Alice in Wonderland - Review

I've always considered Tim Burton a very hit and miss director. His films can either range from the superb (Ed Wood) to the abysmal (Planet of the Apes). I generally go into his movies with neutral expectations, and because of this, am not particularly affected by the hype. So, with that being said, how does his re-imagining of "Alice in Wonderland" fair out?

While not a direct adaptation of Lewis Carrol's books or a remake of previous adaptations, Burton's version is a "sequel" of sorts. Alice is now 19 years old and living in London. Her only memories of Wonderland are in her dreams. While attending a party for Alice's engagement, she reunites with the White Rabbit, who once again leads her back to Underland. After reuniting with some familiar faces (whom Alice has only faint memories of) such as the Cheshire Cat and Absolem the caterpillar, Alice is informed that she was brought back to stop the wrath of the Red Queen, who had taken control of Underland. The Red Queen stole her sister's (The White Queen) throne with the aid of the Jabberwocky, a vicious monster whom only Alice can defeat.

The main thing I kept hearing about this production was how Burton aimed to actually create a linear story for Alice as opposed to previous versions. As many have stated, the previous stories were light on plot and were more of a series of events. Burton definitely tries to give us a story here, but he unfortunately wrote one with holes so big you could drive trucks through them. For instance, the story stems from the idea that Alice was foretold to be the only one who could defeat the Jabberwocky. First off, on top of that concept being one of the most overused cliches in movies today, the writers give very little explanation as to why, how, or where this "prophecy" came from. Only she can destroy the Jabberwocky and she needs a special sword to do it. A prophetic hero with a magic sword... how many times have we seen this concept? The rest of the movie is littered with inconsistencies that make no sense at all. One plot hole I like to joke around about is this; Alice occasionally eats a cake that makes you grow. I always thought that if they wanted to destroy the Red Queen, why not just eat a whole bunch of that cake and step on her? I guess the movie wouldn't have been as interesting, but there's a bunch of little things like that which unfortunately hold the story back.

The performances are a mixed bag as well. There was a lot of hype surrounding Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, but I don't feel that his performance lived up to that hype. Don't get me wrong, I think Johnny Depp is an awesome actor. I've been a big fan of his for quite a while, and I always look forward to what he brings to his characters. There are two performances of his, however, that I could just not get into. The first was his portrayal of Willy Wonka and now The Mad Hatter, whom ironically were both directed by Tim Burton. I just felt that he didn't bring anything truly special or unique to the character that we hadn't seen before. He does his usual "eccentric" routine and takes it a little too over-the-top while upstaging pretty much anyone else in the movie. Another performance that failed to impress was Anne Hathaway as the White Queen. It is difficult to explain, but she acts with a sort of "over-the-top elegance" that gets really annoying.

I never really bought Mia Wasikowska's performance as Alice either. She has no memory of Wonderland except for her dreams, and goes through a majority of the film like she is mesmerized and in awe. I have two problems with this... firstly, they never explain why she forgot about Wonderland, because how would one forget about a place like that??? Secondly, for a majority of the movie, she thinks she is in a dream, despite the fact that there are numerous occasions that prove that everything was real. This might have been due to poor direction from Tim Burton, but nonetheless its a less-than-stellar performance. The only actor that really stood out was Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen. Despite the fact that the screenwriters combined traits from The Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen once again, she was clearly having a fun time in the role and proved to be a decent villain.

The visual and artistic style is what keeps the movie from bombing. Despite the fact that I have mixed opinions about Burton, his films always have creative visuals. Most of the cg was quite well done, with a fine eye for detail. The worlds ranged from colorful and lively to dark and barren. There were some subtle touches I really as well. One was in the Red Queen's castle; the heads of her victims were floating it the moat (a very nice touch). The costume design and make up had their moments as well. Although I though the Mad Hatter was a little much, many of the concepts had a nice look to them and kept with the visual style. Finally, the 3D effects were extremely impressive. 3D has made quite a comeback and ever since Avatar perfect the technique, filmmakers are finally utilizing it quite well. If nothing else, I will give Alice In Wonderland this, the movie looks really nice.

Some final remarks, the movie threw in a few action segments. They were okay I suppose, the final battle certainly had its moments. Even though an action-based subplot felt really out place, the action was at least decent. The movie's attempt at humor was miserable. It didn't try to make you laugh often, but when it did, it crashed and burned. And seriously... did we REALLY need to see the Mad Hatter breakdancing??? That was just plain dumb!

Overall, Alice in Wonderland delivered in the visual department but failed in pretty much everything else! If all you look for in a movie are nice images, then you'll probably enjoy it. If you are looking for plot, good direction, or decent acting then you will be disappointed. Not a horrible movie, but not particularly good either.

My Score: 2 Out Of 5