Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Dust Devil on February 22, 2010, 02:25:44 PM



Title: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 22, 2010, 02:25:44 PM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/

OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMkNrX60mA


I advise you not to take your kids to see this.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 22, 2010, 09:16:43 PM
I'm not even going to take my adults to it.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Groggy on February 22, 2010, 09:37:47 PM
Jenkins stole my answer :D


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 22, 2010, 09:45:59 PM
Jenkins stole my answer :D


Yeah, awesome reply Jinkies!

Like Avatar, I have zero interest in this but will probably be dragged to the cinema by some friend of mine (all five of em have been waiting for months to see this ::)).


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Groggy on February 22, 2010, 10:01:23 PM
I don't have enough friends to be dragged to the cinema. Thank God.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 23, 2010, 01:40:40 AM
Har, har.

But seriously, what audience are they aiming at? Look at Johnny Depp, he looks... troubled. Seriously troubled.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 23, 2010, 06:33:30 AM
They're aiming at the Tim Burton audience; the Beetle Juice and Sweeney Todd audience.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on February 23, 2010, 10:36:52 AM
Get this for your adult friends:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PCWQSX81L._SS500_.jpg)


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 23, 2010, 02:32:08 PM
The intern who took my place when I finished my internship in a production society 2 years ago had to write something for school about Alice in Wonderland and the way it was used in movies. She had seen numerous ones, including the one Mr Titoli just pointed out. Her comment about that particular one: "Boring, no close up."


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on February 23, 2010, 04:04:57 PM
That depends on which version she saw, I presume. The xxx-rated one has "ALL" the close-up, expecially one of Miss De Bell and the Mad Hatter.  O0 BTW, though uncredited at IMDB, Richard Pryor is in it.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 24, 2010, 05:47:59 AM
:) I'll let her know if I ever see her again...


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 24, 2010, 05:49:46 AM
They're aiming at the Tim Burton audience; the Beetle Juice and Sweeney Todd audience.

Yes, the audience that cares more about sets and costumes than useless notions such as story, characters or cinematography.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 24, 2010, 12:56:46 PM
Potato's healthy but candy tastes better.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: The Firecracker on February 24, 2010, 07:20:04 PM
Yes, the audience that cares more about sets and costumes than useless notions such as story, characters or cinematography.


That certainly seems to be the case.

Today at school I had to sit through several, mostly poor, presentations on film directors.
After each presentation we are inclined to give feedback to the person presenting the material

A Burton presentation was made by one student, some hipster girl.

For whatever reason she only chose to talk about Burton's eye candy movies.

My feedback for her was

"I appreciate you leaving out the Planet Of The Apes remake but don't approve of the exclusion of Ed Wood.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: T.H. on February 24, 2010, 07:34:52 PM
I'm not even going to take my adults to it.

lol


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 25, 2010, 12:40:36 AM
Yes, the audience that cares more about sets and costumes than useless notions such as story, characters or cinematography.

Yeah, this seems to be right. I'm not denying Tim Burton made some interesting/good movies, but I'm slowly starting to lean toward what you said about his career a couple of times before.

The difference between this and let's say Beetle Juice is that BJ possessed a certain amount of originality (although I agree that is debatable), and TB's style further gave him a certain charm and peculiar specificity. Same thing with Edward Scissorhands, or Batman, or parts of his other movies. Those stories are/were not original as they are/were interesting to watch in different settings. Then. Now, he's just at the point in his career when he's recognized and fanboyized to the point when he doesn't really have to do or try anything new, he just can go on and on selling his image. Look at Big Fish, is that a movie that would get 8.1 on IMDb if it wasn't his movie? I sincerely doubt it. It's why this AIW adaptation seems completely useless and pointless to me. What's the point, and more importantly: what's next? Tim Burton's Sesame Street? Tim Burton's Bible Stories? Come on, at least leave the classics out of it.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 25, 2010, 12:49:42 AM
For instance, I liked The Nightmare Before Christmas a great deal. It was very interesting, innovative and entertaining (bloody great music), but for some reason he didn't direct it. More than 10 years later he directed the Corpse Bride. I must be missing something?


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 25, 2010, 12:54:21 AM
BTW, though uncredited at IMDB, Richard Pryor is in it.

There was no need to identify his face, I presume?


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: moviesceleton on February 25, 2010, 01:12:34 AM
The difference between this and let's say Beetle Juice is that BJ possessed a certain amount of originality (although I agree that is debatable), and TB's style further gave him a certain charm and peculiar specificity.
Tuco, I understand your fascination with abbreviations but you just can't use BJ for Beetle Juice.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 25, 2010, 01:18:20 AM
Tuco, I understand your fascination with abbreviations but you just can't use BJ for Beetle Juice.

lol, titoli corrupted me, something's crawling out of my subconsciousness!

I wrote that while I was reading the plot summary for the 1976 version of AIW on Wikipedia:

Alice (Kristine DeBell) offends her would-be lover William (Ron Nelson) by rejecting his advances. Upset, she falls asleep reading Alice in Wonderland. The white rabbit (Larry Gelman) appears to her in a dream and takes her into a sexual wonderland. The story loosely follows Carroll's original plot, and includes many of his characters, but with considerable sexual license.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on February 25, 2010, 06:43:36 PM
There was no need to identify his face, I presume?

Watch the movie and report back.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Jill on February 27, 2010, 03:53:00 AM
Johnny Depp looks even crazier than usual...  ;D

I'm definitely not into Burton. Sweeney was an awful horror movie with completely missing the black humour of the play and with actors who couldn't sing. I prefer the old Lansbury/Hearn version, or the LuPone/Hearn concert.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Groggy on February 27, 2010, 08:31:44 AM
The only Burton film I've seen is Mars Attacks! I have never felt a desire to see any others. Including this one.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 27, 2010, 09:11:20 AM
Ed Wood is good.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Groggy on February 27, 2010, 09:42:29 AM
So I've heard.

I may have seen Beatlejuice, but if so that was years and years ago. I do remember watching the cartoon series on TV a lot. I have also seen Betelgeuse through a telescope.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 27, 2010, 04:46:59 PM
Ed Wood is good.

By the way, great post, Dust. It summs up what I think of the guy and even clarified some points for me. That's enough compliments for a year. I'll be mean until january 2011.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: The Firecracker on March 01, 2010, 12:08:48 AM
The only Burton film I've seen is Mars Attacks!


That's, quite possibly, the absolute worst place to start.

You should have begun, and ended, your Burton viewing with Ed Wood.

To be more lenient on him, I guess you could watch Beetlejuice and the Batman films.
Those are fun.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 01, 2010, 10:04:57 AM
Watch the movie and report back.

lol, good one titoli, he really does look like him. 8)


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 01, 2010, 10:10:55 AM
I'm definitely not into Burton. Sweeney was an awful horror movie with completely missing the black humour of the play and with actors who couldn't sing. I prefer the old Lansbury/Hearn version, or the LuPone/Hearn concert.

For some reason something's been keeping me away from that one for a long time, now that you said it's bad I won't bother intentionally.

Speaking of Patti LuPone: I once had a crush on her as a kid. :-[ (...and I never even knew her name...)

The only Burton film I've seen is Mars Attacks! I have never felt a desire to see any others. Including this one.

FC's right about this one.

By the way, great post, Dust. It summs up what I think of the guy and even clarified some points for me. That's enough compliments for a year. I'll be mean until january 2011.

Thanks, your compliment means a lot to me.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 01, 2010, 11:48:16 AM
I sure hope it means EVERYTHING.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on March 02, 2010, 05:39:01 AM
lol, good one titoli, he really does look like him. 8)

I meant not report about Pryor (I know it's him) but about the movie. Is it any good?


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 02, 2010, 11:36:47 AM
I meant not report about Pryor (I know it's him) but about the movie. Is it any good?

I thought you were joking? I searched the net and couldn't find anything. :-\

But I wouldn't exclude it: on the other hand I remember some scenes from Blue Collar, involving Richard Pryor, Harvey Keitel and some other girls (and fellas), that were rather ''cheerful'' in nature, and the movie wasn't supposed to be adult material at all...

I couldn't tell you if it's good, but it's definitely interesting. I grew up in different times so I have to say it was a little too ''soft'' for my generation (flowers around and music). In those times they were still trying to link sex/prostitution/promiscuity and love, I guess. On the other hand a plus is that in those times the lads and gals didn't look like they came straight from an assembly line.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 02, 2010, 11:46:29 AM
I sure hope it means EVERYTHING.

Well, everybody has the right to hope. Apparently.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on March 02, 2010, 03:11:44 PM
I thought you were joking? I searched the net and couldn't find anything. :-\

But I wouldn't exclude it: on the other hand I remember some scenes from Blue Collar, involving Richard Pryor, Harvey Keitel and some other girls (and fellas), that were rather ''cheerful'' in nature, and the movie wasn't supposed to be adult material at all...

I couldn't tell you if it's good, but it's definitely interesting. I grew up in different times so I have to say it was a little too ''soft'' for my generation. In those times they were still trying to link sex and love, I guess. On the other hand a plus is that in those times the lads and gals didn't look like they came straight from an assembly line.

Quite the diplomat, uh? OK, let's get it straight: would you trade it with the new AIW?


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Rubio on March 02, 2010, 03:55:01 PM
I can't say I'm interested in that movie


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 03, 2010, 01:47:26 AM
Quite the diplomat, uh? OK, let's get it straight: would you trade it with the new AIW?

lol

To answer your question: yeah, without question.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on March 03, 2010, 03:30:32 PM
lol

To answer your question: yeah, without question.

Alas, I have to disagree: the two scenes featuring Miss DeBell cannot be equalled by anything produced in Hollywood in the last 20 years.  :'(   


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 04, 2010, 04:09:57 AM
Alas, I have to disagree: the two scenes featuring Miss DeBell cannot be equalled by anything produced in Hollywood in the last 20 years.  :'(

There's been a misunderstanding, I misread your post, I wanted to say: ''I'd trade the upcoming AIW experiment for the 70s porno-musical cult classic anytime.'' Although I'm really not into 70s porn, at least not like noodles_leone.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on March 04, 2010, 01:27:59 PM
There's been a misunderstanding, I misread your post, I wanted to say: ''I'd trade the upcoming AIW experiment for the 70s porno-musical cult classic anytime.'' Although I'm really not into 70s porn, at least not like noodles_leone.

Oh, well. So you're sane after all. 8)


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 04, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Oh, well. So you're sane after all. 8)

I can only imagine how would those who live with me comment that...


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on March 04, 2010, 03:23:27 PM
I can only imagine how would those who live with me comment that...

Never mind: they go for Burton's.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 05, 2010, 01:59:49 PM
I read this morning an article quoting Burton, the scriptwriter and some executive of the movie. It seems they tried to make a regular action (not even adventure) movie with this. At least that's how they sell it. It removed the few remains of interests I had in Burton.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: marmota-b on March 08, 2010, 12:26:11 PM
Yes, the audience that cares more about sets and costumes than useless notions such as story, characters or cinematography.

People interested in costumes certainly seem to take great interest in it - look through here:
http://www.costumersguide.com/


And, whoa, how come I did not miss your lot's ironic comments on things during my lazy days off-board?


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 09, 2010, 01:10:33 AM
And, whoa, how come I did not miss your lot's ironic comments on things during my lazy days off-board?

Well that's ironic isn't it?

Love you to  ;)


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: marmota-b on March 09, 2010, 01:45:39 AM
I think it's that I kept inserting them in certain situations in my mind anyway. ;D Only I'm probably not that good at it myself.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: ShortFuse on March 09, 2010, 06:30:19 PM
I saw a special showing of Inglorious Basterds on Saturday and the cinema was packed with scene girls. They all dressed like whores.


It was awesome.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: cigar joe on March 12, 2010, 05:55:38 PM
Alice In Wonderland (2010) meh, 5/10 if that.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: titoli on March 12, 2010, 11:52:53 PM
Alice In Wonderland (2010) meh, 5/10 if that.

I bet it was your mate's idea to go to see it.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: cigar joe on March 13, 2010, 03:43:06 AM
I bet it was your mate's idea to go to see it.

You got it  O0, I even think that is the first film I've seen in a theater in 2010 too, not an auspicious start.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: cigar joe on March 13, 2010, 03:44:50 AM
How can you F this up????, but they did, lol.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 13, 2010, 11:31:54 AM
How can you F this up????, but they did, lol.

Now you're ready for the real version. I bet there must be a drive-in theater somewhere in Montana where they (still) show it on regular basis. ;)


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: The Firecracker on March 15, 2010, 11:54:05 PM
How can you F this up????, but they did, lol.

Too right, this movie sucked.
The 3-D was a converted last minute cash in.
Looks terrible and is terrible.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: tucumcari bound on April 23, 2010, 04:06:28 PM

Horrific film. Tim Burton's worst. That tells you something. I'm a pretty big Tim Burton fan. The animation looked great but the script was weak. Johnny Depp needs to let go this drag-queen fad he's putting on his characters. It's getting old. The Disney cartoon is still best.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Groggy on April 23, 2010, 11:56:12 PM
TB, you're back! O0


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: tucumcari bound on April 24, 2010, 04:43:20 PM
TB, you're back! O0

How are you, Groggy?


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: Groggy on April 24, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
I'm alive. I guess that's something.


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 24, 2010, 10:02:01 PM
TB, you were gone?


Title: Re: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Post by: moviesceleton on July 27, 2010, 01:22:33 PM
Alice in Wonderland (2010) - 5.5/10
I didn't care for the characters, I didn't care for the Wonderland and I didn't care for the story. And yet somehow I can't see it as a total waste of my time, although there are tons of movies I wish I would have watched instead. Everything looks so computer generated that it's not funny. It was like watching somebody else playing a videogame. Even Johnny Depp was disappointing.