Here's a second "meh" on the new Alice in Wonderland. Some really marvelous elements that didn't quite gel for me - in a re-telling that features all the familiar settings and characters, but with a rather conventional story grafted on.

Yet, as might be expected, the picture looks awesometastical. And I enjoyed almost all the performances -- with the notable exception of Johnny Depp - whom i HAteD as the Mad Hatter. And hated the role this story saddled him with.

I loved Bonham Carter as the Red Queen. Quispin Glover was also rad, as was Anne Hathaway. The girl who plays Alice was terrific, as were Tweedle-Dee and Dum.

Good Cheshire Cat, too, but he suffered - as did many of the "beloved" characters - from being too straightforwardly benevolent to our heroine. In fact, all the usual suspects just sort of banded together as the Alice Team of cuddly, helpful friends who remember her fondly from .... from the earlier Disney movie, I guess. A little too neat and sweet. And the standardly heroic storyline lacked the oddball charm of the original tale - that was nonetheless mimicked too faithfully.


Sigh, I don't think there's ever been a completely satisfactory version of Alice in Wonderland on screen. This one comes as close as many. But not close enough for me. I'm glad I saw it, but I never need to see it again.

Ooh! Forgot about the Clash of the Titans preview where I busted out in a giant belly laugh at the "Release the Kraken!" line.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intended result, but then again, I haven't seen the original. Maybe it's a comedy?

My friend and I loved Alice. We may go see it again in 3-D.

It was beautiful and a fun adventure. Mia Wasikowska held her own against the big-names. I love what Depp did with the Mad Hatter - tragic, creepy and, well mad.

My all time favorite Mad Hatter is Steve Buscemi. "I'm so mad I wash my hands a 100 times a day, because they smell like my mother!"

"Release the Kraken!" is indeed about the only memorable line from the first movie, which isn't really a comedy, but is about as cheesy as it can be. I've always found that the original CotT disappoints. It's pretty slow, and even the Ray Harryhausen creature sequences are pacey and sluggish, especially compared to the swashbuckling likes of Jason and the Argonauts or The 7th Voyage of Sinbad. Those are kind of clunky as well, but whenever a cyclops or a skeleton shows up, it's wildly kinetic and exciting. Titans was the most expensive movie Harryhausen got to make, but his hands seem curiously tied, as if perhaps he was rushed once he got around to his animating table.

On the other hand, this is one of those PG rated movies that had some rather welcome nudity for a teen in the pre-internet days. I remember insisting on watching it every time it appeared on HBO just so I could see Andromeda's lovely bare behind as she stepped out of her pre-sacrificial bath. (Yes, you got to see her crack just before she was offered to the Kraken. Heh)

I enjoyed Alice. It wasn't great, but good. And this is not a movie to bring small children to.

How could Alice be bad?? Did it follow Tim Burton's Secret Formula? ;)The original is a family fav of mine. My brothers and I said "Release the Kraken!" constantly. I have no perspective on it but I still think it's the best Harryhausen. Jason and his Argonauts be damned. :p I'm kind of excited about this remake though I figure once the reviews come out I'll probably lose interest. It happens to me every time with these action epics.

I remember attributing his line readings to bad acting. Of course, perhaps he was really going for a kind of Paradise Lost thing where the good guy is boring, and the bad guy is attractive. But my bet's on bad acting.

Then it is faithful to the book.

Hehe. That was great!

BwaHahaha. Exactly.

I've a friend who doesn't want to see it, but wants to see the good parts. It occurred to me a nicely edited half-hour would be great ... so I'll try to do that when the DVD comes out ... in what? 3 weeks is it?


Better yet, a really creative edit of the 25 or so film versions of Alice in Wonderland could yield a version that captures the dreamlike ever-changing oddness of the text. That could be an awesome project.


Anyway, I had to watch the '51 Disney version last night to get the taste out of my eyes. That's hardly a flawless version either, but I really needed it. The Burton version is, imo, seriously disappointing and so wrong in overall tone that I cannot recommend it - despite, as i said, some fantastic elements and performances.