B


When Tim Burton announced that he’d direct a new take on Lewis Carroll’s eternal classic Alice in Wonderland, the opinions were split. Burton’s fans were excited about the prospect of the director going all out in the visual style for the fairy tale adaptation. Admittedly, Carroll’s richly imaginative tale is a perfect fit for Burton’s highly visual sensibilities. Others, however, just sighed about Burton doing his whole bizarre-gothic-setting thing again and not trying anything new. At the end of the day, both parties will get just what they expect. Those who liked the idea of this project from the beginning will likely end up loving the film. Those opposing it, will receive just the product they have been expecting. This is not Burton being experimental or trying anything new. It’s the same Burton that gave us Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – no more and no less. The trailers have been quite telling about the final product. What you see is what you get.

Despite the classic Alice in Wonderland title, the film is not a straight-up adaptation of Carroll’s original 1865 novel. There have been plenty of those and Burton rightfully decided that the audiences didn’t need to see yet another faithful adaptations. Carroll’s purists might not be pleased by that, but on the other hand Burton still stays mostly true to the author’s slightly crazy vision. The movie draws upon Alice’s Adventure’s in Wonderland just as much as on its follow-up Through the Looking Glass, mixing characters and settings from both novels. The whole Wonderland story is nicely framed by a Victorian-era England setting with a 19-year old Alice being urged into an arranged marriage with an unappealing lord. About 15 minutes into the movie Alice falls into that well-known rabbit hole where her adventures start…but apparently it’s not her first time! After that the movie wanders on the token path of fantasy adaptations like The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. An unlikely hero (Alice) must take on the evil Red Queen (deliciously played by Helena Bonham Carter) and her big dragon-like monster, the Jabberwocky.

Everyone who has read Carroll’s knew that Burton would have a ball with this film as it allowed him for the imagination to run wild. And yet, while it does have all the Burton ingredients (Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, overwhelming art direction), it doesn’t feel as much a Burton movie as, say, Edward Scissorhands. The main reason for that is that it’s not Burton putting his own personal touch on Carroll’s work. Much rather it’s Burton transforming what Lewis has written on paper into images. Surely, the story deviates from the originals, but as far as the imagination goes, Carroll has delivered a terrific template for the film already. Even the creature and production designs are often directly inspired by John Tenniel’s original illustrations (look for his drawing of the Jabberwocky once you have seen the movie). It looks like a Burton film, but it doesn’t feel personal. That’s not to say that it doesn’t look beautiful because it certainly does. The production values are lavish; Colleen Atwood has delivered in the costume design department once again. We’ll certainly see this film appearing among the technical nominees for next year’s Academy Awards. It’s a beautiful-looking movie. But then again so are most Burton films, even his weaker efforts like Sweeney Todd. One would not expect it any different from an adaptation of one of the most inventive and visionary literary classics ever. Yet because it draws so heavily upon the imagery of the novels, it doesn’t look to be a huge effort. Also on a slightly negative side – while the 3D effects were very nice in most parts of the movie, the dimming effect of the 3D glasses made some scenes look really dark and that not in a good way.

The cast assembled for this one reads terrific on paper, but in fact only a few are given meat to work with. The aforementioned Burton-regular Helena Bonham Carter obviously had tons of fun with her role and it shows. Her counterpart, Anne Hathaway, on the other hand looks miscast and her talent is wasted in an ungrateful role. Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman made for great Cheshire Cat and the Caterpillar respectively. Johnny Depp’s turn is just what you’d expect. Wearing make-up and drag once again, his Mad Hatter is expectedly out there and while Depp easily pulls off the role there are no new nuances to his performance here. The usually great Crispin Glover isn’t given much to work with as the Knave of Hearts and same goes for Timothy Spall’s Bayard. The movie’s biggest highlight, however, is its title heroine Alice, wonderfully portrayed by Mia Wasikowska. The young actress has just the right combination of pure innocence, gravity and, later, spunkiness to pull off the role of Alice. The film’s success largely depended on her and she fully delivered. Same can’t be said about the uneven screenplay. Things start off pretty well with Lewis’ social criticism showing in the garden party scene at the beginning of the movie. Moreover, the theme of female empowerment carries through the entire film. The first scenes in Wonderland also have a sense of amazement and excitement. But soon the movie takes a token path of your typical fantasy epic, resulting in a climatic battle at the end of the film. It’s not bad, but certainly far from original.

So what we’re left with is a decently entertaining movie with terrific visuals and a great leading performance. At the same time, the movie lacks that “special something” that early Burton films had and seems as mainstream as possible at times. As I said at the beginning of the review, Burton’s followers will enjoy it, but those who dreaded the film to begin with won’t have their minds changed by the movie. In terms of Burton films it is about on par with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Make of that what you will. I personally enjoyed it for what it was, not having had any great expectations towards it.

thanks dr. lecter but did you really need to post that review 6 times?

I've seen it and surprisingly liked it a lot. I'll let it linger a day as I do with most movies and then post my grade.

I liked it. But I can't defend it against those that didn't because it is a bi-polar movie. It's as if Burton set out to do a really dark, creepy movie but suddenly had to change it to a PG, fun family movie (which is probably exactly what happened).

The visuals are there. The underlying darkness is there. But something gets lost in the translation somewhere. The guts I think. It could have been awesome.

The first half is brilliant. The second half is cliched and rushed. But I would recommend seeing it and judging it for yourselves.

B

Pretty much totally incomprehensible from beginning to end.

Tim Burton's new version of the classic Alice in Wonderland is a fun ride but a bit of disappointment when compared to his other works. While the visuals are great (even in 2D) and a good bit of the acting is strong, the story is very generic and could be predicted from start to finish. The acting was strong though with Johnny Depp doing a solid job with the Mad Hatter and Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway do a decent job in their roles. The true star is newcomer Mia Wasikowska who shows her acting chops greatly here and hopely can land more rules off Alice's success. The ending looked like there will be more installments coming soon depending on how successful this version is (and I don't think there is a problem there). If so, hopefully the story gets a little more original and the tone is chosen for the film instead of switching from dark to family (I mean Johnny Depp's breakdancing was a bit unnecessary). **1/2

new favorite?

Unfortunately this movie turned out to be a big disappointment for me

It was boring, it didn't have Burton's spirit, 3D was not good. Overall I give it a D

I thought it was wonderful. Burton's decision to blend Carroll's fanciful humor with a Lord of the Rings/Narnia-style structure could have produced dire results, but I found the film enchanting and uplifting. The ensemble cast, led by the beautiful and vivacious Mia Wasikowska as a conflicted, independent teenage Alice, is superb. Helena Bonham Carter in particular has devilish fun as the Red Queen. Only Anne Hathaway seems miscast and slightly lost in her role.

Burton's vision of Wonderland ("Underland") is an elaborate, quirky delight. Iconic characters, including the Cheshire Cat and Tweedledum and Tweedledee, are rendered with gorgeous, precise CGI. The controversial battle sequence in the third act, in which Alice slays a dragon, may deviate from Carroll's intentions and vision, but it is an exciting, moving sequence and enriches the cinematic experience.

A-

I expected great things from Tim Burton's version of Alice in Wonderland when I first heard about it, but the movie does not meet the expectations. It's not a horrible film by any means but it is distinctly average. The film is visually dynamic and striking (although less "weird" than most of his past films), and Burton certainly makes the visuals pop. But the film is missing its heart and soul. We only really connect with Alice because Mia Wasikowska is so likable. Helena Bonham Carter is suitably amusing as the Red Queen, but Johnny Depp is underutilized and Anne Hathaway has nothing to do. I wanted a lot more from this movie and it just didn't provide it. C+

I'm not sure how they could have utilized Depp more. They made the Hatter very integral to the proceedings.

He was underutilized in the sense that he was completely boring and overshadowed. I don't know if this was because of Burton, Depp, or both.

Oh, I see.

I disagree, but I see.

I think Depp was just on autopilot here.

Is there a reason Depp alternated between having a lisp and being Scottish?

Not to mention his breakdancing to end the film. Like, WTF.

The Scottish was whenever he was pissed off.

7/10 -> B-

While certainly not the best film Burton has tailored, it's far from being the worst. It's an enjoyable escapist reinterpretation of Alice In Wonderland. I'd hardly call it a sequel, as it has been called by the crew behind it, because it doesn't bother with continuity too much.

The star of the movie is definitely Bonham-Carter's The Red Queen. It's obvious she had the most fun in her role and she had the most to work with. Mia Wasikovska as Alice is really good too. But I was disappointed in Depp and especially in Hathaway who was bland at best.

I've seen the movie in 3D, but I actually think 3D didn't bring any goodies this time and I'll go definitely see it in 2D. I've never seen a movie in 3D and then watched it in 2D, or vice versa. But his time I have a nagging feeling that the movie is actually much, much more suitable in 2D, as I really can't see any reason for 3D besides the sake of it. In horrors it's used for cheap thrills, in animated movies it's used for big action sequences. Alice is a pretty peaceful movies, barring the underwhelming fight at the end, and it doesn't use the effect good at all. It doesn't pull a Pandora on Wonderland either.

Overall I wasn't disappointed, but neither overjoyed with the movie. I did expect for it to be better, but it turned out alright just how it is.

I loved the switch between the lisp/soft tones (when he was calm) and the Scottish brogue (when he was angry). I thought it was a fun, inspired decision on Depp's part.

I thought it was retarded.

It was on the same level as Planet of the apes remake...

agreed with all but the hathaway miscasting, I think she did a fine job and fit the role well

BJs Grade: A-/B+

Most of all I enjoyed the visuals and costumes. I thought Burton really brought Wonderland to life and really appreciated all the nice colors and scenes. I thought the cast was diverse and held their own too and overall would say this was an enjoyable film.

I saw it again, but in the "regular" version this time. I actually enjoyed it just a slightly bit more this time. I don't think it was because of the 2D/3D effect. The movie just had a bit of a better flow this time.