DVDizzy Forum

So far I have seen nothing that tells me that I have to see this film in the Cinema. It looks rather boring to me, as has many of the later Tim Burton films. I now think that he has pushed the envelope far enough to becomde one of the most over-rated directors.

I know this is not the first story of Alice in Wonderland, but a telling of a story many years later. I just think I will wait and use my free rental for this film when it comes to DVD.

dvdjunkie wrote: I just think I will wait and use my free rental for this film when it comes to DVD.

That's what I'll be doing (or I can pay for the rental, either way); I am interested in the movie, but I'd rather spend my little spending money on other things, especially since I know that I can rent it for $1 or less when it is on DVD.

ETOnline: 'Alice in Wonderland' Cast Gets the Royal Treatment
http://www.laughingplace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=73579


The White Queen Speaks
http://d23.disney.go.com/articles/02261 ... haway.html
(via disneyreport.com)


http://tommy2.net/content/?p=13849

Almost Alice – featuring songs by Avril Lavigne, All-American Rejects, Owl City, Plain White T’s, and more. iTunes has two bonus tracks: “You Are Old, Father William” by They Might Be Giants and Danny Elfman’s “Alice’s Theme.” Hot Topic also has three bonus tracks: “Topsy Turvy” by Family Force 5, “See What We Seas” by Never Shout Never, and “Extreme” by Valora!.

Helena in Wonderland
http://movies.ign.com/articles/107/1073617p1.html
(via laughingplace.com)


Alice in Wonderland Product Showcase
http://psc.disney.go.com/eventservices/ ... ndise.html
(via laughingplace.com)


Alice in Wonderland at the El Capitan March 5-30
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID10037500.asp

Pathé, the biggest cinema-chain in The Netherlands, has agreed to release Alice after all.

Disney's publicity department threw a flash mob in Milano Italy.

A Japanese entertainment show has revealed a ton of new footage, beware of spoilers.

I already saw the film at my nearest IMAX theater and I absolutely loved it! Mia is really the perfect Alice. But I have to say that the plot is kinda generic.

greetings from the land of the twin towers!

i saw alice twice today (the 3d opens this week while the 2d the next) and this is my review.

on the first viewing i didn't like it at all.granted i have never read the books but from the previous alices i saw i sort of got this visualisation of wonderland and tim's version was definitely off putting. i didn't like how the 3d effects r too in ur face.they swoop all the time and throw things just to impress u but no...it didnt.

i wished helena had gotten more screentime, she was the sole saviour of the movie.

mia was okay...at times she reminds me of gwyneth paltrow in her expressions.

johnny wasnt as mad as i had hoped..i was expecting ed wynn's mad hatter but i don't see the madness in him.

the costume designs were superb.the graphics were well done too.

the one thing im most disappointed with is the score.it borrows cues from pirates and narnia,making the plot feel more narnia like than it already is.whats up with elfman?

all in all, not as good as burton's sweeney todd. if i were to compare this with return to oz,id say the latter was much2 better despite the technical advancement of its time.

i was so going to diss this movie but then again, a movie that lingers while after ive come home usually deserves a 2nd evaluation. my verdict, not something ill cherish for decades to come.pass me walt's version anytime but this is a glossy so-so companion to the alice stories.

can't wait to see it on BD.

B-

Movie projector: Alice headed for $100-million-plus worldwide debut
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... debut.html
(via disneyreport.com)


Helena Bonham Carter finds her role in 'Alice in Wonderland' is a royal pain
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 2073.story
(disneyreport.com)


'Alice In Wonderland' Cheat Sheet: Everything You Need To Know
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles ... tory.jhtml


Jim Hill's review:

Disney, Tim Burton & Linda Woolverton deliver an “Alice” for the ages
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... -ages.aspx


The Disney Blog's Mike B.'s review:

‘Alice in Wonderland’ | My review
http://thedisneyblog.com/2010/03/05/ali ... my-review/


Mouse Planet's review:

Alice in Wonderland
http://www.mouseplanet.com/9185/Alice_in_Wonderland

Saw this today.

Epic fail of a movie.

Still enjoyed it tho.

It's so interesting to me all the hype the movie has been getting prior to its release, but now that it's out, it's not getting very good reviews!

Aint It Cool News has some reviews up:

Capone is dazzled and frustrated by Tim Burton's version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND!!!
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44183

Massawyrm chimes in on the most divisive movie of the season ALICE IN WONDERLAND
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44170

Harry is fascinated with Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND!
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44175

And you can download "Alice's Theme" for free from Amazon mp3:

http://www.amazon.com/Alices-Theme/dp/B ... 155&sr=1-2
(via aintitcool.com)

akhenaten wrote:on the first viewing i didn't like it at all

Then why'd you go to see it again?

akhenaten wrote:can't wait to see it on BD.

Because it was visually stunning, more than the story? Or to see if you'll like it even more a third time?

yukitora wrote:Epic fail of a movie.

Still enjoyed it tho.

For the lulz? Or if it was an epic fail, why'd you enjoy it?

Really, I'm just trying to understand the people that are saying that it wasn't good, but they want to see it again!

Some people's logic is beyond me.

I guess it's a visual masterpiece - though storywise not so great and apparantly not all the actors are that good in this (Mia Wasi-blah-blah, Johnny Depp, Anne Hatheway). Even though Helena Bonham Carter was praised in almost every review I read - even the negative ones. I personally haven't seen it yet - so don't quote me on this, but that's what I've mainly read in negative reviews. Even the more positive ones acknowledge that it won't win over audiences with it's story.

My guess is that worldwide this thing is going to bring in a buttload of money. Definitely more than 100 million on it's opening weekend. I hope it does very good, so that Tim Burton can do a lot more projects with Disney.

I might not see the moivie til tomorrow, but im looking forward to it.

i saw it twice because both were free, and i always have high expectations on disney movies and 2nd evaluation is necessary. i didn't like it not in the sense that i loathe chicken little, i was just expecting more, and i wouldn't mind seeing it again just for the red queen, 3d fun with friends and collecting ticket stubs to enter the alice competition

If it hadn't been free, would you have gone a second time? Or, if one screening was free, would you have gone to a second if you had to pay?

Is anyone really surprised by the mixed reviews? Tim Burton movies always get mixed reactions. For example, I loved Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because I felt it captured some of the more macabre elements of the original story very well, but many saw it as a disgrace and it disrespected the original film.

I also loved The Corpse Bride, but many saw it as the worst film of his career. Meanwhile, a lot of people like Sweeney Todd, but I hated it due to how soulless it felt, especially during the musical numbers (though the ending was great).

Tim Burton has never been the type of director that aims to please. He does his own thing, even if he is at the orders of a big studio like Disney. Most movie viewers and critics will not agree to his directing style, so he tends to get far more mixed reviews than any other filmmaker in the business.

I saw just go watch the film if you want to, and if you like it fine, and if you hated it that's fine too. It's not like the film will be a colossal failure like Princess and the Frog...

(yeah, I trolled XD ).

pap64 wrote:Is anyone really surprised by the mixed reviews? Tim Burton movies always get mixed reactions. For example, I loved Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because I felt it captured some of the more macabre elements of the original story very well, but many saw it as a disgrace and it disrespected the original film.

Yeah, I also really liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for the reasons you stated. In fact, if somebody were to tell Tim Burton that it disrespected the 1970s version, he would see it as a compliment since his reason for doing it was because of how much he hates the Gene Wilder adaptation. And I'm all the more pleased with that, since I share his sentiments on the first Charlie adaptation.

Anyway, he's my brief (spoiler-free, don't worry!) review of Alice in Wonderland:

Tim Burton finally gets around to tackling Lewis Carroll and while it's slightly disappointing, it's a well-done and enjoyable film, nonetheless. Mia Wasikowska does a very good job with playing Alice, grounding her even when she is in the magical fantasy world and her character is definitely the most fully-realised of the film. Helena Bonham Carter also does some wonderful work as the Red Queen as she seems to be having a great time playing the role, but the characters just seem under-written, including Johnny Depp's Hatter who isn't particularly mad and that's my biggest issue with Alice in Wonderland. As per expected from a Tim Burton production, it's visually impressive with some excellent production design, costume work and visual effects and Danny Elfman's score is fantastic. However, the 3-D doesn't really bring much to the fore-front so those seeing it in regular 2-D format will not be missing much. However, Burton seems to be holding back when he should be letting loose with the material. Aside from the Red Queen and the marvellous Cheshire Cat, the characters don't feel as much like their written counterparts. However, as a fan of the original book, I definitely smiled through the course of the film and enjoyed the little moments that did feel Lewis Carroll-like in nature. In conclusion, it's another solid piece of work from Tim Burton, but I think another re-write could have helped here.

All right, after three years of anticipation, I finallly got to see the film. Since I know I'll be rambling, I'll sum it up first: I simultaneously loved it and was disappointed by it. I know that doesn't quite make sense. As I was watching it, I was engaged by what I was seeing. As I replayed the film over in my head, though, I couldn't help but think it could've and should've been better, my ridiculous expectations aside. Here are some of my random thoughts:

* The CGI was excellent. It was so rich and detailed that I forgot I was looking at CG. It's amazing just how well everything blends together, better than what's been shown in promotional materials. The White Queen's castle in particular was simply gorgeous.

* The 3-D was surprisingly low-key. It seems pretty obvious to me that the process was done in post-production. You'd think such elaborate CG setpieces would lend themselves well to the format, but it felt rather flat most of the time. The only scene that popped out was the rabbit hole sequence, which was fantastic.

* The story presentation seemed rushed. When I read both the script and the novelization, I was imagining significant pauses between lines and transitions between scenes. So it felt kind of jarring to me see how certain lines were run into each other or how certain scenes were edited together. Dialogue is spit out so quickly that I kept thinking how other audience members were following along since I had an advantage of already knowing what was going on. It wasn't even a rhythmic sort of speed like in the Disney animated film. It was a sort of start-stop-start-stop kind of tempo.

* My goodness, most of the stuff from the teaser trailer (and even some of the theatrical trailer) was either severely altered in the finished film or cut altogether. Burton wasn't kidding when he said they were working till the last minute on this. It's astounding how good the film looks when you realized how crunched for time everyone was.

* I was wondering if Mia Wasikowska might play Alice as a wishy washy type since that's sort of how she reads in the script (and the promo footage revealed didn't tell us much). The novelization made her a little spunkier, but I wasn't sure if that was the author's own spin on it. I'm happy to see that Mia does, in fact, make Alice a fully believable and multi-dimensional soul.

* Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter wasn't the slam dunk I was expecting, but I'm still pleased with his performance. I liked how his madness caused him to go off on uncontrollable tangents that he needed to be snapped out of. I'm not sure if the switching between the high-pitched British lisp and the rough Scottish brogue voices really worked. I liked both on their own, but the ping-ponging back and forth with little rhyme or reason seemed peculiar, even for the Hatter. I'm wondering if maybe giving him several voices (like, 3 or even 5) would've made his split personality disorder more concrete and therefore more acceptable.

* I have to agree that (besides Mia), Helena Bonham Carter gave the best (human) performance. She nailed that role by making the Queen both hilarious and imposing, somehow managing to balance both. Whereas Depp's Hatter still felt like a work in progress, Carter's Red Queen feels more polished and secured. Of the vocal performances, Stephen Fry's Cheshire Cat was my favorite. I think it's the first time I've seen a droll, almost bored Cheshire Cat, and somehow that seems to fit so perfectly that it's amazing no one's thought of that before.

* I wish the flashback were longer. I loved seeing little Alice interacting with the characters on her first (and second?) time visit. The prologue with her and her father was very sweet, though I would've liked to have seen the bit in the novelization where Alice demands her father name the six impossibe things he believes in before breakfast. I don't know if that was in a later draft of the script, if it was ever filmed, or if it was just an invention by the author.

* The battle sequence, while short, was well executed. I loved the toppling effect with the cards and the Hatter using his hat pins as weapons. I think the battle could've used more whimsy and imagination like those bits to give it a more distinctive flavor.

* The Futterwacken dance was...unique. I didn't know what to expect as both the script and novelization described as a dance of exhuberance, nothing more. To be honest, I think Elfman's scoring of this scene is what keeps it from being hilarious. It's almost like modern breakdance music. If he had given it something more nutty and comedic, it would've been easier to digest.

* I do think the film is an improvement over the first draft of the script. That incarnation felt too fan fictionish to me in how all of the characters was awkwardly pegged into fantasy stereotypes that went against their original characterizations. The film, for the most part, gives everyone their quirkiness back (thank you, Tim, for making Alice and the Hatter's relationship more ambiguous and less of a rushed love story). I especially liked the way it changed the revelation of the Red Queen's court. However, it's still constrained by Woolverton's Alice in Narnia storyline. Maybe if either: a) the supporting characters were given more to do or b) some sort of subplot was interwoven to make the story more layered, they'd simultaneously give Wonderland some more of its bizarreness while giving the story more weight.

So I think the film is technically brilliant, but content-wise it's a little too straight forward for a world that thrives on insanity. I think Burton could've made it stranger and zanier while sticking to Woolverton's storyline; it just needed some padding to make that possible. However, Burton's Wonderland is still a heck of a lot more interesting than other interpretations I've seen. In terms of Alice films, I'd rank this third after the 1985 CBS miniseries and the 1951 animated version. In terms of live-action Disney films (and live-action is obviously used loosely in this case), I'm not sure, yet. I don't have the same feeling of "Wow..." that I had after seeing both Narnias. I need to see it again to determine where it stands, but for now, I'll pencil it in as third. It's a great film and very entertaining. It's probably something that gets better with repeats now that first impressions and expectations are out of the way.

What changes did you notice from the Teaser?

estefan wrote:

pap64 wrote:Is anyone really surprised by the mixed reviews? Tim Burton movies always get mixed reactions. For example, I loved Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because I felt it captured some of the more macabre elements of the original story very well, but many saw it as a disgrace and it disrespected the original film.

Yeah, I also really liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for the reasons you stated. In fact, if somebody were to tell Tim Burton that it disrespected the 1970s version, he would see it as a compliment since his reason for doing it was because of how much he hates the Gene Wilder adaptation. And I'm all the more pleased with that, since I share his sentiments on the first Charlie adaptation.

In fear of derailing the thread...

I have friends who agree with me, especially those that have read the original book. The Gene Wilder version is, in my honest opinion, a Disneyfication of the original story. While it's a great movie (one of my faves) it's a very loose adaptation, at times WAY too cheery and colorful. The Tim Burton version actually dares to portray a world that is far more darker.

The kids were supposed to be representations of the deadly sins. In the original, they were all just silly, bratty, hyperactive kids. In the Burton version they are indeed the evil little kids Dahl had created and thus worthy of the punishment they receive at the end.

Willy Wonka himself is also very well portrayed. In the original story it was clear that he had issues, mentioned how he had very pale skin for never leaving the factory and considering some of his candies were crazy, he had a level of insanity in him. While I loved Gene Wilder's interpretation he felt a bit too warm and cuddly. Depp's Wonka showed that there was a consequence to his genius. He was very anti-social, had some severe issues, and I think the sub-plot about his father added a lot to the portrayal.

Funny enough, the original movie had the best boat tunnel scene as well as the interpretation of Charlie Bucket. In the original Charlie was just an average little kid, emphasis on KID. He likes chocolate and is genuinely happy to go to the factory. Whereas Highmore's Charlie was a bit too good, almost bordering on "perfect little angel".

...And sorry for rambling. It's just that it bothers me how people rag on the Burton version all because of nostalgia. While the Wilder version had a lot of merits so does the Burton version.