Genres

Visitors Review

Mia_Moose 2012-05-23 19:26:32

Absolutely Terrible

I knew right from the beginning that this film would not be very good.For a start, the books just don't seem like the sort that should beturned into a film. I don't think Mr Snicket adapted it himself,either. There was so much sentiment and emotion in this film that Ialmost threw up. The same things would be said over and over again andI just didn't feel sorry for them. I was bored of their moaning. Doesthat make me heartless and cruel? Also, there was not enoughexplanation of anything. They just kept coming up with things fromnowhere. Having read the books, I knew roughly how they ended up in theplaces that they did, but I still felt a little in the dark about itall. Speaking of which, the plot seemed to have come from a completelydifferent book. So many brilliant and clever ideas were missed out, andwhole new things were put in altogether. They might as well have giventhe film a completely different name. It seemed unnecessary to havecompressed 3 books into one film because they were getting eachguardian over and done with in about 2 days. They were out of Olaf'scare within 10 minutes. Everything seemed very rushed and pointless. Iexpected something awful, and that's what I got. I was cringing all theway through. And telling Mr Carrey to get off the screen (even thoughhe can't here me) because his interpretation of Count Olaf was dire.He's just too Jim Carrey-ish.

2012-05-23 08:53:51

THE BEST MOVIE EVER......

Klaus likes to read, Sunny likes to bite and Violet Baudalaire likes to invent things but one day while away from the house they find out that their parents were killed in a tradgic fire. So, they are sent to the nearest relative..Count Olaf played with hilarious spark by Jim Carrey. Olaf is a actor who doesnt care about children and all he cares about it the forture he might get if he was to kill the children but his plan is foiled with and the kids are sent to the next relative...Uncle Monty....a reptile lover, portrayed by the great Billy Connelly in which some people thought it was John Cleese which wasnt. Uncle Monty tells the children about a trip to Peru with his friend Stefano, Jim Carrey again, but the kids are too late and Uncle Monty is killed. The kids are then again sent to another relative but this time its their Aunt played by the lively Meryl Streep. Their Aunt lives in a house which is on a cliff which has very little support. Their Aunt goes missing after meeting a strange Captain character...Jim Carrey yet again. I dont wanna give away the ending but its a good movie. A good kids movie yet somethings may be too "scary" for them. Adults might get a bunch of giggles out of it as well. A colorful cast includes Cedric The Entertainer, Timothy Spall, Craig Ferguson, Jane Adams, Jennifer Coolidge, Catherine O'Hara, Luis Guzman, Dustin Hoffman in a cameo and if you didnt know that was Jude Law as Lemony Snickets then theres something wrong with you. Full of colors and fun ideas.

Hugh N 2012-05-23 14:53:47

Are you KIDDING me?!

What a complete disappointment! I kept waiting for it to start -- kept waiting to be drawn in somewhere. I actually fell asleep twice and I wasn't even tired. Nothing made sense! Why was the Count starting the fires? WHY was it such a big secret that NOBODY would tell the kids?? Worse yet, WHY, OH WHY didn't the brilliant inventor girl invent MORE!? They show us the nifty little mail thingy -- give me more of that! SHOW me that she's a great inventor so I can LIKE her. The whole, "I'm tying up my hair thing" worked like, once for me. Don't mess with your hair INVENT SOMETHING COOL! Why didn't the "I remember everything I ever read" brother act smarter? He was like a sock puppet with relatively good teeth. I kept waiting for his head to fall off. And what in the World was up with the subtitles for "Baby Bites a lot"?? Even ignoring that desperate editorial ploy, I kept waiting for the little creature to do something useful with her teeth and save the movie for me. It never happened. The most amusing thing she did was hang from a table. Ooooooo! Yippee! Why didn't they use her to gnaw her way out of the car? Why didn't she bite more people and make me laugh? How did Bush get elected??! I'm truly baffled and a little sweaty. I'm also heart-broken because it COULD have been so, so much better. As it is, it's so completely un-memorable that I can't remember any of their names, which theater I went too, or whether or not I was wearing pants. Finally, and forgive me here, but WHO in their right mind, would or could ever, EVER compare this movie to Harry Potter??? Are you kidding me? You're kidding me right? I . . . can't .. .even. . . breathe!!!

2012-05-23 10:22:51

Boy, Was I Surprised!

I wasn't overly anxious to see this movie. When I seen the previews to it, it just didn't appeal to me. BUT my oldest daughter was dying to see it so we rented it. This is a REALLY good movie. Very creative and it keeps you interested from beginning to end. Jim Carey is a comedic genius!

Zahi HM 2012-05-22 23:21:03

A new Harry Potter type franchise

The movie was really faithful to the book even if they changed some parts like the wedding scene which they kept for the ending. Other than that the story was fantastic. The acting was superb: Jim Carey was best to portray Count Olaf and the new coming child actors were very good too. The plot of the movie was very interesting especialy the way they made a movie for 3 or 4 of the books of the series. Overall it was a very fun movie with very funny scenes and definetly worth watching but I might not recommend it for young kids because of one or two scenes that might scare them.

Madam_Butterfly 2012-05-22 00:11:30

Lemony Snickets, A series of VERY unfortunate events.

I am so disappointed with the film. I didn't actually see the movie inthe cinema but my Dad bought it for me on DVD. And i must say, its awast of space on my shelf. (And to be honest, I'm glad i didn't waist£2:50 in the cinema to see such a poorly made film.) I am a big fan ofthe books, i adore them, But its a different relationship with thefilm. And the film did not give the books ANY Justice.I remember seeing it advertised on the T.V and i thought, "Great! Ican't wait to see the movie." But then, I saw Jim Carrey as Count Olaf?WTF?! Jim Carrey should REALLY stick to COMEDY. Count Olaf is meant tobe scary, serious and horrible. I can't see Jim Carrey as that. ForChrist sakes?! In one of his other films, he was playing god?! The kidactors where good. But the boy actor, (can't remember his name) Was"over acting" In some parts. The baby, was really good. I thought shehad a lot of attitude, which BY THE WAY, She is meant to have! (Heardidiot IMDb'ers say that its not right for a baby to say "Bite me!". Ifyou have read the books, then you would know that she is a baby withspunk.) Costumes where amazing. The set were fantastic. I can notdescribe how happy i was to see the special affects and costumes. But,could not make up for a crappy plot.The plot i found, to put it bluntly, crap. It was confusing, stupid andmessy. Some of the bits weren't even meant to be in the film!! (As theyonly did the first 3 books, they added bits from the 5th and 6th book.)The humor was unnecessary. The director tried (and failed) to addcomedy. IS HE AN IDIOT?! The film is meant to be dark and depressing.Not lightened with poor humor.In a way, i hope they do make another film, following up from the lastone. Because i seriously hope, they can do a better job than they didwith the first one.

2012-05-21 07:34:28

See the movie first...

As someone who saw the movie before reading the books, I was definitely surprised when I finally saw how the story *really* unfolded. However, I still highly recommend this movie. The problem is, you have to accept that movies and books are two extremely different forms of media. I personally think that the movie was done the best way it could be done.If you haven't read the books yet, I think you should see the movie first for two reasons. 1) I know I would have appreciated the movie less had I read the books first. Much like the third Harry Potter movie, it would have been a let down. And 2) I DO think that you opinion of the movie is a good way to tell whether or not you would like the books.Also, I know a lot of people thought that Jim Carrey's performance was *too* over the top. I disagree. I thought he was brilliant, and I usually HATE Jim Carrey.But, it's only my opinion.

2012-05-20 18:32:51

Look, The books are better

I didn't like this movie. I don't think it should be classified as a children's movie. Although there is no explicit violence, the whole movie is about death. Further more in my opinion the movie was slow and quite boring in many parts. Although it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, I would definitely not watch it again.

websbgon 2012-05-20 07:47:33

Well done, the best performance by Carey I've seen

Loved the surreal and time bending flavor of the movie. The kids weregreat and Meryl Streep did a good job, but the performance by Jim Careywas outstanding. This is the first time he has had to stay with acharacter other than some variation of Jim Carey, and he did it well.This material could well be quite morbid but it was handled in a waythat kept it out of the darkness and entertaining. It was a pleasure tosee a movie as spectacular as this without anything blowing up or beingswept away by special effects. Not being familiar with the books onwhich the movie is based, I note that the ending left a sequel a nearcertainty. The success of one would depend greatly on keeping Mr. Careyin the Count Olaf role -- that said, bring it on!

kjtocool21 2012-05-19 16:04:12

A fantasy lacking a background.

Please visit my website and check out the forums: www.worldofkj.comLemony Snicket's: A Series of Unfortunate Events By: Karl SchneiderAfantasy lacking a background.It was a Friday night, and one without a lot going on around my parentshome in Georgia. I decided to gather up my sister and head to a movie,figuring that I could at least do away with this boredom for a fewhours. My little brother who is still tottering his way through gradeschool had ditched us to go out with his girlfriend, coincidently tosee a movie, which when you think about it is quite embarrassing. So itwas just the two of us, and I decided that we would see LemonySnicket's, figuring that it was a solid choice for the both of us.Lemony Snicket's turned out to be this peculiar movie about three youngchildren who's parents were killed in a fire. The children with nowhereto go, are sent off to live with a distant relative Count Olaf (JimCarey) who it turns out could really benefit from a trip to the dentist(does AFLAC cover that?). Soon the children are being whipped aroundfrom relative to relative, with Olaf constantly disguising himselftrying to regain custody and control of their vast fortune. The moviehas its fill of humor, though not as much as one might expect. Careyturns in a good but underused performance which was constantlyovershadowed by the toddler Sunny, who managed in subtitles to producemore laughs than Carey in all his makeup.What really struck me about this movie was its settings. The scenerywas so amazingly dark and eerie, yet shockingly empty, leaving the filmout of touch with its own world. It is hard to describe how suchvividly detailed scenes can be so vacant. Take a quick look at a scenefrom any Harry Potter movie and you will quickly see the attention paidto background action. Action which Lemony Snicket completely lacked.The scenery while dark and amazingly unique, left you feeling empty andcraving more. Unable to place the story in a world of its own, I wasleft confused and bored as the story unfolded. Unfortunately the storywas no better than the scenery, also being deprived of any meaning andfilled with more holes than Count Olaf's house. The movie seemed attimes to grasp for this higher ground, one where it could tie up atleast one of its many loose ends, but alas I think that ground was lostsomewhere on the cutting floor along with the background action.The movie does work, it is entertaining, and I didn't walk away from itfeeling like I had wasted my time. It is just really to bad that such agood premise, with such a solid cast was wasted by such a shoddy story.It is hard to place the blame all on Robert Gordon, who penned thescreenplay, but in the end you have to. I know three books into onemovie is a sometimes impossible task to accomplish, but it simply couldhave been done better.Go see the movie, you may be underwhelmed at the end of it all, but itreally is a decent movie with a good family message.Grade: C

Citizen_Cam 2012-05-19 04:28:25

Odd. Very Odd.

Children these days are obviously harder to scare and prefer theirstories edgier and bleaker than they did in my day (Ooh, me back, etc).The story of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events isincredibly bleak - the title gives it justice. The three Beaudelairechildren, teenage inventor Violet (Actor), bookworm Klaus (Actor) andinfant Sunny (a biter) are orphaned when their wealthy parents die in afire. They are brought by banker Poe (Timothy Spall) into the custodyof their 'closest relative' the bizarre actor Count Olaf (Jim Carrey),who proceeds to treat them like dirt before trying to kill them to gettheir parents fortune. They spend the rest of the movie with otherunknown relatives (at one point Klaus says "isn't it strange that noneof our relatives are related to us?") such as snake-handler BillyConnolly, who is totally wasted here, and paranoid Meryl Streep, whomakes a fine fist of a peculiar role. All the time, of course, CountOlaf is coming for them in a variety of guises, threatening them andmurdering (yes, murdering) other characters to get to them. The wholenarrative is told through mysterious, silhouetted writer Lemony Snicket(Jude Law). A Series of Unfortunate Events is a very dark and bleakfilm. Bad stuff just keeps on happening to these poor kids with nary arespite. It didn't seem to me particularly appropriate to children, butas I said I'm not a kid anymore. I felt very old watching it; I wassuddenly aware, at the age of twenty-one, that I am clearly no longer akid. I had a similar reaction to Harry Potter and the Prisoner ofAzkaban. The movie, despite Carrey's presence, is not really a comedy,not designed to be funny. There are some laughs, coming mostly out ofCarrey's character and the young Sunny, who speaks only in subtitles,but mostly it's a serious, twisted story about some extremelyunfortunate kids and a series of unfortunate events. The film looksamazing, with a distinct, almost Gothic atmosphere. Ostensibly set inthe present day, the background is constantly shifting around throughwhat looks the like Victorian-era, a sort of Jules Verne quality. Andthen we have modern cars. But all of this is done very well; it is abeautifully designed film and very easy on the eyes, despite a singularlack of colour in many scenes. A note about Jim Carrey. He has had adistinguished but uneven career playing basically the same role - thewacky, eccentric, limb-flailing role he began in Ace Ventura: PetDetective a decade ago. He repeats this performance in a dozen films,like Liar Liar and of course, The Grinch. And he repeats it here. Onlythis time, he plays a villain, the first time I have seen this. It isessentially the same role with a dark, sinister edge and he handles itvery well. He is, however, walking through the role. This sort ofperformance is so known to him he is breezing through the movie,basically counting his fee. I haven't read the original books, but oneof my companions had and he told me it was close enough to pass muster,though events were jumbled around somewhat. And the script does looklike it is three separate stories linked together, which it is. Butthat's not my major concern. The film is not particularly remarkable,and quite disturbingly bleak. That is possibly a virtue today, but Ifound it tough to get through: bleakness doesn't interest me, that'swhy I'm no poet. What's the matter with kids today? Now, excuse me, Ihave to go watch Matlock. Good-o-meter rating: 6.5/10

motpicvideo 2012-05-18 10:12:35

Fun and imaginative -- to a certain extent

The danger in getting excited about an upcoming movie is that one mightend up over-anticipating, such that the film, once finally viewed, endsup being not a bad film, but a disappointment in relative terms. Suchwas my case with "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events."The film is based on the first three books of the series, which followsthe unfortunate tale of the Baudelaire children: Violet, the inventiveoldest sister; Klaus, the bookworm; and Sunny, the two-year old biter.These three are suddenly rendered orphans when a fire burns their houseto the ground with their parents in it (all of which is off-screen soyour tots won't be horrified within the first five minutes). The familybanker, Mr. Poe (Timothy Spall), takes the children to live with theirclosest relative, the eccentric – and, we soon discover, sinister –Count Olaf (Jim Carrey).Olaf makes no charade to disguise his real reason for accepting theorphans: He wants the Baudelaire fortune. But since the fortune willnot pass to the guardian until the wards die, Olaf sets out to killthem. This is, of course, a dark theme, and one which I would not rushto display before children, although the theater I was in was heavilyladen with impressionable youngsters. If there's a plus side, it's thatthe dark themes of this movie are much more subtle than, for instance,"Addams Family Values," in which Wednesday and Pugsley commit obviouslyand flagrantly fatal acts upon their newest sibling.When Olaf's plan to have the children killed by locking them in a carparked on the railroad tracks fails, Mr. Poe removes them from hiscustody – not because Olaf tried to kill them, but because he left theyoungest, Sunny, in the driver's seat unattended. Neither Mr. Poe norany other adults in the film seem to believe the children when theytattle on their uncle.The second foster parent is Monty Montgomery (Billy Connolly), areptilian expert, who plans to pack the children off to Peru on alittle adventure – until Count Olaf shows up disguised as a fellowscientist. I'm not spoiling anything by pointing out that it is indeedOlaf in disguise, because, although the make-up job is quite good, thechildren announce it is Olaf just seconds after seeing him. Once again,the dim-witted adult (what is the movie trying to say here?) doesn'tbelieve the children for a moment. The grown-ups in the film could havebeen made a little more intelligent.The third foster home involves Aunt Josephine (Meryl Streep) who livespractically over the sea, in a shanty that juts out off a high cliff,supported by a rickety collection of beams. There is a comic ironyhere, because the aunt herself is paranoid about everything ("Don't gettoo close to the refrigerator – it might fall and crush you!") Oh, andOlaf shows up in disguise. (I get the idea this is the format of eachbook in the entire series.)I am always hesitant when a film has Jim Carrey cast in anything but anormal human role. When he is given unrestrained freedom, he isunbearable ("Ace Ventura: Pet Detective"). However – and this isimportant – when his manic personality has a reason for existing, hecan be delightful ("The Mask"). Here, Olaf is a decidedly overboardactor, so Carrey is an appropriate choice. And he is actually moreentertaining, I think, when he is playing Olaf in disguise. His Italianscientist and his Irish sailor were entertaining to study as heperformed them.The newcomers as the Baudelaire children are adequate, given that thescript does not place them in highly demanding situations. The scriptand director even seem to have removed opportunities for Miss Browningand Mr. Aiken to really act, such as in the scene where they learn oftheir parents' deaths and simply stare at the sand on the beach.Billy Connolly and Meryl Streep seem to have fun in their supportingroles. Other actors are not on screen enough to be noticed, really –which is a shame, because Timothy Spall, Jennifer Coolidge, andCatherine O'Hara are such talented and entertaining performers.The production design by Rick Heinrichs is excellent, evoking the samevisual enjoyment I got out of the Harry Potter movies, and anythingdirected by Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton (a friend of Heinrichs').Olaf's house is a ghoulish run-down Gothic mansion with carved eyes inseveral niches and sconces; the countryside is a depressing brown haze;the seaside town is almost a painting.And now to the disappointments, the largest of which was what Iperceived to be anachronisms. The film opens in such a way that I wasexpecting something that, though modern, would feel old-fashioned andhighly stylized. While this was largely achieved, Siberling allowed afew slips, primarily in Carrey's occasional use of "cool" lingo inamongst his more grandiose verbal gestures, and in the casting ofCedric the Entertainer as a police inspector. These are just twoexamples of the way the film set up a certain unity, and then took amisstep in violating that unity now and then.The score by Thomas Newman was disappointing. I liked the "western"riff he employed during the train scene and any time Violent got abrainstorm, but otherwise, the film cried out for the comic menace ofeither Danny Elfman or Alan Silvestri ("Mouse Hunt" – what a beautifulMain Title Theme). And Newman's composition for the closing credits wasjust plain wrong.From what I saw, the works of Lemony Snicket carry the ingredients tomake the kind of film I could positively drool over. But this firstwork (in what I hope will be an ever-improving series) feels a littleundercooked. Which is unfortunate.

Jimmy O 2012-05-16 02:14:46

A nicely dark family film that finds great pleasure in watching Carrey attempting to kill these children.

2012-05-15 17:49:17

Lemony leaves a slightly sour taste

Being an avid reader I'm always intrigued by how a book will be turned into a movie. Most movies fall short of the greatness of their paperbound predecessors. The Lemony Snicket books, sadly, are no different.I'm sure you've all heard the similarities of Snicket to Dahl and I certainly wouldn't be one to disagree. The problem is the book was dealt the same blow that Willy Wonka was to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The book is changed from a dark and brooding tale to a slightly comedic romp that winks at darkness.Mostly the fault would lay with Carrey. He would make a fine hammy rubber faced man, and often does when it is called, but for the murdering dastardly Olaf I feel he missed a few notes. Olaf is clearly sinister and Carrey just makes him almost a mockery of Ace Ventura with a unibrow. The strong suits of this movie are the children. They fit into their roles like a dream. Sadly they'll be much too old for a franchise due to the fact the books hardly age to proper cinematic time as, say, the Harry Potter series. The other aspect that I would recommend this for are the sets. One couldn't imagine the world Snicket describes more perfectly. So the movies make light of a wonderfully morbid series and it's shortcomings overtake it's brillance. My recommendation would be that the legnth and subject of the books would have made better for a brilliant set of hour long TV miniseries (one hour per book) because unlike Willy Wonka versus Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Snicket books will long outlive the movie.

Devin Faraci 2012-05-08 17:52:13

Between Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Lemony Snicket 2004 is a banner year for dark and fun kid's films.

Philip Wuntch 2012-05-08 02:37:04

The imaginatively cast, gorgeously designed movie has moments of wry wit and oddball charm. But its lumpish plot reinforces the suspicion that solid storytelling is no longer a Hollywood priority.

2012-05-06 03:40:26

Not impressed

I guess you had to read the book/s to like this...then again my husband has and he didn't care for this movie. There is worse than this out there I am sure. Rent this if there is nothing else to see!!!

rincewind90 2012-05-05 10:42:32

A good evening wasted

My brother and I wanted to make a nice movie-evening and started with"Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events".-I must say that I watched a lot of movies-, but this one was reallyboring and in the end I realized that 2 hours of my life were wasted...Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events was very bad, becauseit repeated itself endless and I nearly slept in the middle of it. It is clear that this movie shouldn't be that realistic, but I think itshould be recommended to school classes,which discuss the subject:"Children and the way they are treated by adults"!I did not read the Lemony Snicket books, but I address this comment tothose, who want to have a nice evening and I tell you do NOT watch thismovie, if you want to watch another one or do anything at all.M.H.

frankcastlefan 2012-05-05 02:43:52

funny coincidence.

I LIKED THIS MOVIE I, didn't think it was very hooky at all. i wouldsay it is a bit unrealistic, but in the best way possible. however,johncleese was Montgomery Montgomery is funny because he was a large partof Monty pythons flying circus, and Monty is short for Montgomery. evenfunnier, he handles pythons in the movie, thus Monty's python. Iactually don't think this was a huge coincidence, and i don't think iam alone in noticing this, but who knows. also, though not asimportant(and this isn't a spoiler), Jim carry is count Olaf, and JimCarey is funny in most of his other works (but not really in eternalsun shine of the spot less mind, but that is needed neither here, northere)

Louis B. Hobson 2012-05-04 18:24:43

Lemony Snicket sets, costumes and music are exceptional and go a long way to disguising the simplistic material.