A few words about...™ Alice in Wonderland -- in Blu-ray

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

No problems whatsoever to be found here.  The newest Alice would make a worthy addition to any Blu-ray library.

Recommended.

RAH

Not if you aren't counting the movie itself.

First half was a rehash of the Disney movie the second half was just not interesting.

Depp barely has anything to do.

There is a movie that came out in the middle 80's that does the same thing as this, only better

it is called  "Return To Oz".

I agree with the technical review. As far as film adaptations go, my favorite is the 1985 CBS miniseries. It is faithful to both Alice books, and the dvd looks great!

Mr. Harris,

Interesting notes about the early printing. My favorite, more contemporary offering is 'The Annotated Alice' with introduction and notes by Martin Gardner. The book contains both Alice stories, and copious interesting notes about the Carroll era. The nicely produced hardback version is available for an easy going price from our favorite online "seller of all things".

So far as the Burton version: he certainly offers an interesting ride, as he most always manages to do. But then, I'm a Burton fan.

Viewing the BD, at least on my set-up, the opening sequence seemed a bit lackluster, lacking contrast, and having a somewhat dullish blue-green coloration. I wonder if others had the same impression, and if it was intentional, with Burton wanting to reduce the real world in anticipation of stepping into Wonderland.

As far as the books go, I love my Books of Wonder reproductions. The type setting, and prints from the original woodblocks, as well as the gilded pages (gold for Wonderland, silver for Looking-Glass) make for a classy presentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard 

As far as the books go, I love my Books of Wonder reproductions. The type setting, and prints from the original woodblocks, as well as the gilded pages (gold for Wonderland, silver for Looking-Glass) make for a classy presentation.

The Annotated Alice certainly can't compete with yours for value and elegance. But the vast amount of notes put many aspects of the stories into cultural relevance to Victorian era England, and assist people of our present age in understanding the origin of the stories and the choice of descriptions and imagery. Some are of the opinion that all the added notes and references detract from the original material. I can understand their perspective, but do not feel that way personally; either way, the annotated edition makes a good companion piece in a collection.  

Perhaps someday I'll add your gilded volumes to my collection.

I blind-bought this based on good word from co-workers and the super deal at the Disney Store.  Nice to know the A/V quality is high.  Two questions:

1. Is this appropriate for young children?

2. As I understand it, this is a sort of sequel to the original story.  Would it be better to wait for the Disney version first before showing this to the family (who aren't familiar with the original)?

Thanks for any help!

That depends upon how young the young children are, and what they've watched previously. Families and children are different. None of Burton's work can be said to be completely child-friendly. All of it has a dark element, as does this one. Might want to give it a spin on your own, first, if you want to be certain.

That being said: my mother dropped me and my sister off at a theatrical showing of 'Psycho'. I was seven years old. I survived the experience, but wouldn't take a shower for almost a year...only baths, with the shower curtain all the way open.

Alice couldn't be all that bad.  :) 

How young is young?

This version of the story is a lot darker than Walt's 1951 version. They don't have much in common with each other, other than the use of certain characters. Burton's version is basically a linear, good vs evil battle story. Even though the visuals are impressive, the story is a lot less whimsical than the animated film. Parts of Burton's film could be disturbing for a young child. For example, there is a scene where Alice has to cross a moat on the floating heads of the Red Queen's beheaded enemies.

Personally, the visuals in Burton's film are impressive but I prefer the animated film because it's episodic, less linear, storytelling captures the stream of conciousness of the dream state a little better than Burton's linearly told battle story. Also the the Mad Hatter's Tea Party is sort of recreated in Burton's film and it doesn't hold a candle to the nuttiness of the tea party in Walt's version. I also think the Mad Hatter in Walt's version captures the essence of the character much better than Johnny Depp's manic/depressive character.

The best thing to do is to watch the film alone or with your wife and then decide together whether it is appropriate for your kids to watch.

I should also mention that there is some flashbacks to her earlier visit that reference the earlier animated version, so watching that one first could help put Burton's version in context; however, for a young kid I don't know whether that would matter or not.

*snort*  

:)

....

I'm sure the Alice Blu-ray is perfection but the movie itself is greatly lacking.  

I'd rather spend my pennies on something I actually want to see a second time.

I think you should spoilerize part of your comment. The plot point you're referencing is a major one. 

Yeah, for TWO movies!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin-S 

Parts of Burton's film could be disturbing for a young child. For example, there is a scene where Alice has to cross a moat on the floating heads of the Red Queen's beheaded enemies.

Thanks -- I think I'll save this one for Mommy & Daddy Alone Time.  :)
 

No problem. I can't honestly say that I'm a big fan of Tim Burton as a storyteller, but I'm always impressed by his visual sense and this film is no exception. His realization of the non-human characters is very well done. The Cheshire cat is a highlight; although, the Dormouse happens to be my favorite in this film. Her scenes are very brief, but for me she steals the scene when she makes her appearances. The voice actress makes the most of what dialogue she is given.

I have the same feelings about him.  Love the visuals; his best films are collaborations (Big Fish and Sweeney Todd based on other material; Nightmare Before Christmas directed by Henry Selick).

Getting curiouser and curiouser about Alice.  :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman 

I have the same feelings about him.  Love the visuals; his best films are collaborations (Big Fish and Sweeney Todd based on other material; Nightmare Before Christmas directed by Henry Selick).

 

I've always thought that Tim Burton would be better off as an art director/set designer than as a director.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertR 

I've always thought that Tim Burton would be better off as an art director/set designer than as a director.
 

I don't think so. The art director has to adjust to the director's wishes, and seeing what kind of stuff he did while he worked at Disney, that's not his strongest point. Tim Burton is a great director, but he just needs the right material for him (he always said that he wouldn't know a good script if it hit him in the face), instead of giving everything the same treatment. Alice in Wonderland was completely generic, and could've been so much better.

I enjoyed this in theatres (in 3D), but didn't think it needed 3D to be a success. Got the BD for $5 ($10 off coupon plus $20 Best Buy Reward Zone certificate).