Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Rate the movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
JAK®;18133674 said:
What's so strange about that?
Burton didnt want to use the 3D cameras because they were digital and not film :yay:
 
I guess taste counts for nothing today.

But then again this movie is target for the emo/goth or whatever the hell you wanna call it. its Rinse Rather and repeat with him and people still get into his hands.
 
I kind of liked it. I used to be a big Burton/Depp fan...but not so much these days.

I didn't see it in 3D and I don't think I will. It was all right though...

6/10
 
true, but it will effect their overall enjoyment that they take away from the experience. You go into the theatre and the lights dim. You buttery popcorn. Super amazing sound. The screen tells you to turn off your cellphones. You put on your glasses.

The 3d effect when done properly mostly just adds a subtle realism that increases how immersed you feel in what's going on. When your really into the movie you forget it's in 3d. You get used to it. But it's still working on you and impacting you just like the music does.

Like in Avatar it helped add to the feeling that this was all really real and happening around you.

When I watched Alice last night in 3D I didn’t realize it was converted into 3D during post production until I read about on the internet. It wasn’t a night and day different 3D experience when I watched Avatar in 3D, because the majority of moviegoers including myself aren’t used to watching 3D movies.

I definitely wasn’t nitpicking every scene if it didn’t have someone or some object leaping off the screen. So basically if it looks like chicken and tastes like chicken, therefore it must be chicken. IMO
 
I thought the difference was easy to notice, even with knowing it's just 2D conversion, it just felt, ironically, flat.
 
I thought the difference was easy to notice, even with knowing it's just 2D conversion, it just felt, ironically, flat.

So I guess you won't be watching the upcoming "Clash of the Titans" in the 3D conversion and pay for the 2D instead.
 
Depends on whether my cinema gives me a choice.
 
8.5/10

I liked it alot,but a bit of the execution was bad.
-annoying looking fat twins
-over serious at times
-a talking dog (his voice was lame)
-nothing quotable (biggest problem with the movie)
 
As a huge fan of Depp and Burton...MIGHTY disappointed. As a huge fan of film...WTF did I just sit through?

I really don't know what else to say. I'm so glad I didn't pay for this, and at the very least I got to see the Tron trailer which single-handedly salvaged my night.
 
Has anyone else noticed how bad Burton is with final battle scenes? The entire third act of this film was a **** fest.
 
I wanted to love this movie. I really did. But I was left sorely disappointed. It pains me to say that, as I love when Burton and Depp work together. This is Tim Burton's second-worst movie after "Planet of the Apes". It's not terrible, but it just pales in comparison to his other work. And there was so much promise too. While I felt Depp turned in a better performance here than in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", the Mad Hatter didn't really come off as that memorable to me, apart from his unique look. Alice might as well have been a cardboard cutout, her acting was so wooden. Helena Bonham Carter was okay as the Red Queen, but she's turned in some far better performances (Mrs. Lovett, Bellatrix Lestrange). It felt like Anne Hathaway phoned in her performance. Crispin Glover was a nice surprise, though. Always cool to see him creeping it up. Even so, I feel like the supporting characters stood out a lot, especially the Cheshire Cat. I loved when he showed up. I did dig Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar and Christopher Lee as the Jabberwocky, even though they only had a few lines each. The best thing I can say about "Alice in Wonderland" was that it was visually stunning, but it still didn't have a lot of meat to it.
 
Even so, I feel like the supporting characters stood out a lot, especially the Cheshire Cat. I loved when he showed up.

I think he's the only one that stood out.
 
It was definitely missing that ''it'' factor.
 
Looking at those pics, I don't understand why so much green screen was used. They could have built sets rather than having everything CGI.

its easier to use greenscren otherwise they'd have to rotoscope for head frame by frame...

i liked all the interior scenes... inside the castle

just not the outdoor ones, they got lazy with the matte paintings and backgrounds..
 
I saw it in '3D' this afternoon. I thought it was a really good movie. I do wish there had been a little more Anne Hathaway...but all of the characters were great. I LOVED the March Hare and Cheshire Cat!

I. Absolutely. HATED. The. [blackout]Mad Hatter's. Dance.[/blackout] Though. Hated. It.
 
I really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't intellectually deep, but it's Alice in Wonderland. There's nothing intellectual about it.
 
Depp looks insane in this movie as The Mad Hatter and obviously no one else could play him this way but Depp.
 
I really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't intellectually deep, but it's Alice in Wonderland. There's nothing intellectual about it.

The books/animation never were intellectually deep, but they did have a sense of absurdity and madness, and we really didn't get that with this film.
 
The books/animation never were intellectually deep, but they did have a sense of absurdity and madness, and we really didn't get that with this film.

I felt it had a sense of that, but I agree it wasn't as crazy as the books/Disney animated movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,345
Messages
22,088,294
Members
45,887
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"