Thanks for the translation. I was sitting here staring at the word "assume" trying to figure out WTF he meant.

I assumed Batman II was awesome to everyone.

Course I was 13 but still...

trailer released for Alice in Wonderland i was sent this link a bit ago.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...ailer-released

<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/D9q9zxG2BVLnvMdTisu9rA"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/D9q9zxG2BVLnvMdTisu9rA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

Dug this up looking for "Alice" stuff.

Holy shit, this looks terrible.

"What??? Johnny Depp is the Mad Hatter??!? Let's make him a main character!!"

FFS!! Is one strangely effeminate, top hat wearing weirdo not enough for Depp's resume? I swear to God, when I saw the poster I thought it was Bryce Dallas Howard playing the part. Ten years ago, Tim Burton would have killed this movie. This, however, looks like total horse-shit.

BTW, looking over the posts, I would like to go on record as saying that Batman Returns has the second worst Batman script I have seen. (After "& Robin." Seriously..... watch it again if you don't believe me.)

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.