Posted on 03/05/2010 7:06:44 AM PST by Neoavatara
Louis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland is one of the great children novels in children's literature. Its imaginary world, with numerous adult themed allegories, makes it an interesting read for both children and adults.
In all honesty...I have not read the book since high school. And my kid is not old enough yet for this book. But the way I remember it, the story is really...a story without a real story line, without key relationships, and kind of a wandering maze of events. Very difficult to build a movie around.
Of course, if there is any director that could pull it off, it is Tim Burton. And he almost does it. Almost.
(Excerpt) Read more at neoavatara.com ...
I think the key point of Burton’s movie is it’s about her “return” to Wonderland as a young woman, not the first visit when she was a child.
A new twist and the family and I will see it later next week.
You will enjoy it, I think.
I haven’t liked anything Tim Burton has done.
His movies are creepy, even when the subject isn’t creepy.
I liked Beetlejuice - mostly due to Michael Keaton.
Burton’s movies are too dark - I won’t be seeing this one.
Wow. I clicked on the link to your review. “Dazzling visual experience” — is that ALL you’ve got to say about the movie?
Overly critical you ask?
Yeah, just a tad.
I tend to like films with strong visual styles. It doesn't have to always be a particular visual style, but I like something distinctive. Science Fiction and Fantasy movies tend to have more excuse for an "interesting look" but other films can achieve this.
"Blade Runner" had a distinctive look.
"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" had a distinctive look.
"Streets of Fire" by Walter Hill had a distinctive look.
Tim Burton films always have a distinctive look.
Terry Gilliam films always have a distinctive look.
My question: Is there a cinematic term for this? It's not cinematography. It's more than set design. Is this something that the Director brings to the table himself -- or does he go and hire someone who then provides this visual sense?
I think I'm asking a vocabulary question, but maybe the answer is just "that's what the director does you fool".
Thoughts?
“Is this something that the Director brings to the table himself — or does he go and hire someone who then provides this visual sense?”
Maybe this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYS732zyYfU
I just think the novelty of 3D, by itself, is not enough for a movie.
I had so much more hope for this movie. The script is, well, routine. It is something I could have written...and I am not that imaginative.
I think if you see the movie, you will know what I mean. The visuals are awesome...the story is only so-so.
Avatar didn’t make 3D passe, it was already passe. Just like the other times they’ve foisted 3D on us it’s largely a gimmick (”look at our shiny expensive effects... IN 3D!”), this time it’s a gimmick to charge an extra $1.50 a ticket for the glasses. A good story doesn’t need the 3D, and if the movie needs the 3D you shouldn’t waste your time on it.
Tim Burton has a fascination with strange mechanical devices and human flesh. When I see his movies, I have to skirt that stuff mentally - even if the movie is good, I hate those scenes. I’ve never been able to watch Edward Scissorhands at all.
One thing I did like about the movie is the score. Amazon had a free download from it the other day. Danny Elfman did it.
A lot of visual sense comes from the team of the cinematographer, the lighting director, and the set decorator (and sometimes location scout if they’re filming on location). Of course really good directors tend to keep that team together as much as possible, and he still gets final say on all decisions.
As for the vocabulary word, no idea.
I was happy to see you mention Streets of Fire, one of those movies that fell out of the world’s mind. Great soundtrack, great look, numerous soon to be stars and near stars, entirely pedestrian plot, but all around a fun little movie.
Not all of them were too dark. How could you not like Pee-wee’s Big Adventure?
Ditto.
Since learning that Louis Carroll was a pedophile, this subject is indeed creepy to me.
Exactly. I passed on Charlie and I’ll pass on this one.
Now as to your comments. I agree with you. Bells and whistles and just bells and whistles. They are not a substitute for story and characters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.