A little note upfront : I haven’t read any reviews of this film because I didn’t want to know whether you thought it was good or bad. That means I might repeat something that you have already said on your blogs…

I finally managed to watch Alice in 3D. It’s a fun film, visually stunning, beautiful costumes and great visual effects but its not a Tim Burton movie. I got the feeling that Tim sold his soul to the Devil (the Devil being Disney) for a very large sum of money because that is what is lacking in Alice in Wonderland: Tim Burton’s soul. The movie is perfectly well made and I’m sure a lot of people enjoy it because it is obviously made “for the masses”. I just don’t understand why Tim had the urge to make a Blockbuster. He just doesn’t strike me as the type of person to do something simply for money or to make a film to please people.

The star ensemble was impressive but none of the actors had enough time to really establish their characters. Maybe its not necessary because we know the characters from the book. Strangely enough, I wasn’t impressed with Johnny Depp’s performance. It felt a bit like he was trying too hard. I did like the girl who played Alice (Mia Wasikowska), though, even though she is young and blonde and thin. she had the right look for the role and played “innocence” very well. Anne Hathaway was adorable but seemed to have stolen her character from Enchanted.

It feels like I’m being too negative because I did have a good time watching Alice in Wonderland. Underland has come to life with a real beauty and I also didn’t think the story was bad at all. But it was too polished to be a great movie. I was expecting it to be darker and with more of an edge to it. It also felt rushed, but I might just be used to super-long movies by now. It’s a strange contradiction that I thought the movie was rushed but individual scenes seemed quite long because the editing was fairly slow. The ending didn’t work for me at all. It was too Disney-perfect. The costumes were absolutely stunning. It felt a bit random that Alice was wearing a new dress every few minutes but they were all gorgeous. The costume and set designers should get Oscars for this.

Overall I just expected more from Tim Burton and his cast because as beautiful as the movie is and as much as I wanted to, I just couldn’t fall in love with it. It did have a Burton-esque look but not feel to it. The end gave the impression that a sequel could be happening.

Another movie with so much promise that just didn’t hold up to its expectations. This film suffered a set back by Heath Ledgers sudden death. Ledger was supposed to play the lead but died half way through filming. Instead of leaving Parnassus unfinished, the makers decided to use several other actors to play Ledgers part (Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law). This choice has been criticized a lot which I disagree with. It doesn’t further the story to have more then one actor playing the role but it doesn’t hurt it as well. We all know why it was done so I don’t think there is anything to criticize about it. I was quite amazed at how well it worked out with the changing faces.

The film is divided into two worlds, one is the actual world, modern London and the other world is inside Doctor Parnassus’ imagination. I thought the real world was done brilliantly. I lived in London for a while and Gilliam’s London is really spot on. Parnassus’ horse drawn circus carriage had some wonderful details and Christopher Plummer was great as Doctor Parnassus. Even though I have an unnatural hatred of Lily Cole I thought she was perfect for this role. So were Heath Ledger, Tom Waits  and newcomer Andrew Garfield. Just looking at the real world, this was a great movie.

What didn’t work at all for me were the parts inside Parnassus’ imagination. What’s annoying about this is that I expected Terry Gilliam to make this the magical part of the story. But it was just awful. Instead of doing the wonderful cut out, self made sets he (and Monty Python) is famous for, the dream sequences were all done in really bad 3D animation. I don’t see why he should have used 3D animation at all but he should have at least gotten someone who is really good at it to do it. I know students who could have made it look better then it did.

I probably could have overlooked that fact slightly if the story had been told well. But even though I liked the story it was written or told in a very sloppy way. As if it needed to be finished quickly and nobody had re-read it before it went into production. The ending was completely foreseeable although it seemed like it was supposed to be a surprise ending. Also some important details (Tony’s flute, for example) were never really explained. The film seemed to jump around a lot as well (I don’t mean between the worlds, just in itself).

In my opinion even Terry Gilliam fans should wait for the DVD to come out. At least on the small screen you can’t tell how bad the rendering really is.

I love how in New York you only have to show your ticket at the entrance of the cinema and you can then watch as many films as you want (I’m not sure you are allowed to, but since nobody checks, who cares?!).

Public Enemies

Before I get into the story of this movie, let me just say a few words about the way it was filmed because that was a big problem I had with it. IMDb says that it was partly shot on 35mm and partly on HDTV but it looked like it was all shot with HD cameras. A large part of this film actually looked like it was shot with a private HD camera. The look of the film was absolutely terrible! I don’t know which parts they are supposed to have shot with 35mm, but the pictures were lacking in depth and darkness throughout. In some pan shots it even looked like the film was slightly pixelated. I know film is expensive, but if you want to make a 1930’s gangster movie, invest in it! HD just takes the mystery out of it and really doesn’t do the actors any favors. It just didn’t look like a quality film.

Everyone knows who John Dillinger was and quite a few films about him already exist. Public Enemies isn’t telling a new story but it is telling the story well. Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Marion Cottilard are, of course, fantastic. The film is rather long, though, and strangely uneventful. There is A LOT of shooting going on which I found quite boring because it’s so repetitive. I am sure there are a lot of people who love Public Enemies (it got a ridiculously high rating on IMDb), but for me it wasn’t anything special. It felt like I had already seen this film with a slightly different story and different actors.

Brüno

First of all, I loved Borat and was really looking forward to watching Brüno. But it really sucked. It seemed like Sacha Baron Cohen was desperately trying to create something more outrageous than Borat and failed miserably. The film is overly obscene and is lacking in story. The story is very close to Borat: Brüno loses his assistant (and lover) and has to make it on his own, he is traveling through America on a mission (he wants to become world famous) and at some point has a complete meltdown and has to sleep on the streets because he has run out of money — there is always very dramatic music to Brüno’s misery. It’s like Sacha took the same ingredients of Borat and mixed it up with a new character and some serious toilet humor. That just isn’t enough. It has its funny moments but it will probably be forgotten in a couple of years.

This is biographical film about John Wilmot, aka the second Earl of Rochester (Johnny Depp). He was an incredibly talented poet but wasted his talent on wine and women. In the film, Rochester passionately loves the theatre and decides to train a particular actress to become the best in all of London. King Charles II (John Malkovich) calls upon him to write a play for the visit of the French ambassador. The play, A Satyr on Charles II, turns out to be a portrait of the King’s sexual behaviour at court. Rochester is banished, which is the beginning of his downfall.

The film starts with a bang: Johnny Depp (beautiful as ever, with long flowing locks), in close-up, talks directly to the audience saying, ‘Allow me to be frank at the commencement. You will not like me. The gentlemen will be envious and the ladies will be repelled…’. Johnny Depp has that look in his eyes that pierces right through you, he absolutely owns the speech, he delivers it with such candour that you hang upon his lips until his very last word.

Then, unfortunately, the movie starts. I have to admit that I didn’t fully understand it (I googled it afterwards…). The story is a bit all over the place. It has no real flow and I lost interest quite early on. The cinematography tries to be beautiful, like a painting, but is often underlit. Depp is, of course, great but John Malkovich’s role is really too small to show off his wonderful talent. The side characters all look the same and could easily have been a single person.

Stephen Jeffreys wrote the original theatre play and the screenplay for this film. I wonder if he was pleased with the end result of the film. John Malkovich acted as Rochester in the play, but chose to be Charles II in the film. It is Laurence Dunmore’s first feature film (which came out in 2004 and he hasn’t done anything since…), so I guess he can be forgiven for not getting it quite right.

If you are an absolute Johnny Depp fan then go and see it (I guess in this case you already have…) but otherwise I wouldn’t bother. It had potential but it really turned out rather dull.