Alice in Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland

CBEAN
CBEAN

March 19th, 2010, 1:31 am #1

Did no one see it. Does anyone care. Why is it in 3D ?

Well I went to see it opening weekend. It was Tim Burton but one of his better movies, true to the Alice In Wonderland story. Did not need to be 3D. Was enjoyable, but thats it I didn't leave the theatre saying ohh or ahh. Just had an enjoyable movie experience . Without Johnny Depp this probably would of flopped.
Quote
Share

Dante Bean
Dante Bean

March 19th, 2010, 5:43 am #2

After Pirates, pretty much anything with Depp is going to do well think. Now it's Depp, in the industries worst fad since disaster movies, 3-D.
Quote
Share

MEbossyouNOT
MEbossyouNOT

March 19th, 2010, 3:40 pm #3

Did no one see it. Does anyone care. Why is it in 3D ?

Well I went to see it opening weekend. It was Tim Burton but one of his better movies, true to the Alice In Wonderland story. Did not need to be 3D. Was enjoyable, but thats it I didn't leave the theatre saying ohh or ahh. Just had an enjoyable movie experience . Without Johnny Depp this probably would of flopped.
I thought this could have been more darker...more brothers grimm. It seems like Burton was doing another in the "Charlie choclate factory" category than in the "Edward Scissorhands, Batman" category (his 2 best films I think). Johnny Depp was more visually distracting than charming, and looked more like Willy Wonka than a mad hatter.

Both Burton and James Cameron need to stay away from childrens fantasy material. Too much garrish color first of all. Nothing wears out CGI's welcome faster than such artificial, crayola looking pallettes. Cameron should stick to the cold dark steelblue grading he used in terminator and true lies and Burton's characters should either live in Sleepy Hollow or Gotham City.

Anyway back to Alice....could have had a more "return to Oz" feel. Most of it seemed too saturday morning cartoonish. I didnt care about any characters and was mostly bored. Personally I wouldn't mind an r-rated ultraviolent horror version of Alice in Wonderland...complete with a blood-splattered red queen that can make "off with her head" sound scary again and a Jabberwocky coming out of JJ Abrams creature collections. I've always considered Wonderland to be a sarcastically veilled nightmarescape anyway.

There was a computer game several years back that was a nightmare version of Alice in Wonderland that was FANTASTICally designed and still scares the crap out of me....if they had made the movie anything like that I would have peed my pants watching it.
Quote
Share

Joined: May 25th, 2002, 12:00 am

March 19th, 2010, 6:44 pm #4

I am a big Burton fan and a big Depp fan so I was totally psyched for the Burton/Depp one two punch. I don't like crowds so I haven't seen it yet. But I keep hearing from everyone that it is boring, average, and just meh.

So disappointed! I don't want it to be true! I was intending to splurge and see it at the IMAX, but now I am thinking maybe not? Regular, 3D, or IMAX?




Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 14th, 2004, 3:49 pm

March 19th, 2010, 7:11 pm #5

Yeah Bossy I had that game I think it was just called Alice with a picture of her holding a butcher's knife on the cover. Pretty cool game. Why is it that I keep agreeing with Dante on things? I think people are covering up their lack of original story, terrible writing and crappy acting with 3D. I spend too much time focusing on the fuzzy crap at the edge of my 3D vision than watching the actual movie.

TRON SAVE US!
Quote
Like
Share

Dante Bean
Dante Bean

March 19th, 2010, 10:22 pm #6

Cause you adore me!

And I'm worried 3-D is here to stay. I don't like movies that are complete, later being tinkered with to support a 3D format, because it wasn't envisioned in 3D, it always seems like a cheap after market cash in. But on the flip side, I don't like unnecessary crap being worked into movies just so they can take advantage of 3D tech, because it always looks forced and gimmicky. I just want it to go away.

And yeah, the game was just called Alice and it's great. The rights were sold years ago and pre-production was done on a movie adaptation, but a lot of red tape eventually crashed the production before it ever took off. And now that this is out, I doubt we'll ever see it. Shame.
Quote
Share

CBEAN
CBEAN

March 20th, 2010, 2:53 am #7

I am a big Burton fan and a big Depp fan so I was totally psyched for the Burton/Depp one two punch. I don't like crowds so I haven't seen it yet. But I keep hearing from everyone that it is boring, average, and just meh.

So disappointed! I don't want it to be true! I was intending to splurge and see it at the IMAX, but now I am thinking maybe not? Regular, 3D, or IMAX?



See it in regular 3D. Save your money.. Once again if it was not in 3D it would of looked the same to me. Only thing that seemed 3D was the cat ( Sorry name leave me ).
Quote
Share

Smirk
Smirk

March 22nd, 2010, 1:43 am #8

With Alice (which I haven't seen) I finally saw my cinema-geekdom express itself in my 16 year old daughter who was totally pumped to see it but refused to see it in the 3D version because it wasn't intended for 3D. She took her little brother and was quite pleased.

She went a second time a few days later with a couple of friends who insisted on the 3D version and told me that the 3D had a chintzy, cheap feel as opposed to Avatar.

She may be the next Wendy! In fact, I think she has told me that a movie has 'sucked shit' in the last year or so.
Quote
Share

Mr. Ed
Mr. Ed

March 25th, 2010, 5:21 am #9

Did no one see it. Does anyone care. Why is it in 3D ?

Well I went to see it opening weekend. It was Tim Burton but one of his better movies, true to the Alice In Wonderland story. Did not need to be 3D. Was enjoyable, but thats it I didn't leave the theatre saying ohh or ahh. Just had an enjoyable movie experience . Without Johnny Depp this probably would of flopped.
Todd had an unusual perception of the classic story. Lewis Carroll is a pervert? Okay, whatever.

Anyway, I must agree that there are a lot of films out right now that have all kinds of gee-wiz-bang visuals but the story is blasé and forgettable. Hollywood is going to spread its slime all over every classic story it can get its hands on because it is too damned scared to do anything new.
Quote
Share

Eric
Eric

April 6th, 2010, 12:20 am #10

It's pretty common knowledge that Lewis Carroll enjoyed taking nudes of the Liddell girls (and other children, men, women, landscapes, dogs, statues . . . ) and he toyed with the idea of becoming a professional photographer. There was a lot of nude child photography done during the Victorian era. It even appears on a lot of Victorian Christmas cards.

As far as the stories being "acid trips" most of the things in his books are either political satire or clever mathematical puzzles.

To each their own, I suppose.

Quote
Share