Alice au pays des merveilles

It is still worth the high price of the 3-D admission to see some of the amazing animation and design, but the writing is extremely boring and clumsy, and the performances cannot save it. Too many liberties were taken with the originals here, and in no way improve upon them, it only barely resembles either of Carroll's books in theme and some specific scenes. There are some "Disney moments" that literally set off a gag reflex as well.

The animation is quite stunning and wonderful though, as is the costuming and set design (in so much as there were sets and not just green screens, I'm sure SOME actual props were used). There are some clever elements that owe only to good visual design and direction I'm sure, as the only other clever bits in the dialogue were the parts directly lifted from the originals.

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is a sequel and not a retelling of the original children's novels by Lewis Carroll. In this film, Alice is now 19-years old, and soon after the death of her father, is proposed to be married away. Feeling pressured, she runs off, following a white rabbit, which leads her to Wonderland, a place she only vaguely remembers from childhood. There, she meets past familiar faces as the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Blue Caterpillar (Alan Rickman), the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), and eventually the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), who has been terrorizing the land with her harsh rule and beheading of heads. Alice finds out that her destiny is to end the Red Queen's rule by slaying the queen's dragon, Jabberwocky, as written in the prophesy. Along the way she meets up with all sorts of colorful characters.

If you remember, Steven Spielberg's Hook was the live action sequel to Peter Pan. Similarly, Tim Burton's film is very much like a close cousin, except it's about Alice. The progression of the story is also kind of similar, where the main character, Alice, like Peter, must rediscover herself and finally defeat her nemesis. Likewise, both films are both elaborately staged, they are both about growing up and making choices, and there's a big showdown. Chances are if one liked Hook, one will find many things to like about Alice.

Tim Burton's version of the Wonderland's environments are gorgeous, imaginatively created, lots of colorful details, and breathes life. The castles are sleek and intricately designed. The creatures are generally live versions (CG) of the Disney's previous animated version, and they're even more odder and fun to look at. I particularly loved the portrayal of the Chesire Cat in this film, and the way he snakes through midair like water feels very natural, although it wouldn't feel so natural in real life. Only complaint I may have in terms of visuals would probably be where we see CG versions of natural creatures like dogs--they're not particularly stylized so their CG-ness can be more noticeable.

Danny Elfman's score fits the environment just right, giving added intensity when needed. This film is essentially Tim Burton's playground and even if there wasn't any story, it still would be plenty of fun to just watch the loony characters in their environment. I will add that 3-D aspect of it helped a lot.

Johnny Depp plays the Mad Hatter with usual gusto, as he brings much energy and quirkiness to such an oddball character. I suppose there is a mix of Willy Wonka and Jack Sparrow in there somewhere. Given that other characters are mostly or completely CG, Johnny Depp's character can feel a bit of out of place, as he still feels human. Helena Bonham Carter as the big-headed (literally) Red Queen is fun, expressive, and extremely likable for such a short-tempered character. Mia Wasikowska is particularly noteworthy as Alice, which she plays with free-spirited pluckiness, charm, and beauty.

The story, admittedly, is a simple one, although it is to the story's credit that Alice is now an adult--it helps since many happenings in Wonderland can be quite unfriendly, bizarre, and grotesque. Thankfully, no more worries about some dream causing some lifelong trauma to some poor child. I also appreciated the fact that her Wonderland, like dreams, is an extension of her frustrations with the "real" world, where she felt she had many "expectations" from outside forces. At the same time, it's not like Where the Wild Things Are, where other characters are actually projections of real-life people from the main character's life. For example, to read Mad Hatter as an extension of her father feels a bit like a stretch, although the Red Queen could possibly represent her future mother-in-law since they both dislike animals. Certainly, one can merely enjoy it at face value and the creativity of this world and be fine with it.

Overall, I enjoyed this world of Alice. In one sense, that may be the important thing, if one were to stick to the flavor of the original novel. The story within the Wonderland, I felt, wasn't as poignant as "real life" moments, which were filmed with much love and detail. Given the fact that original story consisted of series of random events and character interactions, it was nice to see the characters work together a bit. The overall result isn't something beyond what one would expect from this style of work, but it's fun, and where it succeeds, it succeeds well, thanks to the consistency of Tim Burton's imaginative visuals. *** out of **** stars.

For more of my reviews, you can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/d_art

I attended the Cast and Crew screening on Sunday, in Leicester Square, with high hopes for this film as it's without doubt the most exciting job I've had. This was my first feature experience, and working for Tim Burton was a hell of a way to start.

But, even as someone with a lot of time for his films, and a pre-existing bias, I couldn't really connect with this. The cast acquit themselves well, especially considering the noted difficulty in emoting to a tennis ball on a stick, but all their tics and quirks seem to be masking a void at the centre of what should be a free-floating, evocative trip. Sure, it's weird looking, but we've seen it before, and back then in films like Edward Scissorhands it had a sense of purpose. Now we're left exploring a CGI wonderland that seems to be without a great deal of wonder. The book revels in its bizarre environs, absurd dialogue and whimsical characters. This film grounds them, drains them of that mystery and leaves us with a colourful but forgettable retread. It seems intent on driving us to a narrative conclusion that few people will have had much stake in through its running time, simply because we're not giving much to care for.

With a source material so familiar, even to those whose knowledge is second hand references, there needs to be a degree of innovation (as in Svenkmejer's dark stop-motion version, or the co-opting of Terry Gilliam in to his "Tideland" narrative), or else a studious and inspired adaptation that completely returns to Lewis Carroll. What we end up with is a mid-point that fails to get to grips with what enchants people about the Alice story, and another chance to see a beautiful waif walk around twisted, quasi-Gothic landscapes to a score by Danny Elfman.

Not that this isn't an enjoyable experience in itself, and as seen in the vast Screen 1 at the Empire it is at times breathtakingly pretty. It's just inessential, and while it may be unfair to expect a classic from a favoured filmmaker every time out, when they tackle something with the pedigree and history of Alice In Wonderland you can't help but hope for something special. And that's the problem, that Tim Burton, while he is still making decent films, has been a long way off special for some time now.

6/10 (if they gave half stars it'd be 6.5), but that doesn't mean it's a bad film. It's possible that my grade is affected by high expectations and lost potential. If you have kids, I'm sure it'll be better than 90% of the dross that passes for family films now. At least there is some artistry involved, and while he might not be at his best I'll still always pay to see a Tim Burton film (although I got this one for free...)

The setup of this movie sounds like the beginning of a good joke: "Tim Burton and Walt Disney walk into a bar..." You wouldn't think it possible, but it happened. Tim Burton, the master of dark, twisted fantasies where every story involves at least 1 corpse, teamed up with the studio known for bright pink bunnies and such.

The temptation is for Burton fans to expect a Burtonesque flick while Disney fans expect an accurate retelling of the 1951 Disney cartoon classic. Neither happened, not by a longshot.

What happened instead is something you just have to experience. Someone once told me that the root of beauty lies in contrast. A yellow flower in a field of yellow flowers isn't as beautiful as a yellow flower growing on a desolate battlefield of some war-torn desert. So with that in mind, this is a movie for people who can appreciate the contrast between Burton's sarcasm and Disney's innocence. I'll give you an example...

In the Disney cartoon, as well as Lewis Carroll's original story, the Red Queen runs around commanding "Off with his head!" at anyone who irritates her, but of course the Red King quietly follows behind whispering "You're pardoned" each time, thus saving the executioner a ton of gory axe blades. But in this version, in a brief but stark moment, we learn that the beheadings are quite real. And then bam, we quickly return to Disney territory where we are entertained by the banter of cute talking mice.

Literally, I rubbed my eyes, turned to the person sitting next to me and asked, "Wait... did we just see a bunch of decapitated heads??" Confusing at first, this volley between macabre & merry becomes the charm of this film. I should add that I counted at least 3 characters who got an eyeball disgorged. And yet, in Disneyesque fashion you never really feel a sense of menace; it's mostly in good fun.

I purposely didn't mention the plot until now because, to me, the story was secondary to the overall vibe of the film. But in case you're wondering, this is *not* a retelling of Disney's, Carroll's or anyone else's "Alice in Wonderland". This is sort of a sequel to the original where Alice, now 19 years old and about to get married, gets reconnected with her long forgotten adventure of youth. In that respect, it reminded me of how the movie "Hook" was sort of a sequel to "Peter Pan".

To me, that's the only department where this film lost a few points, because it felt like they were weaving too much of a story into a tale that was inherently a stream-of-consciousness that mimicked the randomness of a dream (Lewis Carroll himself invented the story on the spot while rowing Alice Pleasance Liddell and her sisters on a pond). This version follows more of a straighforward plot to defeat the bad guys, and in so doing, it got away from the dreamlike feeling of all other versions I've seen.

Johnny Depp... of course JD steals the show with his alternately endearing and terrifying Mad Hatter. He plays the role as someone suffering from severe PTSD which manifests itself in multiple personalities. There's his normal, gentle, lisping Hatter. And then there's his cruel, dark Scottish Highlander Hatter who sounds like Sean Connery just lost his place in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Honorable mention goes to Crispin Glover (Marty McFly's nerdy father in "Back to the Future") who plays a very chilling Jack of Hearts. And another honorable mention goes to Anne Hathaway who plays the angelic but somewhat ditzy White Queen.

Special effects are good for 2010 but a bit dated for today. The best effects are the subtle ones such as the way the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) was depicted as having an enormous, bulbous head. I also thought the "Drink Me, Eat Me" scene where Alice shrinks & grows was done very well.

In the end, although I had been expecting something of a trainwreck, I think the odd pairing of Burton & Disney was a success. So what's next? Maybe horror master John Carpenter ("Halloween") does a teencom with Lindsay Lohan & Jamie Lee Curtis called "Freaky Friday the 13th"?

Disney presents Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

STARRING

Johnny Depp... as Willy Wonka, if Willy Wonka hadn't been Michael Jackson

Mia Wasikowska... as a winsome young lady Alice who discovers her inner fortitude

Crispin Glover... who doesn't dance, unfortunately

Helena Bonham-Carter... with a big head

Matt Lucas... as two Matt Lucases

Stephen Fry... who does actual voice acting and doesn't just read his lines

Paul Whitehouse... who against all my expectations, still does know how to be very funny

Alan Rickman... who nearly steals the movie, just by doing what he does best

Christopher Lee... who actually steals the movie with just two lines

AND

Babs Mitchell-Windsor... playing a character her actual, real size

I can see why the they've not really wanted to call the film a proper sequel. It is that, being the story of a nineteen year old Alice who returns to barely-remembered Wonderland, but it also lifts dialogue and scenes from the original books. The story is your standard journey, emotionally, but all set in a very Tim Burton Wonderland.

Which, of course, looks astounding. Wonderland is an amazing place, often colourful, but equally often ravaged and desolate. It's a treat for the eyes, with the imagination and design shining through the technology. (It's very, very good, but strange things happen if you look somewhere the 3D doesn't want you to look and there's the odd moment of strangely stiff animation, especially when human(-like) characters are completely CGI-ed up.)

Unexpectedly, it sometimes feels like one of the Narnia films (though makes those movies look like accountant-led spreadsheets that have been printed out on toilet paper and left out in the rain), but mainly it's exactly what you'd expect from Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. It's a great big treat of a movie, to be sure. Given that it's Tim Burton working with Disney, it's often gruesome and scary, but not too much. It makes you laugh at times, it pins you to the back of your seat at others, it gets you leaning forward trying to drink in every detail of the place, but it's not ever actually surprising. You know what's up, you know where things are going and you're never shocked. (Maybe once, in a quiet, horrible scene that stands out, even amongst the rest.) Even if you've not seen a single still photo or second of footage, if you know Wonderland and you know Tim Burton, you can picture it yourself effortlessly.

So much of it is still in my head this morning, but it's all visual. There's no heartache or sense of triumph that lingers after a great story. Funny as it is, there's only one line I'm ever likely to quote (a single word). I just have these amazing images left in my brain. In that sense, then, it's appropriately dream-like.

I doubt I'll go back and watch it again at the cinema, but I'm most definitely getting the Blu- Ray when it comes out next week, or whenever Disney decided they should bring it out.

If it feels like I've damned it with faint praise, I don't intend to. It's all pretty wonderful for the two hours it takes to speed past you, but I just want to make it clear - nothing that goes into your ears or your heart ever quite matches what goes into your eyes.