Anybody Here Seen Alice in Wonderland?

Cidu Bill on Mar 9th 2010

I really wanted it to be good, but so far I haven’t read or heard any indication that it is.

Filed in Alice in Wonderland, Bill Bickel, movies | 27 responses so far

27 Responses to “Anybody Here Seen Alice in Wonderland?”

  1. WhitneyD Mar 9th 2010 at 01:06 pm 1

    I haven’t seen it myself, but heard from Burton fans that they either loved it or hated it, and from Alice buffs that they either loved it or hated it. (Those who disliked it either wanted it to be Burton retelling Alice in Wonderland, not his sequel to the books, as it is- or thought he’d go in a different direction) So I’m not taking anyone’s word for it and seeing it myself.

  2. Kedamono Mar 9th 2010 at 01:24 pm 2

    I liked it, and I’m a fan of the books. It has only fleeting continuity with the books, more with Alice in Wonderland than Alice through the Looking Glass. It does have one or two Crowning Moments of Awesome, mainly in final scenes in Wonderland.

    It’s more of a story of how Alice learns to stand up for herself than her adventures in Wonderland.

  3. Scott E Mar 9th 2010 at 02:59 pm 3

    It occurred to me last night that Tim Burton has essentially built his career on doing his own takes on previously existing movies, or books, or plays, or trading card sets. The only original movies I can think of that he directed are Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands. Unfortunately, “Alice in Wonderland” looks more to me like the Tim Burton of “Sleepy Hollow” and “Planet of the Apes,” and I’m not interested in that kind of Tim Burton movie. But I haven’t seen it yet, so who knows.

  4. Bearman Mar 9th 2010 at 03:59 pm 4

    Here is what is funny. I find with most Burton movies that I don’t like them the first time I see them. It is only when I see them for the second time that I come around. I don’t know why.

  5. Fett101 Mar 9th 2010 at 04:05 pm 5

    I can think of Ed Wood, Mars Attacks!, Beetlejuice, Big Fish, Corpse Bride and Nightmare Before Christmas (ok, he wasn’t director but writer and producer). And he’s currently working on Frankenweenie, based off one of his student films.

    His original stuff always seem far better then his adaptations or remakes.

  6. Dave Van Domelen Mar 9th 2010 at 06:10 pm 6

    I liked it. The two original books can be seen as a child’s interpretation of an earlier visit, with everything here just a shade darker and more complex (although only a shade…the original books are pretty dark already). It’s a BIG shift from the Disney animated version, though, which itself wasn’t all that faithful to the books in its own way (mostly removing all the topical references and softening edges).

    The 3D isn’t really necessary, although it definitely adds to the “falling down the rabbit hole” scene. The only blatant “stupid 3D trick” seems to have been shot mainly so they could use it in the trailers (Hatter unfurling a bolt of cloth at the camera). Of course, I hear this was originally shot in 2D and backwards-refitted, so there wasn’t as much temptation to fill it with “throw things at the viewer” crap.

  7. mitch4 Mar 9th 2010 at 06:13 pm 7

    I liked it more than I expected.

    The Alice books are such key texts that it’s entirely appropriate for each generation to re-think them in their own way. I wasn’t very trusting of Burton as a good choice to do this now. But it turned out okay.

    The most negative thing I would say about it turns out to be nothing at all like my idea of what Burton’s typical faults are: This was pretty darn didactic. It meant to teach us the moral lessons that Victorians were stuffy and repressed, and that corsets and arranged marriages are pretty bad stuff.

    I mostly understand the overt strategy that led to making Alice 19 or 20 years old, instead of 7 or 8. That made way for the whole “Is she the same Alice that came before? Is she the right Alice?” business and the plot scaffolding. I think there is also a partly covert basis for aging her: At 19 or 20 they can safely sexualize Alice and her adventures. This misses how dangerous the original was, in keeping Alice a child but sexualizing her and her adventures all the same.

    Also I was pleased to see that they didn’t eschew relating the images to the style of the Tenniel illustrations or other derived works. The Jabberwock in particular was an excellent and fearsome adaptation, relating to past visualizations as well as to something as primordial as the biohazard logo wishes to be. (But a quibble: why did they insist on naming that creature the Jabberwocky? That’s a name for the poem that introduces him, and other hypothetical Jabberwockiana — buthe himself is called simply the Jabberwock.)

  8. Jay Mar 9th 2010 at 08:37 pm 8

    Hm. My take on it was that Burton took Carroll’s characters and put them in an action-adventure film. “Alice: Warrior Princess.” As far as the plot is concerned, other characters could easily have been used instead; I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that was a previous script which was slightly altered so they could call it “Alice in Wonderland”.

  9. Richard Mar 10th 2010 at 12:21 am 9

    I’m a fan of the Lewis Carroll books, and I thought it was mediocre. My wife, who is not a big fan of the books, loved it. I probably would have liked it more if I wasn’t a Carroll fan. My problem is that all of the characters who were so rude to Alice in the books were so friendly to her in this film (aside from the Red Queen and the Knave of Hearts). The Carroll books are about real life if you are a pessamist. This film is about is about goodness triumphing.

  10. Kit Mar 10th 2010 at 01:51 am 10

    Big Charles Dodgson fan, big Burton fan. I loved it. Sometimes, the 3D was distracting, so think about seeing it 2D first, 3D second time round.

  11. Nicole Mar 10th 2010 at 07:10 am 11

    I haven’t seen it yet, but I am a big Burton fan, so I will be biased in my assessment.

  12. Mark Jackson Mar 10th 2010 at 07:51 am 12

    Howard “Schlock Mercenary” Tayler loved it:

    http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/05/dimension-hopping-with-alice-in-wonderland/

  13. [Fran]cisco Mar 10th 2010 at 10:56 am 13

    With any Tim Burton movie, you’re going to get Burton’s often-original view of something, not the original story or a conventional point of view.

    That said, I went into the movie expecting to see “Burton’s take on Alice” rather than “a retelling of Alice in Wonderland.” The movie was very much what I was looking for and I enjoyed it. I can understand how someone more oriented toward Lewis Caroll’s books might be disappointed.

  14. hm Mar 10th 2010 at 10:57 am 14

    Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post had a nice review…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030404780.html

  15. Fnord Mar 10th 2010 at 11:32 am 15

    It’s a decent movie. No Academy awards for this one, but entertaining enough to be worth 2 hours and the admission price.

  16. Michael Mar 10th 2010 at 12:17 pm 16

    It’s typical Tim Burton — a little weird and not particularly engaging. Burton’s storytelling is usually a bit weak and that’s the case here. The movie isn’t a waste of time but not a must-see. Definitely pass on the 3D though; it was annoying at times and certainly didn’t add anything.

  17. paperboy Mar 10th 2010 at 03:14 pm 17

    I’m with Jay#8; I dislike movie adaptations that change the source material so much, and lose the whole point of the original, yet still have the gall to keep the title. I’m still going to see it for the special effects, and Johnny Depp, but I have to tell myself “it’s not Alice in Wonderland, it’s not Alice in Wonderland…”. I really liked “Big Fish” and despised “Edward Scissorhands”, so I never know with Burton.

  18. Cidu Bill Mar 10th 2010 at 04:13 pm 18

    What made me wary of this movie was a review that said that Burton seemed intent on showing everything rather than leaving anything to the imagination. This was what made Sweeney Todd unwatchable for me.

  19. Michael Mar 10th 2010 at 05:00 pm 19

    The weirdest part of it is probably that Johnny Depp occasionally slips into a heavy Scottish accent for no apparent reason.

  20. Mitch4 Mar 10th 2010 at 05:06 pm 20

    Another weird Depp-ism (pointed out by Matt and Nat at http://www.yourgeeknews.com/ ) is that he seems to have one pupil dilated.

  21. paperboy Mar 10th 2010 at 06:49 pm 21

    Sounds like Depp was influenced by Mike Myers and David Bowie.

  22. NoAlias Mar 10th 2010 at 11:14 pm 22

    I liked it. I like Burton’s sense of the absurd. The movie seems to me to more of Burton’s vision and less of plot/storyline.

    I saw in in 2d and look forward to seeing it in 3d, but not at my local(ish) theater. Where I live, there are only two theaters close by (within 30 miles), both independents. We went to the better theater, a multiplex, showing Alice in 3d. Bought the tickets, paid the additional 3d movie surcharge, then approached the ticket taker kid at the entrance to the theater. He tells us that he can’t give us the 3d glasses unless we leave something of value as collateral, like a watch or cellphone!!!!! WTF???? We went back to the box office window and got our money back. The guy says it’s a new policy because kids keep ripping off the glasses. I am not a kid (50+) and there is no way I’m leaving anything small and easily ‘misplaced’ in exchange for a pair of plastic glasses!

    Took our money and went to the other, cheaper theater with lousy seats and fair-to-middling sound system. I wrote a letter of complaint to the manager of the first theater, but I don’t expect a response.

  23. Michael Mar 10th 2010 at 11:20 pm 23

    Uh… they charge extra for the 3D showings _specifically_ to pay for the glasses (plus another $1.50 or so just because they can). In our theaters in San Francisco they don’t have anyplace to reclaim the glasses, unless they fish them out of the garbage cans. I can’t imagine why your theaters would try to get the glasses back. They should either charge you the surcharge OR ask for collateral, but there’s no justification for doing both.

  24. Cidu Bill Mar 10th 2010 at 11:36 pm 24

    Michael, it’s my understanding that they charge extra for 3-D showings because they charge extra for 3-D showings. The glasses themselves are not considered to have any intrinsic value.

  25. Morris Keesan Mar 11th 2010 at 01:09 pm 25

    As a big Lewis Carroll fan, who’s seen some Tim Burton films and thought they were okay, I had been planning to avoid this film, because I could tell, from the few print ads and TV spots I’ve seen, that this is NOT a film of “Alice in Wonderland”, but now that I know, from the comments here, that it’s just a film with similarly-named characters, and not an attempt to film Carroll’s work, I’m considering going to see it, or (more likely considering how often I go to the movies [once, last year, because my son was invited to a birthday party at a movie theatre]) borrowing the DVD from the library.

  26. Meryl A Mar 17th 2010 at 01:05 am 26

    I have to wait for the 2D version to come out. I have never been able to see a 3D movie in 3D. I wear eyeglasses and if I put the 3D glasses over them, the 3D is off. If I take off my glasses and put the 3D ones on and then put my glasses over them, then the glasses sit just off where they should be and everything is just fuzzy. I have learned this through years of red and green 3D glasses and the newer ones at theme parks. I am not going to pay even more than the high prices they charge for the movie to not be able to see the special effect!!! Why don’t they come out with clipons adjusted for the difference?

  27. Cidu Bill Mar 17th 2010 at 01:10 am 27

    Meryl, 3-D glasses never did anything for me but give me a headache; but the newfangled glasses they gave out for Avatar (presumably the same for Alice) fit over my own glasses and worked just fine.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply