Originally posted by EvilBoris
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland
Collapse
X
-
It looks like a trailer for a 90s FMV game. Also, at times, it looked like it was a Shrek movie.
I have mixed feelings about this. Because it's Tim Burton, I have some hope it will be good, but that trailer doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. Johnny Depp was a nightmare in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and it looks like he could be irritating and spoil this new film.
I like Johnny Depp, but he's not suited to every part. Overall, the film is looking too reliant on CGI and the style looks to be very formulaic.
It was funny to see Blinx again.
Comment
-
*shudder*
I'm not usually one to pass judgment, but - based purely on that trailer - the CGI shown is horrible. I was hoping we were steadily going beyond that irritably obvious use of computer-rendered scenes and characters that literally pop out of the screen, like a splash of black paint on a white canvas. I haven't been a fan of any Tim Burton's newer works and my god Johnny Depp ruined the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for me, which is a shame because I'm usually a fan of Mr. D (and had high hopes for the remake).
Anyhoo! This is probably one of my most pessimistic postsi've left this year!
edit: by 'pop' i don't mean, literally pop, like something popping out of the screen, but rather something obviously out of place... like (as mentioned, 'a black splash on a white canvas'). Sadly, something all poor CGI suffers from.Last edited by Adam Stone; 16-12-2009, 21:27.
Comment
-
Fair dos mate, but that's still not what I meant! :-)Last edited by Adam Stone; 17-12-2009, 18:08.
Comment
-
Just seen it. Was a bit poor.
For the first 1/3rd, when they're introducing the characters, it's pretty good. Once you've met everyone it's very poor.
Outside of the character designs there's no imagination. The story is pretty much a bland, by the numbers fantasy with Alice in Wonderland characters put in, complete with a pointless 'epic' battle as a finale. Aside from the Mad Hatter (who has become a freedom fighter), there's no depth to the characters nor are they surprising or quirky enough to keep the film interesting. Depp is very poor, his accent switches between incomprehensible scottish to English at random and his makeup is never convincing (he never looks like an odd man, just like a man in face paint wearing contacts).
Dissapointing, they spent the whole time working on the designs and next to no effort was put in an interesting story (it's a sequel to the books, not a retelling). Also, don't pay extra to watch the film in 3D, it isn't immersive in the slightest (I believe it was a film converted to 3D, not shot in 3D).
Comment
-
I watched on Friday at the IMAX in 3D and thought it was quite decent, I certainly wouldn't say it was poor anyway.
The film itself is not spectacular but still decent. I would recommend it as a good one time watch. I thought Johnny Depp was good as the Mad Hatter and the rest of the cast did a good job too. I will probably be the only one but, hey, I enjoyed it.
As for the 3D, it was pretty good. Not at the levels of Avatar but not too shabby by any means.Last edited by ezee ryder; 07-03-2010, 16:22.
Comment
-
Any films using the proper cameras.
What they did here was film in 2D then made the CG 3D and positioned characters filmed in 2D on a 3D plane (if that makes any sense).
I struggled to notice it was 3D to be honest (except with the main title logo which, like most large 3D text resulted in double vision from trying to focus on a wide area)
Comment
Comment