 | Distributor: | Paramount Pictures |
| Release: | December 17, 2004 | |
| Genre: | Comedy Kids/Family | |
| MPAA Rating: | PG for thematic elements, scary situations and brief language |
It's been noted that the success of Harry Potter has increased the number of children reading. Also, adults are rediscovering children's books... some of them do so because it's the fad. One book series that's popular is Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events.
I've avoided picking it up for the silly reason that the only thing that would recommend it is that it's one of the "in" books these days but I couldn't figure out what the series is about for a lack of a summary on the cover jacket. It's one of my pet peeves ... I'll be damned if someone sells me a book just because the author has previously published a best selling book ... it's like watching a movie just because the actor is popular. The big name is not always a guarantee you get a good story.
Anyway, with the movie opening in the US last December, I ended up buying the first 3 of the Unfortunate series just so I can gauge if the books were well translated to the movie.
After reading the books during the holidays, I've formed the opinion that one good reason it does not have a summary on the jacket is that, a summary is enough to tell ALL the story. The books are short in the first place, and the story did not satisfy me as well as some children's books do. I felt that I paid too much for the books. I admit the author has what I would say a lyrical tongue, or his choice of words, when strung together, makes the book easier to read. Not every author has that ... dare I say that if Tolkien had a generous helping of that gift I wouldn't have a problem going past the first chapter of his Lord of the Rings? Heh :-) I just said it. May Tolkien fanatics forgive me.
Back to the movie. As I mentioned above, the books are very short. Ergo, they had to use the first 3 books to have enough material for one movie.
First noticeable wonder would be the stage and props used. If you can't immerse yourself in the story, you have the alternative to have your eyes feast on the imagery. Jim Carrey did a fine job of portraying three characters ... but Count Olaf suffered from his tendency to overdo things. Some of Count Olaf's mannerisms remind me of some of Carrey's previous movie characters, and even one character he usually played in the TV comedy show "In Living Color". The rest of the cast did a fine job as well. Uncle Monty was as warm as he should be, Aunt Josephine was as nutty as could be, and the children managed not to come across as too cute or smart alecks. Movie's got a lot of good actors playing bit roles though, which is a waste of talent ... but maybe these folk didn't mind the bit roles just so they can appear in the movie.
The movie stayed true to the essence of the books but not to the details. For one, you would not find the spyglass clues in the first three books (I do wonder if the spyglass is an element in the latter books), nor the series of fires supposedly caused by a huge magnifying glass owned by Count Olaf, or the train accident arranged by Olaf to get rid of the kids. The wedding scene was moved to the end whereas if you followed the books, it should have happened in the first third of the movie.
The movie supposedly was on the top of the list on the week it opened ... but from the lack of further news/feedbacks, I wonder if the movie really was a hit. One barely notices it's showing here in Manila.
No comments:
Post a Comment