Alice. (Warning: Possibly spoilers and Tim Burton fanboidom)

[monkey0506]

I got a text message from a friend of mine yesterday and she reminded me that Burton's Alice in Wonderland came out "today". Which I use terms like "yesterday" and "today" somewhat poorly because it is now after midnight making it 5 March when by "yesterday" I mean 3 March and "today" it was meant 12:00 AM 4 March.

However, my friend informed me that she and another mutual friend couldn't go see the movie because they could not find a babysitter for the other's two children. I told her, "I am not going to babysit while you two go see that movie!!" because although I love the kids and have somewhat played the role of a sort of uncle to them, I also happen to be a much bigger fan of Tim Burton than either of my two friends.

She laughed and told me that they were actually planning on me going with them, but the problem was that with no babysitter the plans were off.

Well, later she called me and asked if I could keep a secret..which you guessed it..means that we went without the other friend and saw the movie anyway.

We actually saw it in 3D which was a very interesting experience since I haven't seen anything in 3D for several years. I did notice that although it did make the movie more immersive, if you tried to focus on something other than what the camera wanted you to focus on the effect was horribly destroyed. Kind of drove my eyes bonkers.

On to the actual movie though:

For those who don't know, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is actually set as a sequel to "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", though it does not follow the storyline of "Through the Looking-Glass".

It's been years since I've read either book, so I really wouldn't feel fair to judge it against the books. However, despite my obvious aforementioned Tim Burton fandom, I do honestly feel like the movie was very well done and serves as a nice sequel to the first story. I have recently watched Disney's Alice in Wonderland (noting of course that Burton's film was also produced by Disney, but I will use "Disney" to refer to the 1951 animated film and "Burton" to refer to his 2010 live action film) which could easily be tied to this film, making this film a reasonable canonical sequel to Disney's Alice.

The story seemed well written, the actors well cast, and overall I felt this piece fit nicely together. I have seen that some have expressed concern regarding the use of CG for certain characters such as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum who could reasonably have been cast by live actors. At certain points this opinion actually did draw my attention to this fact, yet there were certainly moments during the film when the characters were just so fluid that I didn't even really think about the fact that they didn't actually physically exist.

So..thoughts?

P.S.

Spoiler

The dance that The Mad Hatter did at the end..pretty brilliant I thought. Moreso when Alice did it back in the real world. I won't attempt to spell it though..haha

[close]

Spoiler

My friend actually commented on this point, and I definitely had to agree with her..I was really hoping (not necessarily expecting, but just wanting) to see some manifestation of the Hatter in the real world for Alice to run into. It's been done before so in a way I suppose it was good that it didn't happen, but I think it could have been worked in just as well.

[close]

Spoiler

Also, does anybody find Alice's comment to her aunt a bit hypocritical? Sure her aunt might be delusional and insane..but who is Alice to judge, honestly? I mean, what if her aunt had some sort of similar experience..oh and the aunt actually reminded me very much of the White Queen from the books. As I said I haven't read the books in years, but I do remember the White Queen as having been crazy as hell.

[close]

[Chicky]

Been twice now, i really liked it but i love anything Burton. The Disney 3D was unnecessary and intrusive and parts of the script were far too Lord of the Rings. Saying that, Depp was fantastic as always and the morbid undertones were perfect.

[monkey0506]

If I had a job I would have gone to see it several times, both with and without the 3D. Sadly due to my finances it's not really feasible for me to do such a thing, and so I have only seen it the one time.

Still think it's the best movie I've seen since 2007 though. And yes, I saw Avatar.

[Wesray]

I liked the movie. Not something I would see a second time in cinema, but my friends and I were entertained and felt it was money well spent. It was quite weird, in a good way. Although it's quasi a sequel, a lot of it was familiar from the old cartoon.

The 3D was ok too. Nothing too special, but then I am not a big 3D person anyway. I already wondered in Avatar what all that fuzz was about.

[DoorKnobHandle]

All I can say on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dyGpCrFdX4

[monkey0506]

Though I can understand that view of Burton's work, I respectfully disagree. Sure, Burton's films deal with a lot of the same themes and people. To me though I just feel that Burton sees the world that way.

His views on life and death are apparent in his work, and something I hold in high regard.

I also get the impression that Burton just loves to have fun making films. Those who have seen Frankenweenie might recall that in the beginning of the short film Victor Frankenstein had made a film with his parents video camera, his dog, and some of his toys. It wasn't some brilliant blockbuster masterpiece, but the point was that he had fun doing it.

I kind of view Burton that way. I doubt it really matters to him whether his films sell or are critically acclaimed. Certainly everybody wants to be good and successful at their job, but I get the impression that Burton is just like Victor. He's just a kid with a video camera gathering some of his friends together to make a movie. He's just got a much higher budget than that of Victor or Brendon Small.

That's my take on it though.