Alice in Wonderland 2010

Burton + Depp + Bonham-Carter + Elfman = Crazy gold dust

Far too much CGI in that trailer tho...tweedledum & tweedledee & the cheshire cat look awful
 
Burton + Depp + Bonham-Carter + Elfman = Crazy gold dust

Far too much CGI in that trailer tho...tweedledum & tweedledee & the cheshire cat look awful

With films like that I find it best to try get lost in it and ignore the obvious CGI or it'll just ruin the film for you.

Look at oldies, like say Beetlejuice (sticking with Burton) or Ghostbusters (to play for the crowd) which had dodgy as feck special effects a lot of the time, did that take away from your enjoyment of those films then or does it now?

As long as the story is done well, well acted and isnt relying on CGI to make it interesting then I try not let it bother me.
 
Disney would never have Gilliam as director on one of their films... But I think Burton is a great choice.

Looking forward to The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus too though.
 
Watched this today. Liked it to be honest, it's not the best movie ever done, but it is good and entertaining.
 
The trailers make it look exactly like Charlie and the Chocolate factory. All slightly too weird and yet strangely not weird enough. CGI has ruined Burton's creativity. I wish he'd do more stuff like Big Fish and stop making these silly technicolor childrens films for grown ups
 
The trailers make it look exactly like Charlie and the Chocolate factory. All slightly too weird and yet strangely not weird enough. CGI has ruined Burton's creativity. I wish he'd do more stuff like Big Fish and stop making these silly technicolor childrens films for grown ups

Spot on, I didn't really enjoy it
 
The trailers make it look exactly like Charlie and the Chocolate factory. All slightly too weird and yet strangely not weird enough. CGI has ruined Burton's creativity. I wish he'd do more stuff like Big Fish and stop making these silly technicolor childrens films for grown ups

I was thinking the same, although I did enjoy the film, but as I said, it's not like it's anything great.
 
I thought it was ok, could have done with more Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat. 3d is absolutely crap though, I've never been more underwhelmed by anything in my life.
 
Aye 3D movies are pointless. Just another way to make more money.
 
Aye 3D movies are pointless. Just another way to make more money.

I disagree. I think it only adds to the experience and can only be seen as a positive as the technology is fine-tuned in terms of editing etc.

I saw Alice In Wonderland at the IMAX yesterday, and the film in totality wasn't fantastic, but it is aimed at a largely younger audience. I think the target audience has to be considered when trying to criticise a film, and there were plenty of kids that seemed entranced by the Wonderland Tim Burton created.

Johnny Depp is an incredible character actor in my opinion, and didn't disappoint as the mad hatter with the accents and eccentric if not slightly erratic mannerisms. Apparently he researched hatter's syndrome in preparation for the role, and wanted to explore the personality disorder associated with the syndrome.

There was a trailer before the film called "How to train your dragon" (i think), and again it is a film for children, but the 3D effects in the look great, and i would have absolutely loved that as a kid.

3D is the future, and whilst some films may be hit and miss in terms of leaving some underwhelmed, it doesn't take anything away from the film, and in the majority of cases will only add to the experience.
 
Errrr, I can!! He's a poor one trick pony, at best.

I don't think he is.

This is the man that brought us Beetlejuice, Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish, Batman, Sleepy Hollow... He has a reasonably wide variety of films.

Yeah, he brought out two similar looking films in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland but that's only recently.
 
Since Planet of the Apes he's become a bit of a hit or miss director.

Alice in Wonderland - Miss?
Sweeney Todd - Hit
Corpse Bride - Miss
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Miss
Big Fish - Hit(ish)
Planet of the Apes - Miss
Sleepy Hollow - Hit
Mars Attacks! - Hit
Ed Wood - Hit
Batman Returns - Hit(ish)
Edward Scissorhands - Hit
Batman - Hit
Beetle Juice - Hit
Pee-wee's Big Adventure - Hit
Frankenweenie - Hit
Vincent - Hit

Henry Selick is becoming a better Tim Burton than Tim Burton. Still, Sweeney Todd was excellent.
 
I disagree. I think it only adds to the experience and can only be seen as a positive as the technology is fine-tuned in terms of editing etc.

I saw Alice In Wonderland at the IMAX yesterday, and the film in totality wasn't fantastic, but it is aimed at a largely younger audience. I think the target audience has to be considered when trying to criticise a film, and there were plenty of kids that seemed entranced by the Wonderland Tim Burton created.

Johnny Depp is an incredible character actor in my opinion, and didn't disappoint as the mad hatter with the accents and eccentric if not slightly erratic mannerisms. Apparently he researched hatter's syndrome in preparation for the role, and wanted to explore the personality disorder associated with the syndrome.

There was a trailer before the film called "How to train your dragon" (i think), and again it is a film for children, but the 3D effects in the look great, and i would have absolutely loved that as a kid.

3D is the future, and whilst some films may be hit and miss in terms of leaving some underwhelmed, it doesn't take anything away from the film, and in the majority of cases will only add to the experience.

Maybe I'm old school but I just feel if a movie's good enough it will be enjoyed in 2D.
 
Maybe I'm old school but I just feel if a movie's good enough it will be enjoyed in 2D.

Fair enough mate, but a very old school attitude.

Black and white movies can still be enjoyed (the scenes in Raging Bull don't falter in the absence of colour for instance), but the advent of technicolor added to the experience, otherwise we'd still be watching in Black and White today.

3D is simply the next evolution in the process.
 
I agree with kps88, if a film has to be in 3D to be good then it's crap. I have no desire to see Avatar because it looks/reads/sounds like a shit boring film, and it being in 3D won't make me cream my pants like it has some other people.

Story, script, acting etc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> special effects.
 
I agree with kps88, if a film has to be in 3D to be good then it's crap. I have no desire to see Avatar because it looks/reads/sounds like a shit boring film, and it being in 3D won't make me cream my pants like it has some other people.

Story, script, acting etc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> special effects.

I am not advocating that 3D is the key to success of a film, i am simply implying that it can add something special.

Colour TV didn't make bad movies good, but it added more vibrance, and depth to the screen which made viewing movies in general a far greater experience.
 
That's true I guess, but all the same it's not something I'm interested in. I also don't want to sit watching a film or television at home with stupid glasses on.
 
That's true I guess, but all the same it's not something I'm interested in. I also don't want to sit watching a film or television at home with stupid glasses on.

I'd imagine you've hurt the feelings & brought bad difficult moments of many a Caf member, from many of them having to endure the old National Health glasses. Back then it was like Groucho Marx was every fecking where :D

Reckon i'm gonna alter my 3D glasses to look like these gems: :D

nose-moustache-glasses.jpg


Oh, and these pair have got to be racist ::eek:

chop_suey_specs.jpg


And for pure nostalgia, I draw your attention to these bad boys:

specs_s00380.jpg


Health & safety issues right there!
 
That's true I guess, but all the same it's not something I'm interested in. I also don't want to sit watching a film or television at home with stupid glasses on.

correct me if I am wrong but I believe phillips were looking in to producing 3d effects without the use of siully glasses, but they have abandoned it.

sony however have done something weaste knows about where you can walk around the picture and look at it from different angles
 
correct me if I am wrong but I believe phillips were looking in to producing 3d effects without the use of siully glasses, but they have abandoned it.

sony however have done something weaste knows about where you can walk around the picture and look at it from different angles

Is there anything that man doesnt know about when it comes to technology, if there is - then its probably a weaste of time knowing about it :o
 
I watched this last night on Blu Ray.

I kept watching it thinking that Alice looked about 15 and shes a spitting image of Gwyneth Paltrow, (she's actually 20, so i'm safe).

I thought the film started off slowly, but once she fell down the hole it started to get alot better. I didn't mind the CGI at all actually, I thought it worked well in alot of places. But once the characters were introduced to the audience and the actual plot began to take shape it started to spiral out of control.

The plot essentially stripped this film of any genuine chance of being brilliant and pushed the film back a peg or two. The final sequence was somewhat underwhelming.

Its a solid 3 star film, something i'll enjoy watching again in a year or twos time but somewhat forgetable. Shame as it had real potential.