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

A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket (narrator/character and pen name of author Daniel Handler) is an excellent series for readers of all ages.  Alliteration, cryptic letters to the editor, absurd yet effective character-reduction, role reversals, diction-enhancing asides, unravelling mysteries of arson, murder, and secret societies... this is storytelling at its finest.  When it comes to children's chapter books, nothing is more captivating and alluring than the tragic quest for answers of the Baudelaire orphans.

Though published between 1999 and 2006, the book series will remain timeless, if only revered by a cult following, due to its high-caliber writing and cleverly ambiguous and occasionally contradictory exposition and setting, but how about that single serving Nickelodeon Movies film from 2004?

When Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events came out in theaters, I was 13 years old, a devout fan of the book series, and disappointed with what I saw on the big screen.  I think a lot of that disappointment stemmed from the fact that they changed and reshuffled plot points from the first three books.  Released shortly after The Grim Grotto, the eleventh of thirteen novels, the tone of the film adaptation was in gross misalignment with the books as the literary story was reaching the pinnacle of its seriousness.  This series probably didn't need a movie, but it got one anyway.  For the studios in 2004, it was probably then or never in regards to a project based on the topically popular books, but fans would have to level with the movie's existence for better or for worse, and I'm glad to say now that although it isn't great it's not as bad as I once thought.

In order to appreciate this movie, one has to understand that it's a one-shot tribute to the book series.  Whereas film franchises like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings tell the full literary story in multiple installments that parallel the novels, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events is a solitary artist's homage to its source material.  There was never a chance in hell they could have made 13 Hollywood movies, so in hindsight this approach shows a lot of integrity.  Maybe a BBC or HBO mini-series or something like that might have been feasible, but it was Nickelodeon Movies that obtained the rights to create it.  That's right, the makers of Clockstoppers (2002) and Good Burger (1997).  That fact might have been a death sentence, but this particular project had over 5 and 10 times the budget respectively of the aforementioned films and turned out to be the best live action production Nickelodeon Movies has managed to put out to this day.

Jude Law and Jim Carey are the stars here with Law playing the role of narrator/author Lemony Snicket and Carey playing the villainous Count Olaf, and both contribute a degree of meta-analysis to the film. Jim Carey acting as Count Olaf who is poorly acting while donning various disguises adds a layer of depth to the performance. He's energetic but not in a stereotypical, different-movie-same-Jim-Carey-character kind of way which gives the film freshness but also credibility from an established comedic actor.  Snicket is a difficult role to pin, and the problem is not with Law but the writing/directing around his character.  Jude Law is fine; Snicket's nonchalance of being in dangerous and preposterous situations while writing is part of the humor in having a fully developed narrator who is also part of the greater story.  The books are his first-hand account of the life of the Baudelaire orphans and only made the transition from manuscripts to published novels by way of secret delivery and the aid of his unnamed editor.  In the movie, however, not only does Jude Law voice over certain sections but he also stars visually which makes the presence of a film director all too apparent.  Of course, it's a movie, but to me this was an added layer of depth I did not enjoy.  Lemony Snicket in the frame gives the feeling of documentary, second-hand interpretation, propaganda and the idea that this is perhaps not the shockingly true story of the Baudelaire orphans at all, in turn breaking the immersion needed to fully enjoy a tale of this nature.

The would-be guardians (Justice Straus, Monty, and Josephine) are well-cast (Catherine O'Hara, Billy Connolly, and Meryl Streep respectively) but ultimately have a low impact primarily because each of their characters only reside in one of three stories combined here. Although the movie covers plot events from The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window, it culminates in the stage production of Al Funcoot's The Marvelous Marriage, thereby mirroring the ending of the first novel and providing a relative degree of conclusiveness if only in comparison to the other books' falling actions. As a final sendoff, the credit sequence is fantastic with its gothic, surrealistic animations of the orphans fleeing from the ominous, inescapable force that is Olaf.  In a way, it serves as an epilogue to the film; the Baudelaires move somewhere else, Count Olaf finds them, the story goes on.

While the characters of Violet and Klaus are well-scripted and feel authentic to their novel counterparts, it's for the best that they were played by no-name actors lest this would have been a Dakota Fanning/Haley Joel Osment circa early 2000s shitshow.  The third Baudelaire child, Sunny, the infant who bites things, predictably doesn't make the film transition as well as her siblings but is not downright awful.  Inevitably, a lot of other things just don't transfer well and much of the clever literary charm is simply lost in translation from book to movie.  The characters of Sunny and Lemony Snicket, erraticness of the second and third novel plot inclusions, and much of the humor were struggling points, but the story and everything else is strong enough to make this a movie that ultimately floats, all things considered.

When it comes to film adaptations of novels, I don't think we'll ever again see anything as high-caliber as To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) or The Godfather (1972).  If a movie is serviceable and can add a new viewpoint or an interesting/exciting enough visualization, however, film adaptations are still worthwhile, and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events manages to accomplish that worthiness if only just barely.  If treated with less care, this very nearly could have been another Mike Meyers The Cat in the Hat (2003), but thankfully it's a decent movie which at least for me didn't spoil the book series in any way.

Louie, Season 4 (2014)

Louie C.K.'s aptly titled television show Louie has been critically acclaimed since its first season in 2010. It's primarily classified as a comedy, but there's always been a bit more to it, and this fact has never been more clear after the long-awaited release of the show's fourth season.

Of its 14 episodes, only three are traditional individual shorts. The remaining season is comprised of a 6 part episode about a Hungarian woman who gets trapped in an elevator and her non-English speaking niece, a 3 part episode on Pamela coming back to New York and being romantically interested in Louie, and "In The Woods" which is essentially a 66 minute coming of age film based on teen marijuana use. I was initially disappointed when I realized the old lady in the elevator portion of the plot was resolved in the first of six episodes. I thought if anyone could make 132 minutes of hilarious material out of such a simple premise it would be Louie C.K., but instead more character-driven, revelatory relationships are explored such as patient/doctor and ex-husband/ex-wife as Louie attempts a relationship with a woman who does not speak his language in the other five episodes of the story arc. There's a level of surreality hinted in these episodes as Jane (about age 8) is able to greet this girl in Hungarian and play impromptu violin duets with her. I interpreted it as some visual metaphor for the innate empathy or oneness among the female kind, but moments like this have popped up before within Louie and they've become more interesting to me each time. The news breaks in these episodes are equally surreal and provide some of the best laughs of the season. The Pamela episodes deal with the concept of emotional intimacy, particularly when physical attraction is less than ideal or on unequal terms. "In the Woods" is framed well within the rest of the series as Louie's junior high flashback is replayed in the present day life of Louie as he catches one of his daughters smoking pot. The 1970s school setting is established incredibly well, particularly with the fun but zany science teacher, what a great character. Jeremy Renner has a good small role as Louie's drug dealer. Once again, the child actors found for this show are very well cast.

Continuing to go beyond the genre of short comedy, Louie season 4 continues to showcase Louie C.K.'s skill in both writing and directing, serving not only entertainment but also bountiful food for thought for people of all ages. Despite the fact that the laughs may be fewer and farther between in the fourth season, it's still a funny show to be sure. Right now, Louie C.K. is in a good spot to continue writing and producing with this series and has gained the trust of network host FX as evidenced by his ability to push back the scheduled release of season 4 and negotiate a relatively low number of episodes for season 5 (a whopping seven). With creative control and time in his hands, Louie C.K. is a visionary at his prime.

West Side Story (1961)

It may not be appropriate to compare West Side Story (1957 broadway success and 1961 film) with A Cinderella Story (2004), but by interpreting an old story through a contemporary lens ultimately both projects did the exact same thing. The former just happened to do it 50 years earlier which provided for a setting that makes it feel classic today.  I don't know as much Shakespeare as I should, but I like Romeo and Juliet a fair amount and that's probably why I think the focus and the tragedy of the story is somewhat lost in West Side Story. The exposition is great with the urban setting, and I love the first 20 minutes of the film version with the fun snapping scene at the basketball court and the early Sharks/Jets confrontation.  It's easy to see with its cinematography why the 1961 film is ranked by AFI where it's been hovering around the top 50.  Everything tonally in this opening sequence is communicated without words which is an impressive accomplishment.  Similar to The Outsiders (1983), however, it's a slow downhill from the start as the strongest visuals fade away and the plot's ultimate payoff is disappointingly underwhelming.

I can't speak for any of the original or professional productions of the show as I've only seen school productions, but musically everything in the film adaptation seems to be quite well done, particularly in terms of choreography as some numbers are actual dances while others are fight scenes among the rival gangs. This mix is interesting and preserves the elements of art which could have been replaced with poorly-executed action considering the time period of the movie.  I acknowledge the songs and dance numbers as spectacular, but that opinion is more appreciation than reverence because personally I don't enjoy all of them. Some of the Puerto Rican women stuff is too much for me to take like when I have to leave the room for a minute or two during a Disney movie if I find one of the songs too annoying.

West Side Story is good, but when it comes down to it I'd rather watch a version of Romeo and Juliet (any version, I'm not picky here) for the full scale of the romance and tragedy or Grease (1978) for the teenage antics and more entertaining and lively musical aspect.  At least for me, West Side Story manages to fall short in each regard by trying to achieve both the fun and the drama.  I think the 1961 film is an iconic and clearly definitive version of the production, much like the 1965 adaptation of The Sound of Music with Julie Andrews, but for me it's still a bit overrated.  I acknowledge and recognize West Side Story as one of the prolific contemporary musicals, but it's just not one of my favorites.

Oculus (2013)

It's luck of the draw whenever you rent a horror movie knowing only the title and box cover art, but as fortune would have it I happened to enjoy this one.  It crosses paths with psychological thriller in terms of genre, and this combination is pulled off well.

It's about a brother and sister who revisit a haunting mirror from their childhood which might be the domain of an unspeakable demon or evil force. An empirical study sets the well-educated sister and recently emancipated brother on a collision course with the paranormal and their own pasts which fatefully turned the course of life for their once cookie-cutter family. James Lafferty has a minor role which I think will always strike me as out of place to see the actor who played Tree Hill jock/prep Nathan Scott in a horror movie or cast as a mass-shooter (like in S. Darko, 2009).

The characters must revisit their past to control their future, and a carefully controlled study is set to yield conclusive, indisputable evidence that the mirror holds an evil or at least out of this world power.  The simultaneously experienced brother/sister flashbacks/replayed memory loops/altered reality moments play out expertly.  They're not a shitty revelation of the original haunting like in most scary movies but truly an augmented reality manifesting itself in the minds of our dauntless protagonists in real time.  Masterfully, I might add.  The less you know ahead of time the better, but this one is worth checking out.

Body Snatchers (1993)

Along with The Thing From Another World, The Blob, and The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is one of those 1950s sci-fi/horror movies that has had its share of cinematic reinterpretations over the decades.  And for good reason.  The chilling tale of the pod people, the semi-parasitic race that replicate human hosts by sucking the life out of them, disposing the leftover skin-sack carcasses, and impersonating their victims as emotionless dopplegangers, is as haunting each time its retold.

This version from 1993 is good.  It doesn't come near the 1978 remake (not only one of the greatest remakes ever made but also one of the best science fiction films in general), but this version offers some new elements and effects, however, which make it relevant and worth seeing if still the inferior movie.  The major elements which keep this one fresh are its setting of an isolated military outpost, more direct verbal confrontations with the invaders, and a lot more scenes featuring prime body-snatching action.

The practical effects in the 1978 film are stunning, and they're really great here as well.  We get even more visuals of the embryonic pod replications as they begin copying and rapidly growing clones of their ensnared, sleeping victims.  From the vines that wrap around bodies finding their way into open mouths and nostrils to the grotesquely human-like pod fetuses, everything is very organic looking which I especially admire now that so many newer movies simply opt for CG.  The practical effects are particularly well-demonstrated in a couple instances where the replication process is stopped mid-cycle by awakened victims, leaving horrid, gasping abominations of living matter not quite at a point where the things can survive independent of their pods.  Another great moment, the bathtub scene is eerie and effective; it's easy to see where Slither (2007) might have taken inspiration.

In a sense, none of the body snatchers movies are remakes but simply separate accounts of the same global event from different isolated locations.  Excusing some of the overlapping character names between the 1956 and 1978 films, we see three separate locations of the invasion: San Francisco, the fictional California small town of Santa Mira, and an undisclosed military base on the outskirts of any major metropolitan areas.  Is the invasion restricted to California, the United States, the entire planet?  It remains to be seen.  As long as I'm alive and breathing there's hope for refuge, resistance, and ultimately retribution against the body snatchers.  Whether they're malevolent or amoral guardians, they must be stopped for humanity's sake!

Working across multiple films would be awesome.  Horror movies are infamous for poor writing and numerous sequels, but with proper focus and strong screenplays the body snatchers movies could achieve what World War Z (2013) should have been: a fictional historical narrative of a world scale phenomenon.  The potential for telling a story of greater magnitude of this nature requires installments with different characters and perspectives which is why I was surprised they went big screen with World War Z, especially when The Walking Dead has been so popular and successful since it premiered in 2010.  Despite the eventual plight of our protagonists in each of the instances of the invasion of the body snatchers, the audience has yet to see how widespread the phenomenon truly is. Would a new body snatchers adaptation starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig use any of this potential or reveal new information about our invaders?  The Invasion (2007), coming to a Blogger near you!

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

I'm a Planet of the Apes fan (movies, novel, TV series, everything), so I have some experience and opinion here, and this new movie Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the greatest since the 1968 film with Charlton Heston and in some ways even better than it.

The sci-fi element is not as dominant, but what remains is social drama and post-modern warfare. These themes are aided by surprisingly strong ape characters with personalities, motives, and individually-crafted body structures and facial features that look great. Andy Serkis reprises his role as Ceasar, and his standard high level of detail and dedication to a non-human character (Gollum, King Kong, etc.) is consistent across the entire ape cast. The story is divine, reminiscent of something Shakespearean, with the balance of power and sophistication of the ape communal system and impending period of conflict with the humans.

It's real beautiful and what Thor (2011) could have been if it cut out more of the Earth assimilation story and dropped the Two Broke Girls variety hour and incorporated more of the struggle for the throne story. But with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, it's like watching Hamlet or Richard III; it's a tragedy. You know peace can't work out between the humans and the apes but you want to see it work but then you also want to see them fight, and this film balances and rewards these two desires, the simultaneous yearning for peace and for humans versus monkeys action, incredibly well.

All the supporting elements add value in their own way, and the musical score and visuals of the San Franciscan ruins are supreme. Despite starring the wonderful Gary Oldman, what's great about this new Planet of the Apes film is that it's not plagued by singular stardom in being the Mark Wahlberg one or the James Franco one; it's just a really fucking great movie.

I, Frankenstein (2014)

While it took a huge beating in terms of reviews and ratings, I, Frankenstein is in actuality a completely watchable and passable movie.  The film takes the classic monster created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein and puts him in modern day in the middle of a feudal battle between demons from hell and gargoyles who are actually protectors from heaven, both clans disguising themselves as humans as they contest for dominion or sanctuary of the human race.  What I really like is that this adaptation takes the approach of having Frankenstein's monster actually speak fluently and have a philosophical and spiritual component to his character.  I'm not saying this movie matches the intellectual and amoral social conflict of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818), but it's more interesting than grunts and growls (as great as Boris Karloff was in Universal's Frankenstein films from the 1930s) and allows lead cast Aaron Eckhart to act well as an absurd yet iconic character, and his acting goes a long way to keep the movie afloat amongst a group of relatively flat characters.

The story is that Victor Frankenstein's creation kills his wife Elizabeth and outlives Victor himself.  The monster survives for hundreds of years but is tracked by demons who want to possess his soulless body so they can fill it with their own legion of spirits.  That's the one good plot device that allows for what is essentially Frankenstein meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer with a dose of Constantine for good measure.   Yvonne Strahovski (the hot Australian from 24: Live Another Day) discovers Dr. Frankenstein's journal and how to create life after the secret was lost since his death.  Demons want the power.  Gargoyles don't want them to have it.  They fight.  The action consists of Buffy-like weapon/hand-to-hand fights on the ground and CGI aerial fights in the sky.  Nothing that special, but it's entertaining.

A great thing about the movie is that it's a modest 92 minutes long.  None of this 165 minute Michael Bay Transformers crap.  I, Frankenstein might be shitty, but it's no bullshit, and that's something worth saying and, amidst a nearly empty Redbox kiosk, something worth watching.