Tim Burton's 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland was full of surprises for me. My first surprise was that it isn't a modern adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, it's a Hollywood sequel. This Alice is 19 years old and makes her second foray into Wonderland in this movie. My second surprise was that I was watching an action movie that has as much resemblance to C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" as it does to Lewis Carroll's original story. Rather than meandering around a nonsensical Wonderland in the spirit of curiosity and discovery, this Alice is given a very straightforward (and bizarre) "mission" right from the start.
In other words, there's an Alice in this story, and a Wonderland too. But this isn't The Alice in Wonderland. It's Hollywood's.
Overview
Try, try, try as I might, I couldn't appreciate much about Tim Burton's spin-off version beyond the visual extravaganza. The plot was too simplistic and straight-forward. Each character is clearly painted as either good or bad (well, white or red, in this case). Alice is lacking in depth of character. Johnny Depp's unpredictability has become so predictable it's not fun anymore. The nonsensical wit and charm of Carroll's original have been all but removed. But is it a bad movie? Is it not worth seeing in theaters? I'm not so sure about that. It has two redeeming qualities: It's visually spectacular, and what Burton was attempting to achieve with this movie is there, it's only been buried under the other aforementioned weaknesses.
Vision
Wonderland is amazing to gaze upon, and this is probably the most bizarre interpretation of it to date. That's no small achievement and may be enough justification for some to see the movie in theaters. It doesn't feel particularly real, however. It has nothing to do with the special effects—they're tremendous. Instead I chalk this up largely to the small cast of characters, which becomes particularly unbelievable around the climax of the movie, where a large crowd would be expected.
Speaking of vision, I can see what Burton was attempting to do with this movie. He wanted to build a babushka doll of illusions, each one being a new surprise. The purpose of the event in the beginning of the movie, a secret behind Alice's friend's marriage, the nature of this Wonderland (compared with the audience's traditional, childish conception of it), the truth behind the Red Queen's grotesque court all not what they appear to be at the onset, and surprises to either Alice or the audience. In my humble opinion, however, this doesn't quite come across during the watching. I didn't come to see his "vision" until writing this review, and the only satisfaction it's given me is that I don't have to completely pan this film. Burton just didn't take it far enough to make it remarkable.
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that someone will read this review, watch the movie, and enjoy it because they know what to expect and can see that Burton at least tried to add dimension to his work.
Origins
Lewis Carroll's original novel is best known for being "literary nonsense," and in my opinion the value of such nonsense is that it lightheartedly calls into question our preconceptions about "logic" and common sense. Regardless of what was done to the plot, I was optimistic that this unintelligible intelligence would be carried over into this new rendition. I was wrong, and am hence terribly bummed.
I recommend anyone with a curiosity toward Wonderland read the original novel. Also, the 1951 animated Disney version is dated (it's over half a century old, after all), but it's still worth giving a try.
How to enjoy this movie:
* Pretend you're going to watch a strange mish-mash of The Chronicles of Narnia and Alice in Wonderland. You won't have to pretend very hard once you're in the theater.
* Soak up all the 3D, computer generated goodness.
* Don't expect too much more than your run of the mill Hollywood fairy tale.
Weak points:
* The plot was too simplistic and straight-forward.
* Each character is painted as clearly either good or bad (white or red, in this case, I suppose).
* Alice is lacking in depth of character.
* The nonsensical wit and charm of Carroll's original have been all but removed, to be replaced with a handful of silly words. This one hurt the most for me.
In other words, there's an Alice in this story, and a Wonderland too. But this isn't The Alice in Wonderland. It's Hollywood's.
Overview
Try, try, try as I might, I couldn't appreciate much about Tim Burton's spin-off version beyond the visual extravaganza. The plot was too simplistic and straight-forward. Each character is clearly painted as either good or bad (well, white or red, in this case). Alice is lacking in depth of character. Johnny Depp's unpredictability has become so predictable it's not fun anymore. The nonsensical wit and charm of Carroll's original have been all but removed. But is it a bad movie? Is it not worth seeing in theaters? I'm not so sure about that. It has two redeeming qualities: It's visually spectacular, and what Burton was attempting to achieve with this movie is there, it's only been buried under the other aforementioned weaknesses.
Vision
Wonderland is amazing to gaze upon, and this is probably the most bizarre interpretation of it to date. That's no small achievement and may be enough justification for some to see the movie in theaters. It doesn't feel particularly real, however. It has nothing to do with the special effects—they're tremendous. Instead I chalk this up largely to the small cast of characters, which becomes particularly unbelievable around the climax of the movie, where a large crowd would be expected.
Speaking of vision, I can see what Burton was attempting to do with this movie. He wanted to build a babushka doll of illusions, each one being a new surprise. The purpose of the event in the beginning of the movie, a secret behind Alice's friend's marriage, the nature of this Wonderland (compared with the audience's traditional, childish conception of it), the truth behind the Red Queen's grotesque court all not what they appear to be at the onset, and surprises to either Alice or the audience. In my humble opinion, however, this doesn't quite come across during the watching. I didn't come to see his "vision" until writing this review, and the only satisfaction it's given me is that I don't have to completely pan this film. Burton just didn't take it far enough to make it remarkable.
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that someone will read this review, watch the movie, and enjoy it because they know what to expect and can see that Burton at least tried to add dimension to his work.
Origins
Lewis Carroll's original novel is best known for being "literary nonsense," and in my opinion the value of such nonsense is that it lightheartedly calls into question our preconceptions about "logic" and common sense. Regardless of what was done to the plot, I was optimistic that this unintelligible intelligence would be carried over into this new rendition. I was wrong, and am hence terribly bummed.
I recommend anyone with a curiosity toward Wonderland read the original novel. Also, the 1951 animated Disney version is dated (it's over half a century old, after all), but it's still worth giving a try.
How to enjoy this movie:
* Pretend you're going to watch a strange mish-mash of The Chronicles of Narnia and Alice in Wonderland. You won't have to pretend very hard once you're in the theater.
* Soak up all the 3D, computer generated goodness.
* Don't expect too much more than your run of the mill Hollywood fairy tale.
Weak points:
* The plot was too simplistic and straight-forward.
* Each character is painted as clearly either good or bad (white or red, in this case, I suppose).
* Alice is lacking in depth of character.
* The nonsensical wit and charm of Carroll's original have been all but removed, to be replaced with a handful of silly words. This one hurt the most for me.