Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

xerraire1 · 12-29-2004, 04:54 PM

Hi guys. I'll give you my frank and honest review.

I found that A series of Unfortunate events was a movie directed to be enjoyed by the kids. After readingh the books, many of you may see this. The whole idea is that the kids are superior to adults. Sure adults may not listen, but as long as you keep on believing, someone will notice and if they don't, you MAKE them notice.

With this in mind I found the movie great. Sure I'm a kid. Sure I have the hots for Emily Browning (she only likes about 1000ks away, !!!!). But I reckon the movie was done well. Now how to rate this?

The story line was good. Great infact. Can we account this to the writings of Lemony Snicket (I used to know his real name, but I've forgotten)? Yes I think so. I believe that the books are NOT as good as the movies. I find the constant mocking of things such as 'standoffish in this occasion meaning that Count Olaf was a big icey meanie' really immature. Maybe because I'm 14. Am I too old? I don't really think so.

That aside, I found the transition from book to movie excellent. It first involved everything in the book (nearly everything, I wanted to see the movie Super Brain Eating Zombies from Saturn, where Zombies take over the village and then they eventually become friends, this is briefly mention in Reptile Room) , yet the director/producer/script writer gave a unique turn of events. Instead of going in the linear fashion it went from the 1st book - third book - second book - first book again. Original, yet stood true to the book.

What was more intriguing, was the way how they directly linked Count Olaf to burning off the parents house, and how they instead of at the end Violet signing with the wrong hand and making it void, made it more theatical with Klaus using the Sun thing against Count Olaf.

As for Halx's critism of Jim Carrey, I would have to disagree. Count Olaf is a very flexible actor. Its almost as if he has generic personality. Shallow, greedy, evil. I found Jim Carrey captured the spirit of Count Olaf. His eccentric acting almost fitted Count Olaf exactly. Thats why it seemed like Jim Carrey, because Count Olaf is SO like Jim Carrey.

As for the acting in general I found it excellant. The amount of young, fresh actors who are setting up careers for themselves, how they are in perfect harmony with the more established actors (including Connilay. What a legend).

The special effects were fantastic, especially with Count Olafs punishment at the end, the reptiles, the tornado, the leeches, and especially the reconstruction of the house at the end and the beam of light when Klaus uses it (but if you look carefully, the light is slightly bent. Unless I'm wrong, light can't bend.. can it? ).

Styling was great. It was like it was set in the '20s. Yet there were some inconsistances (I think Violet pointed them out). The outfits (Emily Browning in Fishnet *shudders* ) and the styling (Emily Browning *flustered* oh yeah Jim Carrey hair excellent)..

From my point of view, this movie was fanstatic. Of course I could be wrong. People see movies differently. The only thing is Violet is 14, Klaus is 11 and Sunny is 2. How come Klaus is nearly taller then Violet (they shouldn'thave gotten a guy who had already hit puberty) . And shouldn't he have been wearing glasses.

9/10. Was fabolous. If it was original (not the book) it would have been 11/10. /Cam

p.s. Paradise Lost I have read most of the books. Kinda got tired of the books. Getting a bit repetitive. Its annoying having the same enemy again and again. But there is a big cult out there. All the baudalaires are somehow in a big cult. I think their parents where the leaders. After reading Lemony Snickets Unauthorized Autobiography (a joke in itself. How can you not authorize your biography when you are writing it yourself? ), it shows that he is part of this cult. Also later on in the series there is another Snicket which the Baudalaires encounter, and he has a mono brow and a eye on his ankle. Does the eye have something to do with it? Was the other snicket a spy into Count Olafs organisation? Does that explain all the eyes in Count Olafs house (emphasised in the books).

There is something deeper going there, and it has yet to show. But in the movie, I think it was a bit too obvious. I would rather be told a little bit each movie. And then in the last ten minutes of the last movie, to find out something that makes everything work. Wouldn't that be great?

p.p.s. I have read the books, and i got bored after the 10th.. or 11th. I forget

12-29-2004, 04:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
xerraire1 Banned	Hi guys. I'll give you my frank and honest review. I found that A series of Unfortunate events was a movie directed to be enjoyed by the kids. After readingh the books, many of you may see this. The whole idea is that the kids are superior to adults. Sure adults may not listen, but as long as you keep on believing, someone will notice and if they don't, you MAKE them notice. With this in mind I found the movie great. Sure I'm a kid. Sure I have the hots for Emily Browning (she only likes about 1000ks away, !!!!). But I reckon the movie was done well. Now how to rate this? The story line was good. Great infact. Can we account this to the writings of Lemony Snicket (I used to know his real name, but I've forgotten)? Yes I think so. I believe that the books are NOT as good as the movies. I find the constant mocking of things such as 'standoffish in this occasion meaning that Count Olaf was a big icey meanie' really immature. Maybe because I'm 14. Am I too old? I don't really think so. That aside, I found the transition from book to movie excellent. It first involved everything in the book (nearly everything, I wanted to see the movie Super Brain Eating Zombies from Saturn, where Zombies take over the village and then they eventually become friends, this is briefly mention in Reptile Room) , yet the director/producer/script writer gave a unique turn of events. Instead of going in the linear fashion it went from the 1st book - third book - second book - first book again. Original, yet stood true to the book. What was more intriguing, was the way how they directly linked Count Olaf to burning off the parents house, and how they instead of at the end Violet signing with the wrong hand and making it void, made it more theatical with Klaus using the Sun thing against Count Olaf. As for Halx's critism of Jim Carrey, I would have to disagree. Count Olaf is a very flexible actor. Its almost as if he has generic personality. Shallow, greedy, evil. I found Jim Carrey captured the spirit of Count Olaf. His eccentric acting almost fitted Count Olaf exactly. Thats why it seemed like Jim Carrey, because Count Olaf is SO like Jim Carrey. As for the acting in general I found it excellant. The amount of young, fresh actors who are setting up careers for themselves, how they are in perfect harmony with the more established actors (including Connilay. What a legend). The special effects were fantastic, especially with Count Olafs punishment at the end, the reptiles, the tornado, the leeches, and especially the reconstruction of the house at the end and the beam of light when Klaus uses it (but if you look carefully, the light is slightly bent. Unless I'm wrong, light can't bend.. can it? ). Styling was great. It was like it was set in the '20s. Yet there were some inconsistances (I think Violet pointed them out). The outfits (Emily Browning in Fishnet shudders ) and the styling (Emily Browning flustered oh yeah Jim Carrey hair excellent).. From my point of view, this movie was fanstatic. Of course I could be wrong. People see movies differently. The only thing is Violet is 14, Klaus is 11 and Sunny is 2. How come Klaus is nearly taller then Violet (they shouldn'thave gotten a guy who had already hit puberty) . And shouldn't he have been wearing glasses. 9/10. Was fabolous. If it was original (not the book) it would have been 11/10. /Cam p.s. Paradise Lost I have read most of the books. Kinda got tired of the books. Getting a bit repetitive. Its annoying having the same enemy again and again. But there is a big cult out there. All the baudalaires are somehow in a big cult. I think their parents where the leaders. After reading Lemony Snickets Unauthorized Autobiography (a joke in itself. How can you not authorize your biography when you are writing it yourself? ), it shows that he is part of this cult. Also later on in the series there is another Snicket which the Baudalaires encounter, and he has a mono brow and a eye on his ankle. Does the eye have something to do with it? Was the other snicket a spy into Count Olafs organisation? Does that explain all the eyes in Count Olafs house (emphasised in the books). There is something deeper going there, and it has yet to show. But in the movie, I think it was a bit too obvious. I would rather be told a little bit each movie. And then in the last ten minutes of the last movie, to find out something that makes everything work. Wouldn't that be great? p.p.s. I have read the books, and i got bored after the 10th.. or 11th. I forget Last edited by xerraire1; 12-29-2004 at 05:05 PM..