I'm not going to even bother to see this crap, even for FREE! My 2 hours could be put to better use...Like bitching about all the other "Razzie" worthy movies in this forum!  

That's still a good reason for it taking him weeks to read a 100 page book...          ;           ;           ;           ;  

Originally posted by Alaninho un-literate? as in illiterate? haha sorry head razz im sure you see the irony. anyway we dont need to agree to disagree, we could just all agree that moviewizguy is wrong 80% of the time  Response from Head RAZZberry: The use of "un-literate" was deliberate on my part -- Although the word may not exist, I used it to imply that Carrey is not widely read (nor does he often make even vaguely literary references in his work) as opposed to implying that he was incapable of reading (the literal definition of "illiterate")...

                                                                                            ]]> Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:01:22 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2181&PID=13832#13832 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2181&PID=13830#13830 Author: moviewizguy
Subject: 2181
Posted: October 15 2007 at 12:06pm

ok...I'm just saying I liked the lighter version of the story.]]> Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:06:13 +0000 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2181&PID=13830#13830 http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2181&PID=13827#13827 Author: Alaninho
Subject: 2181
Posted: October 15 2007 at 6:28am

un-literate? as in illiterate? haha sorry head razz im sure you see the irony.

anyway we dont need to agree to disagree, we could just all agree that moviewizguy is wrong 80% of the time 

Response from Head RAZZberry: The use of "un-literate" was deliberate on my part -- Although the word may not exist, I used it to imply that Carrey is not widely read (nor does he often make even vaguely literary references in his work) as opposed to implying that he was incapable of reading (the literal definition of "illiterate")...

Well, the books were much darker than the film and the film was trying to make it a family-friendly film without going too deep on the death stuff. And, although you don't agree, Jim Carrey was PERFECT for the role of Count Olaf! Even some critics suggest that! He played it wonderfully and not as dark as potrayed in the book, which is why most of the humor from the movie comes from him.

Response from Head RAZZberry: As long as we're beating a dead horse...The whole POINT of the LEMONY SNICKET novels was their "dark tone" -- albeit, with a sarcastic twist. If that isn't what the film-makers wished to make, WHY did they buy the rights and go through the motions of "adapting" the books in the first place? It's arguably the equivalanet of "re-imagining" THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK as an all-singing, all-dancing, "happy feet" Broadway musical...

Can we please just agree to disagree...and move on?? 

I've read the first book about 5 times and read only books 1-6. I have yet to read the other half but I thought the movie was close to the book and it was a movie, so they couldn't just add all the details in it. I was okay with the movie being in different order but the movie overall was one of the best films ever made.

Response from Head RAZZberry: I have stood by and listened to you defend an awful lot of crap on this Forum over the past few months, but I cannot sit idly by while you defend one of the greatest abominations (and bastardizations) of a children's literature classic in modern Hollywood history as "one of the best films ever made." The LEMONY SNICKET movie was, to put it as politely as I can...TOTAL GARBAGE!  Its utter disrespect for its source material -- and for everyone who read those books and came to the theatre hoping to see them presented in movie form -- was beyond staggering -- I might even argue it was criminal. The novels, with their brilliant use of vocabulary, their wonderfully snide tone, and their wide-eyed wonderment at the incredible predicaments the three orphans constantly find themselves in, are among the finest examples of recent writing for young readers. The film (over which I got the distinct impression the obviously un-literate Jim Carrey had undue influence) ran roughshod over the tone, plotting and quality of Handler's work and, without improving one syllable of it, managed to mangle it beyond recognition.  For one thing, the movie (and specifically Carrey's most unfortunate interpretation of Count Olaf) constantly replaced the literate, wildly amusing humor of the books with juvenile bathroom and sex jokes -- Now, there's an improvement!  

I think it's significant that Paramount was clearly looking at LEMONY SNICKET as their equivalanet of HARRY POTTER, and had planned a series of what would have been MOST unfortunate films. When the first one died a deservedly ignoble death at the hands of both critics and movie-goers, the idea of a franchise (thank God) died with it. I am hardly alone in reviling this film, moviewizguy, so I suggest you move on to defending some other piece of cinematic stench and abandon this argument... 

LS movie is Lemony Snicket movie...sorry?

Response from Head RAZZberry: Anyone who could, even for a nanosecond, consider the hideous LEMONY SNICKET movie "one of the best films ever made" must surely never have read the brilliant series of most fortunate books on which it was based. The film's near total lack of respect for its source material was breath-taking, and disgusted not only me, but my son's entire 4th grade class, to whom I had read the first of the series' novels in aniticipation of seeing the movie version. Once they had seen the film, I actually apologized to his class for encouraging them to attend it... 

LS movie was one of the best films ever made!

Response from Head RAZZberry: What the heck is "LS movie"?? Is that a typo, or some obtuse reference to a movie I'm unfamiliar with?? 

I see a unique irony in how Hollywood tries to tell us that uniformity is bad, then is uniform in these types of films themselves.  Probably their standard argument when defending a move like this would be, "You don't complain when Disney does it, so back off and don't complain with us."  Completely missing the point that Walt made changes that best helped the story arc in each case, and always tried to make each one a unique experience in its own right.  And there's no need to Americanize everything either; as the Potter films and The Lion the Witch and the Wardobe have proved (in the mainstream at least), children in general would be interested in other cultures and times if such a thing were presented to them in the proper way.  No doubt the various Asterix films made in France over the years would sell well if given a wider release; I myself enjoyed them.  Presenting a monchromatic view of the world as Hollywood often does is really no better off than what the Burmese government's doing at the moment, and perhaps by some obscure miracle, some of them might come to realize it.   

I heard a piece on NPR the other day where the books' original author was being interviewed. After holding out for decades about letting a film version be made, she talked about just how much of her original content has been "re-worked." It was one of the saddest things I've ever heard!

I only hope she got at least as much money for this as Dr. Suess' widow got for letting them make that horrible Cat in the Hat movie a few years back -- if you're going to sell your brain-child to the devil, you should at least get top price for it!

ONE of OUR PET PEEVES with HOLLYWOOD IS WHEN THEY TAKE a BELOVED CHILDREN's NOVEL and "RE-PURPOSE" IT to the POINT WHERE ANYONE WHO READ the BOOK CAN'T RECOGNIZE the FILM as HAVING ANYTHING to DO WITH WHAT the ORIGINAL AUTHOR WROTE. LEMONY SNICKET IS ONE RECENT EXAMPLE. BUT SEEKER OUT-DOES EVEN SNICKET in the LITERARY DISRESPECT SWEEPSTAKES.

BASED on a SERIES of POSTWAR BRITISH NOVELS (WHICH MAY HAVE INSPIRED J.K. ROWLING to CREATE HARRY POTTER) SEEKER as a MOVIE HAS CHANGED ITS MAIN CHARACTER from an ENGLISH BOY to an AMERICAN TEEN-AGE MALL RAT, ITS SETTING from WORLD WAR II to MODERN TIMES, and ITS TONE from ONE of CHILDLIKE WONDERMENT to the STANDARD "LET'S BLOW STUFF UP REAL GOOD" MIND-SET of TODAY's TINSEL TOWN TWADDLE.

ALONG with the REVIEWERS, WE SAY a BERRY BIG "BAH!" to the WHOLE TREND of "RE-IMAGINING" KIDDIE LIT, WHEN IT'S WHAT the KIDDIES READ THAT THEY WANT to SEE DEPICTED ON SCREEN.

FEEL FREE to GET IN YOUR TWO FARTHINGS BELOW... 

James (aka Generic American Kid): "Dude, where's my British accent??"