Comments on: REVIEW: Alice in Wonderland

By: Marshall

Marshall — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:21:48 +0000

When I talked in depth about Tim Burton specifically, it was only in the past 5 years (although I did omit “The Corpse Bride”); “Big Fish” was made in 2003.

Plus I haven’t seen it, so I can’t really comment on it.

By: Hope

Hope — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:06:36 +0000

Wow. Pretty harsh review (though probably accurate — haven’t seen the film.)

How come no one ever mentions Tim Burton and “Big Fish” in the same breath?

By: mcarteratthemovies

mcarteratthemovies — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:45:52 +0000

You are spot-on, Marshall, when you say that we never have a reason to fall in love with the characters! That was my main problem, though I never put it quite that eloquently in my review. The characters that are the most intriguing — the White Queen, the Red Queen, the Cheshire Cat — get the least screen time, while we have Johnny Depp doing a mash-up of his Willy Wonka and Edward Scissorhands and Icabod Crane.

Can’t say that the LOOK of the movie (the 2D version; I don’t feel I missed out on anything) didn’t wow me, though.

By: Marshall

Marshall — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:12:11 +0000

Even the visuals didn’t wow me. It’s one of the few movies that I have walked out of wishing that I hadn’t paid the extra cash for to see in 3-D.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:51:40 +0000

Right there with both of you. I think Burton infused the 3-D and admittedly insane visuals to cover up just how standard all of it was…and it didn’t work.

By: Branden

Branden — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:09:17 +0000

I didn’t like the movie either. It looked great, but I didn’t care about the story. I wished that more could have been done with it.