Alice in Wonderland

I am, of course, referring to the new film with Johnny 'omnononm' Depp.

I went to see this a couple days ago with my dad and I was kinda dissapointed. I mean it was really pretty, and Depp is always great to watch. But it felt like they just rushed through the story, as though they only made the film so they could have an excuse to re-design all the character's.

So what did you think?

Also, i've never read the book, so I have nothing to compare it to. Is the book any better? I've been thinking about reading it, is it worth it?

I need to buy it on DVD when it comes out because for some reason when I went to watch it at the cinema I must of been too tired or something because I just got bored. :/ Johhny Depp as the Mad Hatter and Stephen Fry's voice over on the Cheshire cat are both fantastic, as was Matt Lucas with his Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

There are actually two Alice in Wonderland books :p

What are they? Is one called Alice in Wonderland and the other Through the Looking Glass? Is one like a prelude?

I don't understand :( explain please.

Through the Looking Glass is the sequel to the first book which is set about half a year after.

EDIT: Tim Burton's adaption is only loosely based off the books. It's a kind of mesh of the two books with lots of creative license added and the plot is Burton's own.

I was pretty dissapointed by the film. I have a sort of love-hate relationship with Burton.
I just didn't see why he chose to do this project, Wonderland really isn't his style and apparently he thinks so too seeing as how he changed the whole feel of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zombiedude55

Through the Looking Glass is the sequel to the first book which is set about half a year after.

EDIT: Tim Burton's adaption is only loosely based off the books. It's a kind of mesh of the two books with lots of creative license added and the plot is Burton's own.

---

I heard it was just based on the Jabberwocky poem...

I loved it, or at least I did until (SPOILER)Johnny Depp started dancing, and the entire cast turned into arm flailing embarrassments to everyone involved in the film's production. Then I cringed.

Up until that point though, the movie was wonderful, and I was fortunate enough to watch it in IMAX 3D, and it was a wonder to behold. :D

I watched it in normal 3D but it wasn't all that.

Also, I forgot to mention that I LOVED the hare :D he was so funny. The dancing was a bit cringeworthy though.

EDIT: Why does the mad hatter have a scottish accent sometimes? That really confused me :confused:

When Johnny (SPOILER)went all deep voice and was talking about the past I felt he was too much Jack Sparrow. I like depp but I just don't think he fit the role.

I liked the syfy's new Alice. I thought it's story was better for the whole "return" to wonderland.

http://scifiwire.com/assets_c/2009/0...x366-21918.jpg

I love the Alice story, I've read both books and watched numerous adaptations. I was even Alice for Halloween a few years ago and I've worn my Alice costume to the Wonderland rave a few times. But I have no interest in seeing this movie. I probably will eventually, but I'm in no hurry. I'm sick to death of Burton, Depp, and Bonham-Carter and the movies they make together. Seeing the previews with Mad Hatter Depp make me cringe.

My, I'm old and bitter xD

Has anyone seen it in 2-D? I'm really not too much of a fan of 3-D films and I want to know if the 3-D is so much better or not.

I will not see another Tim Burton film until he stops essentially pumping out the same damn film with the same cast with slightly different scenery and slightly different make-up and costumes. I'm with Ashley; I'm sick to death of it. If he were doing it just to make money, then fine, I could at least respect that, but how could someone who seems to get off on being an artistic "different" kind of director in good conscience do this?

There's a way to do quirky and dark without making the same film ad nauseum - take a look at Jean-Pierre Jeunet! I mean, he even casted Tautou in two films of his and he still managed to, you know, make two different films. XD

I love Alice in Wonderland though. I have a free app with the Alice stories on my iPhone; I'll need to read them again next time I'm on the train.

It was . . . oooookay.

I'm a huge Alice fan. The two Alice books were my favs in second or third grade. I've read them countless times. I've even read the original version of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland called Alice's Adventures Underground. And I've seen EVERY SINGLE film/tv adaption.

I'm okay with Tim Burton doing a "return to Wonderland" story, but at least call it that! Or something else than AiW or people are going to go in with wrong expectations. And my other qualm with it was that IF it's going to be a "return to Wonderland" story, then at least get the facts about the first story right. Smooshing the two books together into a mishmash jumble annoyed me. Looking-Glass Land is NOT Wonderland. Yes, nearly every adaption under the sun does this for their adaption, but this is supposed to be a sequel that takes place years later after the events have already occurred.

It was annoying.

However, I DID enjoy the movie. So much I may even see it again, now that I know what to expect, I will probably like it better the second time around.

But I hope they don't pull this kind of :bou::bou::bou::bou: with my other favorite childhood book getting a new movie adaption: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

Helena Bonham Carter has been my favorite actress for over ten years now, so I don't mind her being recycled over and over again. But I see what a lot of people are saying. It's basically the same cast, but in different settings. It's done well, extremely well, but I can understand what people are saying, though.

I haven't had the time to see Alice Wonderland yet, but I am going to.

I have to say, I went into this film with low expectations, and even then I was disappointed. They had such great source material, so I don't see why they felt the need to make up their own story and occasionally throw in a reference to the books.

I mean, this isn't hard. Alice has no plot to speak of. The "plot" was always just an excuse to move Alice around and explore Wonderland. Which was a really good thing in this case. Why on earth did Burton feel the need to add a story? And even if you NEED a story to, say, differentiate from the first Disney film, make it whimsical. Lighthearted. Everything that is clear proof that Burton should NOT have been allowed near this mythos.

Johnny Depp is just getting sad. I mean, really. He's so desperate for attention nowadays. "Johnny can't play the main character because it's a girl? Not a problem! Just make the whole story revolve around the Mad Hatter and give him the only backstory and personal motive! That way Johnny can chew the scenery to his heart's content!'

For that matter, Alice herself was TERRIBLE. "Wow. Look at all that fantasy. It almost makes me want to have an emotion. Too bad I'm a zombie." UGH.

Oh, and "Underland?" Give me a break, Burton.

I'm hoping that critics hate this film as much as I do, and Burton gets the hint and stops butchering classic films.

More likely though, he'll just keep on vomiting out the same movie every few years. Sleeping Beauty's next, eh? Sigh...

I don't know what you mean about the 'Underland' comment but that is actually what it's called in the original, Alice just misinterprets it as 'Wonderland.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zombiedude55

I don't know what you mean about the 'Underland' comment but that is actually what it's called in the original, Alice just misinterprets it as 'Wonderland.'

---

Erm . . . No. I've read the book a bazillion times and I really don't remember that being the case. That's an invention by either Burton or the screenwriter.

First off, who has he been recyclying the same film over and over again? Hell, his last one was Sweeny Todd, before that had done Corpse Bride, Nightmare before Christmas, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, all of which are note-ably different in a lot of respects.

The only thing consistent is his artistic style, but even that has a different look movie by movie.

And I have no problems with him recasting the same characters multiple times. I don't even see why thats an issue. Hell, Kevin smith did it with many movies. And I'm not counting him recasting people for like Jason Mews who always played Jay in the movies, but he used multiple people for multiple different roles throughout those films and I've never heard anyone complain.

That being said, Alice in Wonderland really wasn't that great of a movie. The visuals were goergeous, and the plot wasnt' really bad. I twas just lack luster. And most performances were really subpar. Jhonny Depp should not have been cast as The Mad Hatter. And both the White and Red Queen were just terrible.

The show stealer was by far The Chesire Cat. That thing was purely awesome in every way. I also though Alas did a good job in her role.

On a whole though, I can't really recommend this one.

Quote:

---

And I have no problems with him recasting the same characters multiple times. I don't even see why thats an issue. Hell, Kevin smith did it with many movies. And I'm not counting him recasting people for like Jason Mews who always played Jay in the movies, but he used multiple people for multiple different roles throughout those films and I've never heard anyone complain.

---

The main difference, and I speak from the point-of-view of not having seen the newest incarnation of Alice in Wonderland, is that the characters Depp and Bonham Carter play are, typically, the same exact characters throughout multiple films. Kevin Smith's characters, while having similarities, are almost always different character types.

My main problem is that Bonham Carter isn't that great of an actress (her only tolerable role being Fight Club and she was hardly good in it) and Depp's career has been slowly falling every since his career decision to take roles that his kids would enjoy. As a father, that choice is admirable, but as an actor it hurts his career.

I will see Alice in Wonderland at some point when it is released on DVD. I won't pay whatever movie tickets cost these days to see a movie I'm unsure about.

Re: HBC (I'm too lazy to copy/paste her name) as the Red Queen . . .
I actually thought she was hillarious and did a great job in this role.

That being said, it seemed like a near ripoff of Miranda Richardson's portrayal of the role in the 1999 TV movie version. Which also was a bit of a ripoff of her own portrayal of Queen Elizabeth from the Blackadder BBC show. But . . . that's the Queen of Hearts in a nutshell for me.

I recall some friends showing me some images and stuff since before the movie was released and I wasn't sure it was going to be that amazing, but once it came out I really wanted to see it yet still went in with no expectations whatsoever and had a lovely time :) I especially like how it ended.