|
I saw the 3D version of this, and quite enjoyed it. Purists will complain that the story is a bit of a mish-mash of the two Alice books, and that Alice should be a young girl and not an 18-year old, but only being vaguely familiar with the source material I wasn't bothered by that and just took it as it came. Alice is seamlessly integrated into the CGI world, and the detail of the world and characters is exceptional. Helena Bonham-Carter makes a great bobble-headed Red Queen (with a bit of a nod to Blackadder's Queenie, I thought), and Depp's Mad Hatter is an entertaining and often touching performance. His occasional transformation into "Braveheart" Hatter is bit strange at first, but then he is meant to be quite insane. I thought the 3D worked nicely, and added to the immersion in the story. There was also none of the nonsense you sometimes get in 3D films with people brandishing swords/broomsticks "out" at you to show off the 3D-ness of it. The story is quite dark and violent in places, and I wouldn't recommend it for kids under 8-9. As long as you don't get annoyed by the plot not following the original very closely, it's a couple of hours of your life well spent. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! 4/5
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
i saw alice in wonderland last night. it was not a good film. it was a really bad film. here are some of the reasons why 'alice in wonderland' is not a good film but is instead a bad film (with spoilers for babies). it failed to maintain a consistient tone given that the film fell directly from the arse of tim burton it was of course full of specious attempts to be 'dark'. the twisted trees and wreckage of wonderland gives visual nods to the somme and ground zero, and in one scene alice is made to hop across the faces of submerged corpses. however the film is at the same time unbearably saccharine. cute animals talk with pipsqueak voices and the film's evil is cartoonish rather than remotely disturbing. the 'madness' of various characters is used as an excuse for 'quirky' behaviour rather than any genuine exploration of insanity. 'darkness' is present in the style of the film but is never allowed to influence the actual plot - hence, for instance, the failed execution of the mad hatter. the result is that the film inhabits an unsatisfying grey area between seriousness and disney-style cartoonishness. it promises an enjoyably sinister reinterpretation of the alice story but is unable to make good on that promise. that loving mouse gently caress that mouse plot and characterisation were weak as poo poo the villains are unambiguously villainous, the heroes are unambiguously heroic. that hamis dude is an unambiguous twat. given the recent rash of 'edgy' superhero films with more ambiguous morality and the films supposed 'darkness', the stark moral dichotomy we're given is pretty disappointing. only the red queen comes close to having any kind of distinctive character, and even then its in broad strokes: she is bossy, childish, and temperamental. everyone else is cartoonishly flat, including alice herself. as for plot, there is none. there's nothing wrong with reworking an existing story, but it needs to be replaced by something. instead there's a mishmash of forests, castles, chases and escapes culminating in a big pointless battle we're given no reason to care about. it implicitly supports british imperialism the framing narrative (of alice in the victorian era) is marked by references to british imperialism. alice's father is shown planning a venture to south-east asia. although her experiences in wonderland lead alice to reject the marriage that has been determined for her, there is no such rejection of the oppressive institution of the british empire. instead, at the end of the film, she is shown helping plan a trade voyage to china - which given the nature of the two nations' relationship in the 19th century, would mean taking part in the exploitative and destructive opium trade. this is presented as some kind of feminist assertion of power, rather than what it is: a very real historical evil which massively overshadows the fantasy evil of the film. the subtle advocacy for imperialism present in the framing narrative invites us to consider the fantasy element in terms of british imperialism. when this is done worrying features emerge. could the 'whiteness' of the white queen perhaps have a deeper symbolic racial meaning? could the red hair of the queen of hearts be a shorthand for irish nationality, linking the antagonistic forces of the film to britain's earliest colonial subjects? whilst the film isn't neccesarily explicitly racist, it certainly has very worrying undertones. the 3d was cool i guess? but it couldnt redeem this film. because it is a really bad film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
The film is by no means bad, but it is less than memorable. I honestly don't remember anything from the books, as I read them ages ago so I was also just taking it in as it came along. It seemed to me that they were just trying to pack as many characters on screen at any given moment, and in the end I felt that none of the characters had any depth. As if we were supposed to remember what kind of characters they are from other source materials, and inject those memories into the film or something... I had some trouble understanding what some of the characters were saying, like they were mumbling a bit, and it didn't seem scene appropriate. I asked my friends afterward and they agreed on several occasions some dialog was exchanged that was completely unintelligible. That is probably the biggest no-no a movie can make in my book. 3D was less than spectacular, but then, the last movie I saw before this in 3D was Avatar so I may be biased. Still, I wish I had opted out of the extra three bucks, not really worth it. I'd give it a 2.5/5, and I'd wait for the DVD. Nothing bigscreen worthy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
My mom read the Lewis Carrol story to me when I was really young in the early 80s. Alice’s adventures were truly wonderful, original and frightening back then. I remember seeing the Disney cartoon and that brought a whole new creepy visual aspect to the story that I really appreciated. Fast forward to this new film and it just feels like we’re retreading old ground. By this time we’ve all seen various versions of the Alice story. Here, Alice is older and going back to Wonderland, but does that bring anything new? Well, we have the Mad Hatter, White Rabbit, the Tweedles and so and so on (all stuff we’ve seen before). Johnny Depp is put in a ridiculous over the top costume as the Mad Hatter, but he manages to make the character interesting by giving us a truly mad person who switches between accents and personalities. Sadly the film’s conclusion is an inevitable action sequence that seems to have no purpose, but to give us an action sequence. The film could have been about Alice finding her true self through wonderland. It could have had a redemption for the Red Queen as she’s a sad woman with an enlarged head that just needs to be loved. Instead we get another banal good vs. evil story with the main character triumphing at the very end. Sure it all looks very pretty and is technically an achievement. Yet, in these post-Lord of the Rings and Avatar times we live in, this is just another crazy, kooky looking fantasy film full of pretty sets and CGI (which is truly jarring in the case of Crispin Glover’s digitally stretched out character). 2 1/2 stars
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
Well, I'm not sure WTF I just watched. Lots of wacky designs and colors played over my retinas, but all I could think about was the time I saw that dumbass dog eat its own poop. Such was the entertainment void present onscreen. Someone needs to tell Timmy B that LESS CAN BE MORE. As an artist, he should know that hyper-detailed backgrounds will make it difficult to follow the characters, yet he lets the art direction besmirch the entire production with visual diarrhoea. The CG in this movie also seems all over the place. Is it supposed to look like a cartoon? No? Is it supposed to look real? No. Poorly-matched live elements are woven in with lots of high-budget graphics, to the detriment of both. Even the famed FUTTERWACKEN was computereered to infinity. More like FUCKYOUWACKEN, amirite? This movie is second only to Transformers 2 when it comes to modern ADD moviemaking. There is no real rhythm, with characters just popping in to provide some sort of comedic(?) relief. In the end, the most annoying aspect is the director's assumption that I knew the universe going in. Well, it's been a long time since I read the story, and I had no idea who the gently caress was doing what and why. It appeared to me that everyone was both friends AND enemies with everyone else, and it all just turned into one big glop of poo poo by the cheap-looking, LOTR-lite final crowd sim. Do not pay even $5 for this... thing. BTW was there supposed to be some throughline about Alice not being Alice? What was the point? Is that supposed to elevate the movie above what it actually is, a generic Narnia yarn? 1/5 for being incredibly boring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
Near the beginning of the movie I thought that it's premise (an older Alice returning wonderland) seemed interesting enough that it might save the movie from the uninspired acting. I was wrong. After an annoying scene of falling down the rabbit hole IN 3D!.(a) it seemed to get a bit better with a scene of Alice doing her growing and shrinking thing and some introductions to familiar characters, but before I could even begin to care about them I was plunged into a boring and confusing action scene. The movie continues after this with boring expository dialogue and boring action scenes following one after another until the end of the movie. Why was it even made? (a) Yes I know "what did you expect it's a 3D movie!", but it had too much "annoying 3D" and not enough "interesting or cool 3D". 1/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
the girl who played Alice was alright but the stories were never popular because of her. most of the other characters were a disappointment, especially the Hatter. giving the Knave a CG body was really stupid because it served no real purpose, but it had nice art direction and costume design, although we expect that from a Burton film. Bonham Carter was a nice nod to Black Adder's Queeny but the movie was mostly poorly scripted and forgettable. the idea of the Hatter fighting at the end with a sword was retarded as hell. oh yeah and the ending was hilariously poorly thought out 1/5 for the art design
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 12:21
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty drat good. A good spin/sequel on the classic story, good effects, cool costumes. I'd give it a 3.5/5 4/5 Nerolus fucked around with this message at 09:18 on May 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
Seems nobody liked this, but I just finished watching the Blu Ray and I thought it was pretty great. I had very low expectations as everyone I spoke to when this was in theaters said it was bad or average at best. It's hard to describe exactly what I liked, but there wasn't anything I didn't like. The reveal towards the end that It really was not a dream, rather her "nightmares" were simply memories and she was in fact there and had been there before was fairly interesting. Also I liked how it touched on emotional disorders and how they can be fairly debilitating. The Hatter for instance It's implied that before he saw the massacre he was just a eccentric and not an actual insane person, also that he essentially sat there having tea for 13 years waiting for her to come back There's also the more subtle bit for instance with young Alice She has nightmares in a form of PTSD after her adventures in Underland(Wonderland), I thought it was neat to take it in that direction, as you have to wonder how some of these characters might behave after some of the ordeals they survive in stories. I dunno I didn't see this in 3-d but I did think it was overall a good film and a solid retelling of the story. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2010 06:24
|
|
|
I am fall into the "not sure why I liked it but I did" camp. I enjoyed the visuals, and the overall effort was enjoyable enough. Not the greatest Burton/Depp outing but better than all of the hate would suggest. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
Alice in Wonderland 2010 was a drat mess in my opinion. The characters felt mostly hollow and the charm that permeated though other versions both in novel and film is sorely lacking. The 3-D was a terrible add-on that detracted from the otherwise beautiful scenery. It is not a bad film by any means, just a huge let down in that there was too many things going on at once with too many weak characters to drive the haphazard plot forward. The ending action scenes were done quite well however. 2.5/5 - Average movie that probably would have garnered a 3 or 3.5 had the expectations not been so high.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Visually, this movie is kind of pretty. Maybe pretty isn't the word, maybe I'm getting colorful and pretty mixed up. Either way, the set designs were fairly impressive, but find me a live-action Burton movie outside of Planet of the Apes that wasn't visually pretty decent. That's hardly the worst fly on this turd of a movie. Redeeming Qualities It did feature Alan Rickman  and Stephen Fry.Wasn't horribly ugly like some might suggest. Better than Planet of the Apes. Didn't have Mark Wahlburg in it. Crispin Glover was in it, and he's always good at everything, except Willard. Things that hosed it Up Characters were horribly boring. Some parts were kind of stupid looking. I wanted to go to sleep during part of the movie, but my date kept telling me to wake up. Johnny Depp sucked. At the end he does some stupid loving dance out of no where that literally made me want to scream "AHHHH gently caress!" and leave my date there. SCORE? 2/5. See it if you like Burton movies. See it if you want to see Johnny Depp being completely insane. Don't see it if you want a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 03:25
|
|
