Somewhere lurking in the depths of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, there is probably a pretty good film. Unfortunately, that is not good enough when it comes to having to watch it, though I am guessing I am in the minority here, as this is the 9th-highest grossing picture of all time (you can Wikipedia the statistics on your own time. Citation is for losers and peer-reviewed academic journals). The underlying conceit of Alice's literary journeys being real instead of imaginary is a smart idea (albeit borrowed from Wicked, which probably has some antecedent I am unaware of), but the characters and their memories are neither direct reproductions of Carroll, nor are they developed enough into their own mythology. They simply exist as "reimaginings" of a lowest-common-denominator collective cultural understanding of Alice in Wonderland, instead of delving into how Carroll used his creations as satire and formulating a modern commentary, or taking those characters and making something wholly original. Now on to specifics...
My first annoyance with the film is probably a petty one, but the monster in Lewis Carroll's most famous poem is called the Jabberwock, not the Jabberwocky, which is the title. I understand the concept of artistic license, but this oversight begs the question: did anyone involved in this film, from the writers to the directors to the actors to the gaffers, even read the source material?
On the subject of (the Oscar-winning Best) Art Direction, the CGI was atrocious. No human actors looked integrated into the digital environments, and the digital elements were not blended in to the practical sets. This is particularly odd because there were a few bright spots, such as the Queen of Hearts. This obviously computer-manipulated figure looked perfectly natural interacting with human figures, but holding a flamingo just looked wrong. Also, the award I would give this film would be "Most egregious use of teal/orange contrast outside of the Transformers franchise." There was one scene where Johnny Depp, with his orange hair and teal coat, bisected the skyline, and half of the sky was orange, while the other side of the world was teal. I don't even pretend to understand the logic behind this, because these people are clearly professionals and at the top of their field, so who am I to judge?
The 3D was also problematic, in the sense that I watched a 2D version and still got sick. I understand the desire to create 3D movies and push filmmakers into using the technology (Box Office $$$), but if it is going to be "the way of the future," as I am paraphrasing from something I read a studio suit say a while ago, for God's sake stop using it as a gimmick. 3D can create beautiful depth, especially in an entirely-CGI environment, as Avatar and Toy Story 3 proved. So why is there still a need to make things jump out at the audience? Is the only draw of your movie that I can be "closer" to the action?
I'm not even going to touch the dance sequence, because I am trying to forget it happened, or find some way to believe that the film was made in 1986 and shelved for 24 years.
Would I ever watch this again? Doubtful. Not only is it a poorly executed (and often poorly acted) big-budget Hollywood blockbuster disguised under the sophistication of the name Tim Burton which reeks of studio committee-think, it is the worst kind, the kind that takes a smart, original concept but quickly loses sight of why it is original and cedes to the whims of modern movie-making.
But now I feel bad for trashing it so much, so...some of the character designs were pretty neat.
