my oppinion is that movie sucked but the ACTING was great espeacilly with Johnny Depp he is an amazing actor but the movie was a big disappiontment so please explain your reasing when you say i liked it or it sucked or it was ok.
Terrible movie. Crappy plot. The only "plus" was the Queen of Hearts. The biggest negative was the White Queen (she was unwatchable). ~String
Wow! I was so looking forward to seeing this film. Oh well. I'll watch it anyway and let you know what I think.
Alice: "Why don't you kill the Jabberwoki? You're surely powerful enough." White Queen: "Because I've taken an oath to never harm a living thing." Alice: "...Well maybe you should just do it anyway, you stupid selfish bitch!"
What? And stop her kingdom from falling and prevent the evil Red Witch from slaughtering hundreds of not thousands of innocent sentient life forms. Right on! Way to hold on to those lofty morals! ~String
You were all correct it sucked. Visually it was impressive but the story construct and character development was all wrong. I agree with the mouse 'Its not the right Alice". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It was like Burton started with alice in wonderland and then somehow he got caught up in lord of the rings. What's worse is he lost the idea of 'absurdity' by trying to make the world literal, by making it 'real', obeying the parameters of right and wrong, sanity and madness etc. Burton abandoned the linguistic elegance Lewis Carroll mastered in the original material. The story didn't really have any coherent intention as far as I can tell and before you say that Carroll's material didn't either I would say that Carroll's intention was to have a loose framework where mathematical and logic puzzles, word games, nonsensical situations etc could flourish. Burton simply killed all of that by trying to give Alice a stupid quest better left to Frodo. Who played the white queen? Boy did she really put on a bad performance.
This. My wife and I saw it last weekend. It was her idea. She should have took my advice and watched Hot Tub Time Machine or Clash Of The Titans.
I enjoyed it just fine, but it didn't live up to my expectations. "The Jabberwocky" is the only poem I ever memorized in school, so I felt a personal connection to the story. I saw it in 3D, which I think was a mistake. "Avatar" worked in 3D because their intention was to make it seem real. The motions and proportions were all realistic and whenever the viewer's point of view shifted a little bit, everything in his field of vision looked exactly like it should look from the new vantage. But you can't do that with cartoons. The whole point of cartoons is to distort and exaggerate. Characters stretch, they're shaped wrong, and they don't move like real creatures. Forcing the cartoon characters to conform to the laws of geometry and physics detracted from the silliness, and the occasional attempt at exaggeration or distortion just looked stoopid in 3D. Worse yet, the film switched between 2D and 3D several times, and that just gave me a headache. I was expecting "Avatar," "Yellow Submarine," "Fantastic Planet," or even the South Park or (first) Rugrats movie. Instead, it was a feature-length Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon. That's okay, I'm easy. I would have paid to see a feature-length Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon. I had a good time. I suspect that somebody who's stoned might pick up a whole new universe of nuances from it. Unfortunately I wasn't.
Excuse me for showing my age. We call 'em "cartoons," not "animated films." I suppose if something is deadly serious and almost completely devoid of humor, like "Avatar," I can see elevating it into a loftier category. But "Alice" is full of jokes and slapstick, or "cartoon violence" as it's called in the trade. By my standards it's a feature-length cartoon like the original Disney version, or "Up!", or "Beavis and Butt-Head Do America." All of which were perfectly fine films.
Ok. I see what you mean now. I initially thought you meant to say that Alice as it was originally written is ideal as 'cartoon'.
Taking the appeal of a great original story, adapting it to modern technology and relying on presentational appeal to the masses to ram some eventual moral point down your throat, is a large reason I dislike Burton. That and... I often feel let down,somehow. I get this feeling from his characters sometimes of pure evil, then find myself disappointed that they're not. Ummm. He uses fine actors - Depp and Bonham-Carter turn up in nearly all his films somewhere. He uses fine cinematics (usually). But's it's all candy coated waffle in the end, and often fails to live up to expectation. I get the feeling that Alice was using the appeal of the original story for little reason other than to to draw in a sentimental audience. Or perhaps it's simply that he shows promise of being good enough to deliver up something truly magical, and then just... doesn't.
This was not the Alice in Wonderland I expected from my childhood (my favorite story). Unfortunately wonderland was just not "nutty" enough. There were morals, ethics, right and wrong in this new version that the old wonderland didn't seem to care about or address. The old wonderland was far more bizzare and odd and making sense of it was what really made the rabbit hole go further because it almost seemed to purposefully make no sesne at all. The new one was a completely different experience with a lot less oddities. I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as the older one.
