Alice in Wonderland (Live-Action)

Flanger-Hanger · Post by **Flanger-Hanger** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:25 am

I don't think the issue of Alice begin a girl or in the tile matters. It's a Tim Burton movie with a cast that would appeal to an older audience.

It's not like it's part of a Disney Princess marketing scheme aimed at girls 3-10.

DisneyJedi · Post by **DisneyJedi** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:48 am

disneyboy20022 wrote:
DisneyJedi wrote:You know, I'm curious as to whether or not this will surely break Avatar's worldwide box office record. Well.... I'm not saying it will happen, but it would be amazing if it did happen.
If that happens..can you say sequel....it did leave an opening for a sequel I thought....which if that happens.....time to milk the Tim Burton Underland Cow by Disney:

That would be highly unlikely.

Besides, Titanic is the second higest grossing movie of all time, and did that get a sequel? No, and thank goodness. A sequel would have ruined that one.

disneyboy20022 · Post by **disneyboy20022** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:55 am

DisneyJedi wrote:
disneyboy20022 wrote: If that happens..can you say sequel....it did leave an opening for a sequel I thought....which if that happens.....time to milk the Tim Burton Underland Cow by Disney:

That would be highly unlikely.

Besides, Titanic is the second higest grossing movie of all time, and did that get a sequel? No, and thank goodness. A sequel would have ruined that one.

Well Of course Titanic didn't get a sequel......well wait hold that thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL_Zum1bMdU

Of course that was a fan made version of a movie that never will exist...

But....Avatar is the Largest Grossing Film and its getting 2 more films if it goes according to plan that is

http://www.thewrap.com/article/james-ca ... quel-11597

DisneyJedi · Post by **DisneyJedi** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:59 am

To be honest, I feel that Avatar doesn't NEED a sequel. I mean, there's no loose ends needing tied up, or any unanswered questions. Of course, I could be wrong there.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:12 pm

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: I don't think the fact it was more faithful to the book in some ways made it better than the first film. After all, then it added the dentist subplot, and other things still made it unfaithful. The original film gave better feelings, it touched you more, I think it was a better film.

It would be great if being more faithful to the source and being a better film always went together, but they don't. And this Alice in Wonderland was a film where I felt what was originally in the source would have been better than what we got.

I was disappointed to learn it was like Tim Burton wasn't doing Alice in Wonderland, but really a sequel of it. We got Tim's version of some of the characters and the land itself, but not so much the actual, original story. It was quasi his take on the original story.

But I was still very excited to see it, wanting to know what new story was going to happen, and it just seemed like it would be incredible from everything coming out about it.

But when I saw it...I was a little dissapointed...but I still liked it a lot and enjoyed it very much. I couldn't believe the title just came up without much coming before it. I would have liked to have seen Tim Burton's usual way of doing credits going through Wonderland in the beginning. I was also expecting the young Alice's first trip to Wonderland to be in the beginning, as actually part of the film, so that in a way, the original Alice in Wonderland actually was in the film somewhere. I wouldn't have minded if the credits played over young Alice's first adventures, and then she wakes up and goes to her dad's room. Well, maybe I would have, I don't know.

I didn't think Alice was played that great...maybe because I didn't like this new interpretation of an older Alice, but I think more so because I thought she came off as pretty bland. Disney's 1951 Katherine Beaumont Alice was more memorable.

I didn't think Johnny Depp did as great a job as I thought he would. And what he does with the madness illustrates one of the possible problems of this film. He didn't have whimsical, zany madness displayed in, like, The March Hare in the same film, or what was in all of Disney's 1951 version. I thought his Scottish accent was because England and Scotland are close together and he could have picked it up, but I think he should have stayed with the posh lisp and just deepened his voice in some grim madness sometimes.

The Red Queen was played fantastically, though, and I actually did feel for her character during her sad and loving times. Her problem was pretty much that she wasn't a very understanding person and was like an unruly child. But she wasn't heartless, because she wanted love, so I didn't think she deserved her punishment.

Speaking of, I didn't like that that White Queen did that, but she didn't have to be pure innocence or goodness in Wonderland I guess. I thought Anne Hathaway did a fantastic job with her as well, but I guess I didn't like the idea she was somewhat fake. Then it's kind of like a real person only acting mad as she only acted so airy and innocent. However, Disneykid, I don't think she told them all to pretend to say they might slay the Jabberwock, I don't think she thought anyone would want to do it, and when the Teedles almost did, then she hinted they shouldn't.

I didn't like the Doormouse at all. After changing her from the original boy to be a girl for a romance, and the romance didn't really play a part, there was no point, and she just came off as a little girl mouse trying to be a big fighter and only coming off as annoying. Or maybe I just didn't like her voice.

The Chesire Cat was great, and probably my favorite character. He was even kind of creepy.

And that brings me to the Jabberwocky. He was GREAT. And he was SCARY. Truly scary. I was frightened, so I didn't understand how kids wouldn't be. Honestly, they were pefect with him (well, perfect for a PG-13 film), except I thought his lightning fire should have been a different color, like orange like his eyes or a redder purple.

Speaking of things like that, the gold crown that previously looked bad on the White Queen got changed to a much better silver crown when she wore it (though why blue gems I have no idea, tht doesn't match her other colors), but I swear she wore the gold one in the flashback of when she was queen before. I don't remember.

I thought Alan Rickman was fine, not really outstanding as the caterpillar but a good choice, and when he said that he would die, but go onto another life, I thought he might've been giving Alice a reason to fight, because even though she might die, she would live on (in some after life). But that may just be the kind of things I find in films and maybe they didn't put that in at all.

Some review said the end fight was generic, but it was far from that. It was unlike any battle I had ever seen. I thought it was great, mainly with anything with the Jabberwocky. The one on one he had with Alice was not what you see in most battles, and it was terrifying and great.

The whole new story seemed alright, and I have to admit I was interested in it, but since the it didn't make the film that much better or critically successful and it's not really the original Alice in Wonderland at all, I can only think they could have put the story in, or any cohesive story they wanted in the original adventures Alice had.

I didn't think they needed to give new "real" names to characters and if they did, why not Hatta for the Hatter (which is taken from Through the Looking Glass and may actually be his name or a name for him) and things like that, and follow through, like how the Chesire Cat is also Chessur. But other than that, I'd accept the characters real names being Caterpillar or Hatter or March Hare. That seemed to be their real names in Alice's dreamed up land originally.

Naming them is another example of how the mystery and whimsy was somewhat removed in this film. In the original, the characters were in a different world and were mysterious. We didn't know things about them, or couldn't understand them, because they were not us, but Wonderland people and things. In this version they are more human and kind of more normal. I think you could make an Alice in Wonderland where you feel for Alice and what Wonderland and it's inhabitants do to her without needing to know and care for all the feeings of the characters in Wonderland.

And the same goes for calling Wonderland Underland. Please. It's like it's not even Wonderland or it's characters anymore. But I can understand that in the film world this is just a different take on what could be of the original stories.

It seemed there may have been allusions to other Disney films. The opening with the Big Ben and the moon and clouds reminded me of Peter Pan, and the way the Jabberwocky came out of what looked like a mountain reminded me of Night on Bald Mountain from Fantasia.

Oh, and the dance the Hatter did, completely bad and so different from the rest of the film. And with modern music, too. A bad, bad move. It could have been done differently, and hell, it would have been actually more entertaining to just see Johnny Depp really dance. And more delightful to see the Mad Hatter so happy doing it.

Well, that's my review. I think it was great in ways, and I really liked it, and may get it on Blu-ray, but it was kind of a let-down in ways too, and certainly it's not the best Alice in Wonderland. The best one I know, I think may be the Disney 1951 version.

blackcauldron85 · Post by **blackcauldron85** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:42 am

Video: Behind the scenes of the Alice in Wonderland Tea Party
http://www.laughingplace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=73721

Alice in Wonderland artists at Nucleus
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/events/alice ... cleus.html

jrboy · Post by **jrboy** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:31 pm

Disney caused an uproar with exhibitors when they suggested Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland would make its way to Blu-ray Disc and DVD as soon as early June. Their intent to get it into homes as soon as possible is clear which means work on the home video bow is well underway.

With that in mind, today we have an early sneak peek at the probable official Blu-ray Disc cover art for Alice in Wonderland featuring Johnny Depp and, to a lesser extent, Mia Wasikowska. There are two covers using familiar key art; one possibly for the outer sleeve and one for the inner case. Or one for the multi-disc release and one for a movie-only release. Regardless of which, each cover has unique Alice-themed symbols around its border.

These covers originated from Disney but should not be considered final at this time as tweaks or changes could still be made. I would place the probability of them closely resembling the final artwork at better than 50/50 odds.

thehdroom.com

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:43 pm

Those wont be the official cover(s). They'll at least do a lot more adjusting and put more characters on and it looks like they just photoshopped poster art. Badly, I might add.

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:20 pm

I'll be very surprised if the Mad Hatter character poster becomes one of the covers. Then again, he did grace the covers of both CDs solo and was prominently on the video game cover...I think they should go the route of the combo cover and have several characters, just with better photoshopping and composition than what they have there. I love the borders on both covers, though.

Disney Duster wrote:I was also expecting the young Alice's first trip to Wonderland to be in the beginning, as actually part of the film, so that in a way, the original Alice in Wonderland actually was in the film somewhere. I wouldn't have minded if the credits played over young Alice's first adventures, and then she wakes up and goes to her dad's room. Well, maybe I would have, I don't know.

This is exactly what I was expecting, too, especially since: a) every Tim Burton before this has had opening credits, and b) Danny Elfman's "Alice Theme" is five minutes long on the soundtrack. So I had it in my mind that we would at least see obscure images from Alice's dream (I didn't think they would outright reveal everything up front, but at least a taste as the credits roll). The first draft of the screenplay actually does start out like this, but instead of little Alice dreaming it, it's adult Alice dreaming about it in the carriage to the Ascot's.

Disney Duster wrote:I didn't like that that White Queen did that, but she didn't have to be pure innocence or goodness in Wonderland I guess. I thought Anne Hathaway did a fantastic job with her as well, but I guess I didn't like the idea she was somewhat fake. Then it's kind of like a real person only acting mad as she only acted so airy and innocent. However, Disneykid, I don't think she told them all to pretend to say they might slay the Jabberwock, I don't think she thought anyone would want to do it, and when the Teedles almost did, then she hinted they shouldn't.

But, see, when the Tweedles first volunteered, she didn't object, nor did she object to anyone else volunteering. But then when the Tweedles take another look at the Orraculum and remember that only Alice can slay it, the White Queen tries to hush them up and casts a wary glance over at Alice. To me, that's apparent that she wants and knows only Alice can fight, but she doesn't want to scare the opportunity away. Whether or not she was letting everyone else volunteer to give Alice a guilt trip is up in the air, but I think she did.

The real names weren't much of an issue since everyone was only called by their real names, like, once each and were otherwise regularly referred to as their classic title. Of course, that begs the question of why have names at all, but I digress.

And on a different note, I just found out that the Futterwacken dance was done for real. They used a stunt dancer and pasted Johnny's head on his body. Other than that and the Exorcist moment, no CG was used for the dance. Curiouser and curiouser.

blackcauldron85 · Post by **blackcauldron85** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:29 am

ALMOST ALICE Debuts at #5 on The Billboard 200
http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID10037640.asp

Voice of Alice (Kathryn Beaumont) speaks out on new Disney movie
http://ocresort.freedomblogging.com/201 ... vie/37329/
(via laughingplace.com)

Margos · Post by **Margos** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:00 pm

....And if it's good enough for Kathy Beaumont, it's good enough for the rest of us!

Disney's Divinity · Post by **Disney's Divinity** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:46 pm

Margos wrote:....And if it's good enough for Kathy Beaumont, it's good enough for the rest of us!

Yeah, and Ursula's a squid because Pat Carroll says so. Yeah. Not.

I won't be seeing this in theaters, so I'm glad it'll be coming out sooner than it usually would. Because I do want to see it, I'm just not obsessed enough to pay for tickets. It's sad to hear the bad reviews though, but I'm not really surprised. Depp never struck me as a good Hatter.

(Also, just as a side comment, I really hated Burton's Chocolate Factory. Not because it was so different from the original film, but because Wonka-Depp was just creepy and, most of all, the oompa-loompa songs were the most god-awful murder of sound I've ever had to experience. Me and my parents gave up on the movie after their second song)

Margos · Post by **Margos** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:52 pm

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Yeah, and Ursula's a squid because Pat Carroll says so. Yeah. Not.

[/quote]

Well, I think that's a bit different... perhaps Pat's never heard of a cecealian.

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:24 pm

Two of the bonus features have been classified by the BBFC:

"Finding Alice" (6:00)
"The Mad Hatter" (5:44)

These are in addition to the other one someone posted earlier in this thread:

"Effecting Wonderland" (6:33)

I'd prefer a lengthy documentary, but if we must get short featurettes, I'm hoping we get a dozen of them. Another thing I'd really like them to include after checking out The Princess and the Frog's BD is a PiP track of the green screen footage. WB did this with 300, and it'd be really cool to check that out for Alice.

Oh, and two interesting things I noticed while seeing the film a second time today: the clouds that pass over the moon in the opening shot form the Cheshire Cat's face, and the ship Alice sails on in the end is called "Wonder."

Prince Edward · Post by **Prince Edward** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:02 am

Disney's Divinity wrote:
Margos wrote:....And if it's good enough for Kathy Beaumont, it's good enough for the rest of us!
Yeah, and Ursula's a squid because Pat Carroll says so. Yeah. Not.

I won't be seeing this in theaters, so I'm glad it'll be coming out sooner than it usually would. Because I do want to see it, I'm just not obsessed enough to pay for tickets. It's sad to hear the bad reviews though, but I'm not really surprised. Depp never struck me as a good Hatter.

(Also, just as a side comment, I really hated Burton's Chocolate Factory. Not because it was so different from the original film, but because Wonka-Depp was just creepy and, most of all, the oompa-loompa songs were the most god-awful murder of sound I've ever had to experience. Me and my parents gave up on the movie after their second song)

So one must be "obsessed" to buy tickets to se a movie in theaters? You're not so "obsessed" that you pay to see it in theaters, but "obsessed" enough to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray?

I have read more positive reviews for this movie than negative ones. As a side note I think it's more sad that people base their opinions on other peoples opinions (reviews) instead of seeing a movie for themselves and making up their own mind about it. It's seems like you are prejudiced regarding this movie.

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:11 am

I watched "Alice in Wonderland" today, I didn't really like it. It was meh...Kinda boring, slow-paced, no character development (I did not care for any of the characters) with no twists or surprises or a clever retelling of the tale. It didn't have any edge to it either that you usually expect in a Burton film.

Disney's Divinity · Post by **Disney's Divinity** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:23 pm

Prince Edward wrote:
So one must be "obsessed" to buy tickets to se a movie in theaters? You're not so "obsessed" that you pay to see it in theaters, but "obsessed" enough to buy it on DVD/Blu-ray?

I have read more positive reviews for this movie than negative ones. As a side note I think it's more sad that people base their opinions on other peoples opinions (reviews) instead of seeing a movie for themselves and making up their own mind about it. It's seems like you are prejudiced regarding this movie.

Sorry, maybe "obsessed" came off the wrong way (maybe that's the reason you sound pissed off), but I wasn't putting down the movie. I just don't see the point in paying near-$10 to see a movie and then have to pay $20-30 to own it (and to watch it all the time). The only time I ever do this is when I'm "obsessed" (as I was to see TP&TF, because it was a new 2D Disney film). And I feel this way about most any movie that has no real importance to me, not just Burton's Alice.

Also, maybe you have a warped idea of what "prejudiced" means, but, usually, people who are "prejudiced" against a film wouldn't bother buying it or want to see it at all. But I guess logic doesn't apply here.

Jesus. What the hell is wrong with this forum?

Flanger-Hanger · Post by **Flanger-Hanger** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:25 pm

Disney's Divinity wrote:Jesus. What the hell is wrong with this forum?

I dunno, maybe that's why Scaps left?

ajmrowland · Post by **ajmrowland** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:24 pm

Im betting we all miss Albert.

disneyboy20022 · Post by **disneyboy20022** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:01 pm

Flanger-Hanger wrote:
Disney's Divinity wrote:Jesus. What the hell is wrong with this forum?
I dunno, maybe that's why Scaps left?

Oh Scaps...where art thou Al

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Alice in Wonderland (Live-Action)

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland