This is topic OSC reviews on Neverland, Lemony Snicket in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=030360

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Just read his latest reviews. Agree completely with his thoughts on Neverland. Utterly disagree with his thoughts on Lemony Snicket.

Watching Carrey try desperately to be funny is only sad, unfortunately, as his shtick gets more and more familiar. One begins to think: Oh, he's doing that again, with ever-increasing disappointment.

Personally, I thought it was just casting for type. Count Olaf is a vain, overly expressive actor who believes himself to be sublime. Didn't you think Jim Carrey?

The only way a Lemony Snicket movie could possibly work is if the villain, Count Olaf, were credible. You have to be able to believe that he might fool other characters into thinking that he might be a worthy guardian for the orphaned Baudelaire children.

I totally disagree. Presumably we're on the same level as the children, frustrated by the adults' inability to see through Count Olaf's disguises. We're supposed to spot him right away, the disguises are supposed to be obvious. In every book the children spot him instantly, and it's part of his character to believe himself disguised when he isn't.
And at no point are we the audience expected to think he would be a worthy guardian. The other adults often believe that, but we (and the children) know otherwise as soon as he appears. As in the books, so in the movie.

But Carrey's performance is so broad and obvious that you wouldn't entrust him with the guardianship of a snail.

And again: Count Olaf. OSC remarks farther along that he and his family stopped reading the books when they got repetitive, fair enough. Perhaps he forgot how Olaf is represented? But if so, shouldn't he have refreshed himself before commenting on the movie's lack before making sure the book didn't share it?

Now if his argument was that a better movie could have been made if Count Olaf was actually competent in his disguises, that's as may be. But it wouldn't be an accurate adaptation of the books, not at all.

[ December 29, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
With sideways, I haven't seen it, but it sounds like the only reason he didn't like it was because he didn't want to like it.
 

---

Posted by Scythrop (Member # 5731) on :
 
Haven't seen Neverland or Sideways - but both are on my list...

Saw A Series of Unfortunate Events the other day (partly as a result of reading your column on the subject, Chris) and enjoyed the film a great deal, pretty much for the reasons you touched on - the refreshing credibility given to the children's perspective in a world of adults.

I'm not certain about Carey's performance, though. I certainly found it to be an adequate comic turn, and not nearly as bad as OSC suggests, but I'm also not convinced that it did the film too many favours, especially compared to the beautifully understated performances of the children. It would have been interesting to see what a less traditionally 'comic' actor like Gary Oldman or John Malkovich might have done with the role.

Just my two cents, for what it's worth...

[ December 29, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Scythrop ]
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
I agree scythrop. I think OSC has a particular disdain for Jim Carrey that keeps him from liking anything that the actor does...and yet, I did agree with OSC when he said that Count olaf was supposed to be believable. And a little less funny and a little more scary.

I guess the movie needed some levity... Never mind, I'm not articulate today.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I have to admit that I share OSC's irritation with Jim Carrey the comedian. He's like the reincarnation of a young Jerry Lewis.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Lemony Snicket did fail to reach its potential, but that was by no means Jim Carrey's fault. The real problem is that the movie focuses on the adult characters rather than on the children who we are supposed to be sympathetic towards. The book is about the children and their unfortunate lives, not the adults they come to meet and observe, yet watch carefully through the movie and notice who is at the center of almost every scene. It's Jim Carrey, and the other lesser adult characters. We are not seeing them through the childrens' eyes - they merely there on the side of scene, tying the events together. Lemony Snicket just doesn't work as a story about a series of crazy adults.

I'm guessing the reason for this is the obvious one: Because, as usual, Hollywood lets the big names steal the show and the focus, whether or not it is beneficial to the story, and because its difficult to find good child actors capable of carrying a film. It is critical, however, that they don't make the same mistake with Ender's Game. I hope the Neverending Story is some indication that Wolfgang Peterson knows how to avoid that trap.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Xaposert - that's an excellent point, and I think you're right. I don't claim the movie was perfect, just that I thought Carrey was perfectly cast for his part.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Nice point he made about FN. It really was a beautiful movie about kindness and looking out for people.
I like that theme.
I have not seen Unfortunet Events yet...
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
I loved Finding Neverland and appreciated Card's positive review of it. However I was rather confused by his using it to explain how out of touch critics are with what's truly beautiful. He made it sound like the majority of critics are inhuman snobs who don't understand the film but everything I've read or heard about it sings it's praises. It's been nominated for 5 Academy Awards. I don't understand why he felt a need to bash the critics in his review- they seem to like it.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Don't know.....
Did it get nominated for best picture? Oh, how lovely that movie was.
I need to see that and Incredibles again.
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 
I apologize, it wasn't the Academy Awards (those haven't been announced yet), it was 5 Golden Globe nominations. It recieved them for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Original Score, and Best Actor.

Does anybody know exactly what the difference is between Academy Awards and Golden Globes? All the different awards confuse me.

[ December 30, 2004, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
Card hates director Alexander Payne, but I don't think he mentions him once in his review of "Sideways." However, we do get this at the end of it:

" I can imagine this side of the properties of gravel -- so the movie must have been well written. "


 

---

Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
 
The Golden Globes include awards for television as well as for movies. Also, they divide the best picture category into Drama and Comedy/Musical. Some consider the Golden Globes as a prediction of the Academy Awards. Many of the nominations tend to be the same, but the Academy Awards are usually taken more seriously.
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
And I absolutely must agree with him on Jim Carrey's performance in ASOUE. It's painful to watch, to be honest. One of the reasons I walked out after twenty minutes.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I haven't read the review of Lemony Snicket, but we loved the movie. I would have liked it more if Carrey didn't seem so desperate to upstage the kids (who were, very plainly, better actors), and if the director had kept reins on him.

At no time did I feel that the children were threatened by Olaf-- not having read the books, I can't say whether or not Carrey portrayed Olaf very well. I know that I didn't particularly belive his character, or his interactions with everyone else in the film.

I disagree with Xap that the adults were the center of the movie-- the adults were scenery. We constantly get the children's viewpoint of the adults; that is why we know, with certainty, that the herpetologist is not only a good man, he's a little batty.

The scene where the children raise a sanctuary in Count Olaf's home was beautiful-- that is what made the movie for me. It fits so well with my world-view, I immediately identified. . .

Ahem-- OSC vs. Jim Carrey: OSC only pans Carrey when Carrey does terribly. Come on-- none of you remember his glowing review of Carrey's performance in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind?
 

---

Posted by Scythrop (Member # 5731) on :
 
I have to agree with you ScottR - the children building their sancuary in Olaf's house was possibly the most touching scene in the movie.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Olaf is supposed to be rather terrible and unfeeling. I don't think that's what we got in the movie.

BUT, I saw Neverland last night...wow. It's one of those movies that has stayed with me, I can't stop thinking about it. Such a beautifully done film!! Kind of bittersweet actually.
 

---

Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
 
Xaposert:

quote:

---

I'm guessing the reason for this is the obvious one: Because, as usual, Hollywood lets the big names steal the show and the focus, whether or not it is beneficial to the story, and because its difficult to find good child actors capable of carrying a film.

---