the babe with the power.

What power?

Power of voodoo

Who do?

You do!

Do what?

Remind me of the babe!

Seriously.

SWEENEY TODD was Oscar bait and even CHOCOLATE FACTORY had glowing reviews.

There is no such thing as "consensus," dumbass, and just because you've picked a side of the fence and stepped onto greener grass doesn't mean you haven't put your foot in a pile of dog-shit.

You are allowed to speak for yourself, but you are not allowed to wear your assumption of everyone else's opinion like a badge.

Do you spend all day checking on RottenTomatoes before you complete an idea?

two

three

Because you know if Fox made it they'd fuck it up.

Now... Onto the review:

The White Rabbit returns to tell Alice of an omen that she is to slay the Jabberwocky??? Seriously? There were no 'omens' in the Alice stories. Secondly, 'slay' the Jabberwocky? If memory serves me, the Jabberwocky was slain by the boy with the vorpal sword. Does the Jabberwocky have regenerative powers that we don't know of? Not to mention that the Jabberwocky is a non-sense poem told by Humpty Dumpty to Alice. I guess in Woolverton's vision of Alice none of this matters, and it's reasonable to have the Jobberwocky guarding the Red Queen.

How does Alice have no knowledge of past events? What sort of plot device has Woolverton concocted to explain this?

Alice is trying to find the vorpal sword to slay the Jabberwocky? Excuse me while I chuckle to myself.

Apparently, in this script, Alice falls in love with the Mad Hatter. I guess once you've made decisions like the ones above, then anything truly is possible.

Sometimes, you just have to look away and ride it out.

Look away.

Ride it out.

This, too, shall pass.

When it comes out and there are people who come on here to spew venom about how bad it is, you'll feel a little vindicated. And, even if it makes a billion dollars at the box office (don't worry - it won't ((then again, I've been wrong on that before, too))), you've still got your pure, true conception of your favorite story.

And back to the Jabberwocky... the Jabberwocky is a f*ckin' non-sense poem! (My favorite, of course, as I've been known to recite it aloud while drunk.) The point of the Jabberwocky is lost without the poem. Rendered meaningless. It's built-in satire evaporates.

And more on Alice's lack of remembrance of past events... I've been doing a little thinking about what sort of plot device Burton and Woolverton concocted to explain this? And, why? I suppose because they wanted a full grown human being to play Alice. And if Alice is now an adult, and meeting the same characters she already met years ago, there would be too much familiarity--not enough wonderment. Solution? Make her forget. (Sounds like Hook to me, but it also sounds like a load of bullsh*t.)

I love the story of Beowulf, but I didn't mind the major story changes there.

"Books is books and movies is movies," is a bit of a dullard's argument. And it diminishes the potential of both.

In the case of Alice, I think the straightforward story has been done to death. So I'll readily admit that this may be a great way to introduce a new generation to the old tales like Hook did the the Peter Pan stories.

Still, this might just be terrible.

But it should be noted that this isn't the same story. So in that sense it's much more of a homage to whimsy, like the aforementioned HOOK. Whether it will be a good one or a bad one I can't say.

I suppose I give Burton such a wide berth because I hold such nostalgia in his earlier films.

If you're going to make ALICE IN WONDERLAND, make it. If you're attempting a sequel-of-sorts - which, by the sound of it, this is - at least have the integrity to come up with an original name.

Same thing goes for anything else. Don't make a James Bond movie and call it Batman.

Now, I don't mean to denigrate this project. I'm a Burtonian to a degree, and the production art fucks my eyeballs like AVATAR does for some.

I'm just empathizing with Voyageur's point because I've been there.

But I agree that things have changed. Teachers and parents emphasize other books these days, and ignore the classics.

And what ends up happening is they're going to have Tim Burton imagining Wonderland for them, instead of imagining it themselves.

I suppose they were in a bit of a bind because "Alice" is taken and "Return to wonderland" would give off a "Return to Oz" vibe.

If it's not adapting the book it shouldn't share the title.

It used to be that "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" or "Frankenstein" could be filmed and everyone would know the source material.

Today, kids are becoming more and more largely disinterested in reading as a whole.

I empathize with you wanting kids to experience the stories for themselves. Books are absolutely a magical medium. And I find myself more and more telling people "why don't you read the book" when horrible film adaptations are mentioned.

The same can't be said for "Frankenstein," however.

So, accuse me of arguing both sides of the same argument. There are films, obviously, which transcend their literary source. And, we can't disallow film-makers from trying.

But, when their choices seem wrong to us, neither can they disallow us from sneering.

I'm starting to believe what Tarkovsky said about filmmaking (I'm paraphrasing): it needs to be its own medium, and separated from the tendency to tie it to literature and theater.

But, Tarkovsky did adapt Solaris to great effect. Though he made it his. Which I suppose is what Burton is doing with Alice. Whereas the former interests me, the latter really doesn't.

As for Frankenstein, I'm confident Shelley's work stands on its own for most people separate from images of Karloff. At least I'd like to think so. After all, it's the original science fiction novel.

Bram Stoker is a better read.

I prefer NOSFERATU to DRACULA.

Vampyr hasn't reached that level yet. But the reaper ringing that bell still scares the shit out of me.

McG! McG! Do something about this prick.

Seriously, if I wasn't done with him after the abomination that was Planet of the Apes, you'll be okay with this.

I'm anticipating SLEEPY HOLLOW / CHOCOLATE FACTORY, only more "eyeball-raping."

If I get EDWARD SCISSORHANDS-level, I'll even forgive APES (which, you gotta admit, got the "ape" part better than the original ((though everything else wrong))).

That's all I expect.

Yet, still more fulfilling than all this summer's movies wrapped up in Dawson's Trek pretty foil paper.

These types of films rarely transcend meh for me. I'm satisfied, now, when they aren't ridiculous crap.

The map of Hollywood does not contain directions to fine art.

I've already conceded that I should not queue up for the film of THE ROAD.

But I hope I'm proven wrong.

1. Giant puppets.

2. Spike Jonez.

3. The trailer struck a subtle chord for me.

Spare me advanced images of the Jabberwock.

I still like to be surprised.

Every director has a preferred style. I don't fault Tarantino for including feet in every movie either.