Again. See Sweeny Todd; his singing isn't the greatest, but his performance was much better than most of what he did. It's Tim Burton + Serious Depp, and non-goofy. Besides, it's called character acting. Playing similar types of characters often isn't a sign of bad acting, it means that it's just what he's best suited for. Marilyn Monroe did the same thing too with her "dumb blonde" thing all the time, and Steve Buscemi playing weird villains.
Denying that Alice is pretty is peculiar. Even those who I know disliked the film still found it to be pretty. Especially the costuming and set pieces. That happens often; shitty movies that look great. It was the same in Immortals, or Sucker Punch, or Green Lantern, or even Avatar. They're shit (maybe not Avatar), but they look pretty. I still don't find Alice to be shit, but it's pretty either way.
Willy Wonka was clearly a superior book and film, but I found this to be enjoyable. Regardless of Depp's weak performance in it.
See Ed Wood (by far his best work, it's not the obvious Burton-like, and is a movie that Burton actually took seriously, I didn't even figure out that it was Burton directed it until I saw the credits), Edward Scissorhands (deeply personal film, and his first) and Big Fish. (deeply personal also, and didn't have Depp in it XD)
Comparing Marilyn Monroe and a modern male actor is like comparing apples and oranges. Marilyn Monroe played a "dumb blonde" because that's what people wanted at the times. She pioneered Playboy and was by far their most iconic model, do you really think she would be like Erin Brokovich on screen? People wanted a ditsy and attractive girl. It was the 50's after all.
We're at a point where special effects have become level. I saw Last Airbender in theaters and yeah, it's an utterly shit movie, one of the worst I've seen, but the special effects are good. "Good", mind you. Not mindblowing, not spectacular, but "good". Almost everything nowadays with a decent budget has "good" effects or looks "pretty". Also Sucker Punch was a great movie. It was completely ridiculous but that's what made it work. I saw it twice and theaters and loved it twice. If I were to judge films as decent for being "pretty" then I guess Transformers 3 is a pretty alright film. Yeah, sure.
Charlie was just a mockery of a movie that should have never been touched. It's a classic that Tim Burton got his grimy fat hands on and ruined with his terrible art direction and predictable cliches. If you think Johnny Depp is a suitable successor to Gene Wilder then you shouldn't even be thinking about films.
It's been years since I've seen Edward Scissorhands and I haven't seen Ed Wood or Big Fish.
