‘Alice in Wonderland’: Unwonderful
As I walked out of the screening of Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland,” which opens Friday (3/5/10), I thought of something a mentor of mine used to preach, which was that you can’t really criticize a work for what it doesn’t do, only for what it does.
My negative feelings about Burton’s film started early, when I realized that Burton was only drawing on Lewis Carroll’s famous fantasies for inspiration – he wasn’t doing a film adaptation. Which is disappointing: If there’s a modern filmmaker with the visual imagination to bring something new to Carroll’s stories, it’s Burton (or Terry Gilliam).
But Burton isn’t adapting Carroll’s stories. Instead, he’s appropriating Carroll’s characters and premise, then telling a different story completely. He and screenwriter Linda Woolverton have taken the classic story and turned it into a modern action-fantasy film – minus the humor of Carroll, or the absurdity or the heart.
That’s often been Burton’s problem: an unwillingness to sacrifice style for story. Script is frequently his shortcoming; he seems ever-ready to let the pace lag or the plot fizzle in order to sandwich in a moment that dazzles the eye, without engaging the brain.
So it is with this version of “Alice,” which is the kind of fairy tale Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich might make. It’s a movie trapped in a morass of moments that are either meant to stun or to demonstrate how cute this all is.
Or, rather, cutesy. That’s not the same as witty, though Burton mistakes them for each other, particularly in the scenes with Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. A one-off in the book, the Hatter becomes a major player in this film, with Depp letting his computer-enhanced eyes, his orange fright wig and his on/off Scottish brogue define the role. He’s meant to be the soulful scamp, the unpredictable comic relief who distracts (and teaches) Alice how to come to terms with her destiny (yes, she’s a lot like Frodo in this story).
The misguided script by Linda Woolverton starts with a 6-year-old Alice interrupting her father’s business meeting to tell him about a dream that awoke her, full of talking animals and walking playing cards. When we next see her, she’s the almost 20-year-old Mia Wasikowska, late of “In Treatment,” a pouty Victorian lass about to be betrothed to a chinless lord at a garden party.
Instead, she flees his proposal, chasing a rabbit in a waistcoat until she falls down a rabbit hole. So far, so good. She’s a little past the age of the traditional Alice but hey, let’s swing with it.
But once she gets past the tiny door (with all the “Eat Me” and “Drink Me” business), things take their turn toward action-fantasy and never look back. Alice finds herself the subject of a debate among the various creatures – is she the real Alice come back? (From where?) Or is she someone else? And can she slay the Jabberwock and save the Frabjous Day?
Before anyone can say too much, the whole group is under assault – by the Bandersnatch (a roaring cross between Garfield and a hyena, with a multiple row of teeth), a group of playing-card robots and the Knave of Hearts (the appropriately cast Crispin Glover). Alice escapes but ultimately learns that an oracle has foretold her destiny: to kill the Jabberwock and return the crown from the Red Queen to the White Queen.
Yes, it’s “The Lord of the Rings” and every woman-warrior myth you’ve ever heard of, with a Lewis Carroll overlay. It’s all about forward motion, about Alice finding her “muchness” and saving the day. And it never goes anywhere except down the drain.
Sure, Carroll’s characters populate the foreground, including the Cheshire Cat, the March Hare, the Dormouse, Tweedledee and –dum. But there’s none of Carroll’s wit, no sense of his period and what the books reflected about his time. Nor does Burton use the opportunity to comment on his own period – or any other.
I seldom think of myself as a traditionalist but this film brought it out of me full force. Carroll’s stories are classics for a reason. But Burton ignores those reasons and makes what is, by today’s standard, an absolutely conventional action-fantasy, chockablock with computer effects, outsized performances and, of course, 3-D. With the exception of Alice (who spends most of the film either smaller or larger than everyone else), all of the characters played by human actors have been distorted to one level of grotesquerie or another.
Alice herself is surprisingly sexualized – not that she’s a naked hottie, but she’s got a nymphet look (with off-the-shoulder gowns barely staying up), when she’s not got up in something that looks like a Fashion Week reject. Again, there’s nothing overtly sexual – and Alice is nearly 20 – but you can’t help feeling that Burton is playing to the dirty old men in the audience.
Everyone jabbers so quickly and ridiculously that Wasikowski seems like a sourpuss by comparison. The actors who merely lend voices seem to have the better of it, getting the few funny lines (or maybe it’s just Alan Rickman’s delivery as the caterpillar).
So let me be clear about this. I was disappointed that Tim Burton thought he could dispense with Lewis Carroll’s novels when he made this film. I would still like to see his version.
But my disdain for his “Alice in Wonderland” is all about what he’s done with this film, not with what he hasn’t done. It may be the worst film he’s made since “Planet of the Apes” or the second “Batman” film.
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Tim Burton did not make the story was a waste. He was only hired by Disney, which had a script ready to handle this. I believe that if the film has something good as an aesthetic and functional cast, this element is given by Burton. The criticism does not take any of these factors into account because it criticizes the director as if he had total freedom and control over the film while highlighting a very weak points.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Batman Returns is an unsung classic — far better than the overhyped and disappointing 1st Batman he directed.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Batman Returns sucked? You must truly be on some good crack.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Couldn’t agree with you more. You’ve perfectly captured my thoughts on Mr. Burton – I would agree; I’m no traditionalist, but I can’t stomach this vogue for taking popular stories and just reusing their most fundamental elements to tell your own. It was much the same as my feelings for his ‘Sweeney Todd’ (even if that stayed a lot more often within the lines): I have no problem with adaptation – if anything, I think it is necessary since each medium is unique – but “I want to retell this story” is different from “I like this story! I wish I’d come up with it! Oh well, I’ll just pretend I did.”
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:38 pm
UH, I hate to break it to you but Batman Returns with Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfieffer, and Danny DeVito was a hit. So if you try and make a point about his failed works you should actually do so. Maybe you critics didnt care for Batman Returns but its a cult Favorite and one of the Best Batman films. Personally I think the way Tim reinvents a story to make it his own is what makes all his films worth watching. Alice in Wonderland is a perfect fit really no matter what anyone says. I will be seeing it on Friday. I give up listening to critics and just see the movie for myself.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:07 am
I’m delighted to read this less-than-glowing review of a film that I knew would be a disaster from the first time I read about it.
Burton is the most cultishly over-praised hack in the industry right now, and his acolytes never fail to worship his every trite offering as if it were pure cinematic genius.
Burton has had one great film in his career, and I leave it to the reader to decide which. But here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with Michael Keaton or Ewan MacGregor.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
You know, I’ve never really liked Batman Returns either. That whole Penguin-for-Mayor plotline was shit. Good review, still interested to see this though, or maybe it’s just me spending the last two months waiting for a good movie to come out
March 6th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Tim Burton went from a promising and creative director, with a fetish for fairy tales, to a total hack. He has long since given up creating anything on his own instead he insists on perverting classic movies (willy wonka) or books Alice in Wonderland. Having read the book I understand that his version of Wonka was closer than to the book than the original. But the Original movie was a classic for a reason, great acting a good story line and fantastic score. I understand that Burton likes his fairy tales on the dark side, the fact that he walks around looking like a 50 year old fan of the Cure is a telltale sign, but he was at his best when his darkness was offset by a bit of sweetness case and point Edward Scissorhands.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:25 am
Once again they never quite seem to send the right people to review Tim Burton.
Those of us who get it are OK with that.
By the way, it’s not a remake, it’s an original sequel. Read the credits. People worked harder on this than you did on your review.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:27 am
…and sorry, but if you didn’t like Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with you.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:51 am
It looks like an abomination.
I plan to boycott this film for insulting fans of Lewis Carrol, for lack of artistic merit, and sheer perversity.
March 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Wow! Such tough critics! So, Carroll’s story wasn’t retold in Burton’s adaptation. Good, we already know Carroll’s story. I want to be entertained with something different and I was not disappointed. The story and dialog were compromised for visual effects? No! You still had your classic good vs. evil with good as the victor. The audience was afforded room for their own imaginations to carry the story line further as in the hints of budding romance between the Red Queen and her knave or Alice and the Hatter. Every character has more to their story than revealed, you cannot deny the richness of Burton’s characterization. He was true to his style in his attention to the details of everything you saw in the movie. His rendering of the queen’s penchant for decapitation lets you know who was behind the scenes without reading the credits. This movie is a brilliant escape to those of us who appreciate artistic freedom. In fact, you should go see it again!
March 12th, 2010 at 3:27 am
The review is spot on. I had no idea that it wasn’t going to be true to the book. Once I caught on, I decided to relax and see if it had any merit as a completely different story. It didn’t. Just the oh-so-typical-nowadays girl warrior extravaganza complete with the usual wisecracks uttered as the enemy is bearing down.
Like the review said, there was none of Lewis Carroll’s absurd wit anywhere and Alice had none of the character she had in the books.
As stand-alone characters, the Red Queen and Cheshire Cat were enjoyable, but there was no story worth telling.