Halx

I saw this moving Thursday night thanks to Cynthetiq who hooked me up. He will receive much love and an optional handjob later.

What was I expecting from this movie? Sort of a mix between Harry Potter and the Adams Family. It was, pretty much that. A troupe of young characters with individual talents skirt danger and adults, all with a dark, eerie tint about it. None of it is terribly exciting... for me at least. The word I would use is mesmerizing. It's just a compelling thing to watch, if for nothing but the visuals.

There were three things that I found wrong with this movie in it's entirety.

Jim Carrey was his old self. He never really let much of the character he was playing show... you always knew it was Jim Carrey. So that raises the question... was the character Jim or was Jim the character? I wished he could have broken out a little real acting... that would have make Count Olaf slightly more believable for we more cerebral adults.

For as dark as this movie made itself out to be, there was not one truely satisfying moment relating to mood, atmosphere, or circumstance. The movie just rolls along on it's storyline tracks and never takes a sharp turn. Mostly everything is predictable or contrived. You sorta begin to beg for a little twist here and there... but you know exactly what's gonna happen at every turn.

While there is a 'moral' to the story and a general feel-good vibe underlying the whole thing, there is also an attempted mystery scenario that develops itself a little as the movie goes on. The sad part is, it never becomes too compelling to even care about. So much potential - very little execution.

I think these three points add up to firmly place this movie as a kid's movie. It's a kid's movie made up to make the kids think that they're seeing an adult movie. It's like those Goosebumps books - huge hit with kids, but to the trained and expectant eye, it's about as dreary as a walk in the park on a spring day.

On a side note, I wanted to see this movie primarily to stare at Emily Browning's lips for 2 hours. I know she's only 15 or 16, but I'm blaming the studio for dressing her up like that. Some of those costumes that she wore were amazing. ...And those lips! She also does a fairly fine job of acting.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

inharmony

The movie I thought was great. I've read some of one of my son's Snicket books and I'm into the whole dark, depressed side of his stories. Looking forward to the next...

__________________
"You can't shake hands with a clenched fist."
Ghandi

"Things do not change: We change"
Henry David Thoreau

Halx

Not many people seeing this movie? Nobody willing to weigh in?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

RedCometChar

I've been planning to see it and still intend to, but I do admit you're confirming some of my potential misgivings, particularly about Carrey. Olaf isn't a funny or cuddly guy, though Jim looks great in the makeup. Would have been a great part for Vincent Price.

I'll probably take in the movie next week, some time when there aren't as many kids on the loose.

__________________
Killing that robot makes me want to go home.

yellowchef

It could have been more like the books,but I guess thats what you get when you smash 13 books into one movie... and jim was neither the character nor was he jim, he was just there and I feel quite let down as he is usually a good actor.

the movie was good, but nothing I couldnt have waited for.

noodles

the victorian gothic atmosphere was badass. they did a good job with it.

the plot seemed forced and uninvolving to me. it was obvious that we were transitioning between short novels, the flow just wasn't there. the climax and ending had me going "what? that was it?" at the end.

jim carrey did a good job with his trademark wackiness. i, however, didn't think it fit in to the atmosphere of the movie most of the time. if he had toned it down, he would've come off as much more sinester.

Arc101

I really liked the gothic look of the film. However, it is a kids film and does not quite work for adults. Jim Carrey was not very good in this, he spent far too much time chewing the scenery. He really needed to tone down his role. He should look at how Alan Rickman plays the bad guy in the Harry Potter films. So the look of the film 8/10, Jim Carrey 2/10, Overall 5/10

Sargeman

This movie was okay. The plot line, to me, just didn't get too deep. It didn't really grab the audience and bring them into the movie. My kids lost interest in the movie even before it was halfway through. The characters were good but almost too generic. In other words it's as if the movie was trying to focus on the characters and what a good job the actors were doing of playing the characters.

I did enjoy the whole calling the baby a monkey througout the whole movie thing. You know how there are things that some people find funny and others don't, well that was my thing.

__________________
...because there are no facts, there is no truth, just data to be manipulated. I can get you any results you like, what's it worth to you.....

Paradise Lost

Me and my friend went to see it the day it came out... Went to the second showing but it was still Matinee price (which was nice!) and there were only about 15 other people in a theather that normally can seat close to 600. WHICH WAS NICE!

Anyway... The movie, for kids, I suppose could be seen as suspenceful, kinda scary, dark, and quite mean, in a way... But for me and my friend, none of these things were having any affect on us. I spent most of the movie trying to figure out the plot, why the Count was doing what he was he doing (other than for the inheritance,) if he was the one burning the houses all the time, is he part of some larger, and until now, unseen Cult? Why burn houses?

I've never read the books so I was trying to watch it for basic artistic value and plot. I've never been a big fan of Computer Generated special effects ( I played MUDs for crying out loud, graphics don't impress me much.) But I have to say, the graphics in this movie were very well done -- and one of the things that kept me interested in the movie. I guess you could say it had a surrealist quality about it. My buddy and I agreed that it was like watching the first Harry Potter movie, if you didn't read the books (after the first one) all you got out of the first movie was an introduction.

Here are the characters, here are the good guys, the bad guys, the guys you're not quite sure about. You only know about a little about the kids parents in this movie, as in the 1st HP movie. You find out a bit about the "enemy," but nothing much.

Although, if they make a second addition to the series, I'll definitely go and see it, it seems like a movie series with alot of potential (I know the books are a long series and already have shown THEIR potential) but it's different when it comes to a movie.

I give it 3.5/5.

PS: Yeah, that girl was smoking.

__________________
"Marino could do it."

boom29

I didn't have any expectations going into the movie, but I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Having not read the books probably had much to do with that, but I will say that having watch the movie has made me want to read the books.

Halx, I agree with you about Emily Browning, she's a beautiful girl.

Mephisto2

Has anyone read the books?

Mr Mephisto

xerraire1

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

Mephisto2

Thanks for the thoughtful and constructive review and post.

Unfortunately, good bye and we'll see you in about 4 years time.


Cue.... 1, 2, 3....


Mr Mephisto

xerraire1

And I thought this board was non-agist, non-sexist and non - racist.

If I didn't tell you I was 14, would you actually read my post and make a positive response?

p.s. I was reading those goosebump books when i was six. I lubb'd them! I was reading one yesterday. Utter crap

ICER

I've read the books. Which was far better then the movie. But my kids really like it.

Emily Browning is going to be a real hottie real soon. Just like Emma Waston of 'Harry Potter' was when we first met her. you could just tell she's going be hot. I have to agree with Halx. My God, those lips shouldn't belong to someone so young.

__________________
What's the difference between congress and a penitentiary?
One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.
~~David Letterman

jonjon42

At least I'm not alone in that.....those lips were a little freaky for a kid her age....

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Mephisto2

No, I believe there is an 18+ rule. Perhaps not, as you are still here.


Mr Mephisto

MageB420666

There is an 18+ rule, but maybe they changed it since the Tittie boared was restricted? Or maybe a moderator has yet to see this thread.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

xerraire1

Yes i believe its aged 13 now. I did put my date of birth in the registry.

Or I could be wrong and Halx is going towards the 'ban because hes a little squeeler' button. Anywhoooo back on topic.

I liked it. My Dad liked it. My older sister did. Maybe we're oddballs...

desal75

I thought it was a decent way to pass a couple hours. Wouldn't go see it again but will probably watch it on cable in two years.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

Zotz

I loved the look of the film too! However, Jim Carrey's same old tired routine and schticks really made the experience a drag. It seems like he's done the t-rex gag in every other movie he's made. He's a talented guy and has made me laugh a lot. However, he needs some new material. I thought the baby's lines were better than his.

boom29

Inspired by the movie, my cousin went out and bought the books -- all of them! Good for me, since I have now began to read them. Very enjoyable. I'm through book two and can see why people that had previously read the books did not like the movie. Having said that, I don't think the things they changed (so far) are "too much" as to really take away from enjoying the movie. I personally would never expect a movie to be exactly the same as the book that it is based on, so it doesn't bother me too much.

Justsomeguy

The movie just was not very good. It focuses alot on the two kids and the count. However, you really never get to know the characters. The sentiment that it tries to bring about towards the end is easily forgettable.

Out of 10, I'd give this movie a 4.