Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

[terry78]

It's not so much a disregard as it is his own spin on it. That's what he does. You don't hire Tim Burton to do a direct adapation of nothing, man.

 

[TheFuture]

It's not so much a disregard as it is his own spin on it. That's what he does. You don't hire Tim Burton to do a direct adapation of nothing, man.

But that brings up the question of "what's the point?" He feels that he's too good to be faithful to the source material, yet he has a need to use characters that are not his own. If he's so "original" why can't he come up with his own unique characters?

If it's a simple situation of wanting to bring the worlds that he read about as a child to life, then I think that he should feel a responsibility to be faithful to the source material.

 

[jmc]

I'd argue his Wonka and Batman at least fell along similar lines to their original source material, his Wonderland however couldn't feel less like it should. And it's not just the visuals, it's the whole story, Wonderland doesn't need to be 'under threat', it just needs to be, well Wonderland, madness, illogical, insane, perplexing. Where was all of that?

 

[darkseid26]

7/10, I enjoyed it a good amount, didn't expect [BLACKOUT]mad hatter's little dance[/BLACKOUT], kind of took me out of the movie. It's main problem was probably the script (anyone else think the White Queen stuff was unnecessary). I really dug the chick that played Alice and Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar.

 

[hippie_hunter]

But Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was more faithful to the source material than Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Sure, Stuart's film is superior (an untouchable classic IMO) and Burton took a few liberties as well, but he had the up most respect for the source material. And on a side note, Roald Dahl hated Stuart's film so much that he refused to sell the film rights to the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator while Dahl's family said that Burton gets it (and based on various interviews with them, he does and has an extreme love for it).

As for Batman, I think he got it in Batman, but not in Batman Returns. I feel that Batman Returns is the superior film in general, but as a Tim Burton film. As a Batman film, it is definitely inferior to Batman, Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight.

He definitely got it wrong with Planet of the Apes though.

And Alice in Wonderland was freaking awesome.

 

[Bond]

This wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't good. Just very uninteresting. Even the performances, all mediocre. Meh. 6/10

 

[Bruce Malone]

I saw the movie today and yes mediocore does come to mind. With all the great visuals and burton and depp you think it would go places but not really.

When i clicked on the 6 option i actually thought most people would have voted higher but i guess alot of us are in agreement.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

But Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was more faithful to the source material than Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Sure, Stuart's film is superior (an untouchable classic IMO) and Burton took a few liberties as well, but he had the up most respect for the source material. And on a side note, Roald Dahl hated Stuart's film so much that he refused to sell the film rights to the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator while Dahl's family said that Burton gets it (and based on various interviews with them, he does and has an extreme love for it).

As for Batman, I think he got it in Batman, but not in Batman Returns. I feel that Batman Returns is the superior film in general, but as a Tim Burton film. As a Batman film, it is definitely inferior to Batman, Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight.

He definitely got it wrong with Planet of the Apes though.

And Alice in Wonderland was freaking awesome.

I believe you mean "the utmost respect"

Anyways, the movie was meh. Really predictable for me and the white queen bit was lame. The ending was terrible and the Hatter's dance was just stupid. The visuals, the acting and the directing where great though! I give it 6/10

 

[bullets]

Is the dragon that's shown in the trailers(just to clarify that it's not a spoiler)the Jabberwocky or just a dragon? I understand that Jabberwocky was the nonsensical poem Carroll wrote but I've always like the literal monster interpretation.

Spoiler

It's most certainly the Jabberwocky

 

[Spider-Fan]

I just wrote a review of this film for another site...I'll post my review here too (in quotes)...if you want to comment on my review on that site, just PM me, and I'll link you...it doesn't contain many spoilers:

After the monster success of Avatar, the next big film in the move to popularize 3D has come in the new Disney film, directed by Tim Burton, Alice in Wonderland. This film is not really based directly on the Alice in Wonderland book, written by Lewis Carroll. Burton instead makes the film kind of a loose sequel, while being an introductory film to Wonderland.

Alice is now 20. She keeps having dreams of a strange world with odd looking creatures, and these visions distract her from her real life, which she finds moving to fast for her own good. Amidst being asked for her hand in marriage, Alice decides to take a walk, and follows a white rabbit. She finds herself in a strange, yet somehow familiar place. The creatures of Wonderland need Alice’s help in taking down the Red Queen from her throne of Wonderland, but before she can, she must rediscover who she really is and figure out if this is some kind of weird dream, or is this place real and why it is so familiar.

Unlike Avatar, Alice in Wonderland was not filmed with 3D cameras, but was converted for 3D. Most of the 3D in this film is things flying at your face, and with Burton’s penchant for atmosphere, this does make for a beautiful looking film. All the set pieces in Wonderland are very creative in design, from the Hatter’s gloomy looking tea party table to the White Queen’s beautiful castle. The atmosphere is lovely on the eyes. I also loved the designs of the Wonderland creatures. The Cheshire Cat looks fantastic, as does the Jabberwhocky, as does the Caterpillar, and so on. Great looking film

As far as acting goes, I want to start by saying the supporting cast are great in their essentially voice acting roles, for the most part. I especially loved Stephen Frey as the Cheshire Cat. Johnny Depp is good as the Mad Hatter, but we’ve seen him play this role before. This is nothing new for the audience. Helena Bonham Carter was entertaining as the bitter and insecure Red Queen. Her childish temper made for some humorous scenes. Anne Hathaway was good as the White Queen, but the role is not spectacular. But, I want to focus on the central character of the film, Alice. Actress Mia Wasikowska doesn’t light up the screen as Alice. The character comes off as bland, and she has limited emotional range. In a world of the fantastic and odd, Alice is boring. She is a bland protagonist, and it is hard to care about her. The writing may have something to do with that, but the performance is noticeably weak.

The story for the film is also not spectacular. The exposition of the film is very brief, and the film rushes Alice into Wonderland. You can’t care about Alice enough before she goes on her journey. Same goes for the resolution. When Alice is in Wonderland, the film is great. The story is nothing new, a character is the chosen one to save a people under tyranny. We’ve seen it many times over. But, the plot is not where Burton attempted to make the film shine. Definitely more thought was put into the Wonderland designs than the script itself. It does make the film pretty, but the lack of plot makes the film not achieve anything more than that.

I am a huge fan of Tim Burton. He is one of my favorite directors. But, Alice in Wonderland is far from his best effort. The film is very much style over substance and is entertaining, yet forgettable. It is worth a theatrical viewing in 3D just for the visuals. It is a good movie, just not a great one.

I give Alice in Wonderland – 3/5

 

[Iceman]

Early rumours that this is smashing estimates with about 45m on Friday!!

 

[Iceman]

Early rumours that this is smashing estimates with about 45m on Friday!!

 

[bullets]

So this should lead to Burton doing Wizard of Oz..

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

7/10
i enjoyed it in imax 3d...probably wouldnt be as good watching it any other way but besides the weak story...most of the characters were lovable and hatable and very unrelatable but enjoyable none the less.

 

[jmc]

Early rumours that this is smashing estimates with about 45m on Friday!!

That has to be from the 3D, I cannot imagine estimates for a film like this being that far off.

 

[Darkness Falls]

i want to learn the funderwhack..... stupid reality restrictions lol

 

[TheFuture]

But Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was more faithful to the source material than Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Sure, Stuart's film is superior (an untouchable classic IMO) and Burton took a few liberties as well, but he had the up most respect for the source material. And on a side note, Roald Dahl hated Stuart's film so much that he refused to sell the film rights to the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator while Dahl's family said that Burton gets it (and based on various interviews with them, he does and has an extreme love for it).

As for Batman, I think he got it in Batman, but not in Batman Returns. I feel that Batman Returns is the superior film in general, but as a Tim Burton film. As a Batman film, it is definitely inferior to Batman, Batman Begins, and the Dark Knight.

He definitely got it wrong with Planet of the Apes though.

And Alice in Wonderland was freaking awesome.

In fairness I did hear that before about his Chocolate Factory being more faithful to the source material. I would liken it to Coppola's Dracula, in a way it's the most accurate portrayal of the chronology of events in Stoker's work, but all the same a lot of liberties were taken.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed his "take" on Alice in Wonderland, Carter and Depp were as fascinating as usual, but that's all the film is, a "take". It's not an accurate portrayal.

 

[Iceman]

That has to be from the 3D, I cannot imagine estimates for a film like this being that far off.

Weekend looking like 120m! It's huge, even if you discount for 3D.

 

[anrrd_2]

So this should lead to Burton doing Wizard of Oz..

Then a Burton verion of "Peter Pan", follow closely by an adaptation of Alan Moore's "The Lost Girls"

 

[Hannibal Smith]

Id rather see Burton do something like Snow White or Little Red Riding hood. I could see him doing dark fairy tales like they were suppose to be from the cuteness that is children's fairy tales of today's

 

[xwolverine2]

So this should lead to Burton doing Wizard of Oz..

i hope not.. lol

he needs to do something original

 

[matrix_ghost]

Weekend looking like 120m! It's huge, even if you discount for 3D.

Christ 120 million weekend
Dear god imagine the effect of 3d prices when the big gunners like Potter and Spider-man are going to be released.
I think it's safe to say that we're looking at new opening records being set.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I can't believe it made 41 million yesterday. I did not expect it to make this much money. Now with this success, you just know studios will be ordering all of their big movies in 3D. I wouldn't mind using 3D in films, it's just what makes me mad is that the studios are doing it wrong and know that the tickets more expensive which means more money.

 

[the a1ant]

I can't believe it made 41 million yesterday. I did not expect it to make this much money. Now with this success, you just know studios will be ordering all of their big movies in 3D. I wouldn't mind using 3D in films, it's just what makes me mad is that the studios are doing it wrong and know that the tickets more expensive which means more money.

The 3D wasn't worth the extra ticket price, imo. Some scenes looked cool, but I felt that I would have enjoyed the film as much in 2D. And the actual film was missing the most effective 3D scene from the trailer (Cheshire Cat's face floating in the middle of the screen, coming towards the audience).

 

[TNC9852002]

That floating cat face creeped me out when I saw it on the preview in front of Avatar. Very well done.