Escape to the Movies: Alice in Wonderland

AnarchistAbe

The Original RageQuit Rebel
Sep 10, 2009
389
0
0
AlternatePFG said:
Ugh, I was looking forward to this to. Seriously, why couldn't make a faithful adaptation to story and call it day?
Still go see it. I am not a manager at hot topic, and I absolutely loved this movie! The review strikes me as a "not funny, yahtzee style review".
 

theguiltyone

New member
Jan 6, 2010
102
0
0
While I definitely agree, as much as I love both of them, that Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter need to GTFO Tim Burton's main character list for a good long while, and while the third act of this movie was definitely a let down, I honestly enjoyed the movie.

I think the main reason the story DID work for me was that, unlike moviebob, I didn't see it as a good vs evil throwdown in the end. The emphasis seemed to be about the flimsiness of declarations of destinies in general. While Wonderland knows the decision she'll make in the end (after all, it IS her world) the real world gets a nice shock when she applies what she learned about destiny/making choices during the course of the movie to her current situation. I thought the parallels to her situation in the waking world (reflected even in a few of the characters...for instance, her soon-to-be mother-in-law = Red Queen) were amusing, and while nothing in the movie really surprised me or seemed a revolution in anyway, it was satisfying as an entertainment vehicle for me.

If I wanted darker and grittier, I'd go play American McGee's Alice. If I wanted acid-trippy randomness, Disney's original still works great. Having a middle-ground isn't such a terrible thing.
 

Dexiro

New member
Dec 23, 2009
2,977
0
0
I followed everything until you said Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was bad!

I thought that was an awesome movie, at least compared to the old one.
Not that I'm saying the old one was bad, i loved that too, but the remake added more a ton more personality and exploration.
 

Sleipnir

New member
Oct 17, 2009
93
0
0
cball11 said:
Sexually active thirteen-year-olds need a new hero, 'cause Burton sucks hard.
They have one, he's called Edward and he's a paedophile "vampire".
 

Vredesbyrd67

New member
Apr 20, 2009
238
0
0
Dark Templar said:
Quiet Stranger said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Quiet Stranger said:
Aura Guardian said:
Loved the special message. I've hated a lot of Tim Burton's movies expect for one. Sweeny Todd. And I've have yet to watch a Nightmare before Christmas and refuse too. Judging by your review, this is crap. Thank you moviebob

I think you mean "Judging by your review, you are crap. Thank you bob"

But in all seriousness, if I WAS to listen to a critic I'll listen to Ebert, a PROFESSIONAL who has spent his whole career (or at least a damn many years) reviewing movies, also don't listen to critics, go see the movie (theater or pirated) and judge for yourself, don't let other people decide for you, that's just fucking stupid
I laughed hard. You do know what a reviewer is right? Someone who gives an unbiased opinion on something after taking into consideration every aspect of something. A professional opinion giver is an oxymoron.
Well at least Ebert has some credentials (as in he's spent years doing it) but it seems bob hates a lot of movies and besides Tim Burton's Alice is the best live adaptation yet
I DISAGREE WITH MOVIEBOB!!! FLAME FLAME FLAME!!!

Seriously, Moviebob's reviews are alwase thoughtful, intelligent, and completely to the point. He provides valid reasons why most people might not like this movie ad he does so in an intelligent manner like a professional. If you don't like him you don't have to watch or post here at all.

Oh and if you honestly thought Tim Burton's horrible movie was the best adaptation yet then you haven't seen American McGee's Alice. Or heck, even the disney movie was better than this.
*Facepalm*

First of all, there's no such thing as an unbiased opinion. We see everything through the lens of our tastes, our experiences, and our personal values. No human being can ever have an objective opinion because opinions are the essence of subjectivity.

Second of all, when judging art, the last thing you want to do is be objective. Judging it with objectivity implies that there is an ideal work that you're comparing it to, and there is no ideal work of art, because art is meant to appeal to the personal tastes of people.

Third of all, Roger Motherfucking Ebert? Really? The only bigger hack than him in the film industry is Michael Bay. He's the type of critic who does try to be objective, and all he succeeds in doing is missing the point of many good movies entirely and coming off a bloated, self-important ass. And just because he's old, has been in the movie business for years, and has written books about movies doesn't mean he's got "credentials." By that same logic Ed Wood was a filmmaking expert when he made "Plan 9", and Uwe Boll was an expert when he made "Alone In The Dark."

Also, in his review for Pulp Fiction, he spoiled one of the greatest scenes in the movie by showing it while speaking loudly over the already lowered audio, pointing out specific filmmaking decisions that Tarentino made. He ruined the gimp scene so he could show off how movie-savvy he is. The man is NOT an expert. He's a pompous ass.
 

yoyo13rom

New member
Oct 19, 2009
1,004
0
0
Oh, you gotta be kidding me! This is the only video on the whole Escapist that doesn't work for me.

303: Failed to load a resource: Unable to load resources: Error #2036
Can anyone please help?
 

Astalano

New member
Nov 24, 2009
286
0
0
There was a book about this that I read, I can't remember the title for the life of me. I haven't seen this movie, but the book is really similar to what you're talking about Bob.
 

Johann Goethe

New member
Nov 28, 2009
8
0
0
So his main argument is that while it looks very nice, it's let down by a clichéd plot? This coming from the guy who's rooting for Avatar to win Best Picture...

In all seriousness, I'm still going to see it anyway. The trouble with Wonderland is that the original book doesn't have much of a narrative structure. Girl enters strange world, girl meets strange characters, girl leaves strange world without any significant personality changes. That's pretty much it. I don't know for sure if this version will offer something different, as Burton has been keen to talk up in interviews, but visually, it should be an excellent re-creation of Wonderland.

Also, I liked Charlie & the Chocolate Factory.
 

maddog015

New member
Sep 12, 2008
338
0
0
So, I've got free tickets to the movies. Is it worth seeing this on the big screen for free? Or wait to pay a few bucks on DVD? I'm leaning towards the free aspect.
 

Big-T

New member
Jan 11, 2010
41
0
0
i friggin loved the movie!! i saw the midnight showing in 3d and it was a really visually tasteful movie. i will agree that the storyline was weak but the characters were awesome and really well done in my opinion.

feel free to judge me or disagree with me, but reguardless, getting high and seeing that movie in 3D was the best choice ive ever made.
 

ribonuge

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,479
0
0
I wasn't even looking forward to this in the slightest. When I learned it wasn't an adaptation of the original work, but a fucking sequel (seriously, what the fuck?) I lost all faith in the project. Tim Burton has gone steadily downhill with his last few movies.

Not to mention The Nightmare Before Christmas has been forever scarred by the masses of emo kiddies. (Pun not intended)
 

Eldarion

New member
Sep 30, 2009
1,887
0
0
Vredesbyrd67 said:
Dark Templar said:
Quiet Stranger said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Quiet Stranger said:
Aura Guardian said:
Loved the special message. I've hated a lot of Tim Burton's movies expect for one. Sweeny Todd. And I've have yet to watch a Nightmare before Christmas and refuse too. Judging by your review, this is crap. Thank you moviebob

I think you mean "Judging by your review, you are crap. Thank you bob"

But in all seriousness, if I WAS to listen to a critic I'll listen to Ebert, a PROFESSIONAL who has spent his whole career (or at least a damn many years) reviewing movies, also don't listen to critics, go see the movie (theater or pirated) and judge for yourself, don't let other people decide for you, that's just fucking stupid
I laughed hard. You do know what a reviewer is right? Someone who gives an unbiased opinion on something after taking into consideration every aspect of something. A professional opinion giver is an oxymoron.
Well at least Ebert has some credentials (as in he's spent years doing it) but it seems bob hates a lot of movies and besides Tim Burton's Alice is the best live adaptation yet
I DISAGREE WITH MOVIEBOB!!! FLAME FLAME FLAME!!!

Seriously, Moviebob's reviews are alwase thoughtful, intelligent, and completely to the point. He provides valid reasons why most people might not like this movie ad he does so in an intelligent manner like a professional. If you don't like him you don't have to watch or post here at all.

Oh and if you honestly thought Tim Burton's horrible movie was the best adaptation yet then you haven't seen American McGee's Alice. Or heck, even the disney movie was better than this.
*Facepalm*

First of all, there's no such thing as an unbiased opinion. We see everything through the lens of our tastes, our experiences, and our personal values. No human being can ever have an objective opinion because opinions are the essence of subjectivity.

Second of all, when judging art, the last thing you want to do is be objective. Judging it with objectivity implies that there is an ideal work that you're comparing it to, and there is no ideal work of art, because art is meant to appeal to the personal tastes of people.

Third of all, Roger Motherfucking Ebert? Really? The only bigger hack than him in the film industry is Michael Bay. He's the type of critic who does try to be objective, and all he succeeds in doing is missing the point of many good movies entirely and coming off a bloated, self-important ass. And just because he's old, has been in the movie business for years, and has written books about movies doesn't mean he's got "credentials." By that same logic Ed Wood was a filmmaking expert when he made "Plan 9", and Uwe Boll was an expert when he made "Alone In The Dark."

Also, in his review for Pulp Fiction, he spoiled one of the greatest scenes in the movie by showing it while speaking loudly over the already lowered audio, pointing out specific filmmaking decisions that Tarentino made. He ruined the gimp scene so he could show off how movie-savvy he is. The man is NOT an expert. He's a pompous ass.
Did you mean to quote me or the guy I am quoting? Cause I never used the words "unbiased" or "objective" and said nothing about Edert.
 

Tolerant Fanboy

New member
Aug 5, 2009
339
0
0
One two, one two
And through and through
The MovieBob went snarky-snick.
No frabjous day,
He cried dismay
For anyone who sees this flick.

OK, I'm done. :)