Since Tim Burton peaked in the early 90′s with Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood—and, to a lesser extent, the wildly creative Beetlejuice—he’s been mostly on auto-pilot, save for 2007′s excellent Sweeney Todd. Simply pick a topic & filmic universe that should jive with his loopy imagination (Big Fish; Planet of the Apes; Corpse Bride; etc), and expect the combination of his name and a classic story to automatically produce a great film. His latest, Alice in Wonderland, fits this formula perfectly. Theoretically, Burton’s style should produce eye-popping results for Alice and friends, particularly in our souped-up 3D age. Alas, it’s mostly a bore, punctuated with the same old players and the same old “fantastical” world. I love Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter as much as anyone, but just tossing them into every film doesn’t create instant success. For a movie about imagination, Alice in Wonderland is sorely lacking in it, and leaves almost nothing to it either. The key characters—Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum; the Red Queen; etc—are presented in bright color schemes, much like the rest of wonderland, but there’s no energy to any of it. Alice in Wonderland reminds me most of Sleepy Hollow: empty, faux-atmospheric, and without soul. Depp’s Hatter is without spunk; Bonham Carter’s Red Queen does little more than bellow “off with his head” 90 times. And the 3D, which worked so well in, say, 2009′s Coraline, adds absolutely nothing here—only a few bugs pop, and the backgrounds don’t feel any richer. The best thing about the movie is a hookah-smoking caterpillar. It’s difficult to explain why I keep going back to Burton’s well given my recent disappointments, but I do. Maybe I’m just holding out hope that he’ll snap out of his funk and throw some genuine love back into his work sometime soon.
30/100
#1 by Anonymous on March 7, 2010 - 4:19 pm
Quote
While I don’t mean to take away from a review that I am sure you must have spent a great deal of time and effort, I feel I must make a few correcting points. 1: Tim Burton has not actually worked on many of the recent films that his name has been put on, 9 for example, had nothing to do with Tim Burton, but they were able to put his name on it as a producer because he gave them money. 2: The 3D was not simply used for the occasional effect, the entire movie was made and filmed in 3D because it allowed for the characters and battle sequences to come alive. 3: If you have actually read through the looking glass (which based on your review, you haven’t) then you would understand how very different and imaginative Burton’s wonderland is, not to mention a visual masterpiece better than what it took James Cameron ten years to accomplish. So, while I respect your opinion, I must disagree (although I do agree that Sleepy Hollow was unquestionably lacking in the qualities of a good film).
#2 by Shelley on March 8, 2010 - 12:30 am
Quote
Totally agree..I slept through this movie..no highs, no lows..jut droll through and through..most entertaining was a “jig” but that was so contrived..the entire movie was lack lustre..nothing great…..mediocre at best..and even that rates this movie with a star too many!! Time for Depp to be Real and Helena to get a good doo and do some serious roles..time for Burton to get into a reality based film…and show that side of life..time for this group to totally MOVE ON!!
#3 by Gabe on March 8, 2010 - 7:12 am
Quote
Thank you for your comments. Firstly, I didn’t count movies like Nine among Burton’s most recent. Secondly, I’m aware 3D was intended in this instance to bring a “magical” world alive — it flat-out failed from my perspective. I have read THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, though not in many years: however, I recognize a few differences, such as Alice’s age. Those things didn’t prove to be any revelation about Burton’s imagination, though.
#4 by matt on March 8, 2010 - 12:11 pm
Quote
Why does anonymous claim the movie was filmed in 3d? That’s not true, the 3d was added after, if it has been filmed in 3d like say … Avatar, then it probably wouldn’t be getting all these reviewers saying the 3d looks tagged on and doesn’t work.
#5 by Gabe on March 8, 2010 - 12:13 pm
Quote
It was definitely not shot IN 3D – I think he meant that there was more to its purpose than just “oohs and ahhs” moments. Which, to me, there wasn’t.
#6 by Sharon on March 12, 2010 - 12:00 pm
Quote
I have to agree with anonymous. It’s refreshing to have a movie that is more about the story and message than about special effects, which I also liked. I think too often people go into a movie expecting it to be a certain way and when it isn’t they are disappointed. This was a great movie with a great story.
#7 by Matt on March 13, 2010 - 5:06 pm
Quote
It’s funny that you say it was refreshing to have a movie that is more about story and message than about special effects… because that is exactly what Alice in Wonderland was not…
It was all looks, the screenwriting is horrible… the quality of the writing in this film is not what I would expect from the person who wrote Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King.
This incarnation of Alice in Wonderland is quite forgettable… 10 years later I still remember and enjoy both movies I mentioned in the previous paragraph… next year, most people will have forgot Alice in Wonderland every happened.
#8 by Quirk on March 14, 2010 - 12:03 pm
Quote
Your review perfectly sums up my feelings toward this movie. Nothing drew me in. The scenery was nothing special or imaginative. The 3D seemed pointless. The characters had no inkling of motivation. The Hatter makes a terrible main character. Absolutely nothing interesting or new was done direction-wise. The pacing was abysmal. Nothing seemed like it was important at all. The whole movie just moved along without anything worth caring about.
Pingback: LESS ALICE – MORE AVATAR | Blog | Shizzle Dizzle Magic