Every generation gets their Hook.
Actually, that’s a little bit of a facetious comparison. While Alice in Wonderland, like Hook, is a misguided and expensive sequel to a beloved children’s story, at least Steven Spielberg understood what it was that made Peter Pan tick. Watching Alice in Wonderland one can’t help but realize that the work of Lewis Carroll holds no place in the heart of Tim Burton, and that he probably doesn’t get any of it beyond the most superficial surface level.
Like Hook, Alice in Wonderland sees an older version of a classic character returning to old haunts and meeting up with old friends. For some reason the Alice in Wonderland script, by Linda Woolverton, keeps Alice utterly in the dark for the entire film. We know that she’s been to Wonderland before, the other characters know it, but bafflingly she doesn’t. And when she does remember, right at the end, it’s presented as some kind of big reveal. Huh? What makes it all the weirder is that the movie doesn’t always feel like a sequel to Lewis Carroll’s original work but some kind of weird echo, or a reboot. Characters drop famous audience identification lines from the original books, and they engage in activities that we recognize from previous adaptations, but these lines and these activities don’t seem to have a place here; they’re the Alice equivalent of a franchise throwing insipid fan service in the sixth film – a wink at the people who have been here all along.
But what’s the point of Alice not remembering anything? It’s just frustrating to spend the whole film so far ahead of your heroine; even if Alice had remembered everything from her childhood but thought she was dreaming throughout this current adventure it would have been more satisfying.
Well, sort of more satisfying. There’s little satisfying here, especially for anyone who has appreciated the work of Lewis Carroll. For some reason Woolverton and Burton have opted to try and shoehorn Alice into the heroic fantasy mold, which is just completely wrong for the character. Lewis Carroll’s two Alice books are episodic, strange and generally light; the writer played with words and logic, making games of language and thought. What he didn’t do was throw Alice into sweeping battles or have her play a role in the fates of kingdoms, and putting Alice and these characters into those scenarios utterly distorts and ruins them; why anyone ever needed to see the Mad Hatter have a fucking sword fight is beyond me. Everything in this movie is utterly wrong, coming from the point of view of someone who is even modestly aware of Lewis Carroll’s work. The script has left all the whimsy out and replaced it with strange solemnity, and it has dropped all the surreality and replaced it with packaged weirdness.
But even if you’re going to accept the idea that this movie utterly misses everything that makes Lewis Carroll’s books special, it still sucks. Tim Burton seems unable to tell a story with any kind of narrative focus. The movie just wanders in and out of set designs, playing like a giant adaptation not of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland but rather The Art of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. Sluggish and plodding, utterly without wit or any flair or spark of life, the film slowly wears you down.
Part of what wears you down is the pestilent design. Burton’s Wonderland is a burnt out husk of unpleasantness; gone is the woodcarving precision of the original books and the lush colors of the cartoon; in their place are diseased purples and festering browns. Everything is disgusting to look at, a fairy tale dystopia. That extends to many of the character designs, which render Carroll’s characters into horrific meatbeasts. Most of the film looks like it takes place in Mordor, which is appropriate since the last third explicitly rips off Lord of the Rings again and again (one of the few non-Mordor locations is the White Queen’s castle, which apparently overlooks a photo of Rivendell). Just try to watch Alice battle the Jabberwocky (I know, I know, but this is the movie they’ve made) and not see a battle against the fell beasts of the Nazgul on the steps of Minas Tirith. I dare you.
Mia Wasikowska is lovely looking as a 20 year old Alice facing an adult life; sadly she’s often utterly boring in a truly tedious hero’s journey role. Helena Bonham Carter is irritating as the Queen of Hearts (incorrectly called the Red Queen), but at least she seems to be having fun. Other actors deliver generic voice over work, and Anne Hathaway looks amazing with white hair but is wretched as the White Queen.
The true stand out miserable performance comes from Johnny Depp, who has been the focus of all the film’s advertising and will be the reason this piece of crap makes any money. The Mad Hatter is without a doubt Depp’s worst role since… well maybe in his entire career. A formless mess of a performance, the Mad Hatter simply allows Depp to give in to all his worst instincts. When the Hatter is mad he’s a Scotsman, when he’s not he’s a lisping prat… except when he’s not a lisping prat. The character himself exists merely as a function of the plot – if you thought that Through the Looking Glass really needed an Obi Wan Kenobi character, you’re in luck – so Depp gets to slide around within him without rhyme or reason. Weirdly the film gives the Mad Hatter an origin story (I shit you not), but even that doesn’t do much to define this mangled version of the eternal tea partier. Still, now I can say that I’ve lived long enough to watch a movie where the Mad Hatter is a dedicated freedom fighter.
Even the vaunted 3D in the film is useless. Burton didn’t shoot stereoscopic, and I’m assuming he never imagined it would be converted after the fact, as he uses almost no depth at all in the picture. I forgot the movie was in 3D, and I don’t mean it in that ‘it was so immersive I was just in it,’ I mean it in ‘the movie’s so flat there’s no reason to shell out extra bucks for a 3D presentation.’ There are a handful of shots where Burton plays with depth of field, but they feel like an afterthought.
One thing I will give the film is that the CGI is terrific. The movie mixes live action with CG almost seamlessly, and the few live action actors have been monkeyed about with in post production. There’s a weight to many of the digital characters, and parts of the film feel animatronic or puppeteered, which I intend as a major compliment. Still, a bunch of strong effects doesn’t stop the rest of the movie from being a heaping pile of garbage.
I had heard early reports that Alice in Wonderland was unwatchably bad, an unmitigated disaster. It’s not – it’s just regular terrible. Sloppy and stupid and filled with an endless string of wrongheaded decisions, the movie’s a mess and deserves to fail, but it never rises to that exquisite level of true horror. It’s a bore, an affront to anyone who is even familiar with the concept of Lewis Carroll and his books, but in the end it’s banal. And I mean that – totally banal in the end, with Alice using her experiences in Wonderland to become a fucking businesswoman. The ending of the movie plays like Tim Burton making peace with the fact that he’s no longer an artist, he’s now a content provider for Hot Topic.
4 out of 10
61 comments
I got to see this at the AICN Imax screening the other day. I thought it was one of Depp's worst roles….and the changing accents really caught me off guard. The 3D isn't good, and shows that converting a film from 2D to 3D isn't a great idea (This is why I'm going to see Clash of the Titans in 2D). I did enjoy seeing Crispin Glover though.
Excellent review Devin. Speaking of LOTR ripoffs, Depp looks oddly like Elijah Wood in his Hatter makeup. And not in a good way. I might Netflix this just to compare it to Disney's film.
Nice review, for a bad film. Lucky I see most movies for free, I'm chalking this one up as one of those "be glad you're not spending your paycheck on it" moments… pity the fools who do.
My favorite comment about Mia's performance came from News of the World: In 2008, when Tim Burton chose Mia to play Alice, she had never acted in a big feature film before. And that remains true to this day.
I am still holding out for a euro-trash version of "The Lost Girls", Alan Moore's devilishly perverse, comic book porno epic!
WooHoo!
The sad thing is that there have been a few Alice projects bouncing around Hollywood over the last decade. This project with it's huge budget and big names killed everything else. I would have liked to see a young Tim Burton's take on the adaption of the dark video game Alice.
From the announcement I had zero interest in this project, it will be interesting to see if it finds an audience. 200 million would have to be a validation of the project.
Maybe you should check out the tv show At the Movies. They have professional reviewers who know how to review movies. They also have people who don't cry when they don't get set visits nor review movies badly because of that.
Sorry to correct you but in the original books the Queen of hearts is in Wonderland, the Red Queen is in "looking glass." And if you knew the stories better you would have realized, they are the same character. However based on your review I would venture to say you're really not that familiar with the originals. I have taught Charles Dodgson's work for 23 years to hundreds of young adults. Your review reminds me how often people think they know what they're talking about with regards to Alice and her author. But you would be surprise at what you don't remember.
Cheers!
Golly Ronaldo, you've taught for 23 years and yet you get such a simple, basic fact incredibly wrong? The Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen aren't the same person. Lewis Carroll said, "I pictured to myself the Queen of Hearts as a sort of embodiment of ungovernable passion – a blind and aimless Fury. The Red Queen I pictured as a Fury, but of another type; her passion must be cold and calm – she must be formal and strict, yet not unkindly; pedantic to the 10th degree, the concentrated essence of all governesses!"
The two characters thus had very different dispositions and were not the same one at all. Even a superficial reading of the text would reveal that while both characters are antagonists based upon a game, that's where their similarities end.
Yeah, the real Tim Burton died after the box office failure of Mars Attacks. He came back as Burton 2.0; A more technically slick director, but without the heart. I still support Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd, but the dude needs to dig a little deeper. I think he's just happy now, which is the kiss of death for a misanthrope.
between Ronaldo and Bubbles I see 2 of the 7 Deadly Troll types of the comments section, the Expert Pretender and the Fuck You, SellOut! Shockingly, no weight-based vitriol. Also shocking, that the fucking Sci-Fi Channel abortion sounds better than this movie.
" The ending of the movie plays like Tim Burton making peace with the fact that he's no longer an artist, he's now a content provider for Hot Topic." – That is a great line.
So, did Burton finally not shoe horn daddy issues into the film or did he slip them in again? Also, is it just me or does this version of the Mad Hatter sort of look like Madonna?
Mad Hatter or Madonna? You be the judge: http://tinyurl.com/ygqdsav
"Most of the film looks like it takes place in Mordor"…. I remember describing the Platinum Dunes movies in very much the same way.
Actually, here is the article I commented on with this almost exact joke…./articles/articles/21773/1/A-RECURRING-NIGHTMARE-ON-ELM-STREET-/Page1.html….. Funny because, though we rarely agree on the forums, this is like the third time you have recycled one of my jokes(I've been saying "tits", to describe things as good, since like 1996. Love seeing it pop up on the site here and there). You don't have to agree with me Devin, just show me some love…. strong manly love. Can I get a thread dedicated to me too?
Personally, I think Tim Burton's always been a shallow, derivative filmmaker who couldn't tell a story to save his life. It's just that his earlier work benefited from being a little more simplistic and episodic by nature, as well as not having an existing body of work to act as a frame of reference to show how much he repeats himself. The first cracks started showing with Batman: an inert series of pancake-flat set-pieces full of meaningless one-liners. Didn't anyone else feel like Burton wished he was making some other movie, like, say, The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Today is a good day for me. With that College Humor video and the way Alice is getting reviewed, I'll be damned if I don't feel slightly vindicated. All I need now is to see a discarded Nightmare Before Christmas lunchbox in someone's trash bin. Maybe Burton wouldn't have come this far if goths weren't so stupid, easy to amuse, and ill-acquainted with cinema and cartooning history.
"…in their place are diseased purples and festering browns. Everything is disgusting to look at…" – Thanks for summing up what I've been feeling ever since I saw the first glimpse of this dreadful waste of time.
Spot on review, Devin. I would've given it a 2 though. Depp and Burton should be banned from working together ever again. They seem to enable the other's worst tendencies.
Yo Dipshit Devin. . . The Mad Hatter does have an origin story in the original Lewis Carrol book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Hatter
You're 0 for 2 today. Typical Wed. at Chud
Tim Burton creates some truly brilliant, wondrously imaginative imagery, but he often – especially of late – struggles with making it into any sort of coherent movie. I seriously think he should try his hand at making a silent film. Just his weird-ass art brought to life and, as unfortunate as it is unavoidable, the music of Danny Elfman. I think it could be brilliant.
Yup, count me in as one of the fellas who wants to see another "Edward Scissorhands" or "Ed Wood" or "Big Fish" from Burton. He clearly is bored making movies now, content to just collect a hefty paycheck, but it be nice to see him give a damn again.
Did you have to use Curlz MT, Devin? Christ.
Burton is so much better in real world environments (at least the majority of beetlejuice, edward, peewee).. Timbo isn't interested in classics anymore, just a check.. crazy set pieces work for claymation, not every other movie.. more time spent on a set piece, less time he thinks is necessary to work on logical plots and character.. frankenweenie reboot comes out in 2011 -_-
"…why anyone ever needed to see the Mad Hatter have a fucking sword fight is beyond me…" BOOM HEADSHOT! Will happily wait for the torrent release of this one. Excellent review!
RCA's claim in comment #16 to have invented the phrase "tits" back in '96 was funnier than any scene in COP OUT. Thank you, CHUD, for making us laugh about falling in love…again.
"Comment #2 (Posted by CDI F. Kelly)
Excellent review Devin. Speaking of LOTR ripoffs, Depp looks oddly like Elijah Wood in his Hatter makeup." THANK YOU!!! I've been saying this exact thing to my friends since the poster came out and none of my friends agree. I don't even see Johnny Depp through that makeup. I only see Elijah Wood.
If they renamed the movie "Alice & The Horrific Meatbeasts", I'd so be there – with fucking bells on. I don't know if it's necessary for filmmakers to know the source material anymore. Burton is obviously just riffing on the cultural memory of Alice rather than the actual thing itself. He did the same thing with Batman. He is the embodiment of some sort of artistic lowest common denominator.
I think the death of Burton's dad is what created Burton 2.0 – who is clearly on autopilot just lazily making remakes and reboots (somehow, a pretty good movie in Big Fish slipped thru). What a shame…
Haha a content provider for hot topic. So true
@ Sleeper. Never said I invented the word tits, but using it as an adjective is something my friends and I started doing in college. So, when something good happens, instead of saying "awesome" or "cool" we would say "tits!" or "titties!". If you can show me this being used this way in a movie before 1996, well, that would go a long way to proving you right, and you very well could be, but I'm guessing you would be hard pressed to find an example of it being used outside of, "look at those tits" or "she has great tits" which is not the same thing. P
And what did you think of Elfman's score, Devin old chap?
RCA, as soon as I get out from behind a firewall, I will give you evidence to show that it's unlikely that you and your friends were the first to use the word in that way.
I am and always will be a huge fan of Alice and everything that comes with the concept. The Movie in my opinion is more on the side of The Looking Glass Wars books. Assians and other things that went with those books. I understand most people were wishing for the "disney" Alice and were disappointed when it didn't deliver, however their are many different adaptions to this story and you should not be so close minded to only one.
Shooting it 3D (sterescopic) wouldn't have made much sense at all considering it is primarily green screen
Does anyone else think Depp looks like Elijah Wood in the poster?
Say it ain't so. This is so defeating.
Tim Burton is a one-note, talentless hack. Always has been. That being said, like Ed Wood himself, he was an entertaining hack. Not anymore. Not for a long time.
A shame. Sounds more like Alice In Tideland
@CommentGuy: Nightmare Before Christmas WAS NOT DIRECTED BY TIM BURTON. I wish people would get this straight and give credit where credit is due.
you are all idiots.
Sorry RCA, but I is a old fuckah, and in college we referred to a good party, good snowboarding conditions, good waves etc as 'tits' as far back as 89…..not shocking or original for college age guys to refer to something they like as 'tits'.
I don't want to defend or condemn anyone, but Devin is right. The Hatter doesn't have a back story in the Carrol books past, "I sang badly for the queen and she tried to have me beheaded". Read it, don't wikipedia it. Also, why do people bother commenting on a site that they believe is so shitty? I'll never understand it.
This is really nerdy – but everyone knows that the Mad Hatter was derived from the phrase "Mad as a Hatter" right? Looks like there are a few different theories about where the phrase comes from, but the most well known explanation is that back in Victorian times mercury was used in the manufacture of felt for Top Hats etc and the fumes from the process were toxic and poisoned the hat maker causing personality changes and odd behavior. So, basically – the Mad Hatter's back story is that he's a fucking Hat Maker.
The sad thing here is that Burton WASN'T a hack for a while. He peaked with Ed Wood, easily his best, most personal and most self-effacing movie. It's a Burton movie through and through, but he found a way to channel his kookiness without being in the audience's face. It was a sign of maturity. But then …
My problem with Tim Burton pretending that Ed Wood is some personal film to him, is that all of his films have been successfull (except that one) at the box office. The dude has never had to struggle with getting anything made. Allowing him to get whatever he wanted. His only real failed attempt was Superman. Go check his box office.
Leaving aside the fact that Devin was pretty much predisposed to hate this movie long before it reached the theaters…the review is still pretty much dead accurate. Except for some of the production design (I'd disagree with Devin that Carroll's books are "mostly light"; the "fairytale dystopia" look is, I think, highly appropriate to the vein of grotesquerie that runs through the originals; check out Arthur Rackham's "Alice" illustrations for an example), the movie is a near-complete disaster; almost the HEAVEN'S GATE of children's fantasy cinema. I liked Burton's earlier work so much that I've been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, since SLEEPY HOLLOW, but for me, he just ran out of real estate. The movie is just fucking appalling.
"…in their place are diseased purples and festering browns. Everything is disgusting to look at…" –
Erm, have you ever seen anything by Tim Burton at all? You seem surprised by this. It's not that surprising, I promise. It's pretty much a staple of Tim Burton films.
Don't pick on Depp/Burton collaborations. They never aimed to be the best movies, they were shots in the dark from two people who enjoyed their twisted idea of art as much as they enjoyed each other's company and skills. I will still see this movie. Though I am sad they are not retelling the original Lewis Carroll story (I was hoping to see the book get some justice after Disney screwed it up the first time, but it looks like that movie will still remain the most precise in terms of literary respect).
@dementit(s) Exactly man.
You're so smart. Seriously. Do not deprive the film world of the perfect movies you could make. They're bound to be perfect, as you seem to know everything about everything.
Wait, I was wrong. You're a useless turd drowned fuckbag.
Wow. I was expecting the worst after this review. Did you guys see it in 3D Imax? I thought the 3D was as immersive as Avatar easily! And the plot was way better than I expected after this review! I felt the movie was all around brilliant. Depp's Hatter was definitely not the best character in the movie by far. He sounded like Jack Sparrow most of the time to me. But, his character artwork is fucking creepy and amazing! Cheshire, the catapillar, the fat boys, the Queen, the nervous rabbit, on and on… were all classic! The battle at the end was brilliant! It reminded me of American Mcgee's Alice. I loved the Jabborwocky. And Alice in that sexy armor suit… yummy… Just see it in Imax 3D and see if most of you will not be impressed. Sorry most of you didn't get your money's worth. But, I am so glad that I did. Nothing worse than having high expectations for a movie and finally seeing it and it just sucks. This one didn't for me.
Realize that this review is "coming from the point of view of someone who is even modestly aware of Lewis Carroll's work"
AKA: I've heard there was this book called Alice in Wonderland
So take it with a grain of salt. This review starts out like it's coming from an epic Carroll fan– but isn't.
This Lewis Carroll fan thought that the books had plenty of justice done. Keep in mind that, for those who never actually read the books, *THERE IS NO STORY*. As rightly pointed out in the review, the books are episodic and very loosely tied to any specific plot. You couldn't actually make a coherent movie out of the books. I think they did a fine job of taking what they *could* use and running with it. The medium of film is *not* the same medium as fiction writing, people seem to be unable to grasp the concept. All in all it was very much in the vein of the original books, though slightly more coherent (no real choice there, at some point it has to be accessible).
The 3D sucked though. Don't bother, it's probably much more appreciable in regular-mode.
This is going to be one where the critics that enjoyed the movie are going to prevail. The movie was good not quite great. I saw it in a packed house in Miami and it was well-received by everyone. The target audience here is going to be younger kids and their parents. Not frustrated, failed writers who think they could have done better with Lewis Carroll and hold out hope for their script of the Wasteland and sequel to Antichrist. This movie was more of the 7.0 to 7.5. The comment about the 3D is true, it is not so engaging as to be worth it. I don't even like Burton that much or Depp, but this one is going to be worth owning on Blue-Ray.
I think the movie sucked balls….
That about covers it…
You enjoyed the part where the disco music started playing and Johnny Depp's head started spinning while he was break dancing. Did we see the same movie? I'm scoring this lower than Devin.
I disagree with nearly everthing this reviewer has to say. This about Wonderland gone bad under the Red Queen – of course it looks a little "Nightmare Before Christmas" which made me love it. The only time this movie is on shaky ground is where it departs entirely from the fertile imagination of Carroll. The visualization is brilliant. Don't let this idiot keep you from seeing any entertaining movie.
Dear Devin, if for you this movie was as crappy as you said wasn't it a waste of time to write almost two pages about it? Or do you just enjoy pointing out all possible flaws? Many of things on which you have commented don't even have any matter in a longer run. Pity that you haven't made the effort to find at least one good thing in "Alice", it'd make your review all the more valuable. I diffinitelly agree with opinion according to 3D – it was horrible and unnecessery, but the movie was mever meant to be in 3D, it just came along with the general fashion. Too many people don't treat the term "adaptation" loosly enough. Burtons work is merely bazed on Carroll's book (creative, but lacking deeper meaning or purpose other then to entertain) and even that not much. The general idea is totally different, so collating one to another is a waste of time. Burton's world is for me is less empty and more real then any version i have seen before, not mentioning disasterous Disney "Alice in Wonderland" cartoon. Noone said that it's the most glorious movie on earth, and yet I get the feeling that over the half of you feel cheated. film is like a book – it has to find it's counterpart in watcher to be fully understanded and appreciated. Perhaps this one (or from the venomous opinions, Burton's movies at all) are not the right ones for you.
Well how about this everyone. If you have nothing good to say then shut your yapp. Tikm Burton's Alice In Wonderland is my favourite movie. You all suck.
Thank you. I've been trying to put my finger on why I hated this movie so much, and you've summed it up in one line: "Tim Burton making peace with the fact that he's no longer an artist, he's now a content provider for Hot Topic." It's so true. So many of his movies I could watch on repeat and never get bored, but this didn't sit well with me, and I think that's why. It was so contrived. Great review of a disappointingly terrible movie.
Well, no matter what you have to say, I loved this movie. It definitely WAS true to Carroll's writings and any true fan of his works would agree. In fact, it is so true to his writing style that if I'd been told that the story was recently uncovered in a trunk in England was a some other Carroll drafts, I would believe it.
No it's not like the original Disney cartoon, which was a watered down, hodgepodge mess that was only vaguely based on the two Alice books, but it was more like those two books than the cartoon even though it's set years later. A testament to Tim's writing.
Yes I agree that Burton is not to everyone's liking, & I admit that I do not like all his works, but I think that, if anyone was a perfect choice to match Lewis Carroll writing style, and bizarre drug induced imagination, it's most definitely Tim Burton.
Now, if you'll excue me, I have the day off and I'm going to pull out my Alice dvd and watch it (again).
i loved the movie i also think that it is true i have seen the movie more than five times
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.