This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen!! I felt sorry for the actors having to say the stupid dialogue. The "back stories" of the Mad Hatter and Red Queen were totally unnecessary and sappily resolved. And Johnny Depp was so hidden behind make up and/or CGI effects and a weird voice that seemed to be computer manipulated that even he couldn't save this mess.
2
I was already hesitant to go watch this movie, specially because I can't stand the Mad Hatter, I swear they put him there to appeal to idiots.
After reading the reviews and asking friends... I'll catch when it's on TV, in ABC
After reading the reviews and asking friends... I'll catch when it's on TV, in ABC
I was looking forward to seeing this movie, restrained myself from reading the reviews....thinking well at least it will be visually engaging if nothing else. It was a collosal bore...What were they thinking? I did hear some teenagers politely giggling now and then...I want my money back!
1
All of this dithering and whining about a 21st-century view of Alice in a non-print medium is tiresome and pointless. You either like it overall or not. So what. It's no different than one's reaction to what is either great art or utter dreck on television — anything about zombies is devoid of artistic value to me, yet millions love the stuff as entertainment.
It would make no difference what the film was like in style and content because humans do nothing as well as disagree in general. But becoming condescending bores about it says more about the poster than about the film. It really can't be any worse than some of the "serious" films that are awarded Oscars or the endless trail of fantasy comic book character movies.
And box office revenues have -never- been a determiner of excellence, which is a very personal evaluation. So while this film may not turn out to be a money-making triumph, it doesn't mean that those who like it are misguided and those who don't are intelligent. I'll decide it's qualities when I see it, because reviews and comments do not dictate how I make my choices of what to view.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
It would make no difference what the film was like in style and content because humans do nothing as well as disagree in general. But becoming condescending bores about it says more about the poster than about the film. It really can't be any worse than some of the "serious" films that are awarded Oscars or the endless trail of fantasy comic book character movies.
And box office revenues have -never- been a determiner of excellence, which is a very personal evaluation. So while this film may not turn out to be a money-making triumph, it doesn't mean that those who like it are misguided and those who don't are intelligent. I'll decide it's qualities when I see it, because reviews and comments do not dictate how I make my choices of what to view.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
1
By that logic, nobody can ever review or criticize ANYTHING. (BTW: nobody and nothing can stop you from watching or enjoying a film or book, just because THEY did not like it.)
How old is Alice in this movie, 35?
She isn't hidden under layers of costume makeup as the other characters, so she looks older than everyone else, and since she behaves normally, she comes across as the mother of all the other characters.
She isn't hidden under layers of costume makeup as the other characters, so she looks older than everyone else, and since she behaves normally, she comes across as the mother of all the other characters.
1
Both films utterly rejected the idea of Alice as a little girl of about 9 or 10, and instead have made her an adult woman, of perhaps 20 or so -- whatever age Mia Wasikowska is.
It's not the actresses fault she is an ADULT, and that Alice is/was a CHILD. There is no point whatsoever to an adult Alice. It would be like rewriting 'Huckeberry Finn" and making Huck a 35 year old civil rights attorney.
It's not the actresses fault she is an ADULT, and that Alice is/was a CHILD. There is no point whatsoever to an adult Alice. It would be like rewriting 'Huckeberry Finn" and making Huck a 35 year old civil rights attorney.
BEWARE: This is definitely not a movie for kids.
When my group of 7 adults walked out at the end of the movie on Sat night we looked at one another and asked: "Who was this movie aimed at"?
How can Disney spend $170MM+ and come up with this dreck?"Deadpool" was Shakespearian compared to this.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
When my group of 7 adults walked out at the end of the movie on Sat night we looked at one another and asked: "Who was this movie aimed at"?
How can Disney spend $170MM+ and come up with this dreck?"Deadpool" was Shakespearian compared to this.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
3
Saw this last night with 6 teenage girls. Yes, it's overdone but has elements of attraction (Alice, time, etc.). Strange marketing hype: we were told the day before that the movie was sold out, but only about 15% of the seats were filled!
2
I wonder what Tim Burton would have done? I really liked the original Alice and thought it was inventive. I'll watch this one and will reserve judgment until I do.
Wow, all of your comments are so critical of a film that is designed to appeal to young people. I can't wait to take my 5 year old granddaughter to see this sequel to the original Johnny Depp "Alice" movie which has become one of our favorite movies to watch together. Just showing her the trailer she wanted me to take her immediately to go see it. This is Disney after all and their target audience is kids! And what's wrong with that?
5
Perhaps she wants to become a pierced and tattooed punk, and you are going to help her go that way. Meanwhile, Johnny is a heavy hitter.
1
I hope your granddaughter learns to read, to imagine, and, yes, understands entertainments.
When she is old enough and discovers Lewis Carroll I hope she appreciates his book and illustrations. And when adult, I hope she re-reads it for a deeper meaning and pleasure.
When she is old enough and discovers Lewis Carroll I hope she appreciates his book and illustrations. And when adult, I hope she re-reads it for a deeper meaning and pleasure.
2
The first time I saw Burton's Alice in Wonderland was on a tiny Lufthansa screen returning to the US after 3 years living overseas. I never liked the book, nor did I enjoy Disney's animated film even as a child. Before that experience, I lacked any intention of seeing the new movie.
I loved it!! As a coming of age film for a girl, it's a rare piece that did not involve any boy as a love interest to guide/teach/obsess over. Alice's journey was about her maturing from not knowing herself to developing her own ideals & plans. At the end, she determined marrying the snotty wealthy lord wasn't her only option. She had a future. I bought it when it came to Blu-ray. It's been viewed over 15 times since then.
This film is about another discovery with internal growth. Instead of finding her muchness, the parent/adult child relationship comes to the forefront. Hatter & his father reflects her & her mother, which in turn hit home with my daughter +myself about my own mother. I took my daughter & her 12 yr old friend to see it Friday.
They LOVED it! If given a second chance, they'd go again in a heartbeat. The confidence Alice has- The pathos of the Hatter-The division of two sisters. The warring between them through the decades began with a simple lie which spun events out of control. All were identifiable with the girls. They also loved that every scene was a feast for the eyes. I enjoyed it. They give it a big thumbs up. It complements & completes the first film.
I loved it!! As a coming of age film for a girl, it's a rare piece that did not involve any boy as a love interest to guide/teach/obsess over. Alice's journey was about her maturing from not knowing herself to developing her own ideals & plans. At the end, she determined marrying the snotty wealthy lord wasn't her only option. She had a future. I bought it when it came to Blu-ray. It's been viewed over 15 times since then.
This film is about another discovery with internal growth. Instead of finding her muchness, the parent/adult child relationship comes to the forefront. Hatter & his father reflects her & her mother, which in turn hit home with my daughter +myself about my own mother. I took my daughter & her 12 yr old friend to see it Friday.
They LOVED it! If given a second chance, they'd go again in a heartbeat. The confidence Alice has- The pathos of the Hatter-The division of two sisters. The warring between them through the decades began with a simple lie which spun events out of control. All were identifiable with the girls. They also loved that every scene was a feast for the eyes. I enjoyed it. They give it a big thumbs up. It complements & completes the first film.
4
Ya know, Alice and Dodgson's stories about her WERE NOT HORROR SHOWS! How did we accept these films after the Beauty of Disney's classic?
2
Perhaps the real purpose of the movie is to lead to the creation of and interest in the latest (to yet be created) Disney World (Land) attraction.
4
Didn't like Alice I and have no interest in the sequel, but to anyone who smugly writes off Burton as incapable of creating a brilliant yet respectful interpretation of a literate classic, I have two words for you: Sweeney Todd.
5
The terrific work Burton has done over the years in stuff like "Beetlejuice" or "Sweeney Todd" and other films is WHY we are so utterly appalled and disappointed. If this came from some awful hack, it would be one thing. Burton is a kind of genius, and just the sort of director you'd pick for this project -- that he could misunderstand, disrespect and utterly BUTCHER the source material is astonishing and puzzling. I can only guess that he (like Ruth above) simply disliked the books, and had no feeling nor emotional connection to them -- decided "he could do better than than stupid old Lewis Carroll" and of course, the awful modern impulse to make every adaptation into "political correctness" gone haywire.
Well the review appears to be what anyone would expect from a Memorial Day movie, and is a perfect representation of where we as a nation currently are. It will make scads of money, and would have even if Mr Holden had been terribly unkind.
actor's franchise annuities continue.
actor's franchise annuities continue.
1
The trailer could have benefited from Grace Slick's urgent and thrilling original rendition of "White Rabbit," which still gives goose bumps 50 years later. Whoever the new singer is sounded all Muzak'd up. But maybe that's appropriate for this Disney-fied riff on the Alice story.
11
The new singer didn't feed her head.
Subtlety and good taste is not what you associate with Hollywood, and this is as bad as it gets. Burton and now Bobin has bludgeoned to pulp one of the great classics.
10
My general rule of movie-going is to avoid anything involving flying men or elves. Thanks to this one I will have to include films where computers do more than actors.
11
Paul! You don't love "Elf" with Will Ferrell?
2
Elizabeth: no.
2
Yes, 'Stuck in Cali', yes! The Disney machine has been doing exactly what you say since its foray into movies! Look at all the great stories they got the rights to, remade in their own image, mangled, and made enormous profits on: Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, The Wind in the Willows, to name a few. You expect hewing to the original plot from a corporation that made billions from Pirates of the Caribbean? A film series based on a ride in an amusement park?
If you want the real magic woven by Lewis Carroll, the Grimm Brothers, Felix Salten [Bambi. Did I forget to mention Bambi?] et al, go back to the source. Read the books. Let your own imagination provide the pictures. It's a much better high. Although I do like Johnny Depp in fierce eye makeup.
If you want the real magic woven by Lewis Carroll, the Grimm Brothers, Felix Salten [Bambi. Did I forget to mention Bambi?] et al, go back to the source. Read the books. Let your own imagination provide the pictures. It's a much better high. Although I do like Johnny Depp in fierce eye makeup.
20
Films such as this one further confirm how out of touch Hollywood is with its audiences. Is this film made just to see how weird Bonham and Deep can be - or did they have entertaining the audience in mind? What next? Bonham and Depp as Marvel characters? Sheesh!
7
Reading this lets me know that I am fortunate to be old enough to have seen the original movie instead of the schlock that is put out today.
5
I just read Matt Zoller Seitz's scathing review of this film on Roger Ebert.com. in which be supposes that the real driving force behind it seems to be making money. The review should be a must-read for filmgoers and filmmakers alike.
8
Can't tell from the review whether it is worth spending the $$ for. I really liked the first movie, and most of the earlier Alice films, but am not sure about this one. It almost feels like Disney just wanted the title to draw the audience, then made up their own plot..
9
"surrender to its mad digital excess..."
NEVER! I'll take flying monkeys and witches optically inserted into the hourglass any day over this junk.
NEVER! I'll take flying monkeys and witches optically inserted into the hourglass any day over this junk.
16
Thanks for the heads-up, Stephen. You have confirmed what I thought when I first viewed the previews. It's an over-stuffed bag of fluff. And another hyper-inflated payday for Mr. Depp. I'll pass.
12
The first one was butchery of the source material. Upping the ante with more volume, more kinetics and less wit isn't going to help. I just wish they'd use different titles so as not to tie it back to Lewis Carroll. Don't besmirch great art with the crass and the commercial. (I know...that ship has sailed...I'm howling at the moon...Bye, I gotta go and shoo some kids off my lawn.)
36
Hear! Hear! Could not agree more!!!
2
And Pink murders the original (lyrics) of White Rabbit. What a downer.
3
The first "Alice" merely butchered the famous novel. The sequel here has no relationship whatsoever to the source material, not even to butcher it. It simply steals the title and then goes on to invent a wholly unrelated (and unmemorable) story that would be unendurable except for the elaborate CGI which is apparently required of every children's film now.
I suppose the real answer is "why not just create an original fantasy story?" -- since Burton and Woolverton have apparently no love, no respect, no understanding, no artistic integrity or pride about ANYTHING related to "Through the Looking Glass"? Ah, the magical answer is "money". You could not raise this kind of megabucks millions (hundreds of millions, I'm sure) for an original fantasy, but for a "remake of the Alice books, starring Johnny Depp", the cash comes rolling in.
Yes, that ship has sailed, Mark, but it doesn't make it right.
I suppose the real answer is "why not just create an original fantasy story?" -- since Burton and Woolverton have apparently no love, no respect, no understanding, no artistic integrity or pride about ANYTHING related to "Through the Looking Glass"? Ah, the magical answer is "money". You could not raise this kind of megabucks millions (hundreds of millions, I'm sure) for an original fantasy, but for a "remake of the Alice books, starring Johnny Depp", the cash comes rolling in.
Yes, that ship has sailed, Mark, but it doesn't make it right.
A “feminist” Alice. Carroll is being used to advance a modernist agenda on the back of his classic story. The story itself, as he wrote it, being apparently inadequate.
I saw the preview for this movie and it is cosmic overkill of the original book, which is a magical, lyrical Victorian foray into the physics and metaphysics of the author.
Carroll was less obvious; much more subtle — and mysterious. The high strangeness of his eccentricity is lost in this movie's explosion of noise and manic CGI visuals.
I saw the preview for this movie and it is cosmic overkill of the original book, which is a magical, lyrical Victorian foray into the physics and metaphysics of the author.
Carroll was less obvious; much more subtle — and mysterious. The high strangeness of his eccentricity is lost in this movie's explosion of noise and manic CGI visuals.
19
I completely agree. As soon as they start describing a film as empowering to women, as Mia Wasikowska did with this film and Kate Power did with the 2015 "Fantastic Four" film, I know that that film will make pandering a priority over quality. Of course that can be profitable.
4
I watched the first "Alice" film with Depp. The entire movie was off the rails. It had nothing to do with the book "Alice in Wonderland." It was like Time Burton just stole the characters from the book and wrote a new story. I hated it. I will not see this movie.
16
You were correct about the first "Alice", and the sequel is 10 times worse, and literally has nothing whatsoever to do with "Through The Looking Glass" except for exploiting the name of that classic. I feel quite certain that Lewis Carroll is rolling in his grave.
One of the things the review doesn't mention is that Lewis Carroll actually wrote one of the first "time machine" stories: the "Professor's Watch" in SYLVIE AND BRUNO. So time travel actually fits in somewhat, though I don't know whether the screenwriter even knew the fact.
9