tpiercec Some very funny characters and scenes...watch with family!

marieltrokan The ideology, of the 2004 adventure drama A Series of Unfortunate Events is that peace has had enough with symbiosis, and finally has the balls to cut its ties with victimisation.To clarify (something which is desperately needed in this instance): the 2004 adaptation is about the brutality and the cruelty of peace having the right to be separate to a victim. Regardless of circumstance, and regardless of details, the ideology of A Series of Unfortunate Events is that if something can be a victim then that something has no right to experience peace. Peace has had enough with symbiosis, and is willing to be rid of symbiosis even on the basis of condemning the innocent. If a force can be a victim, then it should be condemned: obviously, this is excessively brutal and cruel, but is it logical? Based on the ideology, peace must be something which can't experience terror. So terror has never been peace. Terror is an experience, and it's an experience that has never stopped. Ergo, terror is constant, peace is never constant. The antithesis of constant is change. Change isn't terror. Change isn't an experience. Change is appearance, and so appearance is neither terror or experience.Appearance is peaceful, and it's something which can't be experienced. Terror is something which has no appearance, and it's experience. Appearance isn't history, and it's peaceful. Appearance is no time, and it's peaceful. Terror is history, and it has no appearance.History has no appearance, and peace is no history. Peace is no history, and history doesn't look like anything. Peace is no time, and time has no image. Terror is no image, and peace is no time. Seeing nothing is terror, and not existing is peace. Having time is terror, and seeing something is peace. Peace is the compromise of seeing something as a result of going through time. The problem though, is that peace doesn't want to be compromise anymore: peace wants no time but it also wants image. And this is why the Baudelaire children are depicted the way they're depicted: they're depicted the way they're depicted to illustrate peace wanting to free itself from compromise. The Baudelaire children have time, but they're also subjected to images that aren't a compromise against time. Time and image are in cahoots with each other - and this is so that peace has the ability to not be a compromise.The Baudelaire children repeatedly see things and see people come into view, where the shape of the something or someone that's coming into view is hostile; reality, and the universe as a whole is the connection between image and separation. Image deserves to be peaceful, but the image can't be peaceful if its basis or logic is to be separate.In short: the true goal of peace is to let the observer just be the image that they're observing. The observed is just the observer, and the observer is just the observed

Kirpianuscus for the fans of books, for the meet with Jim Carrey and Meryl Streep, for the performances of children. and for the Gothic elements. for me, who I do not read the books, the story seems be too darker and Meryl Streep the most important motif to see the film. Jim Carrey does a great job but this fact is not real surprising. and the mix of Edwardian and the 1950 atmosphere could be a good point. short, a film who seems be defined by influences from Tim Burton and late romanticism, mixing the classic smart children and the adults with obscure purposes.

Nicolas F. Costoglou A series of unfortunate Events is a very well made, Tim Burton-esque movie, with a lot of great atmosphere and charm.The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is very fitting with the tone, the movie is going for, which is kind of bleak and macabre, but also fairly funny and sometimes even hopeful...The three Budelaire children are all played by great actors, and the adult acts are on-par. Meryl Streep gives a not TOO over-the-top performance so that you are still invested in her character, Billy Connolly is the uncle everyone wishes he could have, and Jim Carrey is excellent as Count Olaf. For many years i didn't even knew it was him! (The same with Jude Law, but to be fair, he's embodiment of Lemony Snicket is always in shadows ^^)The visual Effects of this movie (which is 12 years old by now) stood the test of time incredibly well, most of the time it's not even visible if somethings real or not. There is only one effect shot which overstays it's welcome, when the little Sunny catches something with her mouth and than looks straight into the camera in full CGI. A cut a few seconds earlier would have been great, every other CG-embodiment of her character works fairly well.The soundtrack by Thomas Newman hits all the right emotional marks and the atmosphere of the film. The end track sticks in my head for weeks after i watched this.Speaking of the end track, it's heard while seeing a incredible artistic and creative fully animated end title-sequence which is marvelously great to the end, so stay for the end credits.It's all in all a fairly well made, dark, but not too dark family picture, with great performances and intense set-pieces...