Where is it playing?: Sunset Drive-In, Fremont (in 3-D), Park, Stadium 10 (in 2- and 3-D)
What's it rated?: PG
What's it worth?: $1.00
(Steve)
What's it worth?: $4.00
(Glen)
Auteur Tim Burton takes on Lewis Carroll’s classic children’s tale, updating it with a new twist: Alice (Mia Wasikowska), now 19, returns to the magic realm of her childhood adventure, seeing old friends and discovering her destiny: to end the reign of the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter). (108 min.)
Glen Oh, Tim Burton! You little rascal! Must you keep taking perfectly wonderful classic films and remaking them unnecessarily? First Planet of the Apes, then Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and now Alice in Wonderland. Why don’t you remake The Wizard of Oz? Huh? Huuuh? While it’s at times visually arresting, Burton’s Alice is a difficult story to invest in. As Alice, Mia Wasikowska’s performance falls flat, hence there’s not much reason to care about her. We’re meant to know she’s rebellious because she doesn’t wear a corset or stockings, which we discover as she and her mother arrive by carriage to what we learn is her engagement party to a real drip. Now 19, her return down the rabbit hole is prompted by nothing more exotic than her pre-engagement anxiety. Once back in Wonderland, she must find the strength of character to take on the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter, the most watchable presence in the film) and fight the Jabberwocky. Frankly, the outcome is never in doubt.
Steve Oh so very disappointing; I had been looking forward to seeing this film ever since the fabulous still images of Alice, the Mad Hatter, and the queens were revealed on the Internet. Even the previews made the movie seem like it was going to be something special, but a mere 20 minutes into this yawnfest, I felt like reading the phonebook because at least that would provide a little interest and excitement. Alice in Boringland should have been the title. The big problem with this movie is that there was no reason presented to the viewer to get behind and root for any of the characters. I felt absolutely no connection with any of the actors and actresses with exception of the halfway interesting Cheshire Cat. Seems like someone who is as famous as Tim Burton would be able to realize how inane the script was, but alas this was not the case.
Glen I’m not even sure what the cat’s (Stephen Fry) appeal was. This film had all the characters of the original Alice but none of the magic. Even Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter offered little other than Depp’s patented wackiness. Anne Hathaway was completely wasted as the White Queen. Crispin Glover as Knave of Hearts seemed cast merely for his weirdness, which brings up another thing: poor technical execution. Sure, Bonham Carter’s enlarged head looked fine on the Red Queen, but the Knave’s movements looked very unnatural, as did several scenes. Why were some CGI sequences so good and others only mediocre? Did they run out of time or money? Comparing Alice to Avatar is like watching a 1964 Beetle race a 2010 Ferrari. In fact, 3-D is wasted on Alice. That’s not to say there weren’t some worthwhile moments. The funniest characters were Tweedledee and Tweedldum (Matt Lucas), and I liked the crazed look of the March Hare, but like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this is a film best forgotten.
Steve If I’m not mistaken, the 3-D aspect of the film was done after the fact, so it was not originally meant to be a 3-D film. With that being said, yes, the 3-D was absolutely wasted as it gave nothing positive to the movie in any fashion. By the way, the only appeal of the cat was the way he appeared and disappeared, plus the way he floated around. His movements were interesting to watch, but that was the major highlight of the film for me. The whole plot was so jumbled, too; it felt very cobbled together in a fashion that perhaps would appeal the most to a child under the age of 10. Let’s go here and do this, then do this because if we don’t the world will come to an end. Then let’s do that because if we don’t, we wouldn’t have a story to stand upon. Seriously, a lot of movies telegraph their endings, but this one definitely takes the cake, supersizing the boredom to the nth degree. Definitely a strange situation too, where even the visuals couldn’t bring this film out of the toilet, even though there have been plenty of films in the past that I’ve seen that were carried by visuals alone.
Glen I hate to say it, because I’ve admired many of Burton’s films (Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Beetle Juice, Edward Scissorhands, and Ed Wood), but he seems to have lost his touch. Sleepy Hollow? Big Fish? Sweeny Todd? He’s been floundering! I understand he wants to take on the old horror soap opera Dark Shadows, which sounds like another fiasco in the making.
Steve Don’t waste your money, folks. If both Glen and I don’t like a film, that’s a pretty bad sign. One last comment, though. Not only did the story stink, but the music was even worse, which in the end can make or break a film with ease.
Glen Starkey is a New Times staff writer and Steve Miller is New Times’ staff photographer. Comment at gstarkey@newtimesslo.com and semiller@newtimesslo.com.
