity Lambert, really established a lot of things in the Doctor Who lore. There of course are the classic villains the Daleks and Cybermen, regeneration (used by the writers to hurriedly replace Hartnell due to his failing health), and the Time Lords (of course his species is not named but another one of his people do appear).

I will make a note about the episode lengths in Classic Doctor Who. In the revived series, the stories are almost always contained to a single episode or two-parters, making the story much more fast-paced. In Classic Who, the stories are more of a "slow burn", where each story is separated into multiple episodes of 25 minutes, the most common length being four or six episodes per story, although in Patrick Troughton's Second Doctor era, we will see the ten-parter War Games and the twelve-part Hartnell story The Daleks' Master Plan. Although I do also like the faster-paced New Who stories, I found that the longer stories of Classic Who are also amazing; the slower paced stories really allows for different characters and villains to be fleshed out and I think it does a really great job in showcasing the Doctor's relationship with his companions.

Another thing to note with William Hartnell's era and Patrick Troughton's (Second Doctor) era is that there are many missing episodes. BBC occasionally cleaned out its archives and threw out a lot of old episodes to make space, not really thinking ahead. Therefore, many episodes of the First and Second Doctors remain missing, some completely, some in audio form, or some in snap shots. There are still attempts being made to recover these episodes, although some have been reconstructed in animation.

But enough about the background info. Let's get to the Doctor himself.

The Doctor - First Doctor (William Hartnell)

William Hartnell's First Doctor is distinctively different from all of the other succeeding Doctors. Because he had the very difficult role of kickstarting a series and ensuring that people had interest in the series, his character was still very rough around the edges and very unlike the characterization of the Doctor we know now. What do you think of when you think of the Doctor? Funny, intelligent, clever, wise, brave, selfless, kind, energetic, friendly, quirky, etc. likely comes to mind. Well, many of these attributes can be credited to the Second Doctor Patrick Troughton (and my favourite Classic Who Doctor so far). Of course, that is not saying that the First Doctor was none of those things; in fact, he was all of those things at some point or another. It's just that those characteristics are much less prominent in the First Doctor.

The First Doctor is an elderly gentleman who has a distinctive "eccentric scholar"/"mad scientist" feel to him. He is less light hearted than his other incarnations (although he does have his great moments) and is generally more stern and "grumpy" (at least at the start). Nonetheless, the Doctor still greatly cherishes all of his companions and always helps those in need (although he is motivated mostly by his own survival). The Doctor can also at times be funny, kind, and brave. Although his character in general has a more serious tone compared to his successor Troughton or most of the other Doctors, he can still be very lighthearted, funny, and even silly at times (an instance would be in the story The Space Museum where he pretends to be a Dalek) and has some really funny scenes.

The First Doctor I found to have a very grandfatherly charm to him. He's not as in your face charming as Tenth Doctor David Tennant, whose charm comes from his light-heartedness and charisma, but he just as a certain charm to him that grabs your attention. The Doctor also has a very distinctive character arc throughout his tenure. At the beginning, having virtually no human interactions, the Doctor is very grumpy and fairly cold to others. But as the show progresses, the Doctor warms up more to others and forms genuine bonds with them.

I actually really liked the First Doctor. He isn't as action or humour oriented as the others, but despite being old, he can still be very energetic and become giddy like a child when exciting things happen around him. Despite the fact that he carries himself very seriously, the Doctor can be very light-hearted and funny. He has a very eccentric scientist/professor feel and I frankly love it.

The First Doctor may be distinctively different from any of the other Doctors, it makes sense because his character is supposed to be quite undeveloped, and he has his own distinctive charm to him that none of the other Doctors seem to quite have. A lot of people don't seem to like him because he's grumpy, but I think the grumpiness makes him even more likable and sort of adds to the comedy at times a lot. 

SPECIAL NOTE: Richard Hurndall and David Bradley also portrayed the First Doctor at different occasions. Richard Hurndall portrayed the First Doctor in the 1983 20th Anniversary The Five Doctors as William Hartnell had unfortunately passed away in 1975. I personally have not seen that particular special yet so I can't say how good he is, but I've been told he does an admirable job. 

David Bradley first played the Doctor in 2013 when he actually played William Hartnell himself in a docudrama of sorts about the making of the show called An Adventure in Space and Time. David Bradley later "reprised" the role in the 2017 Christmas Special (and Peter Capaldi's final episode as the Twelfth Doctor) Twice Upon a Time. I think David Bradley did a good job capturing the mannerisms of the First Doctor; he doesn't quite have the same charm as Hartnell, but still very good. However, I don't think the writers characterized him very well; he came off as being sexist and overly dismissive, which was quite odd since the First Doctor was never really sexist; his dismissiveness applied to everyone, thank you very much. But overall I think that Bradley did a good job as the Doctor.

I had to mention these two just to let you know that there were other actors to play the First Doctor.

Now that I've given an overview of the First Doctor, I will be going over the Doctor's eight companions.

The Companions

The First Doctor's companions overall are alright. Most of them aren't  that interesting and they honestly never contribute very much. But I will talk about them briefly anyways.

Susan Foreman (Carole Ann Ford) is the Doctor's pretty dull granddaughter. She's built up as this unusually intelligent and extraordinary child but ultimately does nothing. She is relegated to the screaming damsel in distress and was overall fairly dull. I do have to say though that her and the Doctor did feel like grandfather and granddaughter at least and the scene where he leaves her behind so she could have a normal life was very sad (but it was all really due to Hartnell's superb acting).

Ian Chesterton (William Russell) is a science teacher at Susan's high school Coal Hill School who stumbles upon the TARDIS along with history teacher Barbara Wright by accident. He is my favourite companion of the First Doctor era mainly because he has the best chemistry with the Doctor. He is at first skeptical of the Doctor's claims and is in a rather rival-esque relationship with him at the start (understandable considering the Doctor outright kidnapped him). However, the Doctor and Ian eventually begins to come to respect and probably like each other. Him and the Doctor develop a very interesting sense of comradery; not quite like friends, but very like respected colleagues. It's an interesting dynamic that you don't really see among companions and I quite like it.

Barbara Wright (Jacqueline Hill) is a history teacher Coal Hill School. She has the same flaws as nearly every female character in early Who: they function as a screaming damsel in distress who never really does anything. She does have her funny moments though and her and Ian have pretty good chemistry together at least, so she's not the worst.

Vicki Pallister (Maureen O'Brien) is alright. She plays exactly the same role Susan does as the "screaming damsel in distress" and apart from being smarter, does really nothing more.

Steven Taylor (Peter Purves) is rather annoying and somewhat arrogant. He's rather unlikable when paired with Vicki, but is rather funny when paired with Dodo. Not a very memorable companion.

Dodo Chaplet (Jackie Lane) is actually very funny. She's more modern companion-like than the other companions, being more outlandish in a sense. She's a very good contrast to the usually stern and serious Doctor.

Ben Jackson and Polly (Michael Craze and Anneke Wills) are fairly dull companions. I honestly can't remember much about them and they did very little as far as I can remember in terms of interesting moments and had very little chemistry with the Doctor.

And these were the Doctor's companions; now it's time to look at some of the Doctor's foes.

Other Characters

The Daleks (voiced by Peter Hawkins and David Graham), created by Terry Nation, make their first appearance in the second serial of Season 1, The Daleks and remain a menacing threat throughout the First Doctor's stories. Although Daleks cannot fly and aren't as fully developed in the First Doctor's story, they still make a very menacing villain nonetheless. They speak much slower in a more classically robotic voice, making the episodes much longer, but nonetheless they are still great villains, and they become "sensations" in the six-parter The Dalek Invasion of Earth.

The Cybermen (voiced by Roy Skelton and Peter Hawkins) were created by Dr. Kit Pedler (the unofficial scientific advisor) and Davis and only appear with the First Doctor in his final story The Tenth Planet. Mechanical replacements for human body parts had begun to be developments and the Cybermen were based on the question: "What if men eventually replaced their entire biological selves with machine?" The Cybermen are emotionless creatures whose sole goal is their survival and advancement, and as a result has essentially replaced parts of their formally humanoid body with machines. The Cybermen are very interesting figures because they are not explicitly evil nor are they just machines. They are surprisingly reasonable and communicative at times and are not quite evil in their actions. Rather, they do what they do for survival rather than greed, and they see no issue with killing people because they simply don't have the ability to understand evil. In a strange way, they are sympathetic because you do get the feel they're desperately trying to survive. I also love the designs of these Cybermen; it's still robotic, but it feels just human enough to remind you that the Cybermen aren't exactly monsters. It is easy in New Who to forget that the Cybermen are humans because of their metallic appearance. But in The Tenth Planet, you can actually see the Cybermen's human eyes, which is very creepy because you're reminded that they are still humans (or at least people nearly identical to humans. It's a shame what happened to the Cybermen because in New Who they're mindless robot henchmen for the most part and aren't as nuanced. 

The Monk (Peter Butterworth) appears in The Time Meddler, which is the first real appearance of a Time Lord apart from the Doctor and Susan. His entire motivation is that he thinks by changing certain events in history, he would make the world a better place. His motivation conflicts with the Doctor's distinct non-interference policy where he won't do anything to change the course of history. His appearance also marks the first appearance of the TARDIS' chameleon circuit, which allows the TARDIS to disguise itself into whatever fits the surrounding area, something that is broken in the Doctor's TARDIS. The "Time Meddler" is not given a name but is just referred to as "the Monk" as that's the disguise he is in. But this episode is a very important in terms of establishing Doctor Who lore and I really liked the Monk's character because he is in a way sort of like the Doctor. They both go around in their TARDIS, and generally their goals are to help people (although Hartnell's Doctor never actively seeks action, he does help people nonetheless); however, the Monk believes he can help by changing history and the Doctor's goal is to not influence history at all. Overall, a very interesting character and a shame they didn't do more with him.

Emperor Nero (Derek Francis) is not a significant character by any means but I wanted to include him because he is HILLARIOUS. Emperor Nero is a very comical, buffoonish villain. I don't know how accurate Francis' portrayal is to real-life Nero, but he is an absolute delight in his appearance in the four part serial The Romans. Him and the Doctor play off each other really well and every scene Nero is in is an absolute delight to watch. Honestly The Romans is a top-notch episode overall and I really commend it if you're looking for a fun Classic Who episode.

Now that we've covered some of the Doctor's foes, I'll be talking about some of the First Doctor's stories.

The Stories

Although most Hartnell stories are very good, one complaint I would take is that they tend to drag quite a bit in some places. For instance in the serial The Daleks, there is an entire episode which just consists of people walking through a cave with nothing really happening. That being said, the problem only really happens with six part stories as most of the time they contain at least one episode that feels like a filler to pad the runtime. But I will still say that I do really like the slower-paced stories. It makes it easier for me to become immersed into the show and gives time for really good character moments and things that would most surely be cut out in an action-packed New Who story.

Although most Hartnell episodes are very very good, I've always found myself drawn to the historical episodes (probably because I like history). A big reason for that is probably that the set pieces in the historical episodes look better; some of the stuff in the alien episodes do feel very low-quality, but the historical ones not so much. So I will list four of my favourite Hartnell stories (two historical and two alien) and talk about why:

1. The Romans like I mentioned above is by far my favourite episode of Hartnell's era. It has some really great comedy and I loved that you got to see Hartnell show his skills as a comedy actor. Almost every scene in the episode will get a good chuckle from you for one reason or another and it really is overall a great Doctor Who story.

2. The Dalek Invasion of Earth is the first Hartnell story produced in a massive scale. After their electrifying first appearance in the previous season story The Daleks, they had gained so much popularity that many were demanding their return. This serial is a pretty epic one and it takes place in the middle of London (they actually filmed the episodes in the street). This is also the episode that the Doctor gets to deliver his farewell speech to his granddaughter Susan (which is the featured quote I have above) and it's a very touching scene and Hartnell acts supremely well.

3. The Gunfighters takes place in the Wild West and features the famous gunfight at the O.K. Corral that took place there. I do really like Western stuff to some degree so this episode was just really fun for me to watch overall. Everyone's acting was good, but I will say that the fake American accents were really, really bad. But I really did like the final gunfight; it was actually done really well and it was quite exciting to watch.

4. The Tenth Planet is the first episode to feature the Cybermen, which is really the only reason this episode gets mentioned. This episode is also Hartnell's last episode as the Doctor and due to Hartnell's failing health at that point, he unfortunately does not feature very much in this episode. But he does get to deliver a really great line against the Cybermen: "Emotions! Love! Pride! Hate! Fear! Have you no emotions, sir?" and frankly you can still tell his acting talent has not diminished one bit. I do really love the Cybermen in this episode; their "scariness" doesn't come from them being physically intimidating but it comes from their odd humanness. They're human, but at the same time they aren't, and it made them very creepy villains.

Overall, most of the First Doctor's stories are great. The longer ones definitely tends to drag and most of them have very low production values (which honestly I think adds greatly to the charm), but they're all very good and enjoyable episodes.

So now that I've covered all parts of William Hartnell's run as the First Doctor, it's time for my summative thoughts.

Overall Thoughts

I really like William Hartnell as the first Doctor. He brings a certain level of grandfatherly old man charm that I don't think any other Doctor has quite been able to match and I frankly love it. He is very different from the stereotypical idea of the Doctor that we've grown to know and love, but he still has his own unique charm that makes him a great Doctor. His acting skill is certainly superb and you have to admit that William Hartnell had a very difficult role; after all, being the First Doctor of a show and trying to attract new audiences could not have been an easy job and I greatly respect him for that. William Hartnell will always be our First Doctor, no matter what Chris Chibnall and his Timeless Child tries to tell us.

Speaking of Doctor Who and time travel, I think we need to acknowledge the father of the concept of the Time Machine, H.G. Wells in my next post. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: The Stand By Stephen King

 “Life was such a wheel that no man could stand upon it for long. And it always, at the end, came round to the same place again.”

We are currently stuck in a COVID-19 pandemic. At the start of this pandemic, many people had claimed that Stephen King predicted the future with his 1978 post-apocalyptic novel about a Super Virus called The Stand. King had "predicted" the rise of Donald Trump with his 1979 novel The Dead Zone that contained as its main antagonist a man named Greg Stillson, an egocentric former salesman who becomes the President of the United States through political rallies, eccentric stunts, and anti-establishment rhetoric (sound familiar?). The book actually contained the line "The man is a clown. He goes charging around the speaking platform, like that at every rally [...] He's a clown, so what? [...] So people want a giggle or two. Even more, they want to thumb their noses at a political establishment that doesn't seem able to solve anything." Stillson's entire character was so shockingly similar to Trump's political history that people began to joke around that King could predict the future and when the pandemic began rolling around, people were beginning to point towards The Stand, wondering if we were all going to die. Thankfully, we didn't. But all things considered, it's worth taking a look at The Stand as a novel because I think it does a great job being very psychological and there's a certain character in this novel who does pop up in other King novels. The Stand is King's longest novels with the final edition being 1,152 pages, surpassing the 1,138 page IT. The Stand was originally released as an 823 page novel (King's editors wanted to have him cut it down) and it was later reprinted in 1990 as the "Complete and Uncut Edition", which is the version I read. And I do sort of get why they forced him to cut it down because I do think the novel drags in places (I personally think King's best works are often his shorter ones) and some sections aren't as interesting to get through.

The premise of the novel is fairly simple: a strain of the flu developed as a biological weapon in a US Department of Defence facility is accidentally released. The flu, which has an estimated 99.4% rate of fatality eventually spreads across the country and is dubbed the "superflu" or "Captain Trips". The US government then releases the virus in the Soviet Union, and soon enough the virus spreads and kills nearly everyone in the world; a good chunk of remaining survivors also die by suicide or by other means (ex. car accident, broken leg with no help, etc). The remaining survivors in the US are determined to rebuild civilization and split into two factions. The more "good" people begin to get dream-visions from a saintly old woman named Mother Abagail who encourages them to start a community in Boulder, Colorado while others (who are more "evil") are recruited by a sinister man with dark powers named Randall Flagg (more on him later) who calls them to Las Vegas. Boulder is eventually named the "Boulder Free Zone" and becomes a democratic state with Mother Abagail as their leader/advisor. Las Vegas has become a totalitarian society where Randall Flagg has total control and has chosen the worst of the worst as his enforcers. Flagg seems to have discovered a nuclear stockpile and plans to nuke Boulder, but is eventually stopped by a team of brave people from Colorado and Vegas is destroyed by a nuke.

The Stand, above all else, is a classic "good vs evil" story. Stephen King does believe in a God (although he hates organized religion) so it makes sense that his faith would come into play in this novel. Mother Abagail is the most "pure" character in the story; she represents nothing but total good and kindness who is accepting of everyone and she is a devout Christian who claims to get all of her goodness from God. On the other side of the spectrum is Randall Flagg, AKA The Dark Man, who's goal seems to be violence and chaos; Flagg is not "The Devil" (Mother Abagail claims "He ain't Satan, but he and Satan know of each other and have kept their councils together of old."), but as we learn, he is a very powerful evil sorcerer who uses fear and intimidation (along with shockingly fast industrialization) to keep control. While Abagail and Flagg never once meet, as the leaders of the respective communities, it is really the two of them who are fighting each other. Flagg represents evil and Satan and Mother Abagail represents good and God. The villains in King novels are often supernatural and Satan-esque in nature (his biggest villain The Crimson King in fact is considered to be The Devil, "Hell Incarnate), clearly influenced by King's faith.

Now let's talk about Randall Flagg. Well the first thing you should know is that his real name isn't Randall Flagg. He goes by many names often with the initials R.F. (Randall Flagg, Russell Faraday, Richard Fannin to name a few), but has also been known as Walter o'Dim, The Man in Black, Marten Broadcloak, The Walkin Dude, etc. His real name is I believe Walter Padick, but most know him simply as The Man in Black. Flagg has appeared in seven King novels and is considered by King (rightfully so) to be his best villain. Flagg's true nature is somewhat of a mystery but he seems to be a dark sorcerer of considerable power who serves the Crimson King (but mainly his personal interests for the most parts) and causes chaos and destruction wherever he goes. Walter actually appears twice in his Randall Flagg persona in The Dark Tower series (I do plan to review this series in a later review): The fourth book, Wizard and Glass, shows that there are many alternate worlds and the protagonists stumble into the world of The Stand and encounter Walter in his Randall Flagg persona. Walter appears as Flagg once again in the final Dark Tower novel, The Dark Tower. 

Interestingly enough, although the President of the United States is not named in The Stand, The Dark Tower confirms that the President is Ronald Reagan and a news article claims that neither Reagan, George HW Bush, or key Cabinet members have been seen, suggesting that in an alternate world, both Reagan and Bush died from the superflu.

Walter Padick/Walter o'Dim/Randall Flagg/Russell Faraday/The Dark Man/The Man in Black... whatever his name is, Randall Flagg is no doubt my favourite Stephen King villain. There is something creepy and yet delightfully manic in a way that Flagg carries out horrific acts (such as crucifixion as punishment) while keeping a sense of humour. Flagg is so damn charismatic in this book that you can't help but like him. And the fact that Flagg doesn't really seem to have a sense of purpose apart from screwing things up just or the fun of it also makes him an enjoyable and unpredictable villain.

Now, I will be talking a little bit about the actual book and my enjoyment of it. While I did like the novel, I wouldn't say it's my favourite Stephen King novel (mainly cause I haven't read most of his works yet). I may be in the majority here but I think King's idea book length should be about 300-500 pages. Anything written by King's that's 600 pages and over I find to drag in certain places and delve in to character backstories that often don't matter. To be clear, King's longer works are still absolute masterpieces. But I just think he shines better in his shorter ones.

I personally found that the best part of the story is mainly the first half or so of the story, at the very least up to the point where the settlements are established. The spreading of the virus was the part that really struck me because King was introducing us to all of these diverse characters and killing them in the same paragraph. He wrote multiple pages using this exact format and it really helped outline in a chilling way how serious and widespread the pandemic was and it's very effective at striking fear into you. The reaction of the people to the pandemic was what I found to be the most interesting; throughout the story we are introduced to multiple characters and we are even able to see how they react to the fact that all of their loved ones are dead and their thought process. This part of King's story is heavily psychological as King establishes these "perfect" characters only to kill them up in very gruesome and heartbreaking ways.

The rest of the story after the settlements are established I found to be less appealing mainly because the best part of the story up to that point was the constant fast-pace of the remaining survivors travelling to Boulder to establish a settlement there, and it was at those times you really got to know these character very well. While there is a lot of character development still happening at this time, there is a little less of it because the situations are not life or death, and a lot of it just circles back to romance and love. That being said, the meetings where they discuss their conflict with Randall Flagg are really interesting and shows a very political side that I enjoyed.

That being said, The Stand has a lot of interesting characters who I think really represents different real-life people very well. For example, Harold Lauder has a very much "white knight" complex where he sort of needs to be the hero every time and has a massive crush/obsession on this girl who would never like him back, and even thought he's a horrible person, you get the feeling he's a tragic character whose darker side only emerges because of his situation. There's also Tom Cullen, a mentally challenged man who is the living embodiment of pureness and friendship; he's such a simple character that he's very fun to read about because he is always very positive. I was also very glad to see that Stephen King didn't kill the dog Kojak and let him die of old age.

My favourite character is Nick Andros. He is a deaf-mute who is also blind in one-eye who is a really great person overall. He becomes best friends with Tom Cullen and frankly their friendship is great. Both of them are people shunned by society because of their "defects", but somehow they manage to have a really great relationship where they end up relying on each other. Tom doesn't see what's wrong with Nick (because of his simple-mind he has very pure way to thinking) and Nick can sympathize with Tom's outcast status. Despite his inability to communicate verbally, Nick manages to become one of the leaders through his general intelligence and ability to communicate (as in he's good at making relationships more than anything).

An important thing you need to take away from this book is that not everyone gets a happy ending (in fact, nearly all of the characters in this book really don't). On top of losing their loved ones in the pandemic, they also lose the friends they make along the way, and the book does get really depressing by the end because you kind of begin to give up in a weird way of hoping to find a happy ending (although you do get some sense of a happy ending anyways).

Overall, The Stand is a good book. I don't think it's Stephen King's best personally, but it is a worthwhile read if you've got the time. The Stand is filled with some incredible diverse characters who go through really fantastic development. Furthermore, it also has Randall Flagg, my favourite Stephen King villain. If you want to be introduced to King, I would suggest you start with something shorter like Misery or The Shining: The Stand is not safe for Stephen King beginners because its sheer length just might throw most people off (I did actually consider giving up at some point). So I do recommend you read The Stand, but only after you've gotten fairly familiar with Stephen King first.

For my next review post, I will be doing a Doctor Who review. I will be going back to Classic Who and reviewing the First Doctor Who, portrayed by William Hartnell. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur