tribal girl
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2006
- Messages
- 13,269
Yessir!. :D
-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
film: alice in wonderland (tim burton)
- Thread starter undead
- Start date
Yessir!. :D
Pillthrill
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,861
I found this review today. Not good.
But I do plan to see it anyway. Perhaps the reviewer does not get what Burton and Alice in Wonderland is all about.
Alice in wonderland isn't supposed to make sense all the time. "Nonsense" as the mock turtle says...
"Alice' in Blunderland
James Rocchi, Special to MSN Movies
Splayed out on the screen in pixelated, glimmering, hollow 3-D, Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is "inspired" by Lewis Carroll's 1865 "Alice in Wonderland" and 1872 "Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There." The phrase "inspired" is in quotes above because, bluntly, there's not a moment of true inspiration in the entire film, just a series of moments demonstrating that Burton, more and more, has become a director content to use his tools as crutches. "Alice in Wonderland" follows Alice (Mia Wasikowska, rendered blank and bland by the script) as she returns to Wonderland and its characters, now a fully-grown woman. This time when Alice tumbles down the rabbit hole, it's because she's fleeing a dreary arranged marriage to a dreary man.
And once in Wonderland, Alice becomes the ultimate Tim Burton protagonist, which is to say that she wanders through a meticulously-designed fantasyland doing very little, meeting fantastic characters much more interesting than she is. Alice has only cloudy memories of her previous visits to Wonderland, and meets at every turn her old friends like Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Matt Lucas), the White Rabbit (voiced by Michael Sheen) and the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp, looking like the headliner in a hypothetical acid trip by the late fashion designer Alexander McQueen). Alice, we and she are told, is the only person who can defeat the Jabberwock and free "Underland" (apparently, Alice misheard it all those years ago, an empty fillip that adds nothing) from the tyranny of the petty, cruel Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter).
But Linda Woolverton's screenplay doesn't give us any reasons for this, moving between expensive and lead-footed set-pieces and unfunny, ostensibly whimsical wordplay before culminating with Alice clad in battle armor bearing the Vorpal sword to defeat the Jabberwock. This is exciting if you collect action figures, or wonder what Joan of Arc would look like given a makeover suitable for the racks at Hot Topic. It is not in any way thrilling if you are interested in character, motivation, coherent storytelling or anything other than Burton's high-tech, high-cost puppet show, in which he jams his clumsy hands up into various literary figures and has them say what he likes before tossing them aside. The unanswered questions are many, and grow with each passing second (Why is Alice the savior? Why is the White Queen [Anne Hathaway] better than the Red?) and we are not given answers, merely spectacle.
The film's 3-D inventions are essentially irrelevant. As the CG characters clatter and clamor on-screen, you get the sense that the 3-D was added solely to keep the computer-generated characters and backgrounds from looking even more mummified, lifeless and plastic. Carroll's books are cultural curiosities whose familiarity is as enduring as it is inexplicable. They're plotless whimsies designed to divert children and lightly mock Victorian social modes and models, and transforming their characters and settings into a 21st-century action-spectacle big-finish blockbuster does not do them, or the audience, any favors. (The Jefferson Airplane wrung more cultural pulp and spooky imaginative power out of the "Alice" story in 1967's "White Rabbit" with two-and-a-half minutes and a little reverb than Burton does in 2010 with 108 minutes and millions of dollars.) Depp's Mad Hatter is shown to be insane thanks in no small part to the brutal military actions of the Red Queen. I'd never thought of the Mad Hatter as a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder, but any interesting possibilities in that approach are drowned out by Depp's shifting accents, shameless mugging and lazy overacting.
Much of the blame of this "Alice" can fall on Woolverton. If you're going to explore political ideas with a revamp of a Victorian children's fable, don't do it in half-measures. The film's postscript feels like a lame attempt to give one of the least feminist works of literature ever written (many historians suggest Carroll invented "Alice" to impress an 11-year-old girl in whom he had an unhealthy interest) a closing moment with a grown-up lead character whose finale feels faux-feminist and clumsily tacked-on.
Burton's always been more of an image-maker than a storyteller. His films all tend to recycle the tale of the beautiful, misunderstood outsider; but at least "Edward Scissorhands" and "Ed Wood" had the lightness of inspiration and the physicality of the real world to support them, and in those films Depp was asked to do more than show up and be Johnny Depp. Like the sour, saccharine "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," "Alice in Wonderland" combines the heavy-handed clamminess of unneeded brand remarketing (Disney would love to sell new "Alice" stuff, and may have put more effort into the tie-in merchandise than the actual film) with the hateful hollowness of overdone and empty computer-generated imagery. The original 1951 Disney animated "Alice in Wonderland" is far from perfect, but at least it makes you feel like you're watching a fairy tale. With Burton's uninspired, underdone and underwritten version, you only feel like you're watching money"
But I do plan to see it anyway. Perhaps the reviewer does not get what Burton and Alice in Wonderland is all about.
Alice in wonderland isn't supposed to make sense all the time. "Nonsense" as the mock turtle says...
"Alice' in Blunderland
James Rocchi, Special to MSN Movies
Splayed out on the screen in pixelated, glimmering, hollow 3-D, Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is "inspired" by Lewis Carroll's 1865 "Alice in Wonderland" and 1872 "Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There." The phrase "inspired" is in quotes above because, bluntly, there's not a moment of true inspiration in the entire film, just a series of moments demonstrating that Burton, more and more, has become a director content to use his tools as crutches. "Alice in Wonderland" follows Alice (Mia Wasikowska, rendered blank and bland by the script) as she returns to Wonderland and its characters, now a fully-grown woman. This time when Alice tumbles down the rabbit hole, it's because she's fleeing a dreary arranged marriage to a dreary man.
And once in Wonderland, Alice becomes the ultimate Tim Burton protagonist, which is to say that she wanders through a meticulously-designed fantasyland doing very little, meeting fantastic characters much more interesting than she is. Alice has only cloudy memories of her previous visits to Wonderland, and meets at every turn her old friends like Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Matt Lucas), the White Rabbit (voiced by Michael Sheen) and the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp, looking like the headliner in a hypothetical acid trip by the late fashion designer Alexander McQueen). Alice, we and she are told, is the only person who can defeat the Jabberwock and free "Underland" (apparently, Alice misheard it all those years ago, an empty fillip that adds nothing) from the tyranny of the petty, cruel Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter).
But Linda Woolverton's screenplay doesn't give us any reasons for this, moving between expensive and lead-footed set-pieces and unfunny, ostensibly whimsical wordplay before culminating with Alice clad in battle armor bearing the Vorpal sword to defeat the Jabberwock. This is exciting if you collect action figures, or wonder what Joan of Arc would look like given a makeover suitable for the racks at Hot Topic. It is not in any way thrilling if you are interested in character, motivation, coherent storytelling or anything other than Burton's high-tech, high-cost puppet show, in which he jams his clumsy hands up into various literary figures and has them say what he likes before tossing them aside. The unanswered questions are many, and grow with each passing second (Why is Alice the savior? Why is the White Queen [Anne Hathaway] better than the Red?) and we are not given answers, merely spectacle.
The film's 3-D inventions are essentially irrelevant. As the CG characters clatter and clamor on-screen, you get the sense that the 3-D was added solely to keep the computer-generated characters and backgrounds from looking even more mummified, lifeless and plastic. Carroll's books are cultural curiosities whose familiarity is as enduring as it is inexplicable. They're plotless whimsies designed to divert children and lightly mock Victorian social modes and models, and transforming their characters and settings into a 21st-century action-spectacle big-finish blockbuster does not do them, or the audience, any favors. (The Jefferson Airplane wrung more cultural pulp and spooky imaginative power out of the "Alice" story in 1967's "White Rabbit" with two-and-a-half minutes and a little reverb than Burton does in 2010 with 108 minutes and millions of dollars.) Depp's Mad Hatter is shown to be insane thanks in no small part to the brutal military actions of the Red Queen. I'd never thought of the Mad Hatter as a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder, but any interesting possibilities in that approach are drowned out by Depp's shifting accents, shameless mugging and lazy overacting.
Much of the blame of this "Alice" can fall on Woolverton. If you're going to explore political ideas with a revamp of a Victorian children's fable, don't do it in half-measures. The film's postscript feels like a lame attempt to give one of the least feminist works of literature ever written (many historians suggest Carroll invented "Alice" to impress an 11-year-old girl in whom he had an unhealthy interest) a closing moment with a grown-up lead character whose finale feels faux-feminist and clumsily tacked-on.
Burton's always been more of an image-maker than a storyteller. His films all tend to recycle the tale of the beautiful, misunderstood outsider; but at least "Edward Scissorhands" and "Ed Wood" had the lightness of inspiration and the physicality of the real world to support them, and in those films Depp was asked to do more than show up and be Johnny Depp. Like the sour, saccharine "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," "Alice in Wonderland" combines the heavy-handed clamminess of unneeded brand remarketing (Disney would love to sell new "Alice" stuff, and may have put more effort into the tie-in merchandise than the actual film) with the hateful hollowness of overdone and empty computer-generated imagery. The original 1951 Disney animated "Alice in Wonderland" is far from perfect, but at least it makes you feel like you're watching a fairy tale. With Burton's uninspired, underdone and underwritten version, you only feel like you're watching money"
queenbee1127
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,052
I haven't seen this film, and I'm not sure that I will.
From the previews, I can tell that Burton changed the story around, much like he did with his remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Meh. I think Burton is extremely creative and the visuals in the movie will no doubt be stunning but I just hate how he takes a classic story and twists it.
From the previews, I can tell that Burton changed the story around, much like he did with his remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Meh. I think Burton is extremely creative and the visuals in the movie will no doubt be stunning but I just hate how he takes a classic story and twists it.
^Hmm, it's currently at 53 percent on Metacritic. I didn't realized Avril Lavigne made a song for it. Yikes.
Still , I'm sure the 3D will make for fun if I'm stoned or tripping, a al Avatar. Its funny, instead of recommending someone wait to rent it, with these new movies it's sometimes only worth it to see in the theater.
Still , I'm sure the 3D will make for fun if I'm stoned or tripping, a al Avatar. Its funny, instead of recommending someone wait to rent it, with these new movies it's sometimes only worth it to see in the theater.
juniortha3rd
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2009
- Messages
- 338
took my sister to see this today
fucking horrible. I kept falling asleep. It's not funny, the characters aren't interesting, its horrible
fucking horrible. I kept falling asleep. It's not funny, the characters aren't interesting, its horrible
undead
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2001
- Messages
- 7,846
now, i'm not going back and reading EVERYTHING so i'll just say this.
i ALSO hate CGI for the most part and films that rely HEAVILY on it can suck my balls, but some movies (ie, movies like this) obviously wouldn't be much without it. though i'm not a fan of CGI, i can accept it in SOME situations, this being one.
that said. i don't give two shits what anyone says, i'll eventually see this movie.
i ALSO hate CGI for the most part and films that rely HEAVILY on it can suck my balls, but some movies (ie, movies like this) obviously wouldn't be much without it. though i'm not a fan of CGI, i can accept it in SOME situations, this being one.
that said. i don't give two shits what anyone says, i'll eventually see this movie.
vegan
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2003
- Messages
- 6,392
i wish i had seen it in 2D
i would have liked it so much more
the 3D made all the landscapes blurred
by closing an eye with the glasses on, you could see clearly (i'll have to check what's the technology used), but that's tiring
the hatter was not mad enough at all (jack sparrow is crazier)
the movie was not mad enough
helena b c was good
i would have liked it so much more
the 3D made all the landscapes blurred
by closing an eye with the glasses on, you could see clearly (i'll have to check what's the technology used), but that's tiring
the hatter was not mad enough at all (jack sparrow is crazier)
the movie was not mad enough
helena b c was good
HighonLife
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 7,873
What?
i wanna see this so bad
only 2 people voted but both gave it a Single star
i wanna see this so bad
only 2 people voted but both gave it a Single star
Pillthrill
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,861
Its ok. Certainly not a best movie of the year. I'll be surprised if it would win a single award.
I was disappointed. 3 stars...I was considering 2.
I was disappointed. 3 stars...I was considering 2.
SpelunkingTheMind
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2008
- Messages
- 124
EXACTLY!! I went into this movie thinking "y'know, I know other people are gonna rip on this movie because it won't be SUPER FAITHFUL to the books, but it's ridiculous to expect super faithful, and in any case I love every Tim Burton movie, especially with Johnny Depp, so I'm going to love this"
Frankly, I didn't (and I really do love every other Tim Burton movie, including the ones like Willy Wonka that everyone else rags on
), and for the same reason.[Might be some spoilers here but nothing that I would consider big or movie-ruining]
Ok, I get not being completely faithful to the books, but it's like Burton COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT of the books! There was almost ZERO word play/absurdities. Absalom had one instance of SORT OF word play (one that was really obvious and felt forced and served the plot in a big but dull way). Burton took a nice absurd touch from the first book (Hatter: "Why's a raven like a writing desk?" Alice: "Why IS a raven like a writing desk? Hatter: "I haven't the slightest idea!") and turned it into some sort of.. catch phrase?? Theme? I don't even know. And "Jabberwocky" as some deep-meaning, foreboding prophecy?? Oy. And implying the Mad Hatter was sometimes only pretending to be mad for political reasons, and in general was only mad because of basically PTSD?? What the hell. And the whole Hatter-Alice (platonic) love affair was just.. odd. Out of place.
Like DrScience said, nothing here was absurd. The absurdities that Burton DID take from the books, he made into some VERY MEANINGFUL crap. The absurd characters, he turned into a politically oppressed opposition force. And frankly, the Hatter was a disappointment. No word play, not very mad. It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I'm almost positive Depp's Willy Wonka had more puns/word play than his Mad Hatter.
GAH
I really wanted to and expected to love this movie, but I just can't. Don't get me wrong, it was a fun movie and it's very pretty, but it was at the same time a pretty solid disappointment.
You hurt me, Tim. You toyed with me and you hurt me.
SpelunkingTheMind
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2008
- Messages
- 124
Oh, and did Burton REALLY make it that the place is ACTUALLY called 'Underland' and the young Alice was just being STUPID and mistakenly called it 'Wonderland'? Someone please tell me I heard that wrong.
If I might quote drscience again:
WTF TIM BURTON
If I might quote drscience again:
WTF TIM BURTON
oohcow
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2006
- Messages
- 737
I dunno, i took 2 hits of fire lsd.
Saw the movie.
Was floored.
Bravo. I love you chesh.
EDIT: go tripping... this movie is breathtaking... I love alice... and the cheshire cat was jus tsoo fucking cool.
I dunno.. fuck the word play the movie was confusing as was LOL.... I was confused enough... it was bomb I RECOMMEND IT
I give it 5 stars... have some flame L or booms tho =)
Saw the movie.
Was floored.
Bravo. I love you chesh.
EDIT: go tripping... this movie is breathtaking... I love alice... and the cheshire cat was jus tsoo fucking cool.
I dunno.. fuck the word play the movie was confusing as was LOL.... I was confused enough... it was bomb I RECOMMEND IT
I give it 5 stars... have some flame L or booms tho =)
Feste
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,537
I say this as a huge burton fan.
It sucked.
The story line just had nothing to do with Alice, Depp was annoying (just a mishmash of a few of his past characters), that dance was just tacked on for a cheap laugh, the CGI was shitty (depp's bug eyes & Carters head being the worst culprit), the Lord of The Rings-esque battle, The 'underland' thing (WTF), the set stole the carved hedges from Edward Scissorhands & the tree from Sleepy Hollow, the Red Queen was just Queeny from Blackadder, They claim it's a sequel - yet constantly repeat the books & drop lines from the books/movies, etc, etc, etc.
Saving graces; Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat. Absolutely perfect.
Rickman was cool as the catterpillar too.
It sucked.
The story line just had nothing to do with Alice, Depp was annoying (just a mishmash of a few of his past characters), that dance was just tacked on for a cheap laugh, the CGI was shitty (depp's bug eyes & Carters head being the worst culprit), the Lord of The Rings-esque battle, The 'underland' thing (WTF), the set stole the carved hedges from Edward Scissorhands & the tree from Sleepy Hollow, the Red Queen was just Queeny from Blackadder, They claim it's a sequel - yet constantly repeat the books & drop lines from the books/movies, etc, etc, etc.
Saving graces; Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat. Absolutely perfect.
Rickman was cool as the catterpillar too.
LoveAlways
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,791
I think I'll wait till I can take psychadelics again before I see this movie
Jamshyd
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Messages
- 15,492
LOL!
(I say this as a HUGE dodgeson (alias Carroll) fan.)
I told ya' so.
Alice's genius lies in words in their written forms.
Ie. NOT their VISUAL forms.
The only things that makes the Alice books classic is the fact that they were written as syllogisms by a mathematician. I believe there is simply no way that this can be represented visually, less so by hollywood.
I may be wrong though.
Still, I refuse to watch this film with the zealotry of a Spaniard inquisitionist examining the literary works of an (otherwise) great author.
Again: I refuse to watch this film, if for no other reason then to avoid the personal trauma I would have to endure when loving the works of Dodgeson (a.k.a. "Lewis Carol")