Hot Tub Time Machine

Let's face it: the best time-travel movie is still Back to the Future. No question. And this movie doesn't even come close. Even if they did have a small part for Mr. George McFly himself, Crispin Glover.

Anyway, they were supposed to go back in time to 1986. But the only way you will feel that they are in the eighties is when you hear the soundtrack. Costumes were not too eighties enough for me. So were the hairstyles. In fact, you might even think it's a nineties flick.

And a hot tub time machine? Lame-o.

John Cusack isn't really that versatile an actor as I hope he would be. But at least he tries. Rob Corddry, on the other hand, is always funny. Embarrassingly funny, most of the time. Craig Robinson isn't too loud, but he is still funny nonetheless. Clark Duke, one of the dorks from Kick-Ass, looked like a fat lesbian aunt. But Crispin Glover still takes the cake.


*some info from IMDb
pic from baltimoresun.com


Hot Tub Time Machine. USA. 2010.


Rating: Five out of ten.
Crispin Glover's mere presence: Seven and a half out of ten.

Alice in Wonderland. 3D

By now, you will have noticed my obsession with 3D films. Well, let's not call it an "obsession", but rather, a "devotion" to what I consider the medium of the future.

As such, the first part of this review shall be devoted to its 3D-ness, while the second part will be the regular review.

First, I didn't like its 3D-ness. When I was in the theater, I could really sense something was amiss. This wasn't like Avatar.

So when I got home, I researched on it, and confirmed my suspicion: This film was shot in conventional 2D, with the footage converted to 3D in post-production. James Cameron, in all his Avatar arrogance, criticized this, saying that "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D." Tim Burton felt, however, that 3D cameras were too bulky and expensive, and that there was really no difference between converted 3D and those originally shot with 3D cameras. Well, maybe to regular moviegoers there isn't; but Mr. Burton, there is a difference, because I felt it.

Okay, how did I feel it? I could feel it in the depth of the shots. There was just not enough depth.

And now I consider myself a certified 3D addict. You know you're a 3D addict when you can detect the difference between converted 3D and original 3D footage.

And now, on to the regular review.

This version is based on, but is definitely not, the original Lewis Carroll books of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Those stories were more of a stream-of-consciousness hallucination all throughout. In this version, however, screenwriter Linda Woolverton attempted to put a narrative structure to it, and so it ended up as a retelling (which Tim Burton would vehemently deny). It worked, I must say. But I sort of liked the hallucinatory quality of the Lewis Carroll version.

The first part starts off in Victorian England. And for a moment there, I forgot that this was a Tim Burton film. I can't really imagine Tim Burton directing Sense and Sensibility. It only becomes Burton-esque once Alice enters Wonderland.

Among all the countless visual adaptations of Lewis Carroll's beloved tale, this version, I believe, is the one that truly puts the "mad" in "Mad Hatter". And we can thank Johnny Depp for that. His Hatter was bonkers. Like totally. And even the March Hare was cuckoo.

Helena Bonham Carter, a.k.a. Mrs. Tim Burton, was perfect as the Red Queen. Plus I loved how Burton made her head bigger. Bonham Carter brought a new edge to the Red Queen. Tyranny with insanity.

Anne Hathaway, I now have no doubt about your acting skills. Yeah, she was really great in Rachel Getting Married. But as the White Queen, you could see that she can take any role given to her, and execute it with style. And I now officially have a crush on Anne Hathaway because of her acting prowess.

Mia Wasikowska, I admit that I thought you wouldn't be able to pull this off. But surprisingly, you did. Good job. But you're still not as pretty as I thought you would be.

Crispin Glover, I don't even have to say anything. You are one talented actor. You may not be mainstream enough, but all your fans since Back to the Future know that you are one talented actor. I think I already said that.

And Alan Rickman, I'd know your Severus Snape voice anywhere. But I've nothing against you, as I like you as an actor.

The Cheshire Cat was the best portrayal of the Cheshire Cat I've ever seen, floating around like a ghost, disappearing in a puff of smoke. I can't help but compare this to the animated Disney version, where the cat was more of an annoyance that didn't really help propel the story forward. Oh, wait. The original didn't really have a story. Oh well. The only thing I didn't like was when they addressed the Cheshire Cat as "Ches". Please stop Americanizing Lewis Carroll's creations. Thank you.

And finally, great character design for the Jabberwocky. I think this design was lifted straight out of Sir John Tenniel's illustration. But why oh why did Mr. Burton decide to use Christopher Lee to voice this monster? Again, my only explanation: to milk Mr. Lee for all the movies he can make, before he snuffs it. Sorry if I sound so mean.

Anyway, I've learned a valuable lesson with this movie, one that could save me a lot of money. And that is: Never watch a 3D film that wasn't shot on 3D cameras. If it was just converted 3D footage, just watch it in regular cinemas. You should be paying for the 3D experience, not the conversion.

*some info from IMDb and Wikipedia

pic from iconvsicon.com

Alice in Wonderland. USA. 2010.

Rating: Eight out of ten.

3D-ness: Five out of ten.