BLAM!

BLAM!

Now if only it wasn't in 3d...

Respect.

They're a strange couple. Still, if it wasn't for Burton (and MCG) Bonham Carter wouldn't have worked for the last few years.

looks cool to me.

So....I dunno. You tell me.

So the Tweedles are in it, so I'm assuming it will be a mish-mosh of AIW and 'Through the Looking Glass.'

"This guy ain't one of us!"

*A dazed Pee Wee, after being thrown from a bull at a rodeo, is woken up by a group of cowboys*

COWBOYS: What's your name?

PEE WEE: I dont remember.

COWBOYS: Where are you from?

PEEWEE: I dont remember...

COWBOYS: What do you remember?

PEE WEE: I remember... The Alamo...

The cowboys all throw their hats into the air and cheer.

COWBOYS: YAAAHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Něco z Alenky: http://tinyurl.com/lfy8fu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =oshZxqmd04k

If he's not gonna do it-- get John Murphy.

Sorry, men and women won't be scared of ALICE IN WONDERLAND and most kids won't care.

They do one of these creepy ALICES and edgy WIZARD OF OZs every yeard.

Today studios don't make stuff like that. The only example I've seen in years was Coraline, which had kids in my theater crying ( and that's when I knew it was effective).

They need to start airing old "Tales from the darkside" episodes or something. Toughen these pansy kids up.

Before I became Father O' The Year, I was in the movie geek/studio b.s. camp that said, "These parents are trying to overprotect their kids from blah,blah,blah..."

Mostly because I wanted to see the scary, childish movie. Once yer a parent, you don't really want to see cartoons or ALICE IN WONDERLAND. It's much cooler to be the kind of eat a steak, do a shot of tequila and smoke a cigar kind of guy.

Then, when I became a parent, while my kids were little, I thought, "Those non-parents are as crazy as I was. I know my kids and I'm not going to subject them to some frightening piece of studio merchandise that they don't know is real. What do I care that some director and 22 year old fan is telling me Kids can take more than you think?"

Now, my kids are in the middle grades and crazy about ALIENS, and TERMINATORS and the PREDATOR and JURASSIC PARK and zombies.

So here's my theory: when parents object, they're thinking of their kids as little kids. And when geeks protest, they're remembering themselves at 9 or 10, not 4 or 5.

Begin countdown until someone says they saw OMENCIST at age 2 and loved it or someone showed their preschooler NIGHT OF THE LIVING CHAINSAW MASSACRE and the kids plays it over and over.

Although, I think I'd worry more if my sons wanted to see ALICE IN WONDERLAND once they were over age 6, unless they're into filmmaking or art.

Back to the topic at hand?

If you think Burton is taking a hit here head over to the IB thread and see what people are saying about Tarantino.

CGI possessed talking goat

That's beyond "goofy."

That's fucktarded.

Directors like Burton and Tarantino have never been as motivated by perceived expectations of the audience. Therefore, they are more deserving of geek cred for moving that genre of film forward into its own type, as opposed to watered-down family fare.

As for Lucas, well, I've just always thought STAR WARS was over-rated after the first one.

P.S. Since the Kolchak tv re-envisioning bit the dust, do you think they'll move forward with a "Nightstalker" movie? Personally, I see no need, as FRIGHT NIGHT, stands, for me at least, as a more than able replacement.

Yes, we know the goat was possessed. Hence "CGI POSSESSED talking goat."

Worse yet, as soon as the goat got brought on to the set, you can predict its possession, its eventual cgi-ness, and its overwhelming fucktardedness.

The only shocker was it didn't vomit buckets of goo like every other character in the movie does on countless, predictable occassions.

You brought this on yourself.

That really zinged me.

Wait a minute...

It's just another PG-13 "boo!" fest.

http://tinyurl.com/nxya ae

That hasn't stopped film-makers from trying.

Remember that this is nothing more than another Disney live-action take on one of their animations, ala 101 DALMATIONS. And, sorry to say, for most people, that's the reference point.

But don't say it's an effective horror film. To put it simply: Transformers is to the action genre what Drag me to Hell is to the horror genre.

Had Burton resisted the whimsy at the end and just filmed the son "telling" the ending as a story - yeah, I mean just boring close-ups of two faces - that movie would've floored me.

I was generalizing, sure. But I wouldn't say Drag me to hell was better scripted. The difference is the grudge 2 was funny when it wasn't trying to be and DMTH was unfunny when it WAS trying to be.

I think he underestimates twelve-year-old girls. Slightly.

His credibility is preserved.

Yours is at risk because you are arguing just to argue. And putting words into mouths, willy-nilly.

Talk about losing credibility...

That's the path down the dumb.

Adds to the horror genre?

There were fights in 28 DAYS LATER.

Was it the car part that made it so damned special for you?

As for the direction, it was alright. I thought the decision to show the little boy going down in the beginning was awful. Other than that it's less a problem of directing and more a problem of writing.

Really.

Busted ALL up about it.

Arguing to be arguing.

The ones in DMTH are JUST like the ones in Halloween or any other horror franchise.

Thank you, though, for your defense of the ending, which as it stands, isn't terrible. "Ruined" was probably the wrong word to use.

It's all about flavor.

Anyway, the the jump scare shots to a demonic gypsy spirit are just like ones of a guy in a Shatner mask.

But, hey. Enjoy the beach.

That wasn't a conversation. That was table tennis. And he was beaten 15 - love.

Of course neither side was "swayed."

One side was talking sense, and the other wasn't even paying close attention.

Really, kolchak. Maybe I do need cool lessons.

And, generally, their effectiveness depends on the tension building up before, and the release after.

By release, I don't mean, necessarily, a one-liner spouted for comic relief.

Non-stop jump scares just get boring.

There are at least fifty jump scares during DM2H's 90-so minute run time.

I'm still fond of the "pimp trying to get his ugly whore laid" line.

Tell the truth, I'm still trying to figure out if a person who likes brutality can be described as soulful and vice versa.

Really?

That's what you needed to get off your chest?

Burton may need a lot of things, restraint and stricter story-telling being two of them, but your acceptance, jukebox?

Un-needed.

For the record, I liked them both. But one was a gourmet meal, and one was a late-night drive through burger after a night of heavy drinking.

as for these pictures, I don't think anyone's disputing Burton's got his own sense of style. But I'd he's definitely hit (Pee Wee) or miss (Planet of the Apes).

"The hygenically impure Tim Burton..."

"The faux goth-camp of BATMAN..."

So on and so forth. Carry on.

Best to just ignore it.

Not all of his films tell a story well. All I can figure is that he's incredibly hard to write for. Too little story and it's a mess. Too much (did CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY need Willy Wonka's backstory?) and it grows pointless.

I feel that PEE WEE, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, ED WOOD, SLEEPY HOLLOW, BIG FISH and CHARLIE all worked in terms of story. Didn't see PLANET O' THE APES or SWEENY TODD (although if Timmy had done a musical ape movie, I'd have been there). But oddly, my two favorite films of his are BATMAN RETURNS and MARS ATTACKS which were crap in the story department but incredible visually.

So why am I, and guys like me, the problem? Unless yer into filmmaking or graphic arts, why are we seeing most of this stuff? What's in it for us?

Who is this movie really for? I have sons and neither of them would have ever looked at this stuff and said, "Can we go see ALICE IN WONDERLAND?"

But let me ask you, unless yer in film school or something, are you really going to call yer buddy and say, "Hey, Bob, let's go see ALICE IN WONDERLAND"? Or are you going to take a date to see this? Don't count on getting past the front door later unless yer really good looking, in which case you are probably not reading this.

And for the record, I'm not a Tim Burton hater. I'm fond of most of his movies. But I felt like he ruined Sweeney Todd with his need to cast Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter in everything. They couldn't handle the singing. It was bad. And with all the acting talent out there that can sing, it pissed me off. But in this case I think they should be okay. They make sense in these roles. But whatever movie is next, I think he should force himself to not use them. I have a funny feeling they'll still love him anyway.

And by all means people, if you're a Burton fan, stay the hell away from this talkback. I love Tarantino, and as such I won't step near an Inglourious Basterds thread. The negativity really is overpowering.

There's nothing "valid" about movies that fail at what they're trying to do.

It should have been Burton who directed Benjamin Button and not David Fincher; that would have been perfectly in his wheelhouse. I think ALICE will be another excuse for Burton to again go way overboard on the vision thing.

Sleepy Hollow lacked any ambiguity. It would have been way better if it had ended with Ichabod still debating in his own mind if the events were truly supernatural or merely a hoax.

The plot for Corpse Bride seemed too "paint-by-numbers". There was no real tension or suspense.

Every other single Burton flick has entertained me. Some are better than others, sure. But all of 'em are good.

But yeah, it looks good.

We need to stop glorifying baby factories. You, too, can be on TV if you pop out a litter and ruin your marriage! Is that really the message we want to send?