|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Feb 14, 2010 18:29:42 GMT
www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/I shall be approaching this film with a certain trepidation. 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' and 'Through the Looking Glass' are my two favourite children's books of all time. I love them for their cleverness and inventiveness, for their inverted logic, poetry and wordplay. Both books have had faithful live-action made-for-television adaptations that focussed on those elements ( Wonderland and Looking-Glass respectively) and had some excellent performances in them. I have both these on DVD. The 2010 film, although called 'Alice in Wonderland', is actually 'Return to Wonderland' - a sequel, presumably to the animated Disney film (which I've never managed to make myself sit through). It presumably won't therefore contain any of Lewis Carroll's writing in it. And it's directed by Tim Burton. Now Tim Burton's idea of surrealism is very different from Lewis Carroll's. He tends to aim for dark and disturbing, rather than whimsical and literary. I fear this film will have a Burton feel rather than a Carroll feel. But... even accepting all that... it could still be good. We shall see. Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2010 10:07:15 GMT
Judging by the trailer it has far too much of a Tim Burton feel to it. Some of his films like Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice I actually like but this one just seems to take a kids fantasy story and turn it on its head for a more adult audience. I might still give it a watch though at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Feb 24, 2010 19:43:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 24, 2010 19:43:55 GMT
No interest in it as it is in 3D. I wear glasses.
-Ralph
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Feb 24, 2010 20:11:58 GMT
It's amazing how many people that bothers, personally I've never had an issue wearing them but it seems so many do that something probably needs doing. Also there wil lbe non 3D screenings.
That is off course assuming the other chains don't joing Odeon in boycotting it. I'll probably watch it, I've actually liked the last Burtons last few films.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Feb 24, 2010 21:23:41 GMT
It annoys me how this is 'Disney' Alice in Wonderland. I know why it is, but it still annoys me.
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Feb 25, 2010 15:38:22 GMT
Also, looks like some kind of compromise has been made as it's back on at my local Odeon.
|
|
Nigel
Thunderjet
Posts: 4,974
|
Post by Nigel on Feb 25, 2010 16:01:51 GMT
|
|
Nigel
Thunderjet
Posts: 4,974
|
Post by Nigel on Feb 25, 2010 16:07:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 25, 2010 18:38:12 GMT
It's amazing how many people that bothers, personally I've never had an issue wearing them but it seems so many do that something probably needs doing. Also there wil lbe non 3D screenings. Andy Well it bothers me because it's impractical to wear normal glasses plus 3-D glasses, and if I take my normal specs off to wear the 3-D ones I can't see the screen as I have very poor vision. So if film companies want to force more and more 3D films at me, they'll get less money because I won't go to see those films. I would be upset to be find I can see less films as I really like going to the cinema. And if a film is specifically made to be seen in 3-D, I just cannot fathom the point of watching a modified 2-D version. I'll only be interested in 3-D if a version is made which I can actually watch. -Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2010 19:15:21 GMT
3-D movies actually holds no appeal to me whatsoever. I prefer a normal 2-D over a 3-D and I don't even wear glasses.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 5, 2010 20:01:14 GMT
I have a few days of leave so I thought I'd start early by knocking off work at 3 and going to see this film. Far from getting me in the holiday mood, I came out of it and stopped in at the office to do another hour of work on the way home.
It's bad. It's neither a faithful sequel (like 'Percy Jackson' is to the Greek myths) nor a respectful, loving homage (like 'Wreckers' is to the original TF comics). It's just a generic save-the-fairytale-kingdom-from-the-evil-witch-and-kill-the-dragon story, using names and references from Lewis Carroll.
It has plenty of details mucked up - e.g. somehow amalgamating the Queen of Hearts from the first book and the Red Queen (a chess piece) from the second book - two very different characters - into a single person. And getting the Jabberwock's name wrong. (Jabberwocky is the name of the poem, not the creature.) And having the caterpillar become a butterfly _again_.
But that's not why I don't like it. It just misses the point of Wonderland completely. Wonderland and Looking-Glass Land are supposed to be surreal experiences where you are constantly being challenged by verbal logic and having silly poetry (with method in its madness) coming at you from all quarters. It's not supposed to have a timeline and events and stuff. It's about ideas coming thick and fast. And we're supposed to experience it through Alice's quirky inner monologue - here completely non-existent.
It doesn't really have a Tim Burton feel to it either. It's just... all rather pointless.
I recommending missing this, and going with the two live-action TV adaptations that I mentioned further up the thread.
The CG animals and Tweedles were rubbish too. The only things I liked were the Cheshire Cat's acrobatics and the way the White Queen only ever raised her forearms and wafted them about so delicately. Best performance in the film. But the rest were all completely forgettable.
Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2010 12:18:49 GMT
I've never really rated Tim Burton's movies of the past few years. I'll never forgive him how he took the Planet of the Apes franchise and totally destroyed it in his version of the film.
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Mar 7, 2010 22:48:49 GMT
Don't know anything about the books as I have never read them (yet) but the went to see this yesterday and thought it was ok - not brilliant, but ok. It made me laugh in a few places so good enough for a Saturday afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Mar 12, 2010 21:06:36 GMT
Same here. I enjoyed it well enough, I've not read the books so I have no issues with it in that respect. It's a long time since I watched hte Disney film, but it did feel like a sequel to it.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Mar 12, 2010 21:13:43 GMT
Well it bothers me because it's impractical to wear normal glasses plus 3-D glasses, and if I take my normal specs off to wear the 3-D ones I can't see the screen as I have very poor vision. So if film companies want to force more and more 3D films at me, they'll get less money because I won't go to see those films. I would be upset to be find I can see less films as I really like going to the cinema. And if a film is specifically made to be seen in 3-D, I just cannot fathom the point of watching a modified 2-D version. I'll only be interested in 3-D if a version is made which I can actually watch. -Ralph I wear glasses and its never bothered me. Obviously with such a wide range of glasses and faces for them to be worn on, some will find 3d glasses uncomfortable and others won't. I'm lucky I guess. Not that I really care most 3d seems a waste of time and more of a gimmick than story telling device. I prefer the clearer picture of 2d. Having said that Toy Story 2 in 3d was kind of magical. Alice was another one that didn't seem to gain anything from the process. Avatar, on the other hand, probably does make Pandora more there, but I'd have to see it in 2d to compare. Andy
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Mar 13, 2010 19:24:54 GMT
I saw Avatar in 2D first and then 3D a couple of months later. I found the 3D effect to be good in places but mostly distracting from the story that was actually trying to be told.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Mar 14, 2010 16:13:40 GMT
Don't know anything about the books as I have never read them (yet) I've not read the books so I have no issues with it in that respect. Start reading.And the other one is here.It'll only take you a few hours to get through the pair of them - a definite case of quality rather than quantity. In my opinion they are as good as stringing one word after another in this language we call English is ever likely to get. Certainly a better use of your time than going to see that film. And doesn't cost you a penny either. Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 19:16:13 GMT
I haven't read the books either but I might give them a read through at some point.
|
|