Love the Rita from power rangers reference.
For the most part I agree with you but for a different reason. Tim Burton has now become his own genre of film, expect strange, larger than life characters, vaguely terrifying yet incredibly wonderful scenery and a story that requires some magical thinking. When he actually puts the magical thinking to use, it's excellent, however when it's Burton by numbers, it's just Burtonian and doesn't transcend that description.Basically, he's the film equivalent to a Stereolab album which are usually best described in the following dialogue:Person 1: "Hey, I just listened to the new Stereolab album."Person 2: "How is it?"Person 1: "It's... another Stereolab album."Person 2: "Ah... yeah that covers it."A better question then, when a director begins making films in an established style set by their own auteurship to the point where you can see where they were counting the money, is it time for the director to branch out and if so, is it possible for them to do so?
While I haven't yet seen this movie, and neither has anyone I know, I've been hearing months and months of hype about it. Everyone seems to love the idea of an Alice and Wonderland remake-adaptation-redux a la Tim Burtom, but does anyone watched the 1951 Disney version recently?I remember hating it as a child, and after I watched it a few weeks ago, I still hold a lot of contempt for it. What is the appeal of this movie, the source material, or the remake, when they lack a substantive story, compelling characters, or cohesive narrative? I'm not saying that all movies need to have these traits, but that would help justify its staying power as something other than proof-of-concept nonsense.
Yeah I watched this the other day and it really didn't feel much like Alice and wonderland. It was more like The mad hatter's glorous quest that...Alice happens to a part of. Like you said, she's more of a prop that gest dragged around then the main character. It was a good looking movie, but one that could be shurged off.
Saw it the day before your review and I must say you summed up my feelings about the movie better than I did.Quick question. Is it just me or has there been a disturbing trend with Johnny Deep as a "supporting actor". Pirates, the chocolate factory and Alice all have Deep playing a supporting role that the directors have allowed to become more important then the lead. Not that Deep giving a superior performance is a problem but the supporting characters aren't suppose to be this important (otherwise they'd be the main).Hell look at the posters. It's not Alice or Charlie it's Deep!While both movies have other problems can't a big part of it be that the main character is showed out of the way to give room to a supporting one?Chris
Awww, everybody wanted to see more of Alice in armour. :D
Hey Bob, did you hear? Sandra Bullock won 2 Razzies last night, but it was for the wrong movie.
Sandra Bullock just got an Oscar, MovieBob must be pissed.
Burton should have gone with a National Treasure-style fetch quest rather than this Autobots vs Decepticons stuff. That plot would've been just as simple and allowed for a more-faithful-to-the-source-material tone.
I should probably stop watching these reviews now. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was awesome. I didn't even know it was possible to dislike it, as I've never run into anybody who did. Liked it less than the first movie adaptation sure, but didn't like it at all? To be fair though, that's just really annoying to me. The real reason to stop watching is why anybody should reasonably stop listening to a critic. Because his tastes no longer seem to line up with the reader (that would be me in this case).
HEY MOVIE BOB LOOK AT THE NEW IRONMAN 2 TRAILER IT HAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF NEW STUFF AND STUFF REVIEW IT PLEASE KTHANKSBYE
I actually like it pretty much for the reasons you didn't. I'm man enough to admit that. I'm an action junkie and it worked for me. I was'nt planning on seeing it, but then caught wind that there were sword fights and BAM I was there. A small nit pick about the last comment on the "ridiculous broadsword".Its actually a 2 handed Claymore (though not completely accurate. Maybe it was a lowlander's claymore with a strange guard...) It was supposed to fit in with his red eyed episodes as he goes into Scottish mode. Being a sword nerd I kinda liked that they at least thought about it. Maybe I just read too much into it and it was just something they added to be visually impressive. Great review anyway!
Post a Comment