'Alice in Wonderland (2010) (Combo)' - High-Def Digest Review

[Idioteque...]

Please, let's not try to play this card against me. It's anything but the truth.

Yes but your argument is silly. The CGI is far from awful. It's got it's cartoonish feel and I don't have anything against it. It can be better but the end product wasn't bad. Everyone really had high expectations for the movie and can I blame them? No but a realistic view of the film is it's enjoyable and decent.

It's plain too but oh well.

And for those that call Tim Burton unoriginal and stuff because he's not doing his own work uh hello. Burton has only had a few films that were his ideas, Edward Scissorhands, Mars Attacks, Corpse Bride, Nightmare Before Christmas, Ed Wood, and his short films. Everything he has done is his own version of other existing medias and he's done a well job with them excluding Planet of the Apes. Alice lacked a bit of flare but it wasn't an awful picture by any means.

[eastx]

Twonun's argument is indeed silly. This is certainly not the best movie ever, but it's nowhere near as bad as he's making it out to be.

Also the worst version of Alice to me is the European stop-motion animation one. So unbearable to watch, despite the unique visual designs.

[Idioteque...]

Twonun's argument is indeed silly. This is certainly not the best movie ever, but it's nowhere near as bad as he's making it out to be.

Also the worst version of Alice to me is the European stop-motion animation one. So unbearable to watch, despite the unique visual designs.

The 1988 version? Lol some critic is like oh this is what it should be haha w/e.

and twonun has also yet to give a valid reason on why he hates this movie. Bad Cgi? Please. Some older films have bad effects yet they're great. The changing of Wonderland to Underland? I'm a huge fan of the book and that doesn't even bother me. It's silly but w/e.

I'll mention one bad thing about the movie though, THAT EFFIN AWFUL SONG they played at the end. Danny Elfman's wonderful score is followed by some shitty song by Avril Shitvigne

And Burton's best work remains as Edward Scissorhands which is one of the greatest movies ever. Burton needs to do a movie of that quality again.

[Tnecniv]

Hmm, am not even the biggest Burton/Depp fan but still found this iteration of Alice to be enjoyable. Thanks mostly to Depp, who was pretty good in this I thought as the Hatter. Plus the visuals, while certainly not the greatest, appealed to me very much, as well.

Despite it having weak characterization and a thin plot to me, I don't expect every movie to be Shakespeare, I really enjoyed the overall look and feel of the movie despite my nitpicks and look forward to watching it again one of these days.

The Blu-ray technical aspects are pretty top notch to me too with reference picture quality looking quite stunning on the Kuro and with audio to match--though I was a little underwhelmed with the audio, it most definitely got the job done. The Bandersnatch sequence and final fight sound really good.

[twonunpackmule]

and twonun has also yet to give a valid reason on why he hates this movie. Bad Cgi? Please.It's silly but w/e.

Yes, I have. I wrote it a few months. The film is quite awful. Yes, it's easily one of the worst versions out there. I didn't say it was the worst version. No. I said that title belongs to the NBC version a few years back. You know, the one with Whoopie Goldberg.

Also the worst version of Alice to me is the European stop-motion animation one. So unbearable to watch, despite the unique visual designs.

No. The European Stop Motion is not the worst. It's, in fact, one of the best. So...

---

Thirdly, older films have bad special effects, but they also didn't rely on them. There's a difference between this and say Ghostbusters. The clay dog is in like 20 minutes of the film, and really...that was the best of the time. Alice in Underland (WTF?) has a consistency problem. They have tonality issues with their special effects. This is something Ghostbusters didn't have. All the Ghosts, and Creatures had a highly cartoony, over the top feel/look. Whereas, in Alice in Underland, the Cheshire Cat is the only thing that looked right. He always seemed to blend. The main issue with the CG is that the matting was outright terrible. It's one thing to call it on an older film (which is done using layers of film.) and a complete other when mentioning a 2010 film using the "latest and greatest" in CG. Shit, just the other year you had Avatar, and Transformers 2. Sure, the quality of the films (story) left something to be desired. However, their effects were anything but lousy. Alice on the other hand just looks outright half assed. Just watched the scene where that wooleybully creature thing loses his eye.

And saying the porno is better is such a moronic comment to make.

Just noticed you said this...

No, it's not a moronic comment. It's a comment based on my history with the story on screen. Remember, you're the one saying that I "haven't seen enough films."

Have you seen the porno? Probably not. Despite it's sex scenes, it's actually a quite faithful little adaption.

[Idioteque...]

Thirdly, older films have bad special effects, but they also didn't rely on them. There's a difference between this and say Ghostbusters. The clay dog is in like 20 minutes of the film, and really...that was the best of the time. Alice in Underland (WTF?) has a consistency problem. They have tonality issues with their special effects. This is something Ghostbusters didn't have. All the Ghosts, and Creatures had a highly cartoony, over the top feel/look. Whereas, in Alice in Underland, the Cheshire Cat is the only thing that looked right. He always seemed to blend. The main issue with the CG is that the matting was outright terrible. It's one thing to call it on an older film (which is done using layers of film.) and a complete other when mentioning a 2010 film using the "latest and greatest" in CG. Shit, just the other year you had Avatar, and Transformers 2. Sure, the quality of the films (story) left something to be desired. However, their effects were anything but lousy. Alice on the other hand just looks outright half assed. Just watched the scene where that wooleybully creature thing loses his eye.

Like I said it looked cartoonish, it was plain but the movie wasn't about the CGI, Burton wasn't trying anything ground breaking like those other filmed tried too. The White Rabbit actually looked quite fine too. Other things felt out of place but it's a stupid thing to let it get to you. CGI is some hard shit to work with and nobody is praising the movie for its visuals.

Just noticed you said this...

No, it's not a moronic comment. It's a comment based on my history with the story on screen. Remember, you're the one saying that I "haven't seen enough films."

Have you seen the porno? Probably not. Despite it's sex scenes, it's actually a quite faithful little adaption.

This Alice In Wonderland was meant to act as a companion piece to the great older Disney version, for some is the true adaptation of Alice. Though that movie borrows elements from both books, it leaves out some stuff too. That's where Burton's film kicks in. It could have done better things with the script but it was totally fine. It tried to be its own thing and it did maintain a feel of Wonderland.

And I only resorted to that comment because you're expecting Avatar CGI now or something. Like I said before the movie isn't about its CGI. It's got cool visuals duing some scenes but the colors of the movie are outstanding and the costume design was very well done too.

You have yet to post a reply in this thread stating why you hate the film, you said it wasn't because it wasn't faithful but it seems like you wanted it to be a remake/direct adaptation of the book. That would be stupid, why would they try to erase a excellent movie from the past with a new one that can't do much better. They tried to do their own thing and while it has its faults it comes off entertaining. I don't know what you were expecting but you are too harsh and hard on this film.

[taygan315]

Enjoyed this flick much more at home than when I saw it in theaters. I could actually HEAR the movie this time (no people talking , babies crying, cheap theater with cheap projector/audio equipment). The PQ was amazing!! I really dont understand the hate for this flick. The cgi and visuals look great to me. I understand the movie is not for everybody....but it did make over $330 million domestically (bit over a billion worldwide). To each his own.

[nelll]

Please, let's not try to play this card against me. It's anything but the truth.

Not the truth my friend..but your thruth don't forget about that.

[Area51]

What a disappointment. I'm glad I didn't waste my money seeing this on the big screen. So much style and so little substance. I felt like I was mostly watching a video game. All that CGI ruins a film, IMO. The backgrounds all came off flat, except for the parts the actors weren't in front a green screen. Didn't care about any of the characters. Overall, nothing memorable.

Ahhhhhhhh, the memories of a young visionary director at his peak! Do people just lose their talent as they get older?

CGI robs a director from being creative. They focus on that and rely on it more to tell the story than to actually focus on a good story and its characters. Spielberg also has the same issues now, IMO. These two directors should be forced to make their next film without any CGI and maybe then they'll get back on track.

[DaveS1138]

Finally got around to watching this last night and I have to admit I enjoyed it way more than I thought I was going to.

[cheez avenger]

Glad I Netflixed it. It was okay and nothing more. I do think the "Underland" bit is stupid. The hell? No wonder it only gets mentioned like 3-4 times.

[jakersummit]

It is really getting annoying listening to all of you you make all of these excuses for this movie's poor visual effects. It seems you are all saying, oh its not that big of a deal because the movie is still great. Well that is probably one of the dumbest arguments I have seen considering you are posting this on a high definition review site. If you want make excuses for the movies lacking parts and discuss the movie storyline only, go on IMDB or something like that. These reviews judge the "total package." That being said, the story sucked as well...

[eastx]

It is really getting annoying listening to all of you you make all of these excuses for this movie's poor visual effects. It seems you are all saying, oh its not that big of a deal because the movie is still great. Well that is probably one of the dumbest arguments I have seen considering you are posting this on a high definition review site. If you want make excuses for the movies lacking parts and discuss the movie storyline only, go on IMDB or something like that. These reviews judge the "total package." That being said, the story sucked as well...

Who's making excuses? I think the special effects are quite good. Perhaps you should learn to respect others' opinions instead of behaving like yours is fact.

[Gunyaga]

This^

I liked the effects, so no excuses needed IMO

[taygan315]

This^

I liked the effects, so no excuses needed IMO

Same here. Again to each his own.