Visitors Review

(2012-05-25 01:06)

Big Disappointment

When i first heard that tim burton was directing allice and wonderland i thought. i thought wow after seeing what he did in Batman Returns that Alice in Wonderland was going to spill over with surreal visuals, beautiful scenes and weird characters,all spawned from burton's wildly creative imagination. But instead it was boring, a movie that seemed drab even for Burton, every scene seemed like it was covered in dirt. and I could not picture any child sitting through this without losing intrest in the first 15 minutes Big Disappointment from one of my favorite directors. definatly a waste of talent and money. My guess is burton did'nt get the budget he wanted from Disney and fudged this one. it should be swept under the rug and forgotten. dont even waste your money buying it on Blu Rayunlike Avatar there nothing to see here.

Michael O'Keefe (2012-05-24 10:27)

Not your grandmother's Alice.

Your grandmother may be dazzled with the outstanding special effects,but the story falls a bit short. Director Tim Burton collaborates withscreenwriter Linda Woolverton to deliver a contemporary twist to thebeloved Lewis Carroll classic. A coming-of-age Alice(Mia Wasikowsa)isnone too please with a "set-up" wedding. On the lavish estate she spiesa white rabbit with dangling pocket watch scoot into the brush.Following her curiosity with the rabbit, Alice falls down a hole thattakes her to a very strange world filled unusual characters. There is adisappearing Cheshire Cat(Stephen Fry), a demanding Red Queen(HelenaBonham Carter), a Knave of Hearts(Crispin Glover) and a MadHatter(Johnny Depp). There are other colorful characters that allbelieve Alice has been sent to free their kingdom of Underland byvanquishing the dreaded Jabberwocky(Christopher Lee).Not exactly living up to all the hype; but a vehicle for the verytalented Depp. The visuals do make this whimsical tale memorable, butat times you look for a much welcomed conclusion. Others in the cast:Alan Rickman, Michael Gough, Matt Lucas and Anne Hathaway, for me thelest impressive.It's just a different Alice in Wonderland.

Dragoneyed363 (2012-05-23 11:37)

Breathtaking eye-candy, enjoyable, but it has tons of room for improvement

I had been really excited to see Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland eversince the first trailer. I am a fan of him, and I love the Alice inWonderland story, so I thought this would be a very pleasing, fun andentertaining experience. While the movie is entertaining, I wasthoroughly satisfied, and it stays true to the original depiction, thefilm is nothing magnificent like I had hoped it would be.First of all, let me praise the visuals. The most interesting andnoteworthy features about this movie are the luscious, beautifulscenery and amazing graphics that are presented. I could not help butdrool over some scenes simply for their creativity and vividness that Ivery well am overly happy this movie had to make up for it's lack inother fields. The make-up and costumes were excellently done and thelighting in some scenes made the crystal-like features of the sets andactors breathtaking, especially in such scenes with the White Palaceand White Queen. Truly beautiful.Next, let's get to the performances and characters. I felt some actorsportrayed their characters far better than others, and then somecharacters were just under-developed, so the actors playing them didn'treally have much to give in the first place. Mia Wasikowska gave a verylikable and fun performance as Alice. Johnny Depp did pretty good withthe Mad Hatter, though the character himself needed a bit moreimprovement. Helena Bonham Carter was a very believable Red Queen aswas Anne Hathaway for the White Queen, but here again, none of thesecharacters were as lovable as they could've been. Out of every one, theCheshire Cat was my favorite, though even he could've been portrayed asa more crazy, harebrained character. While none of the characters werebad, none were worth extreme admiration.The story itself was pretty solid and everything else about the filmwas quite adequate, but it's the characters and performances thatreally leave you wanting more than what you got, and Tim Burton reallyshould've tried harder with such a wonderful and lovable, classic storyto work with.Overall, the visuals are overwhelming, the film is amusing and witty attimes, but it's nothing special and I really wouldn't care to see itagain, though it is worth a watch just to say you've seen it.

Neil Welch (2012-05-23 04:23)

All style, no substance, little Carroll

I've tried to figure out why this movie doesn't quite work, and I thinkit must be the script. It can't be story, because Carroll's two Alicebooks aren't exactly over-burdened with plot: they are like nothing somuch as Victorian videogames - Alice enters alien environment andtraverses a series of obstacles to be overcome/defeated/avoided untilshe reaches the final objective, to return home. The books are linearand episodic, and so is this movie.So if it's not story it must be something else. The Alice books arecharacterised by their imagination, wit, charm, and originality.Burton's film is imaginative (most of which derives from the books andTenniel's illustrations), but it isn't very original, neither does itexhibit much wit or charm. Burton does add his own flavour, but thathas never been particularly charming.The story - "Return to Wonderland" - adds so little of its own, and isso heavily dependent on material from the source novels, that onewonders why it was considered necessary to go for a "sequel", and whyBurton didn't simply film the book/s.And this is a shame, because it always looks good (fantastic, in fact,in every sense of the word, although the 3D isn't always effective orin service to the movie), and has some other elements which areworthwhile, chief among which is the performance of Mia Wasikowska asAlice. Depp's Mad Hatter is enjoyable if somewhat out of alignment withCarroll's vision (the occasional channelling of what appears to beBraveheart's William Wallace is interesting, if distracting), and Ifelt that much of the remaining talent was miscast - or, perhaps, castto deliberately go against type - Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman and BarbaraWindsor, in particular, failed to convince me that they were Carroll'sCheshire Cat, Caterpillar and Dormouse. And this was ironic consideringthe degree of discussion there was as to whether Alice was the realAlice or not.Regrettably, there were a number of things which really irritated me,too. Chief among these was the tendency of the script to attributenames - how long has the Caterpillar had a name, for instance? I wasirritated by the affectionate diminution of Cheshire Car to "Chess" -"Chesh", surely? And I wish someone had actually read Through TheLooking Glass and realised that the critter in question is called theJabberwock, not Jabberwocky (which is the name of the poem in which itappears), although it was good to see it modelled on Tenniel'sillustration. Finally, I was less than thrilled with Helena BonhamCarter's wholesale lift from Miranda Richardson's Queenie (plagiarism,dearie). You don't have to put the missus in ALL your movies, Tim!Oddly, the bit of the film which I felt worked best was the whollyoriginal framing sequence which lent some depth to Alice's character. Otherwise, this was a typical Burton example of style over substance.

tabuno (2012-05-21 18:42)

Visually and Captivatingly Smart

When two A-Stars - Johnny Depp and Ann Hathaway, as well as notedactress Helena Bonham Carter with help from Alan Rickman can weave asupportive role to propel Alice played by Mia Wasikowska into a starklyrich focus, the brilliance of their acting shines with maturity. Therich and fascinating set design rivals and perhaps exceeds that ofAVATAR (2009) though perhaps not reaching the imaginative level of TheLovely Bones (2009) and the storyline from start to finish maintains anintimate and substantive personal development character. Both Depp andHathaway bring a finely honed performance and facial execution thatspeak thousands of words in silence. While the pacing is a bit slow inthe first fourth of the movie, the unique fantasy world, Depp'sembellished but finely submerged persona bring forth an effectivefusion of special effects, animation, and real actors that meshes inthis fantasy world - avoiding the necessity of 3-D or finely detailedanimated authenticity in all manners much to better affect. There ishumor, edgy drama that never crosses over into mature rating overload.In sum, this is a sparklingly fantasy has captivating action andfeatures that brings imagination to the big screen. However, a secondviewing, revealed that the stunning first impression didn't extend asmuch a second time, downgraded from 9 to 8.

cody moore (2012-05-21 12:29)

Not perfect, but a visual treat

I have been waiting for this film for two years ever since it wasannounced that Tim Burton was directing it. He is my idol and animmense inspiration for my artwork(Yes I'm an artist).I saw the mid-night premiere with my friends and it was beautiful.Although I got a little hurt from the internet trolls(who are prettymuch the same ones who didn't like Burton's Charlie & the chocolatefactory) afterward.Admitedly, the storyline is rather thin and predictable, but thevisuals and the wonderland (sorry, Underland) characters make the filmworthwhile. Mia Wasikowska was perfect for the role of Alice.JohnnyDepp turns in another oddball performance as the mad hatter with a bitmore gravity than most interpretations of the character. Helena BonhamCarter as the red queen is another major scene-stealer giving off thepersonae of a bratty toddler that fits in with the demented feel ofUnderland. This was the first time I appreciated Anne Hathaway in arole, her performance as the white queen is creepy and freaky. CrispinGlover also turns in an amusing role as Stayne(Knave of Hearts).The animal characters are given perfect voice talents. The hight lightsbeing Paul Whitehouse's March Hare who is absolutely hilarious andStephen Fry's Chesire Cat with a seductive creepiness. Barbara Windsorand Timothy Spall also turn in amusing takes as the dormouse(thecomplete opposite of most interpretations of the character) and as theBloodhound.The style of Underland is wonderfully Burton-esquire with a Gothic feelparticularly around the second act of the film. Overall, this is not afilm for everyone especially those who are purist fans of LewisCarroll's writings.This is more of a sequel than an actual adaption.younger children will probably be frightened a bit. It is not perfect,but it is a visual treat.I look forward to what is next for Tim Burton.

darrenhcook (2012-05-21 05:51)

Tim Burton has 1 style.

His movies make a lot of money, but I just CAN'T understand why anybodylikes Tim Burton movies! I like Johnny Depp and I like fantasy sothat's not the problem. The only Tim Burton movie I ever liked wasEdward Scissorhands.. Does anybody feel the same way!? How could Alicemake a billion dollars? It looked nice, very visually pleasing but thestory put me to sleep. There was no real action to speak of. I didn'tfeel anything at all for the characters. It seems like all movies thesedays seem to stink. I loved Avatar and My Sister's Keeper made me cry.Is Charlie and the Chocolate factory any better? I keep trying to likeTim Burton movies. I always have high expectations and I'm always letdown. Is that why they keep making money? People keep giving him achance only to be disappointed?

(2012-05-20 23:50)

Plenty of eye candy but Burton ain't no Carroll

3.7 starsThis begins off so well and then after about 30 minutes gets boringer and boringer. I had such great hopes at the start and soon gave them up when I saw how badly the script had messed with Carroll's original vision. That story and its magic wordplay is what made AIW great, not just the characters.Making this Alice's second visit down the hole is pointless and ends up killing the momentum. Carter steals the show and is the film's highlight, Depp is merely there as the Hatter, and Mia is, sorry to say, a very unexciting Alice. Is that really the best casting they could do? She just isn't much fun to watch here; we need an Alice of great verve and zing! Carroll's Alice is much sassier and just a lot more interesting, all told.But it's hard not to like the wonderful colors and fine sets, though the CGI gets old after about an hour. Nonetheless, the many fine visions make up for some of the meandering plot, if not nearly enough.Dang it, Tim: why mess with perfection? You could have stuck to the first and best story and made a real classic, but instead you used an unappealing older girl who leaches the fun out of everything, and a story that can't begin to compare with the faultless whimsy of the original.Sigh. Better luck next remake.

(2012-05-19 21:41)

A disappointment

When I heard that Johnny Depp was going to play the Mad Hatter in Tim Burton's rendition of Alice in Wonderland, I was really excited and couldn't wait. After seeing the movie, I feel like it was a waste of time that no amount of cool computer effects could rectify.Yes, the movie has good effects but that's about all it has going for it. Even Johnny Depp disappoints. His character is too tame (despite the ridiculous make-up), too bland, and frankly, a major let-down. My biggest problems with the movie were:1. Completely predictable plot. I mean, come on. They told us what was going to happen from the beginning. Is that any way to make for an interesting story? There was no point in watching because you already knew what was going to happen. And the whole, grown-up Alice coming back to wonderland was stupid because we're supposed to believe that she somehow forgot about it or something. Really? Just stupid.2. First-class actors really fudging their parts. First there is the Johnny Depp thing. As if that wasn't bad enough, Ann Hathaway, who is normally a classy actress, plays possibly the most annoying characters ever - the White Queen. She prances around holding her hands in that stupid princess way and talks in a voice so annoying you really wish someone would just shut her up already. Helena Boham Carter is the one exception to the poor acting and comes through wonderfully as the Red Queen in typical Helena Boham Carter fashion. But I'm not sure what the point was of half-animating her. The girl who plays Alice is bland and unmemorable.3. The only spontenaity or uniqueness in the film is the special effects (which are well-done). It feels like Tim Burton put no effect into this movie at all. You're used to his films being wacky, crazy, and incredibly messed up. Then, given an already wacky story, for some reason, he decides to make is more tame. Yes, I realize Alice in Wonderland is sort of a kid's story. But at the same time, it's an intense, crazy, twisted kid's story. This version seems to lose the whimsical nature of the story.

aim7sparrow (2012-05-19 15:33)

Nice cartoon but has nothing to do with Caroll's Alice in Wonderland

Special effects are nice, and it would be much more fun to watch thismovie if it would come out before Avatar. The script is boring (well,it's Disney), supposedly made to suit both adults and children. Don'texpect any Lewis Carrol's surrealism here: this movie is basicallygood/evil battle as in "Chronicles of Narnia", using Carrol'spersonages (it's not reaching the story level of Lord of the Rings).Nice cartoon, but for anyone searching for Alice in Wonderlandecranization which has to deal with the actual book(and style of thebook), i highly recommend 1988 movie "Neco z Alenky" by Czech directorJan Svankmajer. I vote 1 because in my opinion this cartoon shouldn'tuse any elements of the book, and therefore shouldn't exist.

Kate Muir (2012-05-18 17:40)

Burton treats his material with abandon, but not contempt, and he has brought his Mad Hatter's imagination to a new generation who have not yet read the books.

ferreiragon (2012-05-18 09:57)

It should have been called "Return to wonderland"

Usually, I like quite a lot the Burton/Depp partnership work. I have tosay though, that this movie its quite poor regarding the script andalso the characters. Its about a re experience of Alice in Wonderlandwhen she is 20 years old and about getting a proposition to getmarried. Revisiting wonderland, all the original characters from Alicein Wonderland and Through the glass mirror reappear, taking action in asomehow similar way as Alice in Wonderland. It adapts many ideas fromthe original book but some are done right and others are simplystunning surreal images with a plot that has no creativity at all, whencompared to other children alike movies. The only thing that saves itare the parts that are like an extraction from the original Carroll'sbooks. It usually lacks the logic plays, the absurd humor and theastonishment of another world, that could be the grown ups worldmetaphorically speaking, but from the perspective of a child. The musicid from the famous Danny Elfman from the Simpsons and it doesn't fail.Though somehow overplayed, the best performances from the cast areJohnny Depp as the Mad Hatter and Helena Bonham Carter as the RedQueen. In summary, If you are looking for visuals and nothing deep gosee it. If you are looking for a good script and witty conversation, agood adaptation from Carroll's masterpieces, you will be disappointed.

(2012-05-17 07:33)

5 Stars for Alice and Johnny Depp... 0 Stars if not in 3-D

I saw the coming attractions to Alice In Wonderland in an IMAX theater, in 3-D, in summer of 2009. I actually CLAPPED and cheered at the end of the coming attractions, which is the first time in my life I have ever clapped and cheered a coming attraction. So I was anxious to see the whole movie, and I had to wait 8 full months for it to be released... a long wait... but well worth waiting for. I won't go into the details of WHY I loved the movie... I loved it, and I want to have it in my library...But IF IT IS NOT IN 3D, I will not buy it for home viewing, and I will not recommend it to anybody.Alice in Wonderland, the movie, gets 5 stars in 3D, and zero stars in 2-D. I won't even THINK of buying it in 2-D.HOW DUMB DO THEY THINK WE ARE? 3-D television has arrived. What are they waiting for to release it in 3D?

Amy Adler (2012-05-16 20:00)

Some kind of Wonderful, is Burton's Alice, being very imaginative and vibrant; but, purists, take heed! This is a new chapter!

Alice (Mia Wasikowska) has been having strange dreams since childhood.Only her father could comfort her when she got scared during the night.Now, her papa has passed away and she is a 19 year old woman in theearly 20th century. Her mother (Miranda Richardson) shuffles her to aparty where, unknown to Alice, she will receive a proposal of marriagefrom a stuffy, carrot-topped Lord of England. But, at the criticalmoment, with the man on his knees, Alice spots a white rabbit and saysshe needs "a moment" to think. Following the rabbit, she tumbles down ahole in the ground, where she ends up in Wonderland. She may have beenthere before! As she drinks and eats the magic juices and cakes to makeher larger and smaller, she eventually gets through a locked chamberand into the forest. Immediately, she is pursued by the Bandersnatch, astriped beast, who is doing the bidding of the evil Red Queen (HelenaBonham Carter). But, the dormouse saves Alice by snatching away one ofthe beast's eyes. Arriving at a safe place, Alice meets The Mad Hatter(Johnny Depp), the Cheshire Cat, the blue caterpillar, Absolam (AlanRickman) and the rest. At the hatter's tea party, Alice learns thecurrent happenings in the land. The Red Queen is in total power, havingdefeated her younger sister, the lovely White Queen (Anne Hathaway).Aiding the royal is the black-hearted knave (Crispin Glover). They cantake prisoners or utter "off with their heads" whenever they wish.Indeed, the Red Queen has recently taken TweedleDee and TweedleDum asher own little "fat boys", to amuse her when she wishes. Alice alsolearns a secret. That is, she, Alice, has the power to defeat Big Redin the near future. But, it would require an enormous act of bravery.Will she, Alice, be willing to risk everything for the kingdom? Dearpurists, don't fret over this new version with endless criticisms. Thefilm is the "next" chapter in the life of Alice, as she herself hasflashbacks of her previous trip to Wonderland as a little girl Now, tenyears later, she has returned, in Burton's vision. And, what a vibrant,imaginative vision it is, for the director's Wonderland is a joy tobehold, visually speaking. There is, in fact, so much detail to thesettings that one would have to see the film two or three times toappreciate everything presented. Apart from the setting, the cast istruly wonderful, too. Depp, alas, has less memorable lines and scenesbut, that is not his fault. In any case, he definitely has his momentsand works them to highest advantage. On the other hand, Bonham CarterMAKES the film, for her Red Queen is very comical and her appearance,with a huge, lightbulb shaped head, is a scream. All of the others dofine work, too, especially Timothy Spall as Bayard, the hound.Wasikowska is effective in her first big role but is by no means apolished performer yet. As for the movie's other assets, the costumes,art direction and camera-work, they are of the highest quality. The oneitem that did not please me was the "playing card" attendants to theRed Queen should not have been red! They could have had red hats andsashes but the way they are, it is difficult to tell what they are.Sorry, that's really small potatoes. IF there is anything lacking atall, it is these things. One, there is not enough humor, in my opinion,I wish there had been more. And, two, the film does "borrow" someelements of the Wizard of Oz and, believe it or not, Titanic. However,these are no reasons to miss this flick at all. In truth, Burton'sAlice in Wonderland is some kind of wonderful and its reputation willgrow in the coming years.

Jeffrey Westhoff (2012-05-15 20:28)

Burton's personal stamp is missing. On Alice he is a director for hire, helping the Disney empire repurpose one of its animated properties and reinforce its 3-D bulkhead.

(2012-05-15 05:17)

My favorite movie

Loved the visuals, loved the characters, loved the humor, loved the 3-d. I just bought the combo, I'm guessing a 3-D version will be coming out soon. I'll buy it as well.

John T. Ryan (2012-05-15 04:04)

High Charged and Super Fancy Rendering of the old, oft Psycho-analytical, Literary Wet Dream.

THIS IS ONE story that is most likely widely familiar to a really widecross section of the public. It had been adapted seemingly countlesstimes to both the Big Screen of the Cinema, to the Small Picture Tubein our Living Rooms. Each we've seen has been markedly different fromthe next; each having strong points and corresponding frailties.OTHER THAN TODAY'S honored title, ALICE IN WONDERLAND (Disney/BuenaVista, 2010), the two versions that immediately come to our mind areParamount Pictures' 1933 All Star Spectacular and the Walt Disney (bythe real,original Walt) 1951 full length animated extravaganza. Thislatest version would seem to combine certain strong suit features ofboth; while still managing to throw in liberally portioned amounts ofadditional elements of its own.WHILE THE EARLIEST of these three, ALICE IN WONDERLAND (Paramount,1933)had the novelty of using just about everyone at Paramount at thatparticular time; much of its desired 'Star Power' is neutralized withthe use of heavily crafted costume, make up and intricate and sometimesfrighteningly gross latex masks. The only one not affected would haveto be young Miss Charlotte Henry; whose delicate beauty and youthfulinnocence are the best features of the film.ALL OF THE others are acting out roles in virtually anonymous disguiseto such a degree that their parts may well be classified as that of'voice only' actors. Folks such as Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, W.C.Fields, Roscoe Ates and Jack Oakie may be identified by way of voicerecognition and credits in the cast.SIMILARLY, OUR NEW version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND (Disney, 2010) doeshave a most formidable line up of talent in its cast; which, of course,is not limited by any Studio Star System; that having become as extinctas the Dodo Bird, the Passenger Pigeon or Photomat. Being mainly voiceover, the credits prove to be more important than ever; particularlywith some portrayals, such as Mr. Christopher Lee as the Jabberwocky.WHILE OUR 2010 version brings us the physical appearance of the variouscharacters that would appear to have been very closely adapted from theold book illustrations, they still tend to gravitate toward the bizarretastes of Director Tim Burton. There is none of the old tried and trueWalt Disney principle of having the animated characters have at leastsome resemblance to their individual voice creators. Hence, we can seethis in evidence in the physical appearance of The Mad Hatter (EdWynn), The March Hare(Jerry Colona), White Rabbit (Bill Thompson) andThe Queen of Hearts (name here).THIS VERSION HAS all of the modern cinematic wonders going for it;what, with digital stereo sound, big screen (even Imax version), fulldigitally rendered color, various computer generated special FX and 3Dimensional vision.* FOR ALL ITS supercharged features, we find themovie going experience just so-so. It was okay, but no future classic.Like any true-blue member of the Post World War II Baby Boom, we preferMr. Disney's 1951 animated version.WE GUESS THAT this makes us just a trifle jaded; or maybe just gettingold. Well, that's not bad; when you consider the alternative! NOTE: *Ah 3-D! How well we remember the 3D craze of our youth; and that's overa half century ago! Then we had 3D Movies, 3D Comic Books everywhere.Well, as the old French proverb says; "The more things change, the morethey stay the same!" Just think that one over, Schultz!

John DeSando (2012-05-14 10:03)

Mad as a Hatter

"There is a place. Like no place on Earth. A land full of wonder,mystery, and danger! Some say to survive it: You need to be as mad as ahatter." The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) More than appreciating Tim Burton's visually stunning sequel to LewisCarroll's Alice in Wonderland, I couldn't stop thinking how perfectlyJohnny Depp plays the Mad Hatter: The infamous character is clearlydisturbed but a good heart dedicated to stopping the bad heart,big-headed Red Queen, played with relish by Helena Bonham Carter. Deppis one actor who could do six impossible things before breakfast.As arguably the most versatile actor in film, Depp almost always issuperior (except as Dillinger, where he underplayed the flamboyantgangster), so my thoughts run to how an actor is the embodiment of afilm, in this case the eccentric Hatter as the center of imaginationand iconoclasm, just what Carroll ordered for his anti-establishmentcartoon lampooning Victorian society and ushering in the age ofindividualism.The tea party is still there with the March Hare (Paul Whitehouse) andDormouse (Babs Windsor), but it's less whimsical and more morbid thanin Carroll. Alice in Wonderland loses the original's innocence as thefilm moves to the unoriginal conclusion with its dragon Jabberwocky(Christopher Lee) no different from scores of other dragons in otherfantasies. Even Alice's (Mia Wasikowski) heroics are derivative. Asalways Alan Rickman's voice has the ability to mesmerize, this time asthe slow but effective blue caterpillar Absolem.Burton has put all his weird makeup and love of bizarre characters intothis film, which more than any of his other fantasies such as EdwardScissorhands and Corpse Bride echoes the epic struggles of good andevil in most kiddie, young adult, and cheesy romances over the ages.

(2012-05-13 23:35)

TIM BURTON'S BIG ADVENTURE

I saw ALICE in 3D in an IMAX theatre. This being said, viewers can expect a mildly odd family entertainment, best made memorable by a lackluster performance from Johnny Depp. Once again, Depp dons his generic British accent that while believable, is unvaried from his other Brit roles- of which he's had a few. I feel comfortable being critical of the genius that Depp most certainly is- now that he's made enough money to retire 20 times over. He's going to have to work very hard indeed to top his previous Burton collaborations. Hopefully we will all forget Willy Wonka from the formidable list of triumphs.Unlike the wonderland of AVATAR, Burton's Wonderland seems somewhat unfinished, as if there were insufficient time or monies to satisfy his vision. Burton's Wonderland is not only bleak, but lacking in detail and imagination.All of this is relatively unimportant. ALICE is in its own way a respectable work of art which, for a Hollywood blockbuster, was no easy credential. Clearly, Burton knows the ins and outs of working Tinseltown. Few art films in history and fewer film makers have commanded this kind of strong-legged boxoffice.In spite of a nice 3D eyefest made nicer indeed by the IMAX format, this ALICE is neither "trippy", profound, or for that matter, truly entertaining. But hey, I own stock in both Disney and IMAX so I know the smell of big bucks when I get a whiff.Ultimately, I've passed on owning this DVD. The film is simply not memorable enough to hold up to, or command repeat viewings (unless one is chemically enhanced to grok anything with groooovy images). And I am the kind of guy who collects Disney animation. I find it ironic indeed that Tim Burton, who came into his own by rejecting the Mouse Factory, has won a hit for himself at Disney. There- I guess Disney has been well compensated for providing Tim's apprenticeship. I found ALICE to be an engaging, but ultimately unsatisfying addition to Burton's Filmography. I have no doubt that Burton himself is dissapointed with this WONDERLAND. Nevertheless, ALICE IN WONDERLAND accomplished what it set out to do, namely, make a lot of money for all parties involved.

lctomberlin (2012-05-13 14:02)

Alice in Wonderland

This movie was good, but not great. I thought Tim Burton could havebeen more imaginative and creative. I was a little disappointed in thecaterpillar because he was so cool in the old Disney show. Like I said,this movie is good, but not great. Great movies leave you begging formore, and this movie doesn't. Sure Johhny Depp looked really cool, butWonderland should be way more mind blowing. I guess kind of what Ithink i would see if I ate a mushroom or something. I would havethought Tim Burton would could have been more creative. I thought itwould have been cool if each character in her dream would have beentied to family members or friends. They did this loosely with tweedledee and tweedle dumb. I'm not bashing the movie. I enjoyed it, but itcould have been better. I give it a 7.9