Thoughts on Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland?

Considering the site's name (and the Cheshire Cat being the most awesome part of the new flick), what are your thoughts on the recently released Tim Burton sequel to Alice in Wonderland?

He is my brief (spoiler-free!) review:

Tim Burton finally gets around to tackling Lewis Carroll and while it's slightly disappointing, it's a well-done and enjoyable film, nonetheless. Mia Wasikowska does a very good job with playing Alice, grounding her even when she is in the magical fantasy world and her character is definitely the most fully-realised of the film. Helena Bonham Carter also does some wonderful work as the Red Queen as she seems to be having a great time playing the role, but the characters just seem under-written, including Johnny Depp's Hatter who isn't particularly mad and that's my biggest issue with Alice in Wonderland. As per expected from a Tim Burton production, it's visually impressive with some excellent production design, costume work and visual effects and Danny Elfman's score is fantastic. However, the 3-D doesn't really bring much to the fore-front so those seeing it in regular 2-D format will not be missing much. However, Burton seems to be holding back when he should be letting loose with the material. Aside from the Red Queen and the marvellous Cheshire Cat, the characters don't feel as much like their written counterparts. However, as a fan of the original book, I definitely smiled through the course of the film and enjoyed the little moments that did feel Lewis Carroll-like in nature. In conclusion, it's another solid piece of work from Tim Burton, but I think another re-write could have helped here.

Help Support Cheshire Cat Studios.com

considering it just came out today and I plan on watching it in 3d (saw the spoilers in the theater and looks TOTALY worth it) I will wait until I see it to answer.

Unfortunately I never go out to see movies that much. I can't stand dealing with theaters because of the inconsiderate movie-goers and the absolutely inefficient and clueless staff. The price of a ticket is just as rediculous as the enormous boxes of candy that cost $2.00 and conceal only a little bag of candy the size of a condom wrapper.

Call me a cynic (I'm used to it) but nothing beats watching a movie at home. You can pause it and make your own popcorn for pennies, you don't have to share your living room with others if you choose not to, and you can be as loud and obnoxious as you want to while still enjoying time away from other people just as loud and obnoxious as yourself. Basically, you can watch a movie in peace and complete comfort for much less than a theater ticket.

As for Alice in Wonderland, it doesn't appeal to me (the Burton movie, not the story in general). A lot of Burton's work is hit and miss, especially after butchering Willy Wanka. And as I was telling my neighbor a while ago, Burton's more original films have been his best (Batman being the exception).

So I'll pass, and I can't vote on the matter until I rent/pirate a DVD.

Yeah, if you're not a Burton fan, I can't quite recommend it. But, even he seemed to scale back on his usual style here, when he should have let loose with it, considering the material, but oh, well.

And I would like to see him do a Beetlejuice-type flick again, personally.

I don't think he butchered Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, though. I think, if anything he actually did it justice. Though, this is coming from a fan of the book who can't stand the 1970's version. In fact, I absolutely despise it and I was so glad to see somebody actually do a great job at adapting my favourite book of my childhood.

In fact, here is the video I made where I criticised the Gene Wilder version:

wow, you really don't want me to watch any of this? even though I have read the book, seen the first movie, and watched Tim Burtons version (yes in that order), the first movie still hold the bar to where the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory needs to be at. Tim Burton did a horrible job at the movie with his own additions to the movie (ie where Willy Wonka came from and how he though Charlie would give up his family). Now I can understand if you are trying to do a publicity stunt to get more site traffic, I can respect that.

Even with all the adaptations put in either of the movies, unless future directors are willing to put in the work to stay close to the book I dont think any newer movie will remove Willie Wanka's Chocolate Factory from its standing as being the better movie out of the two.

If you are going to go off on a "How terrible a movie can be compared to the book." rant, go pick up a copy of Eragon (the book first) and then watch the movie. prepare to be pissed and have a bat ready.

No, I do genuinely dislike the 1970s version and I wanted to vent my frustrations on it in a video.

I don't dislike Willy Wonka, simply for being a crummy adaptation. After all, I really like The Wizard of Oz, but it deviates a lot from Baum's book which I also like a lot. But it works, but it still has plenty of magic and imagination, wonderful music, an enchanting story, great characters, enjoyable performances and it hasn't aged once since 1939.

Willy Wonka looks completely stuck in the '70s, particularly when they're in the factory and it doesn't look like a chocolate factory. It looks all fake and the candy doesn't look tasty in the least. Add in the repetitive music (with "Pure Imagination" being the only song I actually like), the dull and un-emotional performances from the child actors (though the adults, with the exception of Wilder, aren't good either), the out-of-place dark moments that lack that great Dahlsian wit and characters like Wonka and Charlie breaking character in a couple of scenes. I just felt no emotional attachment to any characters, like with the book. And by itself, I also don't think it works.

As for Burton's version, I don't simply like it for being more faithful, but there was more imagination to it.

Plus:
- Great performances all-around. The child actors perfectly showed their horrible sides while not annoying me, while Highmore got Charlie spot-on. And yes, I like Depp's portrayal a lot. I think it works that he's detached from reality a tad and you totally see how he thought of all of these crazy ideas. I didn't see that with Wilder.
- Visually, it's amazing. The factory is done incredibly and the food actually looks edible. Plus, I love the contrast between the factory and the dull world outside.
- Danny Elfman's music is wonderful. The main theme perfectly captures the oddness of it all and I liked how he used different music styles and connected them with Dahl's lyrics when writing the Oompa-Loompa songs.
- Speaking of the Oompa-Loompas, I liked how they are actually African pygmies here. Not...those creepy orange alien things or whatever those are.
- John August's screenplay captures the right darkness and Dahlsian wit necessary for this film. It's not afraid to go dark when necessary and it actually feels right, rather than the 1970s version which seems to do it just to have a scare. I like the closure it gives the characters and how they expanded on the Wonka and Charlie characters.

Overall, I can't like the 1970's version. I just can't stand it, both as an adaptation and as a stand-alone film. When I left the cinema back in 2005, I was so incredibly pleased with what Burton did with my favourite childhood book and my subsequent multiple viewings on DVD have not deterred my opinion on his version yet.

FIGHT! FIGHT!

I think they're agreeing to disagree.

But for the record, despite the severely dated look of the film (that giant computer makes me laugh, as much as the candy-shrinking room) it has more charm than the Burton version. Plus, when you think of Willy Wanka, you think of the great Gene Wilder in one of his most iconic performances.

Butron's version was just... overly stylish and I personally thought that the songs and acting were even more annoying than the classic "oompa loompa" song. Even Depp's performance was just... too... insane. The entire movie just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm picturing Alice in Wonderland doing the same thing.

Alice in Wonderland was better than I expected but the whole movie felt like I was popping acid in a victorian ballroom. I think the queen's enormous head made me freak out so much I thought I was high and having a freakout. It had the Tim Burton style and it fit. Why is Johnny Depp and Helen Carter in every one of Tim Burtons new movies? I felt like I was watching Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fuckitall again.

I personally think of Quentin Blake's illustrated bearded man from the book

Though I do admit that Gene Wilder is one of two things in the 70s version I actually like (along with the Pure Imagination song), minus that inappropriate scene in which he shouts at Charlie, which goes against the whole point of the character, in my opinion.