052: Alice In Wonderland (2010)

Title: Alice In Wonderland (2010)
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter
Directed By: Tim Burton

You see a great movie and there are almost no limits to what you can say about it. You see a bad movie and you can come up with dozens of things that could've worked better. But when you see a movie that's touted as the next big thing, but really turns out to be dullingly average, what can you really say? I've been stuck on writing this review for weeks. And I say it's all Tim Burton's fault.

For me, it's really difficult to review a movie that's just so "middle-of-the-road". On the one hand, it's a straightforward continuation of the Alice stories that we all know. On the other, it's a hackneyed and convoluted fairy tale, mixing together solid story elements with a stale twist: "Alice is back, YAY! Oh, but she doesn't remember any of this. BOO!" And that's what I say to this script by Linda Woolverton, who apparently only works on adapting other peoples' ideas instead of coming up with any of her own (even if hers are among some of Disney's best).

This movie is a lie. From the title down, nothing presented here feels like Wonderland. It's even called UNDERland in the movie! So not even the NAME is right! Wonderland is supposed to be a place that feels peculiar. Burton's eye for extravagant sets and art direction is muddled and wasted here, because for every fascinating landscape or creative locale we get three or four tired old "spooky" spots. This place should be alive with imagination and wonder. We should feel as though we've just been transported to a magical new place, it shouldn't look like Sleepy Hollow or the forest from Wizard of Oz. In fact Colleen Atwood, who designed the costumes, should have been consulted when they were building the sets. Her work here is extraordinary, and really did capture the otherworldliness of Wonderland.

Also, while the graphics tend to look impeccable, the 3-D in this film was just BAD. People are going to compare the 3-D from Avatar to every film that tries it for a long time to come, and rightfully so. James Cameron used 3-D to enhance his film down to the story level. It was written with that third dimension in mind. Here, the 3-D is used only to digitally input a foreground, or to emphasize an action beat. If the best you can think to do with your 3-D is to add blades of grass over the pre-existing image or to have an enemy attacking outward toward the camera, then you should probably just forget it. I'm actually excited for this movie to come out on Blu-Ray so I can watch it in standard 2-D and reassess my opinion of it, minus the distraction of unnecessary retouches.

I can't recommend this film, because in all honesty you aren't missing anything if you haven't seen it. I will, however, rate it fairly because it was impressive to behold even if a little too paper-thin.

Score: 7/10