the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

who has like 0 percent desire to see the new Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland.

This vid here really captures why I don't:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kzoopsf/tim-burton-weekend-at-bernies-remake-1a1

I with you on that boat....

When I saw the preview all I could think was, "ANOTHER Burton flick featuring Depp dipped in make-up, and wearing a ghey hat?" That shit is getting old.

Smurf-berries make a lot of moneh!

Seeing a photo of an adolescent Alice in a revealing dress turned me off totally to this mushroom-haze-inspired version of what was a classic piece of children's-and-grownup's literature featuring an innocent 8-year-old Victorian girl. Carroll's potential attraction to children aside, he never acted upon it and the result was a wonderful bit of period satire coupled with a wonderful childhood fantasy.

And contrary to what Burton might believe, the story wasn't all about the Mad Hatter. He was just an ensemble player. But Depp had to have his limelight.

Burton should stick to scarecrows and ghouls.

It's like his whole career has been living off of beetlejuice....maybe nightmare before christmas too, but I can't think of anything else he's done that I liked.

S

Edward Scissorhands? Batman (1989)? Ed Wood? Burton created the characters for Nightmare Before Christmas and gets credit for the story and production, but not the screenplay/adaptation or direction.

Considering how abysmally bad the original Disney version of Alice was, meaning totally incomprehensible and unenjoyable (at least for me), I have no interest in a remake, much less a Depp remake after seeing Charley and the Chocolate Factory. I like Depp, but the Wonka remake stunk.

Let's face it, there are only a few Hollywood productions a year that are any good and this is not going to be one of them. This statement is more and more true the more they recycle the same old BS.

I saw it last night, I enjoyed it. It's also an almost sequel to the animated Disney Alice. Also, this Alice is not an adolescent. She's 19, and has been to Wonderland before. It's a fun flick, and the Hatter is delicious insane. Though I could have easily used much more of the March Hare.

I'm not going to go see it. I've read the book.

Not interested in seeing it at all. Why ruin such a nice childhood memory?

When I first saw the pictures of the movie, I looked forward to watch it. But then when I heard he was going to make a loose sequel to the brilliant and infamous novel. Can't understand why it was done that way. I don't know if I am going to watch it or not. I am very puzzled by the whole thing...

******SPoiler Alert *****


It's not really the same film, but a sequel based on another Caroll work, namely the jabberwocky. If you are banning this film on the principle that you feel you have seen it all before, well you are right, you have. The 3D effects were nothing to write home about. I found myself taking off my glasses several times only to see a blurry screen, and replacing them to see scenes that weren’t exactly jumping out at me. The film is okay, but packed with cliché stock from the Burton trust.

For those of you who watched it; did Alice found the East Indian Trading company in the end of the film, or was that just my imagination?

AFAIK, there were two works -- "Alice in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass." The latter contained the poem about the Jabborwock, and was based on Alice, still an 8-year-old, walking through the mirror over the mantel in her home ("...Wonderland" had her going down the rabbit hole). While Wonderland was about cards, Looking Glass used chess as its milieu, and the characters -- including the Red Queen and White Queen -- were chess pieces, as was the White Knight, a kindly but bumbling old man thought to represent Carroll himself.

Some of the characters from Wonderland reoccur in some incarnation in Looking Glass, but only tangetially; it's a completely different world than Wonderland.

I read both books again and again as a kid, and later in college as the mathematics and gentle adult word- and political plays gradually revealed themselves.

Burton's movie, at least from what I can discern from the trailers, is a very crass mishmash of Wonderland and Looking Glass, with none of the cleverness of Carroll's philosophical mathematician. Not on my list of must-see movies.

Did not like the books. Have never liked any adaptation thereof. Not interested. Kick Ass on the other hand = must see. As for Burton Flicks in general, Nightmare, and Corpse Bride were great. Everything else was Meh... (Kind of liked Sleepy Hollow).

I believe that Tim Burton is a very talented film maker, but many of his movies has been disappointments. I know I will be disappointed if I go and see "Alice".

Zhong_Kui wrote:Nightmare, and Corpse Bride were great. Everything else was Meh... (Kind of liked Sleepy Hollow).

There we have much the same taste. I watched Nightmare Before Christmas three times at the cinema. Corpse Bride is maybe his best movie yet and Sleepy Hollow has something very good.

But I must say that I also liked Ed Wood very much, his most realistic movie yet. And Martin Landau was magnificent as Bela Lugosi

Never saw Ed Wood. Will check it out.

it was ok--i'd recommend not paying full price for the experience. wait for the dvd.