Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events

Wow. Just Wow. Stylish, dark, moody, and beautiful. Plus a great cast and excellent special effects and we've got a winner on our hands. Easily an 8 on the DVDTown.com scale. I highly recommend this film.

"Willy Wonka" didn't have children's parents and relatives being murdered. Not even the Addams family showed anyone seriously harmed. I would just warn people that "Lemony" might not be appropriate for younger children, yet that appears to be how the film is being marketed. At the showing of the movie I attended, there were any number of five and six-year-olds. How sensible is that?

John

I seem to have had quite the different take. I came out of this movie thinking it was very bazaar, funny, and brilliant all at once. For the first third of the movie I was sort of baffled as to where it was going, and why. But as it went on, I was pleasantly surprised. The only real thing I thought was out of place was the subtitles of what the baby was saying. While some of the "baby's" lines were funny, it was obnoxious as a "comic relief" character to me.

As odd as this may sound, if you stayed around for the credits, there was some VERY well done, dark, and imaginative art work. I saw this film with a friend of mine, that commented "I'm glad to know that when "Tim Burton" kicks the bucket, there will be someone whom can fill his shoes." I don't know if "Brad Silberling" could fill "Tim's" shoes or not, but he's probably the only director that comes close.



John,

"Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" was considered "dark" back in the day, or at least having dark scenes as well. I have some friends that say it scared them when they were kids.


- Josh

Well, the ending does beg another installment or two. I suspect it's supposed to work better when several of these movies are all strung together.

John

And I appreciated that it wasn't a "kids" movie, rather it's a movie aimed more at teenagers who could appreciate its brand of humor. My only major gripe came at the end of the film, which felt rushed and lacked the punch it deserved. Perhaps that's because of the episodic nature of the film rather than a straightforward narrative crescendo, but it was a letdown.

Yes, I saw it today, too. Had more mixed reactions. I'd put it in the "Sky Captain" category, with lots of amazing scenery and graphics but a less-than-accomplished story line.

Also, it's so dark, I wonder if it wouldn't frighten the daylights out of little kids. If I'd seen it as a child, I wouldn't have slept for years afterwards. And the dark humor (and it's ALL dark humor) is so dark and bizarre, it's morbid. Prepare for the multiple deaths of loved ones as a major plot device; and nothing like the "Potter" movie series it so hopes to emulate. "Potter" joked around but even in the latest dark installment, it wasn't as grim as "Snicket." Also, Carrey overacts to the point of the grotesque, yet he's never particularly funny, just...strange.

I dunno. It's well titled because there isn't anything more to it than a series of events, as the suddenly oprhaned children go from one guardian to the next. But once you get the idea of the plot, it seems only repetitious and redundant.

Still, it looks so good, as Justin says, so "stylish, dark, moody, and beautiful," that that may be enough to keep a person absorbed. I was only intermittently interested by it all.

John

I don't think taking 6 years and under children to films of this nature (or worse) is sensible. But that's parents today for you. I remember when I went to the late showing of the re-release of "Alien" (not last Halloween, but the one before) and there were not only people there with babies, but young children as well! :o

Not that I'm against your position or anything John, but I suppose I could argue that the "Harry Potter" films would have to be put in the same catagory then. After all, in "LSSOUE", you weren't "shown" the people getting murdered, nor were you shown any kind of gruesome remains. It just cut scenes, and then the person was dead, and the film moved on. In Harry Potter however (also marketed at children), they went as far as to show "Vuldemort" in the process of killing "Harry's" mother. Granted, it wasn't gory, bloody, or anything of the nature, but it did show her with a horrified expression on her face as she braced for the blow. As well, you've got the scary were wolves, giant spiders, 3 headed dogs (all quite scary looking) in a movie series focused on "children". After all, J.K. Rowling intended these books for kids, and naturally, these same kids will want to see the movies.

One thing I will say that I thought was completely out of place in LSSOUE, was the scene where "Jim Carey's" character back handed the boy. I thought it was a bit shocking, and the film would have been just fine in it's endeavor to vilify "Count Olaf" without that scene. Like I said, not that I completely disagree with you John, but I didn't think LSSOUE was any worse, or any better than any of the Harry Potter films. I could name off some lullabye's, and charished children's "nursery rhymes" that involve death, violence, and dismemberment as well. I just don't think it's anything new is all.

In any case... no offense meant.


- Josh :)

"In any case... no offense meant." --Josh

I would never take offense, Josh. These are only movies, not threats on one another's lives. Anyway, I probably overemphasized my point. Almost all children's fairy tales are grim or gory when you get right down to it. It was just that the tone of "Lemony" was so dark and the deaths so seemingly realistic, I was myself taken aback by it. And the Carrey character's attempt to marry his fourteen-year-old ward at the end seemed plain creepy. As I say, I loved the look of the film and would probably watch it again (on DVD), but on the whole the movie left a bitter taste in my mouth.

John

...Hence the title. They give you a giant disclaimer right before the movie ever begins. In fact on the back of each book they read something along the lines of: "[This is not a pleasant book] In that case, you should probably choose some other book." Were you surprised to find that a film entitled 'A Series of Unfortunate Events' was anything but? Sorry if I sound harsh, but you had to realize what was coming.
I don't feel children should be pampered in such a way that they never see the other side of human nature, so when they are 12 and see it for the first time it's a giant shock. Not to say that a film such as this should deliver the facts of life, but they have to find out sooner or later. I learned at a very young age that everything is not sunshine and roses, and I'm glad I did, it made me one step ahead of the rest of the people in my age group, I felt. Back to the point, Jaws was only rated PG... I realize this was a time when there was only R, G or PG, but Jaws had profouse blood and gore, swearing and plenty of violence. I received no disclaimer when I watched it when I was 8 and could not sleep for three days after I saw Ben Gardner's face, and when the boat man got chewed up. Just saying this film told you what was coming. I was never disillusioned by commercials saying this film was perfect for your 3 year old, lenient (or lousy) parenting accounts for that. While it is somewhat obvious this film was directed towards kids (of the 8 and over variety), it was done with macabre humour in mind to provide a different type of childrens film. There come times when children may grow tired of fury fury rabbit and seek out a more morbid type of film (case in point: Batman Returns). I think I've run out of things to say.

Whoa, pilin' on! Well, I know when I'm outnumbered. Still, as I said, it looks so good, I'm liable to go back for more when it comes out on DVD, just as I'll probably buy "Sky Captain."

John