Alice in wonderland- TIM BURTON. MARCH 5TH.

Ooh that's good. I would have thought it would have shifted a few places but that's still good.

Just checked on cineworld website for a time for Thursday and was surprised to see only 4 showings are that day. Wheras now until wed there are over 10 showings a day. Hmm.
 
Woun't recomend this in 2D is all i'm going to add,seen it last week at imax,didn't blow me away, but not bad all the same.

Though the script could have been stronger,good 3D,amazing CGI well worth the
 
Alice in Wonderland: 3/5

I rather enjoyed it :) Dark and weird, but it's really a sequel in feel, so why call it Alice in Wonderland? Return to Wonderland would be more apt. The film had a very muted colour pallette even in the "real" world and Wonderland had a kind of post apocolyptic feel, I felt the 2 bookending parts of the film were boring (Alice getting married to a slimy suitor etc) and I didnt feel for those characters.
I thought Alice in the book and Disney film is a child (about 10 or something), in that sense by making her older (19) maybe Wonderland becomes a metaphor for childhood itself, and how maybe you never outgrow some things.
The girl playing Alice was good.
I did like Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen a lot - even though, talking with a high pitched lisp, she reminded me of Queenie in Blackadder II :D In fact, she ripped off that interpretation wholesale. But still very funny.

Stephen Fry was very good as the Cheshire Cat also, but criminally underused. Loved him :)
The part in which Alice must slay the Jabberwocky (certainly not in the Alice books) seemed shoehorned in to give the film some more structure and narrative and give the older, supposedly more resourceful Alice a mission, which The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) helps her with. The questioning of whether what she has seen is real or not or has actually happened, reminded me of something like Narnia or Pan's Labyrinth.

Why was Depp putting on a Scottish accent in places? :confused:

Was the Hatter supposed to be Alice's ideal guy? They seemed a bit "fond" of each other :o :confused:
 
What a suprise, this is being given a limited run in the UK and US. 12 weeks instead of 16. Still good but this past year has been lethal for cut backs.

Still. back on topic. Not long now!
 
Alot of people have said that ^, that 3D kinda puts 2D to shame. Which is why i'm really looking forward to it in 3D now after seeing it in 2D.

Alice Alice Alice!
 
Just okay, I thought. Very annoying in places, actually.

First off, I can't believe some of the comments on here about the lead actress. I thought she was terrible. I've seen a lot of her type in films - very posh, prim and proper English girl with an extremely limited range and no oomph at all.

It was certainly beautiful to look at, and the 3D was excellent, but some of the choices were a little odd. In particular, the Knave of Hearts was annoyingly done - he had a strange CGI body and moved like a video game character.

For me, it didn't really gel very well as a whole, and Johnny Depp was miscast. The bit near the end with him dancing was utterly, utterly cringeworthy.

What was with Anne Hathaway's character? That ridiculous posture and airy, floaty manner was supremely annoying, and almost left me rooting for the Queen of Hearts. In any case, Helena Bonham-Carter stole the show completely.

Looked great, and had some nice moments, but story-wise and, as a film as a whole, I honestly thought it was a bit of a mess. Somewhat disappointing.
 
I don't think that's really explained in the film.

However, i've decided the title is fine for the film. She goes back down the rabbit hole and is in wonderland. So there you are i guess.
 
I've heard Cineworld have made a deal to show it (from my manager at work, I just finished working at a cinema), but Vue and Odeon haven't made any deal yet.

Anyway I've got tickets for it at Waterloo IMAX :D Not many seats left though, I'm at the side of the screen half way up.
 
Does anyone know if the film will still be shown in independent cinemas? I have no ability to travel and have to rely on my local independent to see new releases. This is the kind of film I'd want to see in the cinema, not on a rubbish downloaded copy.
 
Saw this tonight at the IMAX in Waterloo - amazing and stunning look and the dark feel of the film was very unexpected but I enjoyed the film.

As a couple people have said, as soon as Helena Bonham-Carter spoke, she just reminded me of Queenie from Blackadder II! But she was brilliant in this and over-shadowed most of the cast.

I loved the Cheshire Cat and Babs WinRABor as the Doormouse. :)

Downside: that "dance" was completeky cringeworthy and made my skin crawl. What on earth possessed them to put that in? I didn't really take to the Mad Hatter character to be honest.
 
I can't believe how lame the script was for this. They should have torn it up and thrown it out!! That aside, I don't think Burton knew which parts to take seriously, when to completely take the piss, when to make things dramatic. Who the hell are we supposed to root for? Maybe Alice but she doesn't seem as strong as she should at the end. The scene where she tells members of her family some home truths just comes across as weak.

Of course there are LOARAB of plus points, particularly the look of the whole film, the performances of Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter as well as some really decent other voices/appearances, even by Barbara WinRABor!

Sadly, even though she's nice and did a good job, I think Alice was miscast. I wanted to scream at her to give it some welly in the dialogue scenes, especially with Depp. I wouldn't blame her that much though, the writing is pretty bad and Tim Burton obviously lost it here. I thought the smaller-scale Sweeney Todd was great, Burton back to his best, but now he's proven again that he loses his way with huge effects films. Charlie was better than this though, I reckon.
 
Er, no.

I happened to read a thread with someone asking if people had seen certain films. Someone said Taking Lives was crap and its box office performance proved it. Then I read a comment on this thread that made a very similarly worded statement about box office and quality. So, I went back to see if it was the same person. And it was.

I'm not having a go, anyway. I just think that directly equating box office success to quality is rather simplistic. A Tim Burton adaptation of a classic book, starring Johnny Depp, was always going to be a box office success. Some films just will be. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, for instance, could be the worst film ever made, but it'll do well at the box office regardless.

Conversely, some great quality films don't enjoy box office success.
 
I hated the scottish accent which seemed to appear randomly for no reason and the mumbling the rest of the time. My daughter kept asking me what he was saying!!! Infact Johnny Depp was awful in the film, not right for the part at all. The contact lenses didn't help because they deadened his expression.

I agree it all looked very beautiful and the 3D was good but the storyline was pretty poor. I prefered the red queen to the white queen and found myself not really caring about any of the characters (not a good sign).

My fave was the Cheshire Cat - we wanted to take him home with us.
 
Back
Top