!!!

[tealin]

A Wee Free Men movie?!

Not the book I'd have expected anyone to start with, but it did seem to get the most attention in the States and won some sort of award. Now if only Dreamworks would do something with Bromeliad. NO, I take that back! Not till I get there! You guys are still waiting for me, right?

;)

Comments

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

Ahh, see, in the books, Klaus has glasses – they are probably his most prominent feature. I suspect they nixed them to avoid the Harry Potter connotations, though. The fourth book is, in fact, largely dependent on his glasses as a plot device ... heh, maybe that's why they didn't go ahead with the sequel.

Billy Connolly was awesome. But he always is. Meryl Streep was an excellent Aunt Josephine. Timothy Spall was OK (Poe doens't really do much besides cough, and they seem to have cut the coughing), Olaf's troupe was rather disappointing, and I have no idea why Cedric the Entertainer was in there at all. Other than that, um... I wrote a review, once upon a time. Lemme see if I can find it.

TADAA! (http://www.nocturnalsoldier.org/Tealin/snicketreview.html) (Warning ... it's loooooooooooooooooong.)

Read the books! Read the books! They're fabulous and clever, and really quick reads, with wonderful illustrations!

THE Definitive Review of "A Series of Unfortunate Events"

[(Anonymous)]

Well, it sounds like you had almost exactly the same reaction to just about everything in the movie as I did, only you put it a lot better (and went into more detail) than I probably would have. Bravo! Have you considered a career as an online movie critic?
The magnifying glass device probably didn't bother me as much as it should have, probably because Jim Carrey was so all over the place, I had no idea how smart or stupid he was supposed to be. (I'm too lazy to reaffirm all of your excellent pointss in the review, other than a thousand "AMENS" about Jim Carrey's performance and how he, once again, inexplicably, was stupidly being encouraged to run roughshod over the script and the character!) Which reminds me of one last nagging doubt: although Klaus assumes (correctly, I assume?), that Olaf has covered his ankle tattoo in makeup, nobody ever bothers to explain how he apparently gets a real peg leg in his captain costume! I realize this is a small point, and the film obviously isn't going for strict realism, and maybe it was intended to be random, wacky fun (like the rest of the film's Olaf) but this seemed a little sloppy to me. But like you, I really did mostly like the movie - there were times when I was surprisingly moved as well as entertained. And I thought the end credit sequence (I met a guy from SLC whose firm actually did that!) was worth the price of admission all by itself! And I really liked the music, too.
---DisneyBoy
P.S. although I generally agree with the idea that true heroes should refrain from resorting to the same tactics as their nemesi(?) - insert political rant here - it didn't bother me too much that Klaus was using the weapon to destroy a piece of paper, obtained through deception and blackmail (and nobody got hurt), and, hey, I think it looked cool on film. What I really hate is the tendency to make Batman resort to murder (both by commission and ommission) in several of the films, which he was utterly opposed to, even in the darker comic books - it was the biggest thing that set him apart from the villains.

PPS

[(Anonymous)]

I kinda liked Violet's dress and hair, but it was a weird contrast to Klaus's comparatively conservative, contemporary, tasteful-if-unremarkable outfit (The Oscars in hollywood tend to be this way, when you compare the actors and actresses red carpet attire) - I they should have tried to match them a little better, or managed an explanation as to the discrepancy. Again, not enough to ruin the movie for me, but still...
---DisneyBoy