Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

[Shoes]

I think Selick is still working on (I hope) the Fantastic Mr Fox.

He left to work on Neil Gaiman's Coraline.

I pretty much vetoed Tim since watching his Planet of the Apes, one of the worst films I've ever seen. Should I get Big Fish?

[linkster]

Yes, it's brilliant

[Shoes]

For you, linkster, anything.

[Made of Ghosts]

I'm interested, if only because every other version of Alice I've seen has been completely terrible.

[Beitel]

Burton has become a bit stale the last couple of years. His films weren't perfect to begin with, but Charlie, Sleepy Hollow and such don't seem to made with real passion. They're just nice, but also a bit boring. I haven't seen Big Fish for years, I remember not being blown away by it, but it was more interesting than most of Burton's work.

[JPickford]

I'm interested, if only because every other version of Alice I've seen has been completely terrible.

Even the Jan Švankmajer one?

[Chosty]

Burton has become a bit stale the last couple of years. His films weren't perfect to begin with, but Charlie, Sleepy Hollow and such don't seem to made with real passion. They're just nice, but also a bit boring. I haven't seen Big Fish for years, I remember not being blown away by it, but it was more interesting than most of Burton's work.

I certainly agree with your views on 'Charlie and Chocolate Factory' and 'Sleepy Hollow'. Sure, they look nice, but underneath that glossy surreal production design, there's not much there. It's just a hollow. As you say, they're actually a bit dull, which some people have real trouble accepting. A film needs more (much more) than great visuals, and furthermore, great visuals are more than just wacky production design.

I never particularly liked the Gene Wilder film because it strayed too much from the book. The Burton version was more closely matched, but I think this actually hindered the film, because the book is essentially just a series of set pieces - once the golden tickets have been found there's really no narrative thread, just a group of people moving from room to room where something happens to some of them. The added stuff about Wonka's father was an attempt to add some depth to Wonka, but I didn't particularly like it. Ironically, I watched the Gene Wilder film a few weeks ago with my son and quite enjoyed it. There's more of a heart to it, which I think is absent from some of Burton's work.

A few years ago I would have jumped for joy at the news that Burton was making an 'Alice in Wonderland' film - a perfect match, I would have said. But now I don't have that enthusiasm. I hope I'm proved wrong, because I really love the book, and I love 'Through the Looking Glass' even more. If the film does well, I'm sure a sequel will follow.

[linkster]

I certainly agree with your views on 'Charlie and Chocolate Factory' and 'Sleepy Hollow'. Sure, they look nice, but underneath that glossy surreal production design, there's not much there. It's just a hollow. As you say, they're actually a bit dull, which some people have real trouble accepting. A film needs more (much more) than great visuals, and furthermore, great visuals are more than just wacky production design.

I disagree. A film can be entertainment, pure and simple. Very often we're asked to accept utter crap as entertainment on the basis that it has no subtsance, dreadful acting or writing, product placement everywhere, but you're some kind of humourless tosser if you dare criticise it as such (cough TRANSFORMERS cough). None of these can apply to Sleepy Hollow. True, when I saw the trailer I whistled the theme to Scooby Doo. But it has one of the best casts ever - it's amazing. Depp, Christina Ricci, Richard Griffiths, Ian MacDiarmid, Michael Gambon, Christopher Lee, Miranada Richardson, Christopher Walken, hell even Ray Park shows up and has bags of charisma even minus a head. Depp's acting is OTT but it fits nicely, the dialogue is witty and understated and it's gloriously violent as a great fairy tale should be. I really regret being put off by the trailer and skipping it at the cinema.

[JPickford]

I disagree. A film can be entertainment, pure and simple. Very often we're asked to accept utter crap as entertainment on the basis that it has no subtsance, dreadful acting or writing, product placement everywhere, but you're some kind of humourless tosser if you dare criticise it as such (cough TRANSFORMERS cough). None of these can apply to Sleepy Hollow. True, when I saw the trailer I whistled the theme to Scooby Doo. But it has one of the best casts ever - it's amazing. Depp, Christina Ricci, Richard Griffiths, Ian MacDiarmid, Michael Gambon, Christopher Lee, Miranada Richardson, Christopher Walken, hell even Ray Park shows up and has bags of charisma even minus a head. Depp's acting is OTT but it fits nicely, the dialogue is witty and understated and it's gloriously violent as a great fairy tale should be. I really regret being put off by the trailer and skipping it at the cinema.

It's just a rubbish go-nowhere story though. It starts off with Depp seeming to know about early forensics (which could have been interesting - ripped off from a Caleb Carr book I think) but they also make him stupid and incomptetent for no apparent reason. That stuff gets forgotten and instead of a clever solution to the mystery we get real ghosts and whatnot. It's just a mess like all of Tim Burtons attempts at story telling.

[linkster]

It's just a rubbish go-nowhere story though. It starts off with Depp seeming to know about early forensics (which could have been interesting - ripped off from a Caleb Carr book I think) but they also make him stupid and incomptetent for no apparent reason. That stuff gets forgotten and instead of a clever solution to the mystery we get real ghosts and whatnot. It's just a mess like all of Tim Burtons attempts at story telling.

I know you don't like the guy but criticising it for not being a serious look at the evolution of forensic science is a bit thin.. it's a black comedy, a ghost story, in which an amateur surgeon (who hates the sight of blood - crazy! - but he's not stupid or incompetent) who believes science can prove all is shown to be a little misguided. It's the anti Scooby Doo - it would have been awful if the headless rider turned out to be old man Winters or whatever. Like Dr Who turning out to be a nutcase who lives in a box.

[Chosty]

I disagree. A film can be entertainment, pure and simple. Very often we're asked to accept utter crap as entertainment on the basis that it has no subtsance, dreadful acting or writing, product placement everywhere, but you're some kind of humourless tosser if you dare criticise it as such (cough TRANSFORMERS cough). None of these can apply to Sleepy Hollow. True, when I saw the trailer I whistled the theme to Scooby Doo. But it has one of the best casts ever - it's amazing. Depp, Christina Ricci, Richard Griffiths, Ian MacDiarmid, Michael Gambon, Christopher Lee, Miranada Richardson, Christopher Walken, hell even Ray Park shows up and has bags of charisma even minus a head. Depp's acting is OTT but it fits nicely, the dialogue is witty and understated and it's gloriously violent as a great fairy tale should be. I really regret being put off by the trailer and skipping it at the cinema.

I don't disagree that a film can be entertainment, pure and simple. There are plenty of films that I like that are exactly that, but 'Sleepy Hollow' isn't really one of them. After a while, Burton's style becomes so familiar that you start to look for something else, and, for me, it's not there.

It's not that I disliked the film or found it to be utter crap - I wanted to like it, and there are some genuinely enjoyable moments and scenes - but as a whole I found it to be nothing special. It's quite hard to define exactly why it didn't grab me as there's no one thing that stood out as being particularly bad - it's more a case of the whole being less than the sum of its parts. I don't really have any urge to see it again.

[Vemsie]

Sleepy Hollow is actually one of my fave Burton movies. It reminds me of old fairy tales I used to read as a child. Sometimes the whole atmosphere of a film is enough to hook me and that was definitely the case with this film. The foggy fields, the twisted trees, the scarecrows and sheep, the windmill.... Great stuff. The back story of Depps mother is actually quite haunting but fits in with the rest of his work thematically (someone who is different from the rest and becomes an outcast for that very reason).

[JPickford]

I know you don't like the guy but criticising it for not being a serious look at the evolution of forensic science is a bit thin..

That's not what I meant. They started with something and then forgot about it.

It's the anti Scooby Doo - it would have been awful if the headless rider turned out to be old man Winters or whatever. Like Dr Who turning out to be a nutcase who lives in a box.

Well I just disagree about that. The supernatural stuff just underminded the whole thing for me.

[linkster]

That's not what I meant. They started with something and then forgot about it.

No, sorry but they really didn't - the point at the beginning was him making the case for forensic science to the NYC authorities who were highly sceptical. His belief that science could explain everything is what got him sent to Sleepy Hollow. It was the point of the film that ultimately he had to accept he was wrong.

[Shoes]

I'm interested, if only because every other version of Alice I've seen has been completely terrible.

I think it's time you watch 'Alice in Acidland'.

[Made of Ghosts]

Even the Jan Švankmajer one?

Not seen it. Actually looking at Wikipedia there are loads of versions I've not seen. I've only seen the 1999 one which was pretty but boring, the Disney one that was ok but too Disney, and either the one with Peter Cook or the one with Dudley Moore. It really is awkward of them to have been in different versions. It might have had Spike Milligan in it which makes it the 1972 one. Whichever one it was, it was totally awful. But any one of the dozen or so versions I've not seen might be undisputed masterpieces.

[JPickford]

There's a porno musical version too. Apparently.

[Chosty]

With Alice still as as a little girl?

Edit: apparently not

[Shoes]

It's pretty funny; bizarre; 70s. And Alice is hot.

[barkbat]

I'll tell you what was wrong with Sleepy Hollow. The story. It's completely unremarkable. A by numbers who dun it. They stuck a whole load of sugary bollocks over it to hide the fact, but you can't get away with how resolutely dull it was. It should have been an episode of Joanathon Creek or something.

[Goose]

Depp onboard, but in what capacity?

After it was announced that Tim Burton would direct "Alice in Wonderland 3-D," a take on the classic Lewis Carroll fairy tale, fans assumed that Johnny Depp would somehow have to be involved. Burton and Depp have previously collaborated on six previous films, including "Sweeney Todd," "Sleepy Hollow," "Edward Scissorhands" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."

Now, Entertainment Weekly is reporting that fans' suspicions are absolutely true. But whether he will play the rumored Mad Hatter is still unknown.

A source revealed that the film will be live-action until Alice (Mia Wasikowska) jumps down the rabbit hole and meets the loopy tea party host. Even if Depp does take on the Mad Hatter, there is still the question of whether he will have to do any acting or simply lend his voice for the computer-generated part of the film.

At this point, the new movie is set to begin filming early next year for a 2010 release. Linda Woolverton (Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King) penned the script.

[Shoes]

Yes, it's brilliant

You're right. It was magical. I was bawling like a baby at the end.

[Campfire_Burning]

They're casting extras for this in Plymouth right now. Looking for maidens with long hair, men with beards, and people over sixteen (or sixty - I didn't quite catch that part).

Open auditions were yesterday and today, so if anyone wants to be a break-out star, you'd better get down to the Pavillions sharpish.

[Goose]

Depp officially confirmed

Disney officially announced today that Johnny Depp will star as the Mad Hatter in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

It was also revealed Burton is shooting the film in 3-D.

The film is based, naturally, on the Lewis Carroll classic "Alice in Wonderland," and will combine performance-capture imagery, similar to Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf, with live-action footage.

Depp is joining previously cast actors Mia Wasikowska (as Alice) and Matt Lucas. Disney has set a release date of March 5, 2010.

[JohnC]

Heard today that Disney officially announced Depp will also be doing Pirates 4 and The Lone Ranger, playing Tonto.

[lordcookie]

Yay more PotC!

[Goose]

First shot of Alice

[redbloodcell]

Heard today that Disney officially announced Depp will also be doing Pirates 4 and The Lone Ranger, playing Tonto.

Really?! who's playing the Ranger himself or has that not been disclosed?

[Goose]

George Clooney is in talks, if you believe the press.

[Comrade]

According to himself on Jonathan Ross just now, apparently Matt Lucas is playing Tweedledum and Tweedledee in this.