Kevin's Watch

Three of us went, two of us could have waited for the DVD. Somewhat disappointing and warped version of the story to try to make it more adult, but I would have perfered Burton didn't tamper with it so much. More dark, very little humor (although it was tempted) and some really odd why-he-put-that-in-here moments. The 3D glasses were a waste, so don't bother; not really needed like it was for Avatar. Now, I like dark and creepy, but something...alot of something...was missing in this one.

I have to say I'm getting tired of Johnny Depp in these kind of roles. I would be more interested in seeing this one if it wasn't for that.

I have no problem with Johnny Depp, though it seems like the whole movie is about the Mad Hatter, from the previews. And from what I've seen of his costume, I hope he is in it a much as in the books (very little). It looks like something I probably won't enjoy anyway, and after not being very pleased with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Tim Burton in general, I'm in no hurry to see it. But it might surprise me.

Apparently someone I know is an extra in this. He has one scene, no dialogue. I don't yet know which scene. As I understand it, he was cast because they wanted someone male, ginger, and able to follow instructions.

In any case, I'm interested in seeing the film because alice in Wonderland seems like it would suit Tim Burton's style.

Saw it tonight. I thought the 3D would make it tolerable, but the 3D showing was sold out, so we saw it in 2D.

The first half was boring, for the most part, everything falling into the "interesting, but why should I care?" category. The second half picked up, though. By then there was something of a plot.

In the end, though, a lot of stuff just didn't make sense, and not in a Wonderland kind of way.

I did see a preview of owls wearing battle helms. Now that looks horrible.

I was profoundly underwhelmed by this film. Totally run-of-the-mill.

CovenantJr wrote:As I understand it, he was cast because they wanted someone male, ginger, and able to follow instructions.

I want someone female, ginger, and able to follow instructions. Like her.

Hot d***, er, dame

Who is that, and what's the pic from?

I believe it is Karen Gillan, and she is Doctor Who's new assistant. And I'm sad I don't get to see any new episodes for a while.

Cagliostro wrote:I believe it is Karen Gillan, and she is Doctor Who's new assistant. And I'm sad I don't get to see any new episodes for a while.

Also, she was in the Dr #10/Donna Noble episode Fires of Pompeii as the daughter of their host family in that episode

I wrote a review: zahirblue.blogspot.com/2010/03/alice-in ... eview.html.

Cagliostro wrote:

CovenantJr wrote:As I understand it, he was cast because they wanted someone male, ginger, and able to follow instructions.

I want someone female, ginger, and able to follow instructions. Like her.

ME TOO!!! wait.. i have one. doestn follow instructions so well though

I Liked Alice in Wonderland, it wasnt as good as i thought it would be though.. and you really didnt miss much with the 3d. (maybe i was sitting too close) Imax 3d would probably be much better than the real-d 3d the best part was the flying scenes while wearing the glasses. I particularly liked Depp as the Mad Hatter, strangely enough he actually looked like Elija Wood AKA Frodo, with the eyes to me, it was darker than i thought it would be but with Burton thats what you kind of expect. Loved the Cheshire cat.. it probably would have been better in 2-d because the edges of the screen blurred rather than popped out, pop out is what Imax 3d is for, however its harder on the brain to process and gives you a headache after an hour or so, so i read when trying to find out why my glasses wouldnt work on a 3d movie at home..., there is no imax near enough to me. I think they have a good thing going with the 3d.. its getting people back in the theaters, though it may wear off after they mass produce 3d with substandard films.

I liked it, and I just about had to be dragged to it. Theres something to be said for the more adult oriented version, its watchable. Its not a musical, fantastic Im on board. Ironically the only recent musical that I have enjoyed was Sweeney Todd. Also I think it important to mention that this is a Tim Burton film, and for the most part I got exactly what I expected from him. I enjoyed this film much more than Avatar , and will purchase it on DVD for my girls....... oh yeah I stole the glasses again.

Mr. Broken wrote:I liked it, and I just about had to be dragged to it. Theres something to be said for the more adult oriented version, its watchable. Its not a musical, fantastic Im on board. Ironically the only recent musical that I have enjoyed was Sweeney Todd. Also I think it important to mention that this is a Tim Burton film, and for the most part I got exactly what I expected from him. I enjoyed this film much more than Avatar , and will purchase it on DVD for my girls....... oh yeah I stole the glasses again.

hehe...so did I thinking cool i can watch 3d at home with these..but nope.. they dont work at all due to dual layer projection and the silver screen they use for the projection. I even went to the theater with my glasses and said ..we dont need the extra charge for glasses .. of course they didnt knock off the extra 3$ a person. I think the 3-d Imax Glasses will work at home but not the real d 3-d

It's $3 a person cause of you guys who steal the glasses! If no one stole, then they'd be free!

Spoiler

I have a pair, too.

Spoiler

Actually, mines from UP.

I have a confession to make. Even if the glasses dont work at home, Im gonna keep stealing them.