# Alice and friends through the looking glass



## Drayx (Jun 1, 2016)

I'm going to be harsh-
*Is it worth it? Is the movie that good or just a downfall?*

The previous movie was a great promise - and one of the most dull movies I ever set my eyes on. 
They just feed you with a lot of effects, CG, CG, CG - more effects, 3D shinnies and such. In order to suffer the horrible plot, the slap to the complicated and thrilling creation of Lewis Carroll - I needed to shut off my mind, and wished to go through lobotomy just to make it watchable. 

This is also a work of anthro's, of fabled creatures and strange animals - all have a symbolic part in the great book (or books). But I doubt if they succeeded in conveying any of the original magic and imagination. The old animation movie of Disney, was strange and wild. It was not the greatest movie, but it was a cornerstone for weird films, and a brave attempt of trying to do something new. Is the current movie worth my money?

Maybe I'm a fan of the original written word, and find the new movie quite boring that I cannot bring myself to the cinema to watch it. But if you have watched it - please give us your insights.  

(Oh - and Sacha Baron Cohen looks great in the trailer, I'll give him that)


----------



## Peaches-and-Dreams (Jun 1, 2016)

I'm getting a similar feeling from what we've seen from beauty and the beast so far
I'm going to watch the movie (but not in cinemas) because I'm a textiles nerd and the costumes look beautiful


----------



## Drayx (Jun 1, 2016)

Peaches-and-Dreams said:


> I'm getting a similar feeling from what we've seen from beauty and the beast so far
> I'm going to watch the movie (but not in cinemas) because I'm a textiles nerd and the costumes look beautiful




I agree on the artistic side,


----------



## Peaches-and-Dreams (Jun 1, 2016)

Drayx said:


> I agree on the artistic side,


It's weird because the world is so vibrant, even at its darkest points in the book, whereas these just look high contrast and grey, the characters are bright but the world looks dark


----------



## Papa Dragon (Jun 2, 2016)

I rather enjoyed both films. There films *based *on the books. So should not necessarily be compared to the written work.  The books are amazing by the way. 
I have seen 5 or 6 different film/tv adaptations and each is a different take on the story. Some are better then others, and thats more on the writing then how faithful they where to the original work.


----------



## Papa Dragon (Jun 2, 2016)

Peaches-and-Dreams said:


> It's weird because the world is so vibrant, even at its darkest points in the book, whereas these just look high contrast and grey, the characters are bright but the world looks dark



I would say thats more Tim Burton's influence.  A lot of his movies are like that.


----------



## ArtVulpine (Jun 2, 2016)

I liked the movie. Sascha Baron Cohen played an awesome Time, Helena Bohem Carter played a great Red Queen again and Johnny Depp was an awesome Mad Hatter. The plot wasn't as good as the first, but still satisfied. The CGI was amazingas was the music.


----------



## Drayx (Jun 3, 2016)

Papa Dragon said:


> I rather enjoyed both films. There films *based *on the books. So should not necessarily be compared to the written work.  The books are amazing by the way.
> I have seen 5 or 6 different film/tv adaptations and each is a different take on the story. Some are better then others, and thats more on the writing then how faithful they where to the original work.



I agree to some extent - a movie based on book is an interpretation or a sort of "translation" - it will never be the exact thing, and that's the way it should be.
However I have a problem when effects and expensive are CGI taking over plot, ideas and the overall play.
The game American McGee Alice is a good example of retelling the story and using amazing dark and cynical theme. It's not "loyal" to the original - it is a new story - but it gives credit to the original, it is inspiring by itself. 
Tim Burton is one of the best and original directors out there, and this movie (the first I mean) was a disappointment to his own skills and to the original story. 
And yes - when you're taking the job of retelling great famous stories - do a good job or don't do it at all.
I dislike this money machine and how it keeps on recycling the same ideas of prophecies and magical items.


----------



## Papa Dragon (Jun 3, 2016)

Drayx said:


> I agree to some extent - a movie based on book is an interpretation or a sort of "translation" - it will never be the exact thing, and that's the way it should be.
> However I have a problem when effects and expensive are CGI taking over plot, ideas and the overall play.
> The game American McGee Alice is a good example of retelling the story and using amazing dark and cynical theme. It's not "loyal" to the original - it is a new story - but it gives credit to the original, it is inspiring by itself.
> Tim Burton is one of the best and original directors out there, and this movie (the first I mean) was a disappointment to his own skills and to the original story.
> ...



I keep hearing about that game, yet have never played it.
As far as the effects go, I don't think they overshadowed/detracted from the film. I can agree that the parts of the story where weak and at times played it a little to safe. 
Tim Burton did not direct he was one of several producers of the film. Granted I have also seen him credited as the director in some places.
James Bobin directed. And I don't understand why he was picked. He did two Muppet movies and largely tv.


----------

