Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

[Marx]

i dont see how anyone but a 5 year old can like this movie

Yes, I hate this movie because it sucked. I wasn't one before i saw it. i was excited to see it. In fact, it was one of my most anticipated films of 2010. I'm not happy that I watched a shallow kids' movie.

Coming into a thread just to say 'I don't see how anyone but a 5 year old can like this movie' is borderline trolling. I think you should elaborate on why you didn't like it.

 

[bullets]

I think Alice will win next weekend and there isn't going ot be a huge drop off. I don't think it will have legs like Avatar though. How to Train your Dragon comes out the 26th.

 

[zeptron]

It was good. Although I was a bit disappointed with Depp's performance. He recycled Jack Sparrow's physical mannerisms (the walk down the table? Captain Jack Sparrow) and Willy Wonka's nervous manner ("I'm fine") to create the Mad Hatter. The March Hare stole the show for me more than he did.

Anne Hathaway was interesting as the White Queen -- loved her costume and her necromancy ("I won't harm the living!"). And I found it amusing how everything something gross happened to the Jabberwocky she looked like she was gonna be sick.

The Red Queen was just Bellatrix with a big fat head.

 

[dogwonder78]

I think for those of us who hadn't seen the previous Depp films, the acting was superb. He couldn't "recycled" or it may just come naturally to him and be his acting style? Overall, I am happy on how it performed and hope it takes next week in the box office too!

 

[GhostPoet]

I had a lot of doubts about the film. Especially since i'm no Tim Burton fan by any means. But I really enjoyed it a lot. I gave it a 9. I liked the fact that it wasn't another re-make, but an actual sequel to an already familiar story. The enviroments were splendid and the actor was top notch. All very enjoyable. The story progressed at a good pace, never lingering too long on one thing, but also giving the characters enough time to grow.

My only real complaint would be the Red Queens captain (or whoever he is) acting wise, he was enjoyable...but the cgi body on him took me out of the film a bit. the way he moved didn't seem quite right in relation to his head...which is too bad considering the CGI was fantastic for the other creatures.

I also found that there were some scenes that weren't quite 3D, which pulled me out of the moment a bit. Perhaps i'm just spoiled by Avatar, where even a conversation between a few characters looked amazing.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film and plan to get it on dvd.

 

[Nivek]

I know 6 people who seen this over the weekend, and everyone was let down one way or another, especially with the 3D aspect. My Dad usually loves Tim Burton films, and he thought it was worse than Planet of the Apes, way to overdone and "lifeless".
I doubt I'll see this before it comes out on DVD.

 

[Paroxysm]

I know 6 people who seen this over the weekend, and everyone was let down one way or another, especially with the 3D aspect. My Dad usually loves Tim Burton films, and he thought it was worse than Planet of the Apes, way to overdone and "lifeless".
I doubt I'll see this before it comes out on DVD.

Me and my friends were also let down and yes you're right, the 3D was pretty weak.

 

[dark_b]

so should i watch it in 3D or not?

is it bad or is it really bad ?

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

try awesome.

 

[Crook]

Yes, I hate this movie because it sucked. I wasn't one before i saw it. i was excited to see it. In fact, it was one of my most anticipated films of 2010. I'm not happy that I watched a shallow kids' movie.

I pretty much feel the same. It was the first Burton and Depp movie I didn't like. And I truthfully hated it.

There were some stoner-funny moments, sure. But it was so...boring. Honestly the story was so ridiculously bland and the pacing was terrible. Even Depp managed to disappoint me.

 

[Figs]

Coming into a thread just to say 'I don't see how anyone but a 5 year old can like this movie' is borderline trolling. I think you should elaborate on why you didn't like it.

Pretty much.

The thing I find funny is the comments saying it's a shallow kids movie. People need to realize that this wasn't accurate to Carrol's second book. It was in fact Disney's sequel to their animated film for the most part. I understand they could have made the story a bit deeper but just from the trailers I knew what to expect so I wasn't as disappointed as some of you were.

My only problems with the film was that it could have been a bit brighter, although I realize the Red Queen had taken over and Wonderland went down hill, it would have nice to have seen some more psychadelic visuals I guess you could say. The pacing felt rushed and although I liked his performance(way better than Willy Wonka imo)there was a bit too much of the Mad Hatter overall. Like my gf said, if they had any other actor in mind the character probably wouldn't have been as prominent throughout the film.

My favorite thing about the film was the Cheshire Cat, my gf and I were both looking forward to him the most. I loved it when he's asking the Mad Hatter if he can keep his hat. It was cute and a bit humerous when he's sort of doing a bear grip on the hat then starts kneading it like cats tend to do. He was the most entertaining character in my eyes and I thought they pulled him off really well.

Have to give a shoutout to Christopher Lee. As soon as the Jabberwocky started to talk his voice was instantly recognizable.

 

[Paroxysm]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275PU20100308
ABC Family network has acquired the rights to Tim Burton's 3D fantasy in a deal that will kick off in 2012.

 

[*Dark_Phoenix*]

Didn't live up to my expectations; I love Burton, I love the animated version of Alice, so my expectations were pretty high.

Loved the March Hare, Red Queen and White Queen.

The 3D was great, the score was great, the customs were great, the make up was great, basically the only flaw (huge flaw) was the screenplay.

6/10 voted 7/10

 

[Hannibal Smith]

Boy i must be easy to please for i thought it was not that bad a movie. Its easily the best 2010 film so far. I am glad to see something do well besides Avatar.
Of course films like these i like. Its a descent family and fantasy flick. The eye ball thing was a grosse surprise and was wicked cool i imagine inn 3D. My theater only is adapted for 2d films.

 

[DACrowe]

More on my thoughts in a bit, but I just saw this movie today.

First I'd like to say I've seen all four major performances and performers (Depp, Carter, Hathaway and...the girl who plays Alice) criticized by different reviewers. Bah to that. They were all good. Carter owned this movie, besides the Cheshire Cat, she was the best thing going. She chewed the scenes to high Heaven and was hilariously brilliant.

Visually, all the Burton ticks are what made me ultimately enjoy the film. I just didn't dig the narrative. It has Disney's finger prints all over it and what should have been irreverant fun was saddled with a boring Narnia-esque storyline and a poor choice of making Alice question the reality for the first 2/3 of the movie.

Visually, I loved it. The acting was great. I was viscerally entertained. But the story just plodded. A disappointment.

7/10. Still worth seeing once, but in 2D though.

 

[XxDelta09xX]

I saw it on friday I thought it was Awesome way better than I expected.

 

[DACrowe]

I have to say, I had my disappointments with the film. I think a more abstract screenplay with the same cast and visuals would have benefitted the film enormously. But the biggest complaint I see from those who hated it (besides Burton and Depp work too much together) is that...it didn't look good in 3D.

So?

I must be the only person in America who saw Avatar in 3D and went "Well, that was nice...I guess." 3D just doesn't enhance films for me. I saw Avatar a second time in 2D and the movie was no better or worse for it (albeit, the quality of its story and the creaks really are more visible upon repeat viewing).

I guess what I'm saying is that whether a movie looks good in 3D or not should have absolutely no baring on the quality of the film. Other than James Cameron films, chances are whenever you see the words "3D" in a commercial, you should just assume studio gimmick. If the film is good, 3D will neither enhance it or worsen it for the lack thereof.

Alice in Wonderland is a mixed bag of a movie, but 3D is the least of its problems and its absence didn't take away from its successes either.

 

[DACrowe]

If he does Wizard Of Oz i expect Depp as Scarcrow or The Tin Man.

No, no, no. He basically did his version of The Wizard of Oz with Alice in Wonderland. He went the Judy Garland route by casting his girl older than in the book, giving her a love interest with one of the characters (in the 1939 classic it was Scarecrow, here it was the Mad Hatter) and had a similar ending and everything. The difference is, there has been no good Alice in Wonderland movie to date, so him messing around was fine (though it could have been much better). The 1939 classic should not be touched, especially if it is a rehash of this movie which was far from Burton's best work.

 

[Silver Knight]

Watched it last night and I liked it.

 

[Hannibal Smith]

His next film is Maleficent and if that's not a tune up for The Wicked Witch then not know what is.
But i think Burton would make a cool Snow White movie and would rather see that then Oz remake anyways.

 

[Majik1387]

His next film is Maleficent and if that's not a tune up for The Wicked Witch then not know what is.

Well that depends, if an Oz movie by him would be based off the Judy Garland version, then I'd agree. But if he actually went the route of doing the book version of the Wicked Witch, I'd disagree.

 

[GhostPoet]

I have to say, I had my disappointments with the film. I think a more abstract screenplay with the same cast and visuals would have benefitted the film enormously. But the biggest complaint I see from those who hated it (besides Burton and Depp work too much together) is that...it didn't look good in 3D.

So?

I must be the only person in America who saw Avatar in 3D and went "Well, that was nice...I guess." 3D just doesn't enhance films for me. I saw Avatar a second time in 2D and the movie was no better or worse for it (albeit, the quality of its story and the creaks really are more visible upon repeat viewing).

I guess what I'm saying is that whether a movie looks good in 3D or not should have absolutely no baring on the quality of the film. Other than James Cameron films, chances are whenever you see the words "3D" in a commercial, you should just assume studio gimmick. If the film is good, 3D will neither enhance it or worsen it for the lack thereof.

Alice in Wonderland is a mixed bag of a movie, but 3D is the least of its problems and its absence didn't take away from its successes either.

This is just me. But I disagree about 3D. I find that even a scene where something isn't flying at the screen still looks great in 3D. In Avatar, when you saw a group of people talking...the scene had more depth visually. the characters in the background and foreground are much more interesting from a visual perspective as opposed to a flat enviroment.

However...I do agree that Alice didn't do 3D so well and that for me was because some scenes seem to go into flat 2D and then the next scene would be 3D. Either go all 3D or don't...but when you go half and half like that it tends to pull the audience AWAY from the film rather then draw them in closer.

 

[DACrowe]

Yes, because 9 times out of 10, 3D is a studio gimmick. In fact Avatar was the first time it was used for artistic reasons. But just because Avatar did it differently, does not mean other studios will change. And again, it does not make Alice a bad movie. I saw it in 2D (as I prefer the format) and it was just fine in the viewing. Whether the 3D is good or not does not take away from how wonderful the performances are (or how wooden the narrative is, imo).

As for Avatar's 3D. Yeah it was cool. But i preferred Avatar in 2D honestly. The 3D effect doesn't really add to the narrative or depth of film for me. Visually they can do some nice things (I loved the snow/ash effects after the big tree got blown up). But at the end of the day, it just kind of took me out of the movie as I noticed when things were 3D and when they weren't, so everytime something happened with three dimensional proportions, I made a mental note and it took me out of the picture. On top of that I hate having to wear glasses to watch a movie, especially glasses that drain the picture of 25% of its light. Avatar looked washed out in 3D to me, but it was so colorful I could look beyond that. In something like Alice, which has a gothic Burton-esque look, I imagine the glasses would ruin the lighting and cinematography of that film.

But I respect your admiration for 3D.


***

As for all this talk of Burton doing either Sleeping Beauty or Wizard of Oz (which would be a literal retread of the basic formula to his Alice in Wonderland), I say fudge that. I paid to see both CATCF and AIW. I strongly dislike the first and am so-so on the latter. I really want to see Burton try new things. In the last ten years he did two movies that were outside of his comfort zone, Big Fish and Sweeney Todd, and both were among the best film he ever did and IMO two of the best films of the decade. If he keeps revisiting often-adapted fairy tales, I'm just going to have to say fin for the next project.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Big Fish was great. Probably his best film last decade.

 

[Marx]

I agree, Sweeney Todd and Big Fish are amazing!