Alice in Wonderland

Was there wonder in Underland? Or was the world through the rabbit hole ultimately underwhelming? This was the review that split the IndieMovies team right down the middle. Kimberly, Angela, Paul and Emma weigh in on Tim Burton’s latest.

Kimberly: There are certain cine-marriages that create an indelible spark all their own. Tracy & Hepburn, Newman & Woodward, Bogie & Bacall ... and with this latest venture, Tim Burton & 3D. With a respectful nod to Burton's other, human muses (Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter), it is this pairing of one of filmdom's most extraordinary fantasists with a burgeoning new technology that allows us full immersion into this wild and wooly Burton-esque world. Prior to 3D, we were polite onlookers, standing at the doorway of someone else's dream, appreciating it from a respectful distance. But now? We barge right in – and our manners, like the Cheshire Cat, have vanished into thin air.

While the 1993 The Nightmare Before Christmas was re-released in 2006 in a 3D medium, it's great fun to imagine how some of Burton's earlier outrageous fantasies (eg, Edward Scissorhands, Beetle Juice) might look bathed in a 21st century IMAX-imum exposure. Especially given the current trend to refashion anything that slightly smells of success, exhumed from the back of our collective cinematic closets, we shouldn't have to wait all that long.

Actually, "refashioning" is exactly what screenwriter Linda Woolverton does, using Lewis Carroll's 1865 and 1871 "Alice" novels as a springboard to revisit the heroine's otherworldly encounters. In this film, Alice is now a 19-year-old young lady confused about her identity in a repressive Victorian high society in which marriages are often arranged and in which her refusal to wear a constricting corset is scandalous stuff indeed. Rather than agreeing to her family's prearranged engagement to a moneyed fop, she chases off after her old friend, the White Rabbit – and finds herself falling down the same rabbit hole she remembers from her 6-year-old childhood dreams. But as the denizens of Wonderland (or, as it turns out, the more geographically-appropriate "Underland") ponder, is this young woman the "real" Alice? The one who might slay the Jabberwocky and thus liberate them from the tyranny of the Red Queen?

Slaying the creature is mere child's play as compared to the challenge of warming up Carroll's well-known characters who jump in and out of the chapters like so many manic March Hares. Though their original leather-bound personalities are all marvelously peculiar, they are most decidedly aloof, tolerating that silly girl in the pinafore rather than caring about her. And she, in turn, is far more curious than concerned about winning over new friends.

Carroll's audience has been wrestling with various interpretations of his books stretching all the way back to 1865. It's an ornate exercise in word play; it's a study of the inhospitable adult world as perceived through a child's eyes; it's a sly lampooning of the English political system; it's a satire of the War of the Roses, the House of Lancaster (red) versus the House of York (white). Or it's simply an amusement for a bored child named Alice during an outing on a rowboat. Whatever the slant, Carroll's characters are not cut from the same cuddly cloth as the animated gang from Woolverton's earlier screenplay of Beauty and the Beast. Or The Lion King.

And yet Woolverton manages to retain their formal demeanor while still making them engaging. Depp's Mad Hatter wrestles with his madness (a true malady suffered by hatters, due to mercury poisoning from their use of a particular toxic glue while making hats). The Dormouse may be fractious, but she's a formidable swashbuckler, tiny yet mighty. However, the sweet loyal bloodhound named Bayard seems as if he wandered in from Woolverton's earlier Homeward Bound.

In a refreshing departure from modern-day tradition, the animated creatures do not mirror the facial resemblances of the actors voicing them. As for the humans, the performances are almost as fun as the sets. Helena Bonham Carter's bulbous-headed Red Queen is perfect, throwing fits like a two-year-old, screaming for heads left and right. Speaking of heads, we see her masking her own voluminous cranium inferiority complex, flirting her, um, head off, hoping that some man somewhere might find her reasonably attractive. Her rival, Anne Hathaway's White Queen, glides as if on little white wheels, her hands in a constant hula, trying oh-so-hard to be the “Good One” – even though her own ambition merrily bubbles right below the surface. Another standout is Matt Lucas as the Tweedles, both Dum and Dee, doing one great take after another.

A dead ringer for a young Martha Plimpton, Mia Wasikowska is a marvelous Alice: humorous, impassioned, confused, stubborn and good as gold, she radiates such solid screen charisma that we heartily follow her, wishing her well on both her internal and external journeys. As for Alice's potential love matches, the filmmakers set up an interesting parallel. It's Hamish v. Hatter: while the real world's Hamish (Leo Bill) has strange teeth, red hair and ringed eyes, it is the Underland's Hatter, similarly sporting strange teeth, red hair and ringed eyes, who's far more suitable. Suggesting that perhaps a better fit all around may exist in the world down under?

This reviewer hesitates to describe the eye-popping visuals in any depth, wishing to leave each viewer to his/her own experience. Suffice to say that Mr Burton & Co have created the world we hoped for ... and so much more.

Rating on a scale of 5 slithy toves: 4.5

Angela: We know this version of Alice in Wonderland is not a book adaptation but a sequel of sorts. The problem is, it’s a sequel to what? If we knew that it might help us make sense of the plot. If this is a follow-up to the 1951 Disney animated version (a mixture of the two Lewis Carroll books, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass), there are still questions begging for answers. For example, where is the Queen of Hearts? If the Red Queen is in charge, forcing her rule on the populace and usurping her sister the White Queen, surely the White Queen should have been in power the first time around? This leads to the only conclusion that this is a sequel to an unmade film, which in itself is a little confusing (but something we may need to get used to in time for the next Superman movie). Tim Burton fans beware: although there is plenty of Burton quirk, this is essentially a Disney film with a PG rating.

Since this is a film aimed at all ages, you could almost see the restrictive belt around Burton’s creation. Wonderland itself (or should that be Underland?) is beautiful; there are a lot of hedge sculptures reminiscent of Edward Scissorhands, as well as Corpse Bride and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-esque vivid colour against a drab and washed-out backdrop. Eye-poking and jabbing was a prominent theme throughout, with Alice making friends with the Bandersnatch by giving back the eye that had previously been poked out by the Dormouse (devoid of any gore, I would like to add). Obviously, no disturbing scenes were allowed so when Alice finally managed to overcome the Jabberwocky (the creature reminded me of a A Nightmare Before Christmas character, not only for its look but the way it was filmed seemed to be almost stop-motion) no blood was spilled. Low-aimed humour was instead woven into the movie, with giggles and guffaws in response.

The effects were amazing: Alice growing and shrinking was a believable feat, the Red Queen’s head was convincingly big (and attached) as were the Mad Hatter’s eyes. The interaction between CG and human actors was done flawlessly. But, as with a lot of 2D action films, when the action was quick, it was difficult to keep them in focus meaning a lot of effects were lost and instead presented as a colourful blur. I’m still not accustomed to 3D, so I spent the majority of the start feeling rather queasy and having to close my eyes whenever the viewer was taken on a visual ride (mainly due to the blurred motion), my knowledge of frame rates isn’t substantial but I wonder if Alice could have done with a higher frame rate, just to make it smoother? From what I’ve heard Avatar has a lot of similar movement shots and reports suggest there wasn’t the same problem there.

As a fan of the books, it’s nice to see some familiar faces, especially when they carry the same personalities as they do in said books. Most notable were the bickering Tweedles, the mad Mad Hatter, crafty Cheshire Cat and the nervous White Rabbit.

Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter steal the show with their acting prowess, giving performances worthy of their eccentric on screen counterparts, proving magnetic onscreen. Whereas the smaller parts, for example, Stephen Fry’s Cheshire Cat and Michael Sheen’s White Rabbit were a bit forgettable, in spite of the build-up their famous names inspired.

Rating on a scale of 5 unbirthdays: 4

Emma: If Avatar kicked open the 3D door with its giant blue feet (and it did), Alice In Wonderland provided the cute doorstop to wedge it in place for good. The second 3D smash in a matter of months, Alice In Wonderland broke the non-sequel launch record at the US box office, nabbing $116.3 million on release.

The date of its opening was cannily judged. We enjoyed one effects extravaganza a few months ago, so even the casual movie-fancier who goes only once a quarter is probably ready for a bit more of the same. And it really was a very similar experience, which leads this reviewer to wonder: are we being trained to accept 3D?

It’s the story of a hero who comes down from the sky to defend an innocent people from exploitation. It’s the story of an emotional journey from disengagement and isolation to a heroic decision to defend the things that matter.

The above feeble little synopses could apply equally to Avatar and Alice, as could the fact that both films – more than anything else – are about an everyman or woman who is catapulted into a magical world, filled with exotic beings and strange flora and fauna. Initially unsure of their new environment, they soon discover it’s a place to find deep personal fulfilment. And that functions as a neat parallel of our own 3D viewing experience – or the experience the makers would like us to have.

It would be paranoid to suggest that this was the strategy from the outset; rather, the commercial pressures that shape a film – especially a risky, expensive one that relies on a largely untested technology – have a cookie-cutter effect on the finished product. The story must be simplified, the characters neatly delineated into the ranks of good and evil, the hero must be blandly acceptable to all. The real selling point here is Pandora or Underland: the dreamscape of the director’s imagination.

So, how does Burton’s vision rank? One of the interesting things about the future of 3D, as opposed to its gimmicky past, is that it’s going to be a very different experience depending on who the director is and how much power they wield. James Cameron is a tech guy, and his engagement with the technology was obviously paramount in the creation of Avatar. No expense was spared. Every shot is flawless. Your eye can travel around the screen at will. The motion is crisp and you won’t miss a single detail.

Underland did not fare quite as well. Some character creations and static backdrops are deliciously Burtonesque but once things start moving, the show belongs to Disney and that’s when things get a little frayed. The 3D blurs around the edges, and when characters are in motion, their movements are indistinct. It looks like 3D by committee and it’s never going to be as impressive as the obsessive attentions of one person.

It’s clear as well that this is Burton on the leash, because what’s missing is the extreme grotesquerie of his usual vision. The Red Queen is a delight, but where other characters are concerned – Alice, the White Rabbit, the Cheshire Cat – traditional is best. In the end, this is Disney as styled by Burton, and your enjoyment level will be predicated on your taste or tolerance for Disney.

Rating on a scale of five shrinking violets: 2.5

Paul: On paper, this appears to be a no-brainer. The effortlessly, endlessly creative Tim Burton – renowned and revered for the wit and character imbued into his story worlds - turning his directorial eye to the most famous literary creations of that peddler of delightful Victorian gobbledygook, Lewis Carroll. Kindred artistic spirits coming together across a century-wide expanse to forge a fresh psychedelic feast of acid-tinged family entertainment. That's the theory anyway. In practice, Alice in Wonderland finds Burton operating at his worst. As with Planet of the Apes, there is a barren expanse where the dramatic meat of the movie should be. As with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, source material that seems so attuned to the director that it could have been penned all those years ago with a prospective Burton adaptation in mind is given timidly uncertain, frustratingly unsatisfying realisation.

The story is the primary problem. Burton has noted that the script penned by Linda Woolverton was the crucial factor in bringing his film to the screen, as it allowed him to play with Carroll's cast of colourful characters while simultaneously possessing the progressive narrative structure that would prevent his Alice in Wonderland from simply being a procession of fun yet ultimately pointless encounters. Fine. The basic set-up seems promising enough too, with the teenage Alice, on the cusp of womanhood, tumbling back into the weird underworld she visited as a young child but has since forgotten (shades of Hook). Once there she finds it in a state of turmoil and disrepair (Return to Oz anyone?), which is the point at which Burton's Alice begins to come unstuck.

Carroll's strange, spiffy conceptions are press ganged into the service of a questing plot fashioned entirely from fantasy adventure clichés, where vague chatter about “destiny” is employed as slovenly substitute for internal story logic. Magic swords, shining armour, massed legions, and a climatic duel are the composite elements in Alice's mission to vanquish the abominable Jabberwocky and topple the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter playing Miranda Richardson from the second Blackadder), as Burton and Woolverton get busy reconfiguring the whimsicality and eccentricity of Carroll into a less-than-thrilling version of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Oh, and the pay-off line with which the final action sequence culminates would surely even be rejected by Roger Moore's 007 as “a bit cheesy, old boy”.

Few of Wonderland's denizens are provided with any additional depth or development beyond their nineteenth century prose incarnations, with the changes wrought in Alice's absence seeming to have affected only the place and not the people (or anthropomorphic animals). Admittedly there are a few exceptions; Crispin Glover's spaghetti-limbed Knave of Hearts is reshaped into a dark streak of sinisterness, and there are touching moments in which Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter alludes to the melancholy aspect of his derangement. Welcome as Depp's presence is though, even his character is not handled with total adroitness - it often feeling like Burton and Woolverton have had to strain every sinew to keep the Hatter (and by extension their headline star) keenly involved in Alice's journey.

Yes, there is nice work evident in the art design (the tactile burnished hides of the Red Queen's playing card troopers, the Shane MacGowan-redolent March Hare) and some cute touches (pity the poor monkey seat-bearers who are expected to support the guests in the Red Queen's palace), but Alice in Wonderland feels like a monumental missed opportunity for its director, as well as a huge disappointment for fans of him and Lewis Carroll alike.

Rating on a scale of five porcine foot rests: 2

Release date: 5 March 2010
Directed by: Tim Burton
Written by: Linda Woolverton
Based on the books "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll
Cast: Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Matt Lucas, Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall
Rating: PG
Running time: 108 minutes