New Alice, same issues
Most of the many attempts at filming Alice In Wonderland haven't been particularly successful, for two reasons. First, directors seem to feel that the movie must have a strong male character. Lewis Carroll didn't give them one (all the male characters in the books are rather spineless and feeble) so they invent their own, usually, for some reason, the Mad Hatter. Second, they misread the character of Alice. In the book she is headstrong, inquisitive and feisty; she dominates the other characters even as she takes part in their fantastic world. She is not a spectator, watching what they do, but a full participant, accepting. or more often rejecting, their view of life. She's not, nor is she meant to be, a nice girl meekly accepting what befalls her.

Unfortunately, Tim Burton's 'Alice' falls into both these traps. Instead of being a passing character Alice meets along the way, the Mad Hatter becomes central to the film and in doing so destroys much of the point of the tale. Alice herself, though she has her moments of rebellion, is played far too passively; she's more often merely watching what goes on in Wonderland. In making her character too detached, Burton loses the involvement that the audience should feel and which has made the books so successful for so long.

On the plus side, Wonderland itself is marvelously realized. I love the bright colors, the ever-more-convincing computer graphics and the strange flora and fauna which inhabit this suitably dream-like place. Everything looks as it's supposed to- distorted versions of reality, only possible in the imagination. The story meanders far from the original tales, but I have no problem with that, as long as it holds together. Tim Burton is the master at making a fantasy world come to life.

It's a fun movie to watch. It just doesn't make the audience feel involved.

Review: "Alice in Wonderland"
Finally! The long awaited Alice in Wonderland has screened in thousands of theaters across the country. Now... how was it?! Ok, I've done this a few times before and it seems to get the best response. I'll go through what I liked and didn't like about the movie.

What I liked:

'Underland':
What did you expect from Tim Burton? Seriously, was there a doubt that this man was going to make 'Underland' anything less than magnificent? The world looks and feels familiar, yet so very different. It has a very eerie, Gothic feel, that makes you just a little bit uneasy... which I'm sure Alice must feel as she enters this strange world. The colors, the animals, creatures, all amazing. I don't want to focus too much on this point... but watch the film in 2D. My wife and I watched in 3D and to be completely honest, it took away from the movie for me. So many details are blurry (a big negative to 3D), that I would rather enjoy them in 2D.

The cast/characters:
Again, what did you expect? So much talent, so many unbelievable characters it's ridiculous. Let me start with Johnny Depp, he does an amazing job as the lovable, yet crazy Mad Hatter. He has to be charming enough for you to care, and goofy enough to make you think he's nuts... without being annoying. Great work.

Helen Bonham Carter STEALS THE SHOW! She's sooo good, she's so talented, so funny I couldn't wait for her to reappear onscreen. Pay close attention to the amazing acting she does with her face alone, because her body is slightly twisted for the movie. Mia Wasikowska does great as a curious, scared, confident Alice.

The characters were mostly CGI all of which are stunning. Great to look at, great voice acting and just overall a orgasm for the eyes. Anne Hathaway... I still think you're the most overrated actress in Hollywood, 'nuff said.



What I didn't like:

The story:
This is perhaps the deal breaker for me as far as giving this movie a thumbs up approval. The story is simple, and I understand that's good for families going to see the film, but come ooooon! I don't want to spoil anything, but I promise you this... you will leave asking yourself "who cares?" Seriously, why even make the movie with such a weak story? As I was watching the film, I thought to myself, "oh, this happened in the 1951 Disney cartoon. Oh those characters are in the cartoon. Oh that is a cool CGI version of the cartoon." There wasn't enough of a difference from the cartoon classic to consider this a true sequel, as much as a reboot with CGI. So disappointing there wasn't more meat to the story... SO DISAPPOINTING!

My own expectation:
Look, this is an interpersonal issue, and I understand that. But you're on our blog, so I'm assuming you care what we feel. I felt like I was so let down. I feel like it was such a lost opportunity to make something so special. The talent was there, the characters were there, the technology was there, but.... flat. So flat. A year now of solid anticipation and I walked out so let down.



Maybe I'm being harsh, maybe I "missed the point", but I really did feel let down. It's ok, Burton and company are going to be fine, because the movie is going to do well, VERY WELL. It was sold out 1:40 PM showing on Friday afternoon, a school day. So look for big numbers, check out the movie and lets compare scoring points.

C+
My thumb is down.

Alice in Dysneyland
A very ugly caricature of a great book. Its box office success reflects poorly on contemporary culture.

Mad About the Mad Hatter
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course. But it seems to me that too few people are able to really sit down and let themselves go and be taken along for the ride in a movie these days, while too many prefer to watch a movie with a cynical eye, actively looking for things to criticize (perhaps in seeking to write a "witty" review later on). If you're going to watch a movie based on a child's tale, watch it from your inner child's viewpoint, OK?

After recently seeing Alice in Wonderland, and then searching online for reviews afterward, I was very baffled by some of the venom I saw directed at this movie. Maybe it's just an aversion to the story of Alice in Wonderland itself, more than anything. I admit that, growing up, I never much liked this story. However, seeing the genius with which it was brought to the screen (and DVD), I simply can't take seriously any of the bashing. This was beautifully, masterfully, and bizarrely-done (and bizarre is definitely appropriate for this). Perhaps there was too much CGI, as some have pointed out. I'm not a fan of overdoing CGI. (As much as I love most of Cameron's work, Avatar left me somewhat cold, as CGI just has an empty and soulless feeling to it that we sense, no matter how real it appears to our eyes). For Alice in Wonderland, I suppose the amount of graphics tinkering was necessary, though, because the story itself, as well as the characters, were deeply distorted in all imaginable ways. It managed to avoid having too much of that empty CGI feeling, though, since they combined the effects largely with the actual actors.

This movie made me feel like a little kid, as I watched it wide-eyed and oo-ed at the Cheshire Cat, and ah-ed at the settings, and giggled at the doormouse. It challenged my poor brain with its shape and relative-size distortions, physics-defying moments, and general madness.

And on the subject of madness, ah, Johnny Depp as the Hatter. Nuts for sure, but with silliness and an unexpected vulnerability brought to the part which really caught me off-guard, and which made him so endearing. All the casting was perfectly done, in fact. But I'm mad about the Hatter. :)

I take away 1 star for several moments in the movie where some lines were delivered too muttered, too quietly, and were unintelligible. Maybe it's not the actors, but the audio mixing, and I notice this more and more with movies lately. (And yes my hearing is very good.) Dialogue too quiet, loud parts too loud - dynamics issues. I read a lot of reviews where people mention this about a great number of movies, and they having to turn subtitles on to catch the quiet dialogue. "Alice" suffers just a little bit from this problem.

Other than that....

Bravo Tim Burton!

Wonderland is great
This is a great remake and I really enjoyed it. It came in great condition and I will look for the same seller everytime I want to buy movies.

8 Thumbs Up (2 from everyone in the family)
Hands down, on of my all-time favorite movies. Robert Downey Jr is wonderful, as always. Heart and Souls is laugh out loud funny, get the tissues touching, all with superb acting...... Everything I want in a movie!! Can watch again and again.

Worth watching
Missed this when it came out. Just watched it on hulu. I enjoyed it. Robert Downey Jr really is a good actor.

heart and soul warming
Our family has watched this film for years. It warms our heart every time. Robert Downey Jr was never more likeable. Star studded cast. Cute plot too.

heart and souls
I love this movie. It is different and clean enough for my kids to watch. I would definitely recommend it.

delightful
Downey does such a good job in this. The boardroom scene alone is worth the ticket price. Family friendly, not your typical plot line. So many talented, familiar faces in the cast. Good date night movie.

Clash of the Titans

Basically the same as the earlier one, but with better special effects and more flare. Basically a good addition to my collection.

Clash of the Titans 2010-Bluray
This is an excellent retelling of the legend of Perseus and the clash of the titans (Medusa and the Kraken.) The graphics of this remake are far superior to the 1981 film of the same name whose "graphics" were done by Ray Harryhausen. Harryhausen did good work on other films (in particular one of my favorites-Jason and the Argonauts from the early 1960's), but hey, let's face it; this was not one of Harryhausen's better efforts. The underwater shots, the giant scorpions, the battle with Medusa, the flying horse Pegasus, the ultimate destruction of the Kraken, etc, the whole film is magnificent. For anyone who likes Greek Mythology or just plain good movies with good plots, good photography/graphics, etc, this is a must-have. Especially on High-Definition Bluray.

It was slightly entertaining
Did not follow the original movie as I thought it would. I was not expecting a masterpiece, so I was not as disappointed as others. I found it slightly entertaining, but I would rather watch the original. They are both cheesy, but the first one has nostalgia.

Great at home in 3D!
This was a fun movie, lots of action and adventure, good characters, visually stimulating and has Liam Neeson as Zeus! You can't beat that.

This movie got a lot of flack for being hastily "converted" to 3D at the last minute before being released to theaters. But I thought it actually looked pretty good. I watched it in 3D at home on a regular TV using my TV Eyes 3D glasses. (They're a type of optical 3D glasses that makes regular movies look 3D without having to use a 3D TV or 3D movie).

The effects really looked good. Medusa in her wrecked castle, slithering around everywhere, her whipsnake body lashing and curling over all the pillars looked amazing. Loved the effect when she turned people to stone.

There were several really good 3D scenes, the toppling of the statue of Zeus, with Perseus's family ship in the ocean below the cliffs, you could really see all the way out to the horizon. The confrontation between Zeus and Hades in Olympus. Hades appearing in the hall like a giant angel of death. The attack of the giant scorpions. And, of course, the Kraken. I especially loved the flying chase scene where Perseus, on Pegasus, has to chase one of the harpies all over the besieged city to get back Medusa's head that it had stolen.

Overall, a very visually vibrant movie. It had a good mythological feel to it. A straightforward story without being too simple. Lots of heroism as Perseus fights not only the monsters, but the gods, and the other humans expectations of him.

The star, who also starred in Avatar, was especially good, I thought. Believable without ever overpowering the role with his "stardom" that's a great quality in an actor. He makes the character come to life.

I gave this movie 4 stars. It's not the most amazing movie ever made, but it is a great way to spend a couple of hours on a lazy afternoon. And it looked great in 3D on my TV. Beautiful stuff. (Especially the location shoots which were very atmospheric and lush.)

a film abomination...
In the beginning, it jumps around. There's nothing dramatic about it. Then, it becomes more dramatic, but you never care about any of the characters, except maybe Io, a little. You never get to see the other gods. You can't tell which ones are which. Zeus and Hades look exactly alike, as far as their faces. I couldn't tell them apart when they were visiting mortals in secret, or disguise. What a waste for Fiennes, who usually does a great job. The ending didn't make any sense. He doesn't marry who you'd think, and she gets sent back from heaven, that would suck. I don't mind, but she's like his godmother. Why the heck? What were they thinking? This movie makes zero sense! They jump around. There's no feeling to it. What a waste! Don't buy it unless it's one or two dollars, and even then, you probably shouldn't bother. What a waste of Sam Worthington, as well. I wanted to see him in it, but it's too bad. What the hell is IT? That's what I'd ask about this movie.

Lance is about dedication and service
This a great depiction of the ability of Lance Armstrong to inspire others. He had transended sports and is a YOUNG man with a purpose to his life. This film depicts his power to lead and inspire.

Inspirational
I loved the adversity and triumphs that some of the riders had to go thru at the leadville 100. Very inspiring to see people battle this monster of a bike race.

Makes you wann'a ride!
I feel I know it by heart...
This movie is steamulating. Graphic description of the race route is great. Bit to much buildup. Touchie story embedded.

Gives very good perception of ultra-endurance racing. Colorado views and landscape - just great.
The discussion panel is sticky - editing should have done better job there...

Liked it very much!

Buttom line: After watching it, you'le just want to do one thing - Go Ride!

Inspiring Movie
Great Movie. Made me get a new Mountain bike. Going to Leadville to watch this years race!

Soaring Inspiration from an Unexpected Source
I saw this film in the theater and was fully impressed. I don't think anyone ever imagined that a documentary about cross country mountain biking could be so compelling even when the legendary Lance Armstrong is one of the main characters. While the thrust of the movie is a rematch between reigning Leadville Champion Dave Weins and Tour de France Master Lance Armstrong, the real drama of the story are the lesser known local riders who risk it all in a grueling 100 mile off road race. It covers their dedication and heartache at points in their lives and along the course itself. The backdrop is a small mining town in the upper Rockies that had to find a new way to support itself when the mines shut down. Graphic descriptions of the race are followed by stunning images of the mountains and intimate snapshots of the racers families. To my surprise I shed some tears and the entire audience applauded. Hopefully this film is merely the first to arrive in this new genre.

percy jackson....
I didn't like this movie because of the negative aspects in it. It could have been much better if they would have stuck with the book. The affects are good but the story lines is a little choppy. I wonder if any of this directors even read the books! The supporting actor gave the movie its worst features. I don't recommend this movie to anyone.

Meh
From the title it looks like a Young Adult film (didn't know it was based off of a YA book series) and I was expecting something with production values like Harry Potter or even the Spiderwick Chronicles -- that didn't happen. The story was a bit too fast paced, the acting a bit canned, and the scripting kept me expecting a commercial break. This would have been better as a pilot for a TV series as it could have been fleshed out a bit more.

Waste of talent and money
Chris Columbus is terrible. Why does he keep getting hired? It's now to the point that if my family sees his name on a film, we'll avoid it. This movie was a horrible disservice to Rick Riordan and the Percy Jackson books. I wish HBO or any other cable channel with the means would hire intelligent visionaries who are fans of the material to develop a series based on the books. The difficulties would include aging the characters believably from 12 to 16 or so, but perhaps certain books and series (such as the Harry Potter books and this one) can truly be brought beautifully to the screen only as part of TV. As to this and the Potter films, there are those fans of the books who dislike the film adaptations and those who just don't care; they'll see anything based on their beloved books. Count me in the first group.

Disappointed
I read the Percy Jackson series twice, once before viewing the DVD and once after. I had been trying to encourage my 13 year old son to read the series, but he only did so after seeing the DVD. So, if nothing else, the movie encouraged my son to read! For everyone who liked the movie, I highly recommend that you read the series! The written storyline is so much better!

We never saw the Lightening Thief movie in the theater, only the DVD. My son liked the movie. The actors were very good and so were the special effects. Unfortunately,the movie deviated from the storyline to the point that the major reason for any sequel was lost. I was very disappointed in the DVD storyline; so much so, that I gave the DVD away and will not keep it in our DVD library.

SPOILER ALERT, I'm now stating some of the differences and why I was disappointed. There were a lot of minor differences that can be attributed to poetic license. One example is that the characters were all in their late teens in the movie, whereas in the first book Percy and Annabeth were only 12. Another example is that Percy didn't know that he was a demigod at first. The latter doesn't detract from the series; but the former does, because of the prophecy. The reason for Percy not knowing his dad was attributed to Zeus' jealousy of his brother Poseidon. Hades was portrayed as a maniacal power grabber, where in the book he is not so evil. The characters of Ares and Clarise were omitted. Some of their attributes were given to Annabeth and Luke respectively. The more substantial omissions and changes detract too much from the storyline of the book - let alone the series. There was no mention of the prophecy of a child of the "big three". There was only superficial mention of Kronos in the museum scene. Luke was portrayed as the bad guy behind everything, instead of as a pawn for Kronos. Percy, Annabeth and Grover go after the lightening bolt in order to try and rescue Percy's Mom without permission, instead of with permission because of a quest. Minor details: the "Pearls" were a gift from Percy's Dad, not items that they needed to find (although it was done well in the movie); Percy wouldn't wear the flying shoes because of Zeus, so Grover wore them - in the movie he not only wears them, Percy battles Luke with them on; the St. Louis Arch part of the book was omitted; the "Parthenon" replica in Tennessee was not in the book; Luke tries to kill Percy at the end of the book and then disappears.

With the omission of Kronos and the prophecy from the storyline of the DVD, I don't see how they can hope to create a series of movies. I for one, will not go to see them - they can only be made by deviating even further from the written series. It is a crying shame, with the actors, directors, producers and author involved, it should have been a real triumph; instead, it was a farce.

Great
it was great, the Package came very fast, and it was in great condition. :)