web
counter
 

Alice Goes to War

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (38)



alice-in-wonderlanddsf.jpg

It’s not just easy, but often fun to be the crotchety old bag of creaky bones who constantly complains about how the sudden omnipresence of CGI has a tendency to ruin movies. And to an extent, that’s true — I’d rather see Jasons Statham and Bourne break some faces in whip-cut fashion than watch Gerard Butler go whole hog on a green screen.

But sometimes, it’s actually ridiculously fantastic that we live in an age where a director like James Cameron can bring an entire visually stunning new world to life with computer effects. Moreover, without CGI advancements, we wouldn’t be be on the brink of seeing something like the Tim Burton’s visually orgasmic Alice in Wonderland. The problem isn’t really the technology, it’s that directors too often focus too much of their efforts on computer imagery to the detriment of a good script. It’s what I fear the most about Avatar.

It’s a concern, too, with Burton’s Alice. I love the trailers, and seeing them in 3D at the theater will unravel the threads of your stockings. I’m still not sure about the script, though. The new trailer finally gives us some idea of what the movie is about — Alice returns to Wonderland and is apparently going to war. I hope there’s a way to emotionally connect with the material, because it really does look splendid, and though Burton’s predilection for casting Johnny Depp and his wife can sometimes seem annoying, there’s no denying that they seem perfect for their roles here.

Check out the new trailer, and keep in mind that — in 3D — that cat’s head floats right in front of your face. It’s brilliant.










Steve Carell and Tina Fey Re-Teaming for "Mail Order Groom" | The Road Warrior Review













Comments

Goddammit. Pants.

Now I need a dry pair of pants.

Posted by: PissBoy at December 16, 2009 11:35 AM

I WANT this NOW!!!!!!!!

And even though she only showed up for a couple of seconds, I LOVE Anne Hathaway. She's so awesome.

Posted by: Bizarro SofĂ­a at December 16, 2009 11:43 AM

I second the need for new pants.

And a new desk chair.

And a time machine!

Posted by: Patty O'Green at December 16, 2009 11:44 AM

I can see exactly what you're saying Dustin and I hope so much that I can connect to the story as well. I'm going to have my God daughter watch the original this Christmas so that I can take her to see this new one. She'll love it. Her favorites are Coraline and The Nightmare Before Christmas so this is up her alley.

She's much cooler than I was at 5 (and possibly than I am now) because I mostly liked Disney Princess movies and the Ninja Turtles.

Posted by: becks at December 16, 2009 11:44 AM

Alice in armor?! Nobody told me Alice was going to be in armor!!!

I am there like, yesterday.

Posted by: twig at December 16, 2009 11:46 AM

Well, that looks fun. I can say with confidence that I'll be seeing that in 3D after a hefty bowl or too, and that it will probably blow my mind with the trippy.

Posted by: Woody at December 16, 2009 11:46 AM

Hey becks, don't you dare insult the Ninja Turtles. I'll go to war over this shit. Like Alice.

Posted by: Woody at December 16, 2009 11:47 AM

I want it NOW.

Posted by: Jerce at December 16, 2009 11:52 AM

I could have sworn I said I liked the Ninja Turtles?

Posted by: becks at December 16, 2009 11:53 AM

I does look deliciously delightful, doesn't it?

Posted by: tamatha at December 16, 2009 11:56 AM

OHMYGAWDIWANTTOSEETHISNOW!!!!

Posted by: dammitjanet at December 16, 2009 12:00 PM

You did, but you implied that it was not a cool thing to like as a 5 year old. I get defensive about these things.

Posted by: Woody at December 16, 2009 12:06 PM

It's funny- somehow Helena Bonham Carter looks less scary here than she does in real life.

Posted by: logar at December 16, 2009 12:07 PM

Is it just me or does Helen Bonham Carter appear to be doing an impression of Miranda Richardson as Queenie from Black Adder Series Two?

I don't think it's just me.

Posted by: coveredinbees at December 16, 2009 12:09 PM

Yes, yes, but does it take place on a chessboard? And what about The Walrus and The Carpenter? And what about the wasp in a wig?

Posted by: BWeaves at December 16, 2009 12:09 PM

This looks like it's going to give me a headache in 3D. I don't like stuff thrown at my face and floating right in front of my face. I like 3D to look deep.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 16, 2009 12:12 PM

Coveredinbees: Yes.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 16, 2009 12:12 PM

OK I have to admit this trailer makes me happier than previous one, where it just looked like it was going to be yet another fucking Burton quirk-fest.

But I will always hate that they couldn't cast anyone but Depp and Eight-Head for the fucking thing. It's like they're just the same characters they always play and I can't look past them to see the actual Mad Hatter and Red Queen. It's just Depp and Eight Head as they always are. Just too damn distracting. VARY A LITTLE, BURTON. IT WON'T KILL YOU.

Posted by: figgy at December 16, 2009 12:13 PM

/drool

/peed a little

Posted by: Sean at December 16, 2009 12:27 PM

I agree with figgy. I'd like to see Burton branch out, just to mix things up.

Posted by: tutu at December 16, 2009 12:32 PM

sorry, but this looks freaking ridiculous. WAAAY too much cgi makes for unrealistic body distortions and a permanent gray screen saver sky? And I guess 3D = things constantly thrown directly at the screen? I'd really hoped for a darker and realer look from burton like he had with Sleepy Hollow.

Posted by: valerie at December 16, 2009 12:34 PM

I think you missed my point Woody. I meant that I wasn't as cool as a child who appreciates some darker films with much richer imagery and more complicated themes. I was probably 8 or 9 before anything like that appealed to me.

I was more mainstream like you I'm guessing. I was a sucker for a sarcastic quip from Raphael!

Posted by: becks at December 16, 2009 12:38 PM

Moist.

Posted by: Cindy at December 16, 2009 12:42 PM

Yeah, I'm with figgy and Valerie. I'm not that thrilled.

Part of me is also resentful because I'm sick of everything having to be "reimagined," which usually just means "gothed up," and I'm also sick of Alice in Wonderland being some goth icon that has to be completely darkity-darked to be acceptable in the 21st century. Meh. There's plenty of darkness in the original text, it doesn't need "reinterpreting." I'm way too young to be the crotchety old woman running around screaming READ THE GODDAMN BOOK YOU WHIPPERSNAPPERS, but that's kind of how I feel. Is there any info out there on WHY Burton & co. just decided to run with a completely new plot rather than do an adaptation? I'm curious.

What I REALLY want is a well-done straight adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, ACTUAL Alice in Wonderland, and then Through the Looking Glass. Surreal is nice, green-screen FX done well are nice - I am ALL FOR an immersive "surreal world not like ours" experience as long as the script can hold its own if you take all the FX away - but not this gothed-up same-old-Tim-Burton thing. And then once those happen, I'd love a straight-up real adaptation of the Oz books. Not the cheesy-ass musical, not a gothed-up dystopian version (ahem, Sci-fi), just a straight-up adaptation - that's really never been done, except for Return to Oz, which wasn't really the best adaptation since it mixed several books together but is still by far the best Oz movie out there for a book fan (like meeee).

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at December 16, 2009 12:55 PM

Fair enough, becks, fair enough. Overreaction on my part, certainly. And it is damn impressive that a five year old digs Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline, I'll most certainly give you that.

On the other note here, I agree it would be nice to see Burton branch out a bit, just to see what he would do, I don't particularly care if he ever actually does. We've got other directors to do other stuff, and he does what he does well.

Posted by: Woody at December 16, 2009 12:57 PM

Coveredinbees: Absolutely. And she's quite good at it.

Posted by: esme at December 16, 2009 1:30 PM

Super pass

Definition: I will be so fervent in skipping this movie that I'll see two other movies just to combat its box office numbers.

Posted by: Christian H. at December 16, 2009 1:42 PM

"I like a warm pig belly to rest my feet on." Just for that...I'm so there. I also like bad-ass Alice...we just don't get enough kick-ass heroines and I'll take mine where I can get them.

Posted by: Joker at December 16, 2009 2:00 PM

I'm in the "not as thrilled" category. The CGI is a little distracting, and I was annoyed that Johnny Depp got the only acting credit. He's not even the main character!

Oh well. I have hope that it'll be good, but I agree with Nat Kttyface; I'd love to see a straightforward, well-done Alice adaptation, rather than a "re-imagining."

Posted by: kyle at December 16, 2009 2:25 PM

I don't want Nat Kittyface or Christian H. to feel lost in the bewildering roar of approval:

This is a monstrosity of an adaptation. It's not who Alice is. If you want a woman to go to a dream world and wear armor and cover Anne Hathaway in flour -- fine. But create your own dream world. What's most admirable about Carroll's Alice is how little she wants to interrupt the world she's in. Sure, she asks for directions periodically; however, with perfect manners and a clean pinafore, she rescues herself. No armor needed. No boy to save her. For me, that's why she's such a powerful figure in children's literature.

The closest I've seen to an actual good adaptation was Dreamchild, with creature-effects by Jim Henson's Creature Shop. John Tenniel's illustrations are so perfect (especially in his Tweedledum and Tweedledee), I'm not sure why they weren't used as the template.

Posted by: Mike B. at December 16, 2009 2:54 PM

It actually is an almost direct adaptation... of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the VIDEO GAME.

Posted by: Megs at December 16, 2009 3:13 PM

can't wait...must have now...

Posted by: Peanut_Butter_And_James at December 16, 2009 3:18 PM

Thank you. I've been getting pissed off at Alice somehow being this uber goth heroine, even though she's the exact opposite of the way most Hot Topic wearing teenagers would act. Usually it's just "oooh, trippy," without actually knowing the story. (Thanks, American McGee!)

I also agree with the Oz books. The books are completely different from most of the movie adaptations, and most people aren't even aware of this. I enjoyed the movie, but I see it more as Vaudville's Going Out with a Bang.

Oh, I also liked the version with Carol Channing, but it WAS a stuffy British adaptation of their own material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-MLwPW86Rs

Posted by: Rowen at December 16, 2009 7:46 PM

i'm so excited for this. this is a merging of some of my most beloved interests: alice in wonderland and tim burton.
i've followed burton's work religiously since 'beetlejuice'--haven't missed a one. and even though i don't love them all, i still like to lose myself to where he's trying to take me as a viewer.
i know the alice canon like my own life story, and appreciate the take on the story's advancement.
this has the possibility to be the experience i feel was missing from both 'where the wild things are' and 'the fantastic mr. fox'---both movies i adored, but didn't lose my head or heart like i was hoping to.
ok. it might be because i'm a little hormonal (and high), but i cried a bit watching this trailer...


Posted by: maxpurr9 at December 16, 2009 10:36 PM

I'll put myself in the love category on this one, I think it looks pretty fantastic.

Am I the only one who thinks Johnny Depp strikes an incredibly strong resemblance to Elijah Wood in this get-up?

Posted by: Even Stevens at December 16, 2009 11:28 PM

I'm not loving it, I'm not hating it. I'm just kinda Switzerland on the whole thing.

Posted by: citizen_cris at December 17, 2009 12:45 AM

Eugh, couldn't they just make an adaptation of Frank Beddor's The Looking Glass Wars and be done with it?

And Johnny Depp basically plays Willy Wonka with a different wig. Just look at his facial expressions and how he walks down that table. Try playing a different quirky character for once. And that goes for you, too, Helena, much as I love you.

In fact, I wish Tim Burton would try something different for a change. And something completely new, too, not an adaptation of something. Grr.

And yeah, why is Johnny Depp the only one billed? This film got an AMAZING cast (hello, Stephen Freaking Fry is the Cheshire Cat!), flaunt it.

Extremely apprehensive with regards to this.

Posted by: Linda at December 17, 2009 6:29 AM

I love Tim Burton's old films and grew up watching them, but I just don't care about this at all. He's become such a one trick pony, I can't remember the last time he directed something that wasn't a remake. I already know exactly what this will be like without watching it.

Posted by: Some kind of non-giving up school guy at December 17, 2009 12:29 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time