Nancy Meyers Mixes Scandal and Sweetness in It's Complicated

My friend Libbie decided last week that the time was ripe for another girls’ movie night with my mom. The consensus was that we wanted something light, but preferably not too juvenile, so we decided to give It’s Complicated, a romantic comedy focused on characters in their fifties and sixties, a try.

My first thought as we began to watch the movie was that it reminded me of Something’s Gotta Give, the 2003 comedy starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton as very different people brought together under unusual circumstances. I wasn’t that surprised, then, when I learned that both movies were written and directed by Nancy Meyers, who also helmed 2006’s The Holiday.

The premise of It’s Complicated involves a divorced couple who, ten years after infidelity separated them, rekindle their passion for each other on a trip to see their son’s college graduation. Alec Baldwin is Jake Adler, a rogue who is no longer so thrilled with his youthful wife Agness (Lake Bells), who has become an insufferable nag and whose son from another relationship runs him ragged. He has no moral qualms about cheating on his second wife with his first; indeed, it seems that a part of him wants to pretend that the last ten years never happened.

Meanwhile, although Jane (Meryl Streep) resents Agness, she feels guilty about the adultery. What’s more, she can tell that even as Jake rediscovers his old affection for her, the narcissistic characteristics that caused such a problem in their marriage are still very much in force. She has spent the past decade building a life for herself, becoming truly independent and successful as a pastry chef, so Jane is uneasy from a moral perspective and because she fears getting hurt again.

Jane and Jake have three children, all of whom remain unaware of their parents’ dalliances throughout the majority of the film. I was familiar with none of those youthful actors, who didn’t have to stretch themselves much as their roles were fairly minor. However, I found the closeness of the characters sweet; it was refreshing to see a movie in which young adult siblings all get along so well.

By far the most interesting member of the younger generation is Harley, who is engaged to the older Adler daughter. The unassuming, affable charm that makes him so lovable on The Office is very apparent here as subtly comedic John Krasinski portrays this man who feels like one of the family and who has been burdened with the accidental knowledge of what the Adler parents are up to. Equally likable is Steve Martin in the uncharacteristically mellow role of Adam, a gentle architect who begins to fall for Jane as he works on an addition to her house.

The slowly developing romantic storyline between Jane and Adam is very tender and easy to root for, though Meyer left me guessing for most of the movie as to which suitor, if any, Jane would ultimately choose. While Streep and Martin both bring a mature sweetness to their roles, Baldwin is just bumbling enough that it’s possible to sympathize with him when he’s being outrageously inappropriate. There’s a bit of lurid language, mostly among the women in Jane’s circle of longtime friends, but the movie never gets graphic, and nudity only figures into one scene, where it is used to great comic effect. Indeed, this particular scene had my mom in stitches, as did an extended sequence involving the main characters sharing a joint at a party and acting extremely loopy as a result.

After the movie was over, Mom said that she didn’t think Libbie and I appreciated the movie quite as much as she did. I do think that It’s Complicated is probably funniest and most poignant for those who are closer to the ages of Streep, Baldwin and Martin, but I found it funny and surprisingly sweet overall and was glad to see at least some acknowledgment of the negative consequences an affair can bring about, even if it is between two people who were once married to each other.

Get Inspired By Two Dream-Chasers in Julie and Julia

The Oscars are right around the corner. I find myself woefully unprepared this year, but a couple weeks ago I managed to cross one more contender off my list. It’s a movie that I suspect will inspire many a delicious delicacy at Oscar parties across the country: Julie and Julia.

This film, written and directed by Nora Ephron and based on the book by Julie Powell, tracks the journeys of two women from frustrated obscurity to culinary greatness. Julie (Amy Adams) is an aspiring writer who spends her days as a receptionist fielding angry phone calls from New Yorkers still reeling from 9-11. She longs to do something different, something that will inflame her passions and give her something to look forward to after a difficult day. The solution? A blog.

The subject of the blog? Cooking her way through Mastering the Art of French Cooking, the magnum opus of kitchen virtuoso Julia Child (Meryl Streep). As Julie embraces this project, eventually winning oodles of followers and becoming so caught up in it that it begins to put stresses on her marriage, we see the struggles Julia herself went through as she took up French cooking and embarked on her cookbook project with two friends. This portion of the movie is based on her memoir My Life in France.

I’ve found Adams endearing in nearly every role she’s taken on, and while she doesn’t quite have the charm here that she does in such films as Enchanted and Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, she seems like a likable enough young woman, and I can certainly relate to the desire to make a name for oneself as a writer through online efforts. At the same time, Julie has some negative characteristics, such as a tendency toward egotism, that are amplified by her endeavor, which makes her jocular husband Eric (Chris Messina) all the more appealing. A light-hearted and very supportive man, he truly is the glue holding Julie’s life together.

But even he pales in comparison to the gentlemanly, erudite, utterly devoted Paul Child, portrayed by the magnificent Stanley Tucci. This was a man with an impressive career of his own who never sought to keep his wife in the shadows, who always encouraged her to pursue her dreams. This was also a man with great integrity whose diplomatic views earned him one doozy of an interrogation by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s ilk. It’s easy to understand how Julia would have blossomed so brilliantly when sharing a life with such a remarkable fellow.

The incomparable Streep, who starred in Doubt with Adams last year and The Devil Wears Prada with Tucci in 2006, has been getting plenty of raves for her performance, all of them well-deserved, as she completely immerses herself in the role, to the extent that I almost forget who the actress is behind the portrayal. Her voice, mannerisms, inflections, body language... All of it makes her a thoroughly convincing version of the famous chef, and because she is such a distinct character, there’s a lot of humor to be mined from her story. Julia’s joie de vivre comes across perfectly, and more often than not, her escapades bring a big smile to the face.

This is a beautifully shot film that makes one want to go to France and to attempt cooking French cuisine oneself. Rarely has a movie taken such care to make food look so enticing, so that one can almost smell it as it sits simmering on the table. Of course, there are a few disasters too, and a very funny scene involving an unfortunate excess of onions. But whatever is on the menu, Julie and Julia serves up a treat.

2008's Group of Films Is Dark But Ultimately Uplifting

After watching so many movies in 2007, I lost a bit of momentum in 2008, but I've still seen more than 20 of last year's movies and was pretty impressed with most of what I saw. I was disappointed at having to wait until 2009 for the sixth Harry Potter installment, but the return to Narnia and further Pixar and Indiana Jones adventures helped make up for it.

Prince Caspian - One of my most-anticipated moves of the year, this second Chronicle of Narnia transports the Pevensie children to a point more than a thousand years removed from the moment of their departure from Narnia. Their kingdom is in ruins, and few remain who believe the old stories. One of the skeptics is Trumpkin, the dwarf who serves as their guide in this semi-familiar landscape. While I have issues with some of the changes made to plot and character - particular Peter and Caspian - and wish Aslan had been more central, Peter Dinklage's performance as Trumpkin is magnificent, and the cinematography is spectacular.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Indy rides again! Despite being forever traumatized by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, I was looking forward to the chance to see Harrison Ford don the fedora on the big screen, and it sure was fun to whoop and holler along with the opening night crowd as he wriggled out of all sorts of life-threatening situations, scarcely any less spry than he was in the '80s. While it would have been neat if Sean Connery had agreed to reprise his role as Indy's dad, Shia LeBoeuf made a great sidekick. On a shelf in my room, I still have a couple of commemorative Dr Pepper cans with scenes from the movie staring out at me, and they always make me smile. If Harrison wanted to come back for one more, I wouldn't complain.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - I've been a fan of Frances McDormand since Almost Famous, and Amy Adams has won me over immediately in every film role I've seen her in since Catch Me If You Can, so when I saw that the two were starring together in a period dramedy about a frumpy English nanny who finds herself in the employ of an elegant American actress, I was immediately intrigued. Throw in the adorable Lee Pace from Pushing Daisies and a glowing recommendation from a friend who tends to be ruthless in his film criticism, and it all adds up to a movie for which I had huge expectations. Happily, this utterly charming film fulfilled them all. Definitely one of the best of the year.

Penelope - This fun, visually appealing modern-day fairy tale boasts a terrific cast that includes Christina Ricci, James McAvoy, Reese Witherspoon and Peter Dinklage. Some of it is a bit over-the-top, but on the whole, this tale of a girl with the snout of a pig hits the right notes, particularly as a family film. Its message about the importance of education and independence is a good one, and even the characters who start out antagonistic end up sympathetic.

Secret Life of Bees - Dakota Fanning, on the verge of no longer being a child actress, portrays a young teen desperate to get away from her borderline abusive father and learn something about the mother she accidentally killed years before. With her is a feisty black housekeeper played by Jennifer Hudson. Before long, they come to stay at a home run by three black sisters, from whom the runaway learns a lot about life, love, prejudice and what home ought to feel like. A sweet romance and a powerful performance by Sophie Okonedo and the anchoring serenity of Queen Latifah help make this coming-of-age story a great movie.

Swing Vote - The election was on everybody's mind in 2008, so this was a very timely movie. Kevin Costner stars as a hapless guy who is more or less being raised by his precocious pre-teen daughter, played by Madeline Carroll. I was excited to see her, as she previously played Annie, Ben Linus's childhood best friend on LOST, and I found her pretty likable, albeit a tad self-righteous, in this role. The movie is far-fetched, as it revolves around the idea that due to a voting glitch, the next President of the United States will be determined by this everyman, but it's an interesting concept. While the two candidates and their advisors do their best to win him over, he eventually comes to appreciate what an important task he has. Fun performances, especially by Kelsey Grammer and Stanley Tucci, make this thought-provoking family film even more likable.

Kit Kittredge: An American Girl - Speaking of Tucci, he has a supporting role in this movie as well, along with several other big names, including Joan Cusack and the always-hilarious Wallace Shawn. Abigail Breslin plays the intrepid would-be reporter who seeks a great story to sell to the newspaper. This Depression-era story feels very timely, with enough excitement and plenty of colorful characters to keep children engaged. This was the first American Girl movie to make it to the big screen, and it feels like the sort of wholesome flick that belongs on The Wonderful World of Disney. A winner all around.

Doubt - This quietly unsettling movie is anchored by three powerful performances, with a fourth that packs an incredible whallop despite the actress's short time on screen. Amy Adams is the naive young nun who thinks she may have seen something fishy; Philip Seymour Hoffman is the forward-thinking priest who stands accused. Both are compelling, but most riveting of all is Meryl Streep as the school's formidable principal, a sister who has long suspected the priest of wrongdoing and is determined to bring him down. By the end of the movie, there's still no clear statement of exactly what happened, and viewers are left to contemplate for themselves which person's testimony is the most gripping.

WALL-E - Pixar just keeps cranking out amazing movies, so it's become pretty much guaranteed that each new year will bring a fantastic new computer-animated film, probably during the summer. I'd been looking forward to this one in particular for quite some time, as my brother had shown me a preview the previous year. Given my love of Short Circuit, I immediately took to the little roving robot with the enormous eyes. I wasn't entirely sure what to expect when I went into this one opening night, as the robot of the title was practically the only character I'd seen mentioned. Would there be any humans? How many other robots would we meet? By the time people did show up, I was startled. The second portion of the film is more action-oriented, providing most of the plot momentum for the movie. But the beginning is absolutely gorgeous and devastating at the same time, a slice of near-silent film in which one stoic little piece of machinery collects bits of beauty in a discarded world. It's a darn shame this didn't score a Best Picture nomination.

In Bruges - It's fairly uncommon for me to list R-rated movies among my favorites - and this one earns its rating more than most - but I couldn't help being amused and profoundly moved by this movie about a pair of hit-men taking a very strange holiday together in Belgium. Brendan Gleeson is the gleeful mentor, Colin Farrell the brooding apprentice, Ralph Fiennes the harsh boss who doesn't turn up until late in the movie. There are scenes of explosive violence, and scarcely a sentence goes by without profanity, yet I think the movie's screenplay nomination was well-deserved, and it has stuck with me more than most of the movies I've seen in the past year.

Interestingly, most of my favorite movies of 2008 had a dark element, but most also left me feeling very positive about the resilience of the human spirit. In times of adversity, that's a very encouraging message to find in the theater.

Unsettling Doubt Encourages Self-Examination

During my family's Christmas travels, we watched Mamma Mia!, which stars Meryl Streep as the free-spirited but world-weary mother of a young bride-to-be. With that singing, dancing, emotional Streep fresh in our minds, it was jarring to observe her in Doubt, the film version of the acclaimed play adapted and directed by playwright John Patrick Shanley. In this unsettling movie, she portrays Sister Aloysius, the principal of a Catholic grade school in 1964. From our first glimpse of her, dressed in a restrictive habit recalling the Puritans and peering severely down at unruly students through small spectacles, she seems the perfect picture of the stereotypical oppressive elementary school nun. The pupils in her charge fear her, straightening up and ceasing their chatter at the sight of her. She is a force to be reckoned with.

While Streep makes the most striking figure in the film, equally important are Amy Adams as innocent, altruistic Sister James, who seems to be at least a generation younger than any of the church's other sisters, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn, an eloquent, charismatic preacher who may or may not be guilty of inappropriate contact with a vulnerable youngster. The boy in question is Donald (Joseph Foster), the school's first African-American student. He is shy and lonely, and Father Flynn appears to serve as his protector and confidante, a stabilizing force in a tumultuous environment. But when Sister James witnesses something that sets off alarms in her mind, Sister Aloysius seizes upon it and becomes determined to bring down this man who she fervently believes is a threat to her students' well-being.

Doubt is expertly written in such a way that audience members can legitimately draw one of two opposing conclusions. Perhaps Father Flynn is an innocent man whose hands-on approach and progressive ideas are distasteful to the conservative Sister Aloysius. While it's clear that she truly believes he is guilty, one wonders to what extent that opinion is formed by her own prejudices. On the other hand, he might be a pedophile with a history of victimizing children, making the principal's efforts laudable. Certainly there is evidence to suggest that this is a possibility, but the movie does not offer a definitive answer. Ultimately, whether you walk away from the film thinking he's guilty or innocent (or, like me, are equally torn between the two), it says as much about your personality and opinions as it does about the movie.

Each of the three leads does exceptional work. My favorite of the characters, and probably the one with whom we are meant to identify most, is wide-eyed, sweet-natured Sister James, who is torn between wanting to believe the best of people and desiring the welfare of her pupils. In her delicate performance, this conflict plays out strikingly. Hoffman plays his character as likable most of the time, having an easy rapport with students, cracking jokes and offering comfort. But as Sister Aloysius pursues his resignation, he grows increasingly agitated, to the point of explosive anger that could as easily be the result of frustration at false accusations as fear that a dark secret will be exposed. Streep's stern sister remains calm and cool in most scenes, but when her vulnerabilities seep through her steely demeanor, they threaten to unhinge her, particularly in her searing final lines. Her Puritanical garb accentuates the impression that she is on a witch hunt of sorts. Also compelling is Viola Davis as Donald's protective mother, who shares a powerful scene with Sister Aloysius midway through the movie.

The movie takes place at Christmastime, so the contrast between the warmth of joyful celebration within the church walls and the barren chill outside reflects the film's central struggle. Cinematographer Roger Deakins, who so hauntingly captured the bleak landscape of No Country For Old Men, is especially effective in showcasing windblown objects such as the once-vibrant leaves that echo the conflicted Sister James' loss of naivety. He makes frequent use of odd camera angles, giving us many close-ups and often tilting the camera so that the world we are watching feels topsy-turvy. It's a disorienting but very effective technique.

Doubt is not without its moments of levity, and the "thematic material" for which it is rated PG-13 is never addressed in any coarse detail. There's almost no objectionable language, and the presence of children in many of the scenes might be enough to sustain the interest of some youngsters. Still, this is definitely a film aimed primarily at adults, and it seeks to explore the nature of truth and the power of accusation. In its acknowledgment of uncertainty as an element of the human condition which it may not be possible or even healthy to deny, it encourages thoughtful self-examination and a possible admission that we, in the troubled words of one character, "have such doubts."

The de Vil Wears Prada...

When I started watching Ugly Betty last year, it reminded me of The Devil Wears Prada, a movie I'd heard a lot about but hadn't seen. I finally amended that this weekend, and as I watched, nearly every scene reminded me of Ugly Betty. The two explore very similar territory: smart but frumpy girl gets a job as an assistant at a fashion magazine and overcomes obstacles to distinguish herself. Plucky Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is like Betty, while catty Emily (Emily Blunt) and sycophantic Nigel (Stanley Tucci) are somewhat similar to Amanda and Marc and devilish editor Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) recalls the scheming Wilhemina. Ultimately, I like Ugly Betty better, but the movie, adapted from Lauren Weisberger's popular novel, is still very enjoyable.

When Andy seeks a job with Runway, a premiere fashion magazine, she doesn't even know the name of the editor-in-chief, but she doesn't let her ignorance stop her from trying to make a strong impression. Though Miranda, a cool professional with Cruella De Vil looks and a deadly calm demeanor, initially rejects Andy with a curt "That's all," a line she repeats frequently as an assertion that her authority leaves no room for debate, Andy's impassioned plea wins her a shot at the job she's told a million girls would kill for. It's not long, however, before she begins to see it as the job that would kill a million girls...

Just attempting to fit in with this ultra-fashion-conscious group is hard enough, as Ugly Betty demonstrates. But when your boss is completely unreasonable, making demands at a mile a minute, many of them ludicrous tasks like getting a flight out of a city in a hurricane and tracking down copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows a year before its publication, one can't help but wonder whether the job is really worth all the trouble, even with the promise that it will open doors to valuable opportunities.

Streep is just as sensational as all the buzz led me to believe, and she's really what makes this movie so much fun. But Hathaway is winning, and Blunt does a great job as the demeaning but hard-working assistant who, unlike Andy, aspires to work in the fashion industry. Probably my favorite character is Nigel, who showers Andy with snark but also becomes her ticket to the inner track, using his expertise to perform an extreme makeover on her which, while not as dramatic as Hathaway's transformation in The Princess Diaries, is still pretty striking. I always enjoy Tucci, and he makes Nigel both entertaining and sympathetic.

The movie is a coming-of-age story about Andy finding her way in the fashion industry and trying not to lose herself in the process. As such, the romantic subplot feels like a side trip, especially since neither of her love interests - live-in boyfriend Nate (Adrian Grenier) and famous writer Christian Thompson (Simon Baker) - is very exciting. Christian comes across as too cocky and looks about twice Andy's age, while Nate just seems completely bland and disengaged.

But people don't watch The Devil Wears Prada because they want to see a touching love story. They watch it so they can see Streep pushing Hathaway around, and there's plenty of that, though Miranda does eventually display a modicum of humanity. Is the title really a fair assessment? I'll let you be the judge!

Mind-Bending Adaptation. a Little Too Clever For Me

We writers are a strange breed. But hopefully most of us aren't quite as strange as Charlie Kaufman, the lauded screenwriter responsible for several mind-bending movies, among them Adaptation., in which he is also the main character, played by Nicholas Cage. Cage also plays Kaufman's twin brother Donald, who initially comes across as lackadaisical but by the end seems to have his life much more together than Charlie does. Which is a shame, since Donald doesn't exist, leaving us only with a man who seems at serious risk of losing control of his mental faculties.

I pity Charlie Kaufman in this film. I'm sure he's been fictionalized, as unreliable as everything else we might presume to be true in what is supposedly a non-fictional account of Kaufman's struggles to adapt Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief, but it takes a brave man to write such a pathetic version of himself into a movie, to make himself out to be a man embroiled in paranoia and obsession, capable of churning out brilliant screenplays but only after months of agonizing writer's block, scarcely able to function as a social being, as evidenced by his interaction with his more charismatic brother and his lamentable attempt to score a date with a perky waitress at the diner he frequents.

Spike Jonze directs this film that is part action-adventure - mostly toward the end, when a seriously unhinged Orlean (Meryl Streep), with the help of eccentric orchid bandit John Laroche (Chris Cooper, in a wildly engaging performance that won him an Oscar), decides Kaufman must die because he knows too much - and part PSA for anyone who ever imagined the writing lifestyle to be glamorous. It's enough to make a fledgling writer reconsider her career path.

The film earns its R rating with profanity aplenty and bits of nudity and violence. It earns its many screenwriting honors with a maddeningly original screenplay. I say maddening because it causes me to question my own sense of reality. Ever since I read The Princess Bride and was taken in by William Goldman's long, drawn-out search for S. Morgenstern's book of the same title and his subsequent determination to write a "good parts" version for his son, I have felt a sense of betrayal when I can't take authors at their word. I almost believed that Charlie Kaufman had a twin brother who died while helping him adapt The Orchid Thief; then I almost believed Susan Orlean didn't exist, though I recalled seeing her book on the shelves of the bookstore where I work. I find this deeply disconcerting.

Adaptation. is an intriguing film. It probably merits another watching, but I'm not that eager to plunge once more into such a perplexing movie populated by such bizarre characters. Instead, I think I'll just agree that Charlie Kaufman is a genius. And if this is the cost of brilliance, maybe I can handle being mediocre.

Not Too Unfortunate of an Adaptation

The end of 2004 marked the first holiday movie season after Lord of the Rings, which meant that there couldn’t possibly be a film that would create the same level of anticipation in me. Still, there were several movies in which I had at least a moderate interest, and so far I’ve managed to see most of them. A glaring exception is Finding Neverland, which never even made it to a theater in Erie. For shame.

A couple weeks ago, my dad noticed that A Series of Unfortunate Events had hit the dollar theater, and he offered to take me to see it that weekend. We went, though Dad didn’t have a very clear idea of what he was in for. He certainly didn’t expect the first unfortunate event, a glitch that resulted in his seeing a trailer for Pooh’s Heffalump Movie upside-down and backwards. I was getting popcorn at the time and was spared the opportunity to search for Satanic messages in the trailer that was so benign the right way around.

But to the film. I applaud the creativity of the opening and closing. The animated bits that persist through the end of the credits reward those few who actually bother to stick around until the screen switches back to its intermediary line-up of trivia and Coke ads. Meanwhile, the beginning sequence, presenting in an obnoxiously bright and cheerful manner the adventures of a happy little elf, calls to mind the fake cover so graciously provided to readers of Lemony Snicket’s Unauthorized Autobiography.

These are potentially the most self-referential stories I’ve ever read, and the film goes to just as much trouble as the books to warn us of impending danger and offer a more palatable alternative. Jude Law, hunched over an antiquated typewriter, provides the doleful, sympathetic voice of Lemony Snicket himself. That narratorial presence is my favorite part of the books, and Law inhabits the role naturally, his vocal timbre a perfect match for Snicket’s warnings and foreshadowing.

The other most impressive on-screen presence is, of course, Jim Carrey. As the film was
promoted, Count Olaf was about the only part of the movie anyone seemed to care about. Carrey camps it up as much as he can, making Olaf a little less sinister and a little more ludicrous. I saw Carrey promoting the movie on Letterman, and he explained that his take on Olaf was a wannabe actor who is very bad at what he does. All of his characterizations are over-the-top and easy to see through; though he reappears in several different guises, the unfortunate Baudelaire orphans recognize him immediately each time (though their incompetent legal representative, Mr. Poe (Timothy Spall) can never see it until it is too late). As in the Austin Powers films, the villain is the most comical character. Of his later incarnations, I find Stefano, the man who comes to assist the reptile-loving Uncle Monty (Billy Connolly), quite irritating, but I love his role as the crusty old sea captain who woos paranoid Aunt Josephine (Meryl Streep). This is fortunate for me, since I adore Uncle Monty but find Aunt Josephine extremely grating.

The orphans, particularly Violet (Emily Browning) and Klaus (Liam Aiken), spend most of the film looking quite somber. Infant Sunny (Kara and Shelby Hoffman) seems to take a brighter view of things, adopting a disposition to match her name. Violet and Klaus are fine, but Sunny gets on my nerves, mainly because of her sarcastic comments (which appear in subtitles as she can only make a series of babyish sounds). The younger members of the audience found this very amusing, but I thought the remarks were stupid and very out of keeping with the style of the book. Snicket does frequently provide possible translations for Sunny’s gurgling, but these speculative bits of dialogue are droll and worth a chuckle. In the film, they’re just going for cheap laughs, and it degrades the integrity of Snicket’s idiosyncratic linguistic usage.

As I mentioned before, Uncle Monty, the affectionate, eccentric snake collector, is a character I hold in high regard. When I read the book, I fell in love with him after some trepidation, initially fearing that he might be as untrustworthy as Count Olaf. He soon became my favorite character in the series up to that point, so I was pleased to see him make the transition to film so well. I did not pick up on his being Scottish in the book, so that was a nice surprise as well. The lilting melody he sings to the orphans with the aid of one of his favorite snakes was one of the film’s high points for me.

Several high-profile actors put in an appearance in the film, most oddly Dustin Hoffman in a very brief role as a theater critic and Gilbert Gottfried uttering just one squawk as a very familiar-looking duck. It’s not so much the actors, though, as the set design that captures the attention. The film is gorgeously grotesque, and every set piece (with the exception of those used in the opening sequence) has a bit of a gothic feel to it.

The film combines the first three books and takes considerable liberties with the material. We still wind up with the ending from the first book, though it is considerably altered to make for a more acceptably dramatic movie climax. While the conclusion is rather dreary and certainly open-ended enough to allow for a sequel, Law’s narration prevents it from seeming like a true unhappy ending. In fact, the film’s last words are “In that sense, they were very fortunate indeed.” Well, I guess a little thread of warm and fuzzy running through all that darkness can’t hurt.

The movie is not as good as the books, but it’s a pretty good adaptation, especially in visual terms. Fans of the books should check it out. And if they can get past the inherent oddity of the movie, as my dad eventually did, the unindoctrinated may just be inspired to pick up one of Mr. Snicket’s books themselves.