Alice In Wonderland

[JD10367]

Just waked through my lobby and saw a movie poster for "Alice". Johnny Depp as a scary-looking Mad Hatter. Release date early 2010 (March, I think?) and it's coming out in digital 3D as well as IMAX 3D (hence the poster in my lobby). Even though it's Disney, it should be pretty decent, since they let Burton do what he wanted pretty much with "Nightmare Before Christmas". And, unlike Willy Wonka, this story doesn't have a beloved 70s movie to compare to, so he can pretty much go nuts.

[KcFanInGA]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Just waked through my lobby and saw a movie poster for "Alice". Johnny Depp as a scary-looking Mad Hatter. Release date early 2010 (March, I think?) and it's coming out in digital 3D as well as IMAX 3D (hence the poster in my lobby). Even though it's Disney, it should be pretty decent, since they let Burton do what he wanted pretty much with "Nightmare Before Christmas". And, unlike Willy Wonka, this story doesn't have a beloved 70s movie to compare to, so he can pretty much go nuts.

If this is on Imax in 3-d, I might have to go old school and drop some acid...nah j/k. But I think this movie will be either really good or really bad, it just strikes me that way. And Tim Burton has about a 50/50 chance to make me feel my money is well spent, judging by how I felt about his previous work.

[Jenson71]

Johnny Depp is an ugly little girl.

[Katipan]

I assumed Batman II was awesome to everyone.

Course I was 13 but still...

[kindra68]

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

[Tribal Warfare]

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

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.)

[JD10367]

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).

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by JD10367

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....

[MaxFects]

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

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....

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".

[underEJ]

Originally Posted by JD10367

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).

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.

[keg in kc]

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.

[CoMoChief]

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

[CoMoChief]

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