Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Yuck!

[Vertigo2]

I just got around to watching the recent version of "Alice in Wonderland". I cannot remember when i've detested a movie quite so much. Beyond the arrogance of completely twisting everything about the book, keeping some of the characters and a few elements, everything else in the movie is IMHO an incomprehensible mess.f For me there was not one thing even slightly amusing about it. I thought the leading lady who looked as though she had two black eyes throughout the entire movie was as interesting as grey wallpaper. Burton also seemed to go out of his way to choose (and sorry for this cruelty) the most exceptionally unattractive cast ever assembled for the pre /post Wonderland characters. The music by the usually capable and exciting Danny Elfman was consistently monotonous though always suggesting tension and excitement with nothing on screen to support that suggestion. The movie did have imaginative and expensive visuals and FX, but nothing to warrant them. Hell would be a theatre where this was the only movie ever playing. And I've enjoyed several of Burton's films in the past and thought I would

enjoy this one!

Hard for me to comprehend how this boring mess was one of the most

successful films at the box office ever made. It raked in over a billion

dollars at the box office worldwide. Wow. Did people really enjoy this? Any fans of this movie out there? Please tell me why?

[faceinthecrowd]

I haven't seen this version, but if it's as bad as you say, you always have the option of ignoring it. I've found that it's not worth getting riled up about the fact that a lot of people like something I don't -- or vice versa.

[Vertigo2]

I guess I was fired up ( had just finished watching it) because I had bought it, viewed it, and was taken aback by how much I disliked it and also how popular it had been at the box office. I was curious about what appealed to those who kiked it. Generally I do as you suggested, but usually those films are not at this level of popularity.

[SansFin]

I like it. I would hesitate to recommend it to any person. I doubt that I would recommend it to a person who liked the book or previous movie incarnations. I might buy the DVD if I find it in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart but I might not. I am sure I would not pay more than that for it.

 

I believe I understand the stylistic intent and as such I accepted it for what it was. It stayed true to its vision of the world and its characters. I found some of the CGI to be quite wonderfully artistic.

 

I believe that people who are distant from other adaptations will bring far less expectations to it and they will enjoy it more because they will not be making comparisons.

 

I can not foresee it ever becoming one of my favorite movies or a movie I will wish to watch twice in the same year but I am happy that I have watched it.

[Vertigo2]

Thanks, that seems like a measured response. I would agree about many of the striking visuals.

[joefilmone]

They gave "Alice" the "Wicked" treatment. At leas is not a morbid as some other recent Burton films.

[DougieB]

Wasn't it in 3-D in theaters? That was when 3-D was just getting hot and maybe people were drawn to it for that reason too.

[SansFin]

I did not know that it was in 3-D. I believe that could well explain its popularity as much of the artwork would be greatly enhanced. I think in particular the shape of the queen's head would be much more striking as a curved shape than it is as flat 2-D.

[traceyk65]

I saw it in 3D (not by choice--the theater was only showing the 3D version) and personally, I didn't see the point. Except for one thing--at the end, Alice is standing on the deck of a ship and a blue butterfly lands on her shoulder and then flies out and it was amazing. I felt like I could reach out and touch it. Almost made it worth the extra $3 for the glasses. Almost.

 

I wasn;t crazy about the actress playing Alice--she looked the part, but couldn;t really act. And Anne Hathaway as the White Queen was miscast, I think.