Alice in Wonderland
Movie Review
"Alice in Wonderland"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C
Rating: PG
Released: Friday, March 5, 2010
Directed by:
Cast:
Here are a few things that Tim Burton's new film "Alice in Wonderland" is not:
- A remake of Disney's animated "Alice in Wonderland."
- An adaptation of Lewis Carroll's novels, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass."
- Very good.
Despite its title, "Alice in Wonderland" is a sequel to the Carroll novels, not a new iteration of them. "Return to Wonderland," or "Alice's Further Adventures in Wonderland," or "Wonderland II: Electric Boogaloo" would have been more accurate titles. But then it would have been obvious that someone had written a sequel to a beloved pair of 140-year-old novels, and that might have upset purists, so I suppose the wise choice from a marketing standpoint was to give it a title that suggests it's merely a remake.
I stress the non-remake nature of the film right off the bat because you should know what you're in for. Screenwriter Linda Woolverton ("Beauty and the Beast," "The Lion King") has a 19-year-old Alice (Mia Wasikowska) returning to the place she dreamed about as a child, summoned because she must slay the Jobberwocky and in so doing -- this part is not explained -- dethrone the evil Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and restore the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) to power. You would think slaying the Red Queen, not her pet dragon, would be the key there, but you would be mistaken.
Alice remembers visiting Wonderland before, though she thinks it was only in her dreams. In fact, she believes she's dreaming again now, and that everything will end when she wakes up -- a bad move, story-wise, because it means that instead of her mission being to Get Back Home or to Save The Day, the thing she desires most is merely to Wake Up. Frodo wanted to destroy the ring; Dorothy wanted to get back to Kansas; Alice just wants to regain consciousness.
Strangely, Alice doesn't remember any of the characters she met last time, though they remember her. The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp, doing another one of his thilly voithes) becomes her Tin Man, while Tweedledee and Tweedledum (both played by Matt Lucas), the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), the Blue Caterpillar (Alan Rickman), and other familiar Wonderland residents assist in her reluctant quest to get the special sword that can kill the Jabberwocky. It's all very "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian."
It also reminds me a lot of "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus," in that it boasts gorgeous art direction, imaginative set design, and a surplus of whimsy, yet feels utterly hollow. Burton's crew of craftspeople and CGI technicians imitate the look of the animated Disney version (Disney is releasing this one, too), vividly adapting it into a three-dimensional, fully inhabited place. They fill it with marvelous people and creatures: the March Hare (Paul Whitehouse), the Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover), the White Rabbit (Michael Sheen), and so on, some of them real, some of them computer-animated, some of them a mixture of both. And then what do they all those seamless special effects and inspired visuals? They enact a generic, joyless adventure story. A hundred forty years to write a sequel and this is the best they could come up with?
Grade: C
Rated PG, some scary images and some fairly mild action violence
1 hr., 48 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 22 comments
March 5, 2010 at 4:08 am
I agree completely. DO NOT WAST YOUR MONEY ON THIS!!! One you get over the whole 3d thing-it just a tramped up version of Narnia meets Braveheart, or something like that. All the whimsy is sucked out of this film and replaced with generic, linear storytelling that does no justice to the Carrol stories at all( Alice does battle with a dragon to save wonderland. The End). What was the point of this movie past making me feel like a chump as i let fly with my 9 bucks? I feel dissapointed and i wish they just would have let The origional story tell itself to Burtons effects. Then they wouldn't have had to pay a writer and the film might have actually been good.
Whats even worse, is that the only character in my opinion worth mentioning is the march hare who is the only one mas enough to fit in to this wonderland, and he is all CGI! ( oh and beware of Depp's break dance sequence at the end- complete with cheezy 80's pop music ala casio keyboard.) Depps performance was lack luster and boring as yet another effeminate costumed characterization of himself.
March 5, 2010 at 7:29 am
I would definitely see a movie called "Wonderland II: Electric Boogaloo"! Thank you so much for the laugh this morning! My day is looking much brighter now.
March 5, 2010 at 9:24 am
What the hell were they thinking?!
March 5, 2010 at 11:27 am
"I agree completely. DO NOT WAST YOUR MONEY ON THIS!!! One you get over the whole 3d thing-it just a tramped up version of Narnia meets Braveheart, or something like that."
You know, I said the same thing about Avatar (except it was Pocahontas and Ferngully) and people got all kinds of pissed off at me. What if they had spent 14 years making it!? And there were more guns and swearing and blue people doing it?
March 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Ah too bad. I had high hopes for this. Thanks for the review, Eric.
March 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm
"Visually compelling, emotion-free and pretty bland." Hmm... well, Tim burton IS behind it, so I'd consider this a given. Burton's films are less visually inventive than stylistic, quite different and not enough to carry a film by itself.
March 5, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Eric: when you say Johnny Depp is her tin man, don't you mean the mad hatter? Or is there some serious confusion between Alice and OZ?
March 5, 2010 at 11:32 pm
What the heck is wrong with you guys. I saw the same movie and i have to say that the story was pure and the movie was excellent. Also you have to see it in 3d.
March 6, 2010 at 10:44 am
Don't you think 3d movies should be beyond the "look - isn't 3d filming cool" stage? When a movie resorts to poking things at the audience, saying "look, we can poke stuff at you in 3d" then something is wrong. Back in the 80s when Captain EO was showing at Disneyland, that was when this kind of thing was more acceptable.
March 6, 2010 at 9:40 pm
It's worth watching for the art direction, the characters....and just to see Tim Burtons' take on it. I thought it was good, but not fantastic.
March 7, 2010 at 3:30 am
agreed. stunning visuals but boring storytelling, like glitter on a turd. this was supposed to be a MOVIE, not a theme park ride.
March 7, 2010 at 8:25 am
I didn't think a Tim Burton / Johnny Depp film could go wrong, but oh, how wrong I was! Stupid, uninspired plot, lame character development, and I could only understand about every other sentence because of characters' mumbling or (in Depp's case) inexplicable Scottish accents. And Eric's absolutely right that this shouldn't be entitled "Alice in Wonderland." Besides the characters, it has nothing to do with it as far as plot, dialogue, or being any good. Anyone who cares about script, plot, or character development should avoid this film. Those who are happy with pretty colors and a couple funny lines will have a blast.
And Raul, Eric didn't make a mistake, it was an analogy. Like when Jasmine called this movie a turd. It's not literally a heaping pile of crap, but that's what experiencing it is like. Johnny Depp is not literally the Tin Man, but the relationship between him and Alice is like that between the Tin Man and Dorothy.
March 9, 2010 at 9:14 am
"You know, I said the same thing about Avatar (except it was Pocahontas and Ferngully) and people got all kinds of pissed off at me."
Don't worry, I also said the same thing about Avatar. I still do, in fact, and I'm proud to say that I haven't wasted any money on Avatar either.
(Which is at least half thanks to Eric.)
March 9, 2010 at 9:16 am
I was kind of hoping this movie would be good though. It would be pretty cool if it had been a remake of the original or through the looking glass, given the visuals.
I think the CGI/Setting looked pretty awesome from the trailers, a lot better than Avatar in my opinion.
It's unfortunate that the story doesn't keep up with that standard. :(
March 10, 2010 at 12:49 am
Slightly off topic, but when I saw Captain EO last week at Disneyland, I was thinking that it was a way more fun kind of 3D show than what they have now. I prefer the 15 minutes of gimmicky 3D than the super serious 3D that drags on for 3 hours and only occasionally offers a reason why you're wearing those annoying glasses ... also I was really looking forward to Alice in Wonderland -- it's one of my favorite Disney cartoons -- but I was always a little confused by the trailers and posters, et cetera, and have been wondering what they did to mess up the storyline. Sigh.
March 13, 2010 at 8:20 pm
I completely disagree. First of all the original Alice and Wonderland was horrible. Both Disney and the both. All it was is nonsense and riddles. Just a giant headache. As a child I watched the movie and came away with a headache and nightmares. Everytime they would take it out I'd get annoyed...
Hence I wouldn't have dared to see this movie even if I was dragged by my ankles. However...I wanted a couple trailers and I started to really begin to be interested.
If you say there was no character development then you make zero sense. Not only were the characters in this movie developed but they actually had human characteristics instead just "nonsense" for a character. That's all he was in the original version just nonsense argh I don't even want to click about how annoying that movie is.
However in Tim Burton's version all the characters were wonderful! The Mad Hatter actually had feelings he wasn't just a nonsense rambling dancing lunatic... The door mouse had bravery and was very loyal to Hatter trying to save his life.
The March hare was an idiot...he reminded me of the old disney version hurck...all he did was act crazy! Just crazy and that's it. Pulling his ears and throwing things and just it was stupid. If you liked that character best your review isn't something I would take to heart.
Now Alice did develop. I didn't want her to focus on just getting out of the dream the whole time but she did eventually before the end of the movie realize that it wasn't a dream. So that was nice.
This movie is wonderful a piece of art. If you want to see the Alice of Wonderland characters actually acting as if they have sense and human characteristics watch this film.
Did I mention how much I used to HATE the Queen of Hearts in this film I love her. She's almost my favorite...next to the chesire cat. because they gave a reason for her being so very cruel. Not to mention they in a way touched on why she was the Queen of Hearts.
Go see this film it's Alice and Wonderland the way it ought to be.
March 14, 2010 at 8:45 pm
If you're looking for a good sequel to the Caroll novels, I recommend reading "Automated Alice" by Jeffrey Noon.
March 15, 2010 at 3:46 am
I tend to agree to disagree. I thoroughly enjoyed Burton's character styling and the visuals were impressive. Not every film needs to make you come away feeling depressed to be worth watching. It's not as pretty as Avatar, but I doubt Burton had $500MM in his pocket either.
March 15, 2010 at 3:18 pm
This may be spoiliscious:
But I think that a better story would have been that she found some way to save the day without slaying the dragon. When they tell her that she must, I thought this was supposed to be a parallel to the real world, where she "must" accept that man's marriage proposal. But she ends up slaying the dragon like it or not. By that reckoning, if she has learned a lesson, the lesson would be, yes, you must do what others tell you -- so she should have married that guy. She seemed to be like, "Screw that lesson I learned, he's u-g-l-y."
March 22, 2010 at 11:59 am
I didn't like it as much as I wanted to. I disliked Alice's character so much: her determination to simply "wake up", as Eric put it, made her deadpan and emotionless throughout the movie, and I felt myself feeling that way as I watched. Especially as an avid Depp/Burton fan, in addition to being an avid Rickman fan, I was quite disappointed, though I did like it somewhat...in a passive way, I guess.
March 23, 2010 at 10:41 am
I agree with MicMic. This telling of the story had much more character development than the original books. In the real Alice in Wonderland, Alice is merely wandering through this strange place, meeting strange characters and reacting to them, then moving on. The characters she meets do not develop, and neither does she. In the movie, you spend more time getting to know the characters, establishing more of an emotional connection with them. They then become far more interesting than their written portrayals.
That being said, I still found the movie disappointing. It was too Disney, and not enough Burton. That mad hatter dance scene at the end was terrible. The storyline was not as intriguing or as original as other Burton flicks have been. You become irritated with Alice, and the Knave of Hearts very quickly. The other characters are more lovable- even the Red Queen. I was disappointed, but didn't feel my money was wasted.
March 29, 2010 at 11:38 pm
I knew going in that this was more of a sequel than anything else, and I liked it. I agree that Wasikowska's delivery was flat, and Depp's little dance at the end was horribly annoying. But I enjoyed the parallels between Alice's "real" life and the contents of Wonderland. I study Victorian literature, so you would think I'd be more of a purist when it comes to an adaptation like this, but I liked what Burton did with it. I felt like he took the source material seriously enough to say, "OK, if this really happened, what kind of effect would an adventure like that have on a little girl?" but not so seriously that it lost its surreal qualities or got overly pompous. Anne Hathaway swanning around the castle doing her "good fairy" poses cracked me up.