No, it’s ok IV, I can understand that perfectly. There are lots of things to resent about it, in fact. I was just watching it with the mentality of it being lighthearted 70’s song-and-dance fluff fare and not the kind of movie I’d love and constantly come back to. Just entertaining.
It was the original version of Footloose, btw, SoA.
I know what you mean.
I personally think both those movies are way overrated.
On the Town: Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra! Need I say more?
A Night at the Opera: One of my favorite Marx Brothers movies, and includes two of my favorite of their gags: the Stateroom scene and the Contract scene.
Haha, I’ve been meaning to watch the Marx Brothers movies 
Also, I got ahold of Tommy and I’ll be watching it on Tuesday. 
I’ve been meaning to see both of those films.
That’s great. I haven’t seen it yet.
Alice in Wonderland: I thought it was just average. It felt like more of a sequel to the original Walt Disney Classic then anything. The visuals were great, as Tim Burton really knocks it right out of the park with those. The acting was alright. Johnny Depp is pretty good as the Mad Hatter. It felt more like a visual showcase more then anything though. C
I completely agree, and then I have totally different and unrelated reasons for hating them also.
I wasn’t that keen on that one, I like the original much more.
Same here. I thought it was better in terms of the story and screenplay.
I hated Burton Alice with passion.
It was wrong on every level, specially by trying to make sense out of what originally was an ode to nonsense. Then they had those stupid names for things and a horrible role for Depp.
The best thing about the film: [spoil]the very short flashback where they showed classic moments from the original books.[/spoil]
By the way, the animated Disney film has no relation with this one, so that one isn’t the “original” when talking about this.
I agree. I wasn’t really kean on the film, especially with the nonsense that was in the film.
I didn’t especially like it either. It was relatively entertaining in itself, but there was no point to it and Burton’s attempt at giving it an emotional core failed because none of the characters, including Alice herself, were lovable enough. Of course, I like the books because they’re light and nonsensical and Disney’s animated movie captured that feeling pretty well, and although I’m open to alternate interpretations of stories, I just wasn’t enthralled by anything Burton did with it. SoA put it better than I ever could, so I won’t add more.
I think we are saying the opposite things 
I disliked the film because it hadn’t enough nonsense. And Alice in Wonderland is supposed to be all about nonsense.
They tried to make it into a world with rules, with cities, organizations and classic fantasy stuff like prophecies. They transformed Wonderland (or Underland, according to the film) into a Nania-like universe.
Ah, I see. I do think Alice in Wonderland in itself should be all about silliness and nonsense, I agree. But I recognize that Burton wanted to make an Alice film about the polar opposite; a world with deep characters and plot. Although that alone strikes me as weird since it goes against the very point of Alice in Wonderland’s existence, I accepted that he wanted to do his own interpretation of the story. But it fell flat for his concept. So either it should’ve been deeper and better-developed, or it should’ve been more geared towards nonsense like you said.
Leirin, my post was meant for Ballboi
I was, in fact, making the same point as you
Oops, I misunderstood. Sorry about that!
My fault. You posted before I noticed.
I haven’t seen Burton’s Alice yet. I remember people were really hyped for it then people saying it wasn’t as good as they hoped.
Yeah. It didn’t exactly live up to expectations seeing how it got negative reviews.
I wasn’t disappointed because I knew it was going to be bad from day one.
It was clearly a wrong idea when analyzed coldly.