Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

[DisneyMom]

Well, I'm glad that not all kids are the same. She sounds like a smart little girl.
I remember watching and enjoying a very scary B Movie (the Fiend Without a Face) when I was 8 at my Grandparent's house, but then woke up in the middle of the night terrified just because it was dark Didn't stop me from loving the movies,and started reading Stephen King novels when I was about 12. Jaws came out when I was 12 also, and of course I begged my parents to see that- I had read the novel-STILL don't like to swim in the ocean

[IndyandMarion]

MY Review of the movie. Careful. Spoilers within....

Im still trying to decide if me sitting down before the beginning of the movie or getting up and leaving at the end was the best part of the movie.

Seriously. . . . What the **** was that?

To me, this was "Tim Burton's Production Family Reunion in Wonderland". That's all it was. The visuals were drab at best. The storyline was based on "Everyone seeing this movie knows what happened in "Through The Looking Glass". The acting was on par with Haunted Mansion. Country Bears, at best.

Sorry Johnny. You're an amazing actor. I love every thing you do. . . Except this. I went into this movie expecting to see the Mad Hatter being done by Johnny Depp, the legend who made us believe in Edward ScissorHands. Think that there once was a Pirate as crazy as Jack Sparrow. Instead, we get "Tonight, Johnny Depp will be playing the part of Willy Wonka, Edward Scissorhands, Jack Sparrow and oh, yeah, that role he had in Finding Neverland. And the best part is, he'll be playing the Mad Hatter while channeling ALL of those characters!"

Helena Bonhem Carter. You were great, when you weren't on the screen.

Crispin Glover. Stay where you belong, in our memories as the George from Back to the Future. While it's not your fault, you character was awkward and unwanted. The fact that you were on stilts while filming this movie, then they CGId longer legs onto you was pointless.

In the first five minutes of being in Wonderland. . . or is it Underland? Im sorry folks, its another of the hundreds of things that wasn't addressed properly, we saw every character from the original Alice in Wonderland come back for a cameo.

Anna Hathaway. Listen, babe. You're beautiful. But um. Disney just did Enchanted a few years ago. . You know the one? Good. Yeah, I get that your "White Queen" gig was sweet and non-combative. But the whole hand movement thing? Yeah, we got that with Amy Adams.

You get the picture. Look, when the trailers for other movies are more interesting than the movie you came to see, its time to pack it up and go home. I'm beyond excited for TRON: Legacy. And now I'm kinda interested to see how the Owls of Harry Potter managed to get their own spinoff.

OK. . . Look. I'll admit it. Going to the restroom after the movie was the best part of the movie. I've seen that movie millions of times, and it's all ways entertaining.

[darph nader]

I'll wait for the DVD,,,,,,maybe.

[Honda Enoch]

Just saw it in 3D the other day.

IMO.... BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!


Noticed a few times the Jack Sparrow came out of the Hatter :)

[Lasolimu]

IMO.... BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!

Isn't it a little early to be saying this?

[IndyandMarion]

IMO.... BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!

Yep, you're right. . . . . . .

FOR A RAZZIE

[IndyandMarion]

I saw it at the 10:45am show Friday at the AMC 24 Pleasure Island. They have this new system called EXT where Auditorium 1 at that theater has the first installation in the US. It is a floor to ceiling screen similar to IMAX. They have 12 channels of sound and 58 KW of power. And the projector runs at 8MP, which is 4x more than HD.

I definitely liked the movie. And since it was a "before noon" show it was only $10.00 ($6 for the show, $2 for the 3D, and $2 more for the EXT).

Completely overpriced. When I saw the movie last night, I saw it in that theater. Third level. The system was annoying. Irritating at best. I won't be seeing a movie in that theater again. The screen was lackluster. It didn't look any different from the "previous screen". Their trying to pass it off as IMAX when it's no where near even "IMAX Lite"

Oh well, I suppose if their going to continue adding things to DTD, they might as well keep the lackluster feel to the area.

[PatchOBlack]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I've heard and the clips I have seen, it seems to suffer from something I call "Make It Mine" syndrome.

This happens when someone gets hold of an established property, with a story and characters designed by someone else, or is doing a sequel or a remake. However, they feel the overwhelming need to change things to make the project distinctly "theirs". The problem is, they tend to make changes just for the sake of making changes, and have a real habit of removing those elements that are the reason folks liked the story/movie/show/what-have-you to being with. I'm not saying a re-imagining can't work. For example, being a comic book fan, I loved a lot of what was done in DC Comics after Crisis on Infinite Earths . Superman was now official THE last Kryptonian, and was never Superboy. Wonder Woman was just starting her carrier as a hero in "Man's World". Barry "The Flash" Allen had died, and was replaced by his former "kid sidekick", Wally West. All good moves, as far as I was concerned. However, from what I can tell, this "Alice in Wonderland" only shares the title and basic characters from the original, while the story is quite changed. Not a good idea, I would say.

[IndyandMarion]

I think one thing folks are missing here is that this is NOT a retelling of Alice in Wonderland or Through The Looking Glass. This is a "sequel" of sorts to Through The Looking Glass. It is a "here is what possibly happened afterward". NOT A SEQUEL. I still stand by my review. But I think it's one thing that people are not understanding. Not a sequel. A continuation.

[PatchOBlack]

I think one thing folks are missing here is that this is NOT a retelling of Alice in Wonderland or Through The Looking Glass. This is a "sequel" of sorts to Through The Looking Glass. It is a "here is what possibly happened afterward". NOT A SEQUEL. I still stand by my review. But I think it's one thing that people are not understanding. Not a sequel. A continuation.

Then they do their audience a great disservice by giving the movie the same title, even if they do tack on "Tim Burton's" to the beginning. If I went to a movie called "George Romero's Jaws", I would likely expect it to be a retelling or re-imagining of the original film. If what it turned out to be was a film set, say, 10 years after the first in a world where no-one dares go swimming at the beach because hordes of huge killer sharks patrol the shores, I think the audience would have every right to feel tricked and/or cheated.