Friday, January 13, 2017

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004) review

Image result for a series of unfortunate events movie poster

I regret to inform you that the review that you’re about to read is for a dreadfully grim film in which terrible things happen to young children. If you wish to instead read a review for a family film with a much more light-hearted plot, feel free to browse one of the many other reviews on this site for films like Moana or The BFG… okay, I’m not going to do that narration for the entire review. But, today, we are talking about A Series of Unfortunate Events. Written by author Daniel Handler under the pen name Lemony Snicket, who serves as the series’ in-universe narrator, this 13-book series has been a major commercial success ever since it first debuted in 1999, selling over 65 million copies worldwide. I used to read these books quite often when I was younger. That’s because even though these books do live up to their namesake by being a series of stories in which bad things constantly happen to the main protagonists, they were engaging reads thanks in large part to Handler/Snicket’s descriptive writing and their entertainingly dark sense of humor (e.g. the routine running gag in which Snicket constantly warns the reader not to read the books). A new adaptation of the series makes its debut on Netflix this weekend by way of a TV series. But, before that, let’s look back at the franchise’s arguably now forgotten film adaptation from 2004, which was produced by Nickelodeon Movies, directed by Brad Silberling (Casper), and starred Jim Carrey in the role of the villainous Count Olaf. As someone who grew up with the books, I watched this film numerous times when I was younger. And although it had been years since I’d last seen it, the debut of the new Netflix series made me want to watch it again. And, upon re-watch, I found that I still enjoyed it a lot. Because for a film that ended up being a failed attempt at spawning a franchise in the era of Harry Potter, I’d argue that it’s quite underrated.

The film is based off the first three installments of the series; The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window. It centers on the three Baudelaire children; 14-year old inventor extraordinaire Violet (Emily Browning), 12-year-old bookworm Klaus (Liam Aiken), and their infant sister Sunny (played by twins Kara and Shelby Hoffman), who loves to bite things with her sharp teeth. One day, while at the beach, the children learn from their family’s banker, Mr. Poe (Timothy Spall), that their parents have died in a severe fire that had destroyed their house. As the Baudelaires now find themselves orphaned, Mr. Poe immediately puts them into the care of their distant relative, Count Olaf (Jim Carrey), the leader of a theatre troupe who’s supposedly their ‘third cousin four times removed’ (or ‘fourth cousin three times removed’). However, the children quickly learn that Olaf is secretly plotting to inherit the Baudelaires’ vast fortune, which they themselves will inherit when Violet turns 18. Thus, he begins to treat them horribly and even tries to kill them from time to time so that he can inherit the fortune. With no one to help them, the Baudelaire orphans are forced to rely on their own strengths to thwart Olaf’s dastardly schemes. But, even after they manage to have Olaf removed from the position of being their guardian, he continues to pursue them wherever they go, coming up with new ways to get rid of them and donning disguises that manage to fool their subsequent guardians, including herpetologist ‘Monty’ Montgomery (Billy Connolly) and timid widow Josephine Anwhistle (Meryl Streep), but not the children. Along the way, the children also begin to learn some secrets regarding their parents, including a secret organization that they were once a part of.

The best thing about this film is that it does an excellent job of recreating the vivid and stylish world of the books on the big-screen. For a film that was shot entirely on sound stages, the production/set design is fantastic. It’s also backed by some solid cinematography from Emmanuel Lubezki, who of course would go on to win three straight Oscars about a decade later for his work on films like Gravity and The Revenant. The overall success that the film has in terms of visually staying faithful to the books also translates quite well when it comes to the overall story. Save for a few cosmetic changes here and there, the film is a generally faithful adaptation of the first three books. The only major narrative change is that the ending of The Bad Beginning, in which Olaf attempts to legally marry Violet to get the fortune under the guise of it being part of his new play, is repurposed to the end of the film, after the events of The Wide Window. Thus, the ‘ending’ of the first act instead sees the Baudelaires trying to escape from a trap set by Count Olaf in which they’re about to be hit by a train. I’ll admit that when I was younger, initially I used to hate this change solely for the fact that it was made. But, looking back at it now, I get the reason why this change was necessary. The ending of The Bad Beginning is a ‘finale’ that’s more suited for the end of the film instead of being the first act finale about half an hour in. Really, the biggest downfall of the film is the fact that, nowadays, it’s considerably hindered by it not getting a sequel. It’s clear that, while watching this film, there were plans to do a follow-up as the plot has quite a few mysteries that either end up unsolved or are vaguely explained. And not only did these mysteries ‘not’ end up being answered in regards to this specific iteration of the series, it also ends up being a problem for those who haven’t read the books because, again, they’re given little explanation, meaning that some moments may come off as being rather confusing to newcomers.  

In the role of Count Olaf, Jim Carrey is, to put it simply, absolutely hamming it up as the main villain. It’s been noted that the film avoids going down some of the darker routes of the books, namely in regards to Olaf himself. The more disturbing tendencies of Olaf were basically replaced by Carrey’s comedic banter. However, I’d say that Carrey still did a good job in the role. Yes, he’s over-acting like crazy but I’d argue that this is part of the character; Olaf is an actor, after all. Sure, as I just noted, it’s not really his defining trait in the books, but when you have someone like Jim Carrey in the role, you know that he’s going to bring a humorous slant to it, which he does, namely through moments that surely must’ve been unscripted and the ways in which Olaf disguises himself; first as an ‘Italian’ herpetologist named Stephano and then as a peg-legged sailor named Captain Sham, though, sadly, he doesn’t get much screen-time while disguised as the latter. In short, while film Olaf may come off as being more humorous than sinister, I think that Carrey’s take on the character is rather iconic. For the record, that’s nothing against his successor in the role, Neil Patrick Harris, but with that said, Harris does have quite a bit to live up to. As for the Baudelaire children, specifically, Violet and Klaus seeing how Sunny is only a baby, both Emily Browning and Liam Aiken do solid jobs in their respective roles. One of the key aspects of the series, in general, is the fact that, through it all, the Baudelaires are always portrayed as an endearing trio. No matter what happens to them, they’re always likable and you root for them to triumph against Olaf. This is handled perfectly in the film, making the scenes where they succeed in foiling Olaf’s plans satisfying and the more heartwarming scenes involving them effectively emotional (e.g. the scene at the end where they finally receive a letter that their parents had written them while they were in Europe). Aside from Olaf and the kids, this film has quite an impressive supporting ensemble full of recognizable faces, from Billy Connolly to Meryl Streep to Catherine O’Hara, and they all do solid jobs in providing the film with an eccentric cast of characters.

While I haven’t read the books in quite some time, I am looking forward to this new adaptation of A Series of Unfortunate Events. For one thing, it could finally result in a complete adaptation of the series, something that the 2004 film was sadly never able to achieve. While the film did do well with critics and audiences, and even though there were plans for a sequel, it ultimately didn’t get one, mainly due in part to the fact that it was taking too long to make and the young leads were getting too old for their roles. Heck, they even considered making an animated film at one point before deciding on doing a series on Netflix. Still, it’s a shame that the original film didn’t go anywhere because I’d argue that it’s rather underrated. Sure, it’s not necessarily a ‘perfect adaptation’ of the source material but it still does just enough to capture the spirit of the books, particularly in terms of the set and production design. And while it can be argued that Jim Carrey is perhaps over-doing it in the role of Olaf, he still manages to provide us with plenty of humorous moments out of his maniacal performance. There’s also some funny moments that stem from the film’s numerous fake-outs, including the opening, which makes you think that you’re watching a different film, and a scene where it seems like the Baudelaires are about to be attacked by a snake but then we cut back to Lemony Snicket (played in the film by Jude Law) having to fix his typewriter because the ribbon jammed, then culminating in the reveal that the snake wasn’t harmful. Sure, this is another thing that contributes to the film’s more humorous tone compared to the more serious nature of the books but, at the same time, it also correlates perfectly to the series’ trademark dark humor. With all this in mind, the original adaptation of A Series of Unfortunate Events is an entertaining little adventure that is sure to bring back nostalgic memories for those who grew up with it. I know I did; heck, I even went to go see it on New Years’ Eve back in 2004. So, yeah, you could say that I have a strong personal connection to this film.


Rating: 4.5/5

No comments:

Post a Comment