Critics Consensus: Alice Looks Great, Lacks Wonder

blattman on 03-4-2010 04:42 PM

I'll be at Alice tomorrow. It always looked like a visual treat, but I am betting very little of the actual book is hidden in the film. I mean, c'mon, Jabberwocky is a side poem, it is not a villain that Alice would have to fight, let alone need a vorple blade to go snicker snack!

Hector A. on 03-4-2010 05:00 PM

I Hate when people are saying Alice is a visual treat.....You go to see a movie becouse of its content,not the visuall stuff.

Wall E. on 03-4-2010 05:08 PM

Visuals ARE content.

The.Watcher on 03-4-2010 05:42 PM

Motion Cap has only ever been done right once. With Avatar.
Apart from that film, whenever I see MoCap all I can think of is:
'My God.....Their eyes....What's wrong with their EYES?....HELP ME!'

And I seriously doubt that Burton would know how to handle MoCap with as much eloquence as Cameron, I mean, it's Cam's baby.

saicam on 03-4-2010 05:59 PM

My opinion just watch Walt Disney's Alice it's more fun really.

inactive user on 03-4-2010 06:00 PM

Uh oh, I smell an argument. Well, I'll just say Tim Burton doing the same thing over and over is a little tiring, but I'm sure it won't be bad. "Brooklyn's Finest" looks awful.

Jaklyn K. on 03-4-2010 06:01 PM

Yup saw that comming with Alice...the visuals were nothing new. Burton should have gone with Motion Capture. There is no emotion behind any of the CG characters. I love Tim but he needs to pick up on his game.

Throw An Onion on 03-4-2010 06:24 PM

The story may be a little hollow but did we really expect any less? Burton has perfected the art of making a quirky genre film. He realizes that he doesn't have to even try. Just put Johnny Depp in some weird get-up, throw in some "strange" characters, and then cover everything in CG. It's a system that makes money. Burton knows he's got throngs of fans who would pay to see anything he slaps his name on so he doesn't exactly need to try all that hard.

Now I think Burton has talent but I think he just settled for a average flick with Alice which is unfortunate considering I think it could have been great if they had tried a little harder.

Now for all my criticism I'm still paying to see this film on Saturday. We shall see if Burton packed in just enough to make it a decent trip.

August M. on 03-4-2010 07:01 PM

Alice never seemed to appeal to me, then again I didn't enjoy any of the films Burton made last decade, Planet of the Apes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpe's Bride, Sweeney Todd. I'll probably watch it later on rental, but I wont like it.

King Crunk on 03-4-2010 07:07 PM

Never had a ton of interest in Alice, so I am not immensely let down by this rating.

Sputnik99 on 03-4-2010 07:15 PM

If you think about it, almost all films focus heavily on visual content. There are very few movies made with completely ugly actors and piece of junk cars. Exciting locations are just as important. Not too many junkyard movies.

All I'm saying is that content is important, but it can't exist without strong visual. And vice versa.

The-End-Is-Near on 03-4-2010 07:16 PM

Im just gonna be completely honest I wish Tim Burton would go away with his stuck in the 80's bull*****. Just look at his filmography for the last decade alone, he cant even come up with an original idea!

Visuals are FLUFF, FLASH, ICING ON THE CAKE not the cake itself. Story, characters, acting, themes, drama, tension thats what makes a good film. Not "look at me I'm Goth and Quirky" It was cool 20 years ago now its just sad. Burton could at least try to reinvent himself.

A film with bad visuals can be saved by good story, characters, acting.

A film with bad story, characters, acting CANNOT be saved by visuals.

dj Mark on 03-4-2010 07:18 PM

"You go to see a movie becouse of its content,not the visuall stuff."

You do know it's possible to do both, don't you?

I doubt that 2001 is held in such high esteem today because of its content... it's a masterpiece because of its visuals, and I'm not talking FX. The narrative is told primarily through what is seen, rather than heard.

Is Alice in Wonderland akin to 2001. I'm sure it isn't. But I thought it important to point out that movies can be enjoyable for their visual contributions to the art.

Dezy T. on 03-4-2010 07:46 PM

apparently, the third act of alice in wonderland is the reason why the movie loses merit. standard action ending.

dethburger on 03-4-2010 09:16 PM

What its looking like to me is...

Alice=Charlie

This is a bad thing.

Sweeny Todd IS awesome.

Tipton B. on 03-4-2010 10:53 PM

Visual storytelling is one thing. Relying on eye-popping special fx is another. I'm guessing Burton, once again, shoots for the latter. Thusly, his movies suffer for it. In my personal opinion, he's only ever made two good films. PeeWee's Big Adventure, and Beetlejuice.

Paints Hz Shirt Red on 03-4-2010 11:41 PM

Sounds like every movie now made is going to be compared to Avatar. Any idiot knows the visuals of Alice will not be as high quality as that film. Either way im sure Alice will be a success.

Phillip K. on 03-5-2010 12:02 AM

There is nothing wrong with CGI, but Alice looked like crap.

Alexson Philip on 03-5-2010 12:03 AM

im guessiing burton tried to follow the steps of AVATAR to make his film become a box office hit, by putting more effort into the visuals then the plot and he must have put VERY lil effort with the plot. this really did surprise me though, i was expecting it to be really good.

Don't Tase Me Bro on 03-5-2010 03:25 AM

Saw ALICE last night.

It was a bit of a mess.

There's so much make-up on everyone, it really appears to be 'making up' for what's not there: a good Tim Burton film.

There's a homogenized 'feel' about the film...and though it may adhere to the source material, I wasn't impressed with the visuals of a Wonderland-turned-compost-heap. If you've got allergies, you're going to have a problem. And that's not the only problem.

The animal characters seemed incongruously stuck between 'real' and 'illusory'. I haven't been more underwhelmed since I watched STUART LITTLE, and that was 1999.

The voice work is another sticking point for me. Michael Sheen was underused, nay, wasted in my opinion. Stephen Fry's Cheshire Cat wasn't enough. And when the 'voice work' of Alan Rickman arguably steals the film from everybody then you've got a problem.

And then there's Depp. I love Depp. Lifelong fan of Depp. But this is far from Depp's best work. In fact, I think it's up there with his worst. If he's not gibbering incoherently with what appears to be a lisp in one scene and a poorly-executed Scottish brogue in the next, taken together, I think it's a bit of a disaster. And did Jackson Pollack rise from the dead to be his make-up artist? Or has Lady Gaga loaned Burton one of her own?

The only stand-out performance for me was Bonham-Carter, and I don't think the soon-to-be-wife of the director, was meant to steal the show. Since her role in SWEENEY TODD, her casting is considered obligatory. (After all, Burton's penchant for casting his significant 'other' in his films is well-established; check out his former flame Lisa Marie's resume in, count 'em, four Burton films before they broke up). Natch, she was a shoe-in. She's head-and-shoulders above the rest. (Cue double-drum and cymbal clash please).

Mia Whatchatmacallit's Alice is generally feckless, and uninspiring. Is Alice a hard part to play?

I didn't hate this film, but it was, for a severe lack of a better term, "meh". Even in 3D.

Come on Tim, I know there's a better film in you than this.