Not bad. The girl playing "Alice" is pretty in a plainer way (sort of Gwyneth Paltrow-y from her earlier days). CGI is good, and the story's original (it takes place 13 years after the original story, so Burton is free to make up a new plotline). But it strikes me as a bit soulless, much like the "Willy Wonka" remake. But it's better than "Wonka". Perhaps it's just suffering by comparison to "Avatar", which it's following (sort of like when Pete Carroll replaced Bill Parcells as Patriots coach).

His movies IMO have always been a little souless.....but i think hes goten worse the past 10 years or so.

I prefer his early work much more. Pee Wee, Beetlejuice, Scissorhands, Ed Wood, etc....

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1929453&fullscreen=1" width="640" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1929453&fullscreen=1"/><embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1929453&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="360" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:640px;"></div>

How did the 3d look? Burton started to shoot the thing in stereo, but punked out because it is very hard to do. Disney then paid for a post-production conversion from 2d. They definitely paid for the highest quality conversion so it should theoretically still be a nice movie experience, but it isn't real 3d. (sort of 2 1/2D.) I'm wondering if people can tell the difference in general.

It's running at 63% on rottentomatoes, and most of the positive reviews have basically been "it's kind of pretty but not really very good".

Looks like something I'll catch on HBO at midnight sometime next year.

I wonder if Burton's work doesn't simply suffer by repetition.

I was just perusing some of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews, and they seemed to sum it up pretty well. Even the "fresh" critics had something bad to say. Again, it's not a HORRIBLE film, but it's yet another disappointing Burton film that ISN'T "Edward Scissorhands" or "A Nightmare Before Christmas". And I definitely think it suffers by having to follow "Avatar".

Like Avatar, this is going to be a drug dealer's pot of gold.

This is going to be Beetlejuice on ****ing steroids.

Am I the only one who thinks that goofy photo of the Mad Hatter looks more like Elijah Wood than Johnny Depp? Seriously, until I read that it was Depp, I thought it was Wood.

It does have the new "Tron Legacy" trailer on it, which is cool.

No you are not. I would almost swear its frodo. Very strange.

My wife loved it.

I fell asleep several times.
...and I'm notoriously easy on movies... Typically find good in all of them.

Examples; didn't think Gigli was that bad. Absolutely loved Jersey Girl.


But I really disliked this one...

Not bad, but not up to Burtons' usual standard.

It wasn't Citizen Kane, but I've seen a lot worse.

I also enjoy Ishtar, though.

I dunno. He's been pretty lackluster sometimes. IMO, his directorial efforts are:

UNDERRATED: "Big Fish", "Sleepy Hollow", "Ed Wood", "Pee Wee's Big Adventure".

OVERRATED: "Sweeney Todd", "Mars Attacks", "Batman Returns", "Batman", "Beetlejuice".

SIMPLY BAD: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", "Planet of the Apes".

(The "Batman" films are one of those things which, at the time, seemed really great, but in hindsight were pretty friggin' stupid. Watching them again is almost painful. And I loved "Batman" so much that I saw it around 10 times in the theaters. "Beetlejuice" was mainly Keaton chewing the scenery in what we now realize was the Johnny Depp role of "substituting overacting for story".)

IMO Burton's true genius has been on display in two films: "Edward Scissorhands" and "The Nightmare Before Christmas".

The last one I saw was Sweeney Todd, I loved it.

Yea, hes at his worst when hes a director for hire like Apes and I think this flick.

Hes really been hit and miss for awhile now. Especially the last 10 years being mostly miss for me.

If I did not know that was Depp before I went in to see it, then I would not have known it was him.

Pretty impressive acting, if you think about it.

Depp is so versatile its insane. He can pretty much play any role you ask of him and do it damned good.

This movie was really boring IMO.

It really seems to be polarizing, 'cause I've had people say they hated it (here) and people say they loved it (on my Facebook).

I think, if you enjoyed the Disney cartoon version, and/or like Burton and Depp, and/or like to get high, LOL, then you'll probably enjoy it okay.

Depp was good, but the movie wasn't. It didn't have any depth.

No depth, but Depp. HAHAHAHa