Abstract:
Remakes and sequels are two staples of the film industry. They are usually big moneymakers, and sometimes are better than the original. Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is both a remake and a sequel, if you can believe it. It probably made a lot of money as well, because all the shows were sold out except for one....
Originally posted byLloyd Bereige
I'm sorry to say, Mr. Fox, that your review of this film is filled with gaping holes.
To begin with, this movie is NOT at all a remake of the original Dinsey "Alice in Wonderland" film. You ARE correct that is a sequel, but not a remake. It is was a remake, where was the part about Bill the Lizard and the White Rabbit's house? Where was the Caucus Race? Where were the musical numbers featuring the flouncy flowers who so aptly sang "In the Golden Afternoon?" And why is there any mention of a Red or White Queen, or a Jabberwocky for that matter?
I know where your vehement and misinformation comes from, because believe me, there is vehement and misinforamtion. In the article, you proclaimed: "Another irritating thing is the made up words everyone uses, such as Bandersnatch and Frabjous Day. These words are never explained nor does Alice ask what they mean." These "made up words that everyone uses" are not in fact made up: they were words used in the actual poem "Jabberwocky" in "Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Saw There" BY Lewis Carroll himself. You forget, Mr. Fox, that this movie IS based on the works of Lewis Carroll, and that the movie script derives much more from his works, and not the original Disney movie. (Once again affirming that this is NOT a simple remake.) You may still ask, "Well, these words seem made up to me, so why aren't they explained?" They aren't explained directly for two reasons:
1.) the writing of this movie was clearly aimed at fans of Carroll's books, and not casual movie goers; anyone who has spent anytime reading either of the original "Alice" books will know words like "Bandersnatch", "Frabjous day", "Snicker-snack", and "brilig" as if they were second nature. (Carroll also incoporated these words outside of his "Alice" works, therefore, though these words are non-sensical, they are not in fact "made up", as you so thoughtlessly put it.)
2.) You have to remember a basic theory of visual art, whether in theatre or cinema: the fourth wall. To each of the characters, these "made up words" make perfect sense, and they all, even Alice to an extent, understand what they mean. In the case of the Bandersnatch, upon seeing a massive bear coming to slay you, do you ponder to yourself, "I wonder what the origin of the word 'massive bear' is..." No, you see the bear coming to kill you, and know what that means. Same with the Bandersnatch: Alice sees for herself that the Bandersnatch is fuming and furious ("frumious", if you would have taken the time to do your homework) and trying to kill her, so it doesn't come to mind to questiong the origin of a name like Bandersnatch, just as you wouldn't question the origin of the word "bear" if one was actively trying kill you.
Another point that you make in your article that is fallible is the following: "...the Mad Hatter comments that the Cheshire Cat is only good at looking out for himself, but no explanation is given and the subject is never brought up again." Both of these notions are wrong. An explantion is giving just shortly after this conversation (the case being that you missed it, it was due to the fact that the Cheshire Cat fled during that invasion of the Red Queen, abandoning all of his friends and neighbors), and this subject IS brought up again, though in subtlety, as the Mad Hatter continues to distrust the Cat until he redeems himself by the old switcheroo at the execution, but even then, the Hatter is slightly pestered by the Cat, such as when the Cat whispers, "Goodbye... sweet hat..." rather than giving much concern for the Hatter himself.
Now why am I taking the time to point out amend your falsities? That answer is again two-fold:
1.) As someone who has dearly loved the works of Carroll, having read them from boyhood and researched them extensively, I find it absolutely appaling that you, as a critic, failed in your duty to understand and immerse yourself the art before jumping to insults and blind vehemence. Half of your criticisms can be washed away simply by doing some simple research of Carroll and his works. For crying out loud, even skimming Wikipedia would have done you well. But instead, you took the easy route out and insulted something you clearly didn't understand to appease your own end of wanton cynicism.
2.) Because you have jumped to insult and injury before considering basic research and foreknowledge, you have also failed in your duty as a proper art critic by giving a completely slanted review that has as much ignorance in it as has vicious remarks. Your rampant contempt for this film stains upon the review and it's readers,and thus blurs the sensitivies one would have to seeing this film. People who read this per your slanted perspective will see it as trash, and miss out on observing it for themslves. And don't try to tell me that "people should see it and make their own decision", because in your own words you state, "In good conscience, I can't recommend 'Alice in Wonderland' to anyone." "Good conscience"? Whose eyes are you trying to pull the wool over?
Ultimately, almost all of your criticisms are unjustified, and it is rather clear to see that you haven't an inkling's worth to begin in true criticism of art, basic blockbuster cinema or otherwise. I hope that next time you go to lambadst a work of art, you at least to some basic, basic homework (which believe me, any other critic would do).
With sincerity and disgust,
~ Lloyd Bereige
Originally posted byLloyd Bereige
I'm sorry to say, Mr. Fox, that your review of this film is filled with gaping holes.
To begin with, this movie is NOT at all a remake of the original Dinsey "Alice in Wonderland" film. You ARE correct that is a sequel, but not a remake. It is was a remake, where was the part about Bill the Lizard and the White Rabbit's house? Where was the Caucus Race? Where were the musical numbers featuring the flouncy flowers who so aptly sang "In the Golden Afternoon?" And why is there any mention of a Red or White Queen, or a Jabberwocky for that matter?
I know where your vehement and misinformation comes from, because believe me, there is vehement and misinforamtion. In the article, you proclaimed: "Another irritating thing is the made up words everyone uses, such as Bandersnatch and Frabjous Day. These words are never explained nor does Alice ask what they mean." These "made up words that everyone uses" are not in fact made up: they were words used in the actual poem "Jabberwocky" in "Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Saw There" BY Lewis Carroll himself. You forget, Mr. Fox, that this movie IS based on the works of Lewis Carroll, and that the movie script derives much more from his works, and not the original Disney movie. (Once again affirming that this is NOT a simple remake.) You may still ask, "Well, these words seem made up to me, so why aren't they explained?" They aren't explained directly for two reasons:
1.) the writing of this movie was clearly aimed at fans of Carroll's books, and not casual movie goers; anyone who has spent anytime reading either of the original "Alice" books will know words like "Bandersnatch", "Frabjous day", "Snicker-snack", and "brilig" as if they were second nature. (Carroll also incoporated these words outside of his "Alice" works, therefore, though these words are non-sensical, they are not in fact "made up", as you so thoughtlessly put it.)
2.) You have to remember a basic theory of visual art, whether in theatre or cinema: the fourth wall. To each of the characters, these "made up words" make perfect sense, and they all, even Alice to an extent, understand what they mean. In the case of the Bandersnatch, upon seeing a massive bear coming to slay you, do you ponder to yourself, "I wonder what the origin of the word 'massive bear' is..." No, you see the bear coming to kill you, and know what that means. Same with the Bandersnatch: Alice sees for herself that the Bandersnatch is fuming and furious ("frumious", if you would have taken the time to do your homework) and trying to kill her, so it doesn't come to mind to questiong the origin of a name like Bandersnatch, just as you wouldn't question the origin of the word "bear" if one was actively trying kill you.
Another point that you make in your article that is fallible is the following: "...the Mad Hatter comments that the Cheshire Cat is only good at looking out for himself, but no explanation is given and the subject is never brought up again." Both of these notions are wrong. An explantion is giving just shortly after this conversation (the case being that you missed it, it was due to the fact that the Cheshire Cat fled during that invasion of the Red Queen, abandoning all of his friends and neighbors), and this subject IS brought up again, though in subtlety, as the Mad Hatter continues to distrust the Cat until he redeems himself by the old switcheroo at the execution, but even then, the Hatter is slightly pestered by the Cat, such as when the Cat whispers, "Goodbye... sweet hat..." rather than giving much concern for the Hatter himself.
Now why am I taking the time to point out amend your falsities? That answer is again two-fold:
1.) As someone who has dearly loved the works of Carroll, having read them from boyhood and researched them extensively, I find it absolutely appaling that you, as a critic, failed in your duty to understand and immerse yourself the art before jumping to insults and blind vehemence. Half of your criticisms can be washed away simply by doing some simple research of Carroll and his works. For crying out loud, even skimming Wikipedia would have done you well. But instead, you took the easy route out and insulted something you clearly didn't understand to appease your own end of wanton cynicism.
2.) Because you have jumped to insult and injury before considering basic research and foreknowledge, you have also failed in your duty as a proper art critic by giving a completely slanted review that has as much ignorance in it as has vicious remarks. Your rampant contempt for this film stains upon the review and it's readers,and thus blurs the sensitivies one would have to seeing this film. People who read this per your slanted perspective will see it as trash, and miss out on observing it for themslves. And don't try to tell me that "people should see it and make their own decision", because in your own words you state, "In good conscience, I can't recommend 'Alice in Wonderland' to anyone." "Good conscience"? Whose eyes are you trying to pull the wool over?
Ultimately, almost all of your criticisms are unjustified, and it is rather clear to see that you haven't an inkling's worth to begin in true criticism of art, basic blockbuster cinema or otherwise. I hope that next time you go to lambadst a work of art, you at least to some basic, basic homework (which believe me, any other critic would do).
With sincerity and disgust,
~ Lloyd Bereige
| |
News |
Opinion |
Arts & Entertainment |
Sports |
 |
Lloyd Bereige
posted 3/22/10 @ 12:55 AM CST
To begin with, this movie is NOT at all a remake of the original Dinsey "Alice in Wonderland" film. You ARE correct that is a sequel, but not a remake. It is was a remake, where was the part about Bill the Lizard and the White Rabbit's house? Where was the Caucus Race? Where were the musical numbers featuring the flouncy flowers who so aptly sang "In the Golden Afternoon?" And why is there any mention of a Red or White Queen, or a Jabberwocky for that matter?
I know where your vehement and misinformation comes from, because believe me, there is vehement and misinforamtion. In the article, you proclaimed: "Another irritating thing is the made up words everyone uses, such as Bandersnatch and Frabjous Day. These words are never explained nor does Alice ask what they mean." These "made up words that everyone uses" are not in fact made up: they were words used in the actual poem "Jabberwocky" in "Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Saw There" BY Lewis Carroll himself. You forget, Mr. Fox, that this movie IS based on the works of Lewis Carroll, and that the movie script derives much more from his works, and not the original Disney movie. (Once again affirming that this is NOT a simple remake.) You may still ask, "Well, these words seem made up to me, so why aren't they explained?" They aren't explained directly for two reasons:
1.) the writing of this movie was clearly aimed at fans of Carroll's books, and not casual movie goers; anyone who has spent anytime reading either of the original "Alice" books will know words like "Bandersnatch", "Frabjous day", "Snicker-snack", and "brilig" as if they were second nature. (Carroll also incoporated these words outside of his "Alice" works, therefore, though these words are non-sensical, they are not in fact "made up", as you so thoughtlessly put it.)
2.) You have to remember a basic theory of visual art, whether in theatre or cinema: the fourth wall. To each of the characters, these "made up words" make perfect sense, and they all, even Alice to an extent, understand what they mean. In the case of the Bandersnatch, upon seeing a massive bear coming to slay you, do you ponder to yourself, "I wonder what the origin of the word 'massive bear' is..." No, you see the bear coming to kill you, and know what that means. Same with the Bandersnatch: Alice sees for herself that the Bandersnatch is fuming and furious ("frumious", if you would have taken the time to do your homework) and trying to kill her, so it doesn't come to mind to questiong the origin of a name like Bandersnatch, just as you wouldn't question the origin of the word "bear" if one was actively trying kill you.
Another point that you make in your article that is fallible is the following: "...the Mad Hatter comments that the Cheshire Cat is only good at looking out for himself, but no explanation is given and the subject is never brought up again." Both of these notions are wrong. An explantion is giving just shortly after this conversation (the case being that you missed it, it was due to the fact that the Cheshire Cat fled during that invasion of the Red Queen, abandoning all of his friends and neighbors), and this subject IS brought up again, though in subtlety, as the Mad Hatter continues to distrust the Cat until he redeems himself by the old switcheroo at the execution, but even then, the Hatter is slightly pestered by the Cat, such as when the Cat whispers, "Goodbye... sweet hat..." rather than giving much concern for the Hatter himself.
Now why am I taking the time to point out amend your falsities? That answer is again two-fold:
1.) As someone who has dearly loved the works of Carroll, having read them from boyhood and researched them extensively, I find it absolutely appaling that you, as a critic, failed in your duty to understand and immerse yourself the art before jumping to insults and blind vehemence. Half of your criticisms can be washed away simply by doing some simple research of Carroll and his works. For crying out loud, even skimming Wikipedia would have done you well. But instead, you took the easy route out and insulted something you clearly didn't understand to appease your own end of wanton cynicism.
2.) Because you have jumped to insult and injury before considering basic research and foreknowledge, you have also failed in your duty as a proper art critic by giving a completely slanted review that has as much ignorance in it as has vicious remarks. Your rampant contempt for this film stains upon the review and it's readers,and thus blurs the sensitivies one would have to seeing this film. People who read this per your slanted perspective will see it as trash, and miss out on observing it for themslves. And don't try to tell me that "people should see it and make their own decision", because in your own words you state, "In good conscience, I can't recommend 'Alice in Wonderland' to anyone." "Good conscience"? Whose eyes are you trying to pull the wool over?
Ultimately, almost all of your criticisms are unjustified, and it is rather clear to see that you haven't an inkling's worth to begin in true criticism of art, basic blockbuster cinema or otherwise. I hope that next time you go to lambadst a work of art, you at least to some basic, basic homework (which believe me, any other critic would do).
With sincerity and disgust,
~ Lloyd Bereige