is the lemony snicket movie going to be any good?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i don't know anything about the books... preview looks good.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

The books are get pretty tired pretty quickly. I think the movie compresses three of them into one, which can only be to their benefit. Really it looks like it could be quite good to me as well (Carrey seems perfectly cast.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

But it's Carrey, though. I'm already skeeved.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Carrey was pretty entertaining in the preview. That's about all I have to say on this subject.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

watching the preview, i didn't even know it was carrey until they said so if that's any consolation to you, ned. ('skeeved' is a bad thing, right?)

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Quite so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

What's Lemony Snicket?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I really hate watching Jim Carrey be Jim Carrey, even more than I hate watching Robin Williams be Robin Williams. And this is going to upset fans of the book, I've heard, since the character in the book is nothing even remotely like Jimm Carrey.

― Lifted, or, the story is 'neath my ass (kenan), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I hate watching Jim Carrey be Jim Carrey, too.

― luna (luna.c), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm going to have to google Lemony Snicket aren't I? So far I've figured out that it's a book that's being made into a film. Some people like the book. Is it a kids book? American? Bah, you people are no help.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.lemonysnicket.com/index.cfm

― luna (luna.c), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, yes. I've just been there. Now I know all about it.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

And this is going to upset fans of the book, I've heard, since the character in the book is nothing even remotely like Jimm Carrey.

I don't think is that true, really. I'm a huge, huge bookfan, and I'm totally pumped about the movie - if it's dreadful it'll be bcz of Nickolodean and Meryll Streep, not Carrey, whom I actually think is a pretty nice casting. But I've heard people disagree, so yeah, whatevs.

Anyway, the mainmain thing I was worried about is that the children would be cast in an off way, and to me in the trailer they're pretty much just right, so that's yaysome. And the greyish sorta colouring seems perfect.

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Kevin, it's an American series of kids' books, by Lemony Snicket aka Daniel Handler, who wrote 'The Basic Eight', which is acness, and is intermittently a Magnetic Field. Some people find them annoying. (They are wrong obv)

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Tuesday, 19 October 2004 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I read about five of the books in one session once, so I think Alex is OTM at the top of the thread.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 06:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't really afford to buy books at the moment, but if I see one of his books around, should I buy it? I love children's literature, so I'm fairly curious about this now, and I love the Magnetic Fields too, so that is another point of interest. Although now I'm also interested in reading Neverending Story, which I've never read.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 06:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I read about five of the books in one session once
My god, you must have a superhuman attention span!
That's like 800pp. of Snicket in one sitting! I got through the first one and was more than ready to do something else...

― A Million Talking Hot Dogs (AaronHz), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Obviously it's going to be terrible. From the opening voiceover to the first trailer:

"At times the world can seem an unfriendly and sinister place, but believe us when we say that there is much more good in it than bad. And what might seem to be a series of unfortunate events, may, in fact, be the first steps of a journey."

Congratulations, you've just completely missed the point of the books.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:27 (twenty-one years ago)

800pp of very large type and larger margins. It's quite funny, but not great kid lit. Try something more Gorey.

xpost that is diabolical, YMOF! Twunts.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:28 (twenty-one years ago)

800pp of very large type and larger margins.
But still.

― A Million Talking Hot Dogs (AaronHz), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I kind of understand the thing where Star Wars fans sleep outside cinemas for like four weeks in order to be the first to be betrayed a bit more, now.

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:34 (twenty-one years ago)

You have much to learn, young padawan.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 07:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I pre-ordered book 11 through Amazon, got a notice about its dispatch and a week later, Amazon offered me a 20% discount. BIG GRRRR. I've nearly finished it now and it's aces. I love the progression to more difficult words and the growing sophistication of the humour in the series.

But the film is going to be shit, because it features all my least favourite actors and I have a dreadful feeling they're going to do to these books what they did to Charlie & the Chocolate Factory.

(incidentally, Lemony Snicket: C or D? and Lemony Snicket)

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 08:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or whatever it's called is brilliant though, as long as you don't expect it to mimic the book. It's just a different thing, and it's a good different thing.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 08:56 (twenty-one years ago)

NO! IT HAS GENE WILDER IN IT!

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 08:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I have a dreadful feeling they're going to do to these books what they did to Charlie & the Chocolate Factory.

But that would be fantastic, surely?

(Note: I've never read C&TCF, I just like Gene Wilder and Roy Kinnear).

xpost

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 08:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Gene Wilder is one of my favourite actors!

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 08:58 (twenty-one years ago)

You're on crack, Willa Wonka is absolutely classic. And Gene Wilder is absolutely key for the boat ride (as well as everything else)

Which will be worse: Lemony Snicket movie vs new Tim Burton Willy Wonka featuring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka and David Kelly as Grandpa Joe and Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Bucket?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:04 (twenty-one years ago)

And, in fairness, Christopher Lee as Willy Wonka's father.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Tim Burton needs to stop putting his God-awful girlfriends in all of his films.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:05 (twenty-one years ago)

The Futurama skit of Willy Wonka, in particular the bit with the oompa loompas, is the funniest thing that's ever been on telly.

(aren't they remaking C&TCF?)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not the only one - Roald Dahl hated WW&TCF as well. It's great as a piece of kitsch, but is unfaithful to the book in so many ways. I know you can't make films exact versions of the books their based on, but you don't have to add in all sorts of nonsense that doesn't happen in the book, or give everyone American accents because you're not brave enough to believe it'll sell well on both sides of the Atlantic if they speak English English.

If I love a book, I want the film to capture its spirit. The reaction of the majority of Tolkien fans to the way Peter Jackson filmed the LOTR books shows it can be done.

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:14 (twenty-one years ago)

they're

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll reserve judgement on the Burton film, but I think there's no doubt he'll be the first to properly get the darkness in Dahl's books. The ending of the film of the Witches pisses me off too.

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:17 (twenty-one years ago)

If Roald Dahl thought he had responsibility or control over what films people make from his books beyond whatever he got in writing along with his pile of cash, then he's a fucking idiot (as well as a fantastic children's book writer).

Proposition: the LOTR films are only as good as they are because JRR Tolkien isn't alive to complain about them.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't say he thought he had control over the films - he didn't, which is why they got made. He had an opinion though...

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure you're right about the Dahl disregard b-but WW&TCF was a US-German-UK coproduction, wasn't it? It was awash with non-American accents!

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The Dahl estate is VERY hands on when it comes to what gets made from his writings. They are extremely picky with who gets the rights, and they retain as much consultation/approval as is possible. The Twits is also in development at the moment.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:30 (twenty-one years ago)

haha I can guarantee that American accents won't be the biggest problem with the new Chocolate Factory!

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0166396/AU28_3_15.jpg

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:31 (twenty-one years ago)

That's a red x, Andrew - what should it be?

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark, it's my understanding the Dahls had far less control in the seventies. Infuriatingly, I can find little evidence on the internet and am relying on memory of interviews in sunday supplements.

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:36 (twenty-one years ago)

A picture of David Kelly, aka O'Reilly the builder from Fawlty Towers, Michael O'Sullivan from Waking Ned Devine, and Paddy O'Flanagan in The Calcium Kid. Also to be seen anywhere Oirishness is called for.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I would never trust an author about whether or not a film adaptation is any good - authors are to be trusted about very little in relation to their work. I also feel that Willy Wonka is much darker than C&TCF is, and I don't see how Burton will avoid making an even darker film that is further from the book; not that it matters - the film will have to stand on it's own.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't the point that he signed the contract (I'm assuming the rights weren't stolen from him or anything)? If he got little enough power that he couldn't stop this terrible fantastic film from being made, but enough that he felt responsible for it, and the sack of cash wasn't enough to make up the gap, then he shouldn't have signed it in the first place.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Didn't Dahl write the screenplay adaptation for WW&TCF?

― A Million Talking Hot Dogs (AaronHz), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:47 (twenty-one years ago)

nevermind, it was David Seltzer apparently.

― A Million Talking Hot Dogs (AaronHz), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 09:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm hoping - probably to no avail - that the new C&TCH film will have the look and feel of the illustrations in the edition I have, by Faith Jacques. The outside of the factory = grim Northern English mill-town.

Also, I am hoping it will include the Square Sweets That Look Round. Best awful pun ever!

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

(what was with WW&TCF apparently being set in a German village? When they take the elevator through the roof and you see all this stereotypical German vernacular architecture, I was just "wtf?!")

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 10:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Caitlin, I think that's the version I have - black and white and a bit sketchy? The grandparents at the beginning are so gaunt and sad looking. I'm not so keen on Quentin Blake's Wonka - he looks too much like (bleurgh) Wilder.

― Madchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I have to disagree with you here, madchen.

― cºzen (Cozen), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 11:09 (twenty-one years ago)

That sounds right, Madchen.

I've never liked Quentin Blake's illustrations generally, and never have - I always found them a bit too scribbley.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 11:11 (twenty-one years ago)

My copy of C&TCF is illustrated by Joseph Schindelman. Am I missing out?

― A Million Talking Hot Dogs (AaronHz), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 19:57 (twenty-one years ago)

As long as the oompah-loompah's aren't in it I'm sure it'll be ok.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

One of my cousins worked on this movie and I got to visit her on one of the sets last summer. The sets were fantastic--very detailed and elaborate--so it at least has that going for it.

― Nemo (JND), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

two months pass...

the movie was great! no idea how it compares with the books, but as a movie I don't think there's a bum note. as a rule, i really can't stand the "noone in authority believes protagonist abt obvious shit" plot device, esp. with kids, but it didn't bug me here, so something went right. both the young kids are terrific, as is Carrey. it is too bad that Luis Guzman and Jennifer Coolidge are put on screen to do very little.

― g--ff (gcannon), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Luis Guzman! Cool!

The teenagerly girl in this was very very creepy in Ghost Ship.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

The movie was "eh" at best. I was anxious for it to be over near the end I was so bored. They stuffed three books into one movie, too much methinks. I love the books.

Best part: Emily Browning is my new underage crush. the shame!

― Miss Misery (thatgirl), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

The kids were cool and the movie looked great, and it did benefit from cameo-ing (sort of) Luis Guzman, Cedric the Entertainer, and whoever that was that played Stifler's Mom. However, I feel the entire film revolved around the three set pieces. They stuck em together, tacked a happy ending on, and mass distributed. As well, I just can't stand Jim Carrey being ridiculous. He's not particularly funny in any of his comedic roles, and this doesn't break that mold. It simply serves to reflect just how refreshing it was to see him be so understated in Eternal Sunshine.

I was also going to say the same thing about Adam Sandler after Punch-Drunk Love, but then I realized that Sandler's pretty funny anyways.

― lemin (lemin), Thursday, 23 December 2004 02:10 (twenty-one years ago)

sam otm re: the 2nd part, sadly...

― g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 23 December 2004 05:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I suppose it was about as downbeat as you could expect a Hollywood Kids movie to be. I haven't read the books and quite enjoyed it, but my girlfriend who is a fan was moaning all the way through (although she found it OK overall). Jude Law was a little flat though.

Unfortunately we missed a little bit of it, because the pirate we were watching had the babies subtitles cropped off!

― Chewshabad00, Thursday, 23 December 2004 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw this last Sunday--was left with a decided feeling of "eh?". I got the impression that the film was about two hours longer before it entered the cutting room... the spyglass/secret society subplot was completely disregarded come the end of the film, for example.

I haven't read the books, though.

― tissp! (the impossible shortest specia), Thursday, 23 December 2004 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw the trailer yesterday while seeing Garden State; Emma turned to me the second it had finished and said "you want to go and see that right now, don't you?" and I nodded like a loon.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 23 December 2004 11:43 (twenty-one years ago)

production design great, movie shitty

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 23 December 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

haha this movie was dummmm, the only good thing was carrey.

― cºzen (Cozen), Friday, 31 December 2004 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

carrey's best performance is still in the rubbish 'cable guy' mind. good make-up here makes him into a cross between larry david and a monster.

― cºzen (Cozen), Friday, 31 December 2004 14:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Saw this with Marianna, we went in costume.

Production incredible. And THOISE CREDITS. I am a Carey fan, Cable guy good, Truman show good.

The ending upset me a lot. Never mind starting a journey! I want misery!

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Friday, 31 December 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Sunny = Jar Jar Binks

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Friday, 31 December 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost=the trailer was great. But the film itself...A Series of Unfortunate Production Choices

― EComplex (EComplex), Friday, 31 December 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

We thought about seeing this, but went to see National Treasure instead. Which could *really* have done with a few more Freemasons. I mean, honestly!

― The Grain of Sand in Lambeth That Satan Cannot Find (kate), Sunday, 2 January 2005 18:43 (twenty-one years ago)

a. i heart jim carrey
b. i hate roald dahl
c. guess which one i am related to!!??

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 2 January 2005 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

You hate Roald Dahl! We can no longer be friends.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 2 January 2005 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

National Treasure was slightly better than a Dan Brown novel, which isn't saying much.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 2 January 2005 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

he is the martin amis of kidlit

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 2 January 2005 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

(But, see, I've not really read any Martin Amis...)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 2 January 2005 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I went out to see the movie about a week ago or so and I thought it was just 'eh' too. It looks really good, I think but Jim Carey was annoying. He acted the same as in every other movie he's ever been in. He even did the weird raptor impersonation. The movie kept me in the theatre though even though I had to use the bathroom really bad. I'm starting to find Jude Law very annoying too. He's going to be in every new movie now just like Edward Norton was for a while.

As for the new Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, I don't think it's going to be too great. Johnny Depp is really awful for the part. He should have at least given the role to Michael Keaton. I mean, come on, he needs another role.

― christopher james mcintosh, Sunday, 2 January 2005 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.