Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010) User Reviews

Maybe the formula needs invigorating...

[doibhlin · 6/10 · 3 March 2010]

I attended the Cast and Crew screening on Sunday, in Leicester Square, with high hopes for this film as it's without doubt the most exciting job I've had. This was my first feature experience, and working for Tim Burton was a hell of a way to start.

But, even as someone with a lot of time for his films, and a pre-existing bias, I couldn't really connect with this. The cast acquit themselves well, especially considering the noted difficulty in emoting to a tennis ball on a stick, but all their tics and quirks seem to be masking a void at the centre of what should be a free-floating, evocative trip. Sure, it's weird looking, but we've seen it before, and back then in films like Edward Scissorhands it had a sense of purpose. Now we're left exploring a CGI wonderland that seems to be without a great deal of wonder. The book revels in its bizarre environs, absurd dialogue and whimsical characters. This film grounds them, drains them of that mystery and leaves us with a colourful but forgettable retread. It seems intent on driving us to a narrative conclusion that few people will have had much stake in through its running time, simply because we're not giving much to care for.

With a source material so familiar, even to those whose knowledge is second hand references, there needs to be a degree of innovation (as in Svenkmejer's dark stop-motion version, or the co-opting of Terry Gilliam in to his "Tideland" narrative), or else a studious and inspired adaptation that completely returns to Lewis Carroll. What we end up with is a mid-point that fails to get to grips with what enchants people about the Alice story, and another chance to see a beautiful waif walk around twisted, quasi-Gothic landscapes to a score by Danny Elfman.

Not that this isn't an enjoyable experience in itself, and as seen in the vast Screen 1 at the Empire it is at times breathtakingly pretty. It's just inessential, and while it may be unfair to expect a classic from a favoured filmmaker every time out, when they tackle something with the pedigree and history of Alice In Wonderland you can't help but hope for something special. And that's the problem, that Tim Burton, while he is still making decent films, has been a long way off special for some time now.

6/10 (if they gave half stars it'd be 6.5), but that doesn't mean it's a bad film. It's possible that my grade is affected by high expectations and lost potential. If you have kids, I'm sure it'll be better than 90% of the dross that passes for family films now. At least there is some artistry involved, and while he might not be at his best I'll still always pay to see a Tim Burton film (although I got this one for free...)

some stunning visuals, clumsy writing

[ericpendley · 5/10 · 5 March 2010]

It is still worth the high price of the 3-D admission to see some of the amazing animation and design, but the writing is extremely boring and clumsy, and the performances cannot save it. Too many liberties were taken with the originals here, and in no way improve upon them, it only barely resembles either of Carroll's books in theme and some specific scenes. There are some "Disney moments" that literally set off a gag reflex as well.

The animation is quite stunning and wonderful though, as is the costuming and set design (in so much as there were sets and not just green screens, I'm sure SOME actual props were used). There are some clever elements that owe only to good visual design and direction I'm sure, as the only other clever bits in the dialogue were the parts directly lifted from the originals.

Nothing Wonderful

[Sniper005533 · 6/10 · 4 March 2010]

Adding a little bit of a background story and a few more characters to Alice's adventures didn't do as much as i thought it would for the story. Truthfully i wanted to love this movie, I'm a huge Tim Burton/ Johnny Depp fan. But this just didn't do it for me. I came out of the theater wondering if it were just the mediocre script or the director who had failed to meet my expectations. The best part of this movie is probably Johnny Depps portrayal of the mad hatter who truly is mad. However, Mia Wasikowska presents Alice in a dull manner that had me checking my watch every ten or fifteen minutes. Overall this film isn't awful, but at the same time its no masterpiece, for an interesting film to look at I suppose this would be an alright choice, however if you want a great story and compelling acting, you might want to check out something else, because this isn't the movie you're looking for.

Fantasy , imagination and adventures is this peculiar version based on Lewis Carrol tale

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 30 June 2011]

Tim Burton film version of Lewis Carroll's classic proves the special slickness of director to create weird worlds and strange characters . Alice (Mia Wasikowska)is 19-year-old and doesn't remember nothing about her former visit on Wonderland happened 10 years ago . Then she returns to the magical world from her childhood adventure, where she reunites with her old friends as Mad Hatter (Jhnny Depp), White Rabbit (voice of Michael Sheen), Chesshie Cat (Stephen Fry), Blue Caterpillar (voice of Alan Rickman) and learns of her true destiny: to end the Red Queen's (Helena Bonham Carter)reign of terror who helped by Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) is fighting her sister White Queen (Anne Hathaway)for the kingdom.

Moving rendering of Lewis Carroll classic with gimmick of blending live action and computer generator puppets and 3D animation . Riveting for its casting , but overall , roller-coaster spectacle. Most of the charm and wit remains from original story in this particular version . It results to be an amusing of somewhat aloof , storytelling of children classic with a magnificent three-dimensional visual effects team at its best bring to life the following : the Cheshire cat , Blue caterpillar, the Queen of hearts, March Hare , Tweedledum and many others. Breathtaking array of technical effects with impressive set pieces illuminate the Alice's full-blown adventures. The amazing plot is pure entertainment and with interesting screenplay based on characters created by Lewis Carroll , though here Alice acts as a heroine who combats dragons , monsters and of course the evil Queen of Hearts . Episodic characters as Mad Hatter and Queen of Hearts are given major boost by strong personalities from Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter . Spectacular final battle full of action , groundbreaking frames and fabulous fights . Overwhelming production design , though full of digital effects with impressive scenes and portentous images . Stirring musical score fitting perfectly to story by Danny Elfman and colorful cinematography by Dariusz Wolski . The motion picture lavishly financed by veteran producer Daryl F. Zanuck is originally directed by Tim Burton in his exceptional style. Rating : 6,5 acceptable rendition .

Other take on based on this vintage tale are the following : 1933 by Norman Z McLeod with Gary Cooper , Edward Everett Horton and Jack Oakie ; 1950 by Dallas Bower with Carol Marsh , Pamela Brown and Felix Aylmer ; 1951 by Walt Disney directed by Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton Luke with voices of Sterling Holloway , Ed Wynn and Richard Haydn ; 1972 by William Sterling with Fiona Fullerton, Peter Sellers , Dudley Moore and Michael Crawford and TV version with Tina Majorino and Woopy Goldberg .

Not what you would expect from a Johnny Deep picture

[stronciu_stefan · 7/10 · 3 March 2010]

When I decided to pay a premium price for a 3D blockbuster I expected a memorable picture. Besides the fact that Johnny Deep plays a great role as usual and H.B. Carter also has a nice performance the overall plot is dull and static. I believe that because they had to "improvise" and write a new story continuing the original one, the quality of the screenplay and plot decreased significantly. Although there are some funny moments and well written lines for the main characters, many of the others pass by unnoticed. Overall it was a nice, entertaining flick with average 3D effects, way below Avatar, and a simple,uncomplicated plot. Also it was rather short since I expected 120 minutes at least and not 100. Finally I would this movie performed below my expectations. A 7/10 would be a fair grade in my honest opinion.

Best, Stefan

Has anyone seen white rabbit with clock here?

[favmov · 10/10 · 19 March 2010]

After watching this movie I don't want to live in this world anymore. I love Tim Burton's movies and this one wasn't disappointment. The cast was great. Everyone played, they weren't just grimacing. Helena Bonham Carter was great as always. Mad hatter was something, his lines were witty and his dance was the funniest thing ever. Every character is special. I liked this Alice, she's strong, smart and modern. And every time I saw the cat I wanted to be there to hug it. I was worried that Disney would spoil this movie, but I was wrong this is absolutely Burton's movie. The landscapes will make you forget about everything you saw before. Atwood's costumes are beautiful, they fit the characters same is the make-up. If you like fairy tales don't miss Alice In Wonderland.

Pure, undemanding, trippy wonderment.

[Troy_Campbell · 6/10 · 4 March 2010]

On its release last year I couldn't find much to fault Avatar on. But after watching Alice – the first serious CGI-dominated 3D film since James Cameron's immersive motion picture – there's now a glaring issue with it: the bar was set waaay too high. Previously the computer generated effects in Alice would have knocked your socks off, however in a post-Avatar world it significantly underwhelms. Not an overly fair statement for a film which has consistently beautiful and detailed images – take the awe-inspiring climactic clash which is set on a chess board-esquire battlefield for example – but you can thank Cameron for that. Once you get past the fact that Burton's creation does not aim to achieve realistic environments or creatures and that the actors will never appear to be anywhere other than in front of a green screen, you are in good stead to enjoy the colourful animation for what it was intended for: pure, undemanding, trippy wonderment.

It's a damn shame then that this meticulously crafted, psychedelic visual-journey isn't matched with a screenplay that was given just as much effort. The inbuilt metaphors of the Alice tale are still there however writer Linda Woolverton adds very little in the way of character development or plot undercurrents, seemingly intent on relying on the visual effects wizards and actors to contribute the extra layers. Her biggest missed opportunity is further exploration into the Mad Hatter or even the White Queen – both of whom are half-baked caricatures – with the Hatter coming off as a mere chance for Depp to be quirky, rather than the cleverly-written character with an interesting back story that he should have been. To Woolverton's credit though, she did manage to concoct some deliriously amusing dialogue for the Hatter and the Red Queen; a small highlight of her script which partially redeems her lack-lustre attempts elsewhere.

Kudos to Depp, then, that he still generates another memorable, albeit this time one-dimensional, on screen persona. He provides his Hatter with plenty of lovable eccentricities and rough edges, all the more noteworthy considering the non-existent depth to which the material affords him. He'll certainly be a hit with the kids. The rest of the cast are unpredictable in their output: Aussie newcomer Wasikowska overdoes it as the titular protagonist, Hathaway's saccharine White Queen grates on the nerves and the opaque Glover is unbearably boring as Stayne; whilst Carter's malevolent Red Queen is a hoot, Lucas induces a laugh or two as Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Rickman oozes noble charisma as the Blue Caterpillar and Paul Whitehouse's March Hare steals every single scene he is in.

Depp's usual strong performance and Burton's knack for striking visuals narrowly prevail over a shallow script and an unconvincing leading lady.

3 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)

Treading water in Wonderland

[Red-Barracuda · 3/10 · 22 March 2010]

Sometimes I think that I should like Tim Burton movies more than I do. Don't get me wrong, the man has made some excellent films, such as the masterful Ed Wood. But all too often, despite an agreeable tendency towards visual flamboyance, I leave his films feeling somewhat underwhelmed. Alice in Wonderland is a case in point. It's a movie where CGI effects rule the day. But the trouble is that the true weirdness that is at the heart of this story is not captured at all with all the computer-generated imagery on-screen. Sure it's very efficient and well-designed but like CGI in general, it's far too polished to really strike a chord and convince. There is a distinct lack of wonder in this Wonderland. The otherworldly weirdness is dissipated too by the use of overly-familiar voices to give life to the various denizens of this world, we are left thinking 'Oh that's Stephen Fry, hey isn't that Alan Rickman, I'm sure that's Christopher Lee and isn't that the bloke from Little Britain, etc'. It consistently takes us out of the movie and grounds the characters in a way that is just counter-productive. We want weirdness from an Alice in Wonderland film, not slick CGI and famous voice-over actors.

There is also a dangerously cosy predictability at play here too. Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Danny Elfman – they say familiarity breeds contempt, well that's a bit strong but it IS seriously lacking in surprises and you cannot help think that all three individually talented men could do with taking a break from each other for the good of their careers. Depp's Mad Hatter is pretty uninspired by his standards, while Burton's visuals and Elfman's music are nice but ultimately completely forgettable. I found it very difficult to care for any of the characters in this film, and that is never a good thing. It also meant that the conclusion came across as deeply trite, as we have been given nothing to empathize with. We don't know or have any interest in these characters, so when Alice goes around her extended family one by one imparting her new knowledge onto them, it means nothing. It also doesn't help that the journey to Wonderland has made absolutely no difference at all to the title character's state of mind – at the beginning she does not want to get married to the upper-class chump and at the end she does not want to get married to the upper-class chump. So you are left wondering what exactly was the point?

I saw this in 3D and if there is one thing that this film has taught me it's that I am done with this 'new and improved' technology. I sensed it was a gimmick even before I watched Avatar; now I am certain. A bad film is a bad film, and no amount of extra visual depth is going to change that one iota. It's all surface-veneer, and really that's this movie's ultimate problem, there is nothing of interest within the CGI/3D. A great shame, as the source material is undeniably compelling.

I realize that I am almost done here but I have not even mentioned the worst thing about the film. What was it? It was when the Mad Hatter and then, subsequently, Alice do a truly cringe-worthy little dance near the end of the film. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I half-expected Britain's Got Talent winners Diversity to pop up in a cameo appearance at this stage and join in with some urban street dancing manoeuvres. That didn't happen. And that is, at least, one saving grace.

Wonderful, but only a visual masterpiece.

[OwenAllaway · 8/10 · 26 February 2010]

Disney presents Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

STARRING

Johnny Depp... as Willy Wonka, if Willy Wonka hadn't been Michael Jackson

Mia Wasikowska... as a winsome young lady Alice who discovers her inner fortitude

Crispin Glover... who doesn't dance, unfortunately

Helena Bonham-Carter... with a big head

Matt Lucas... as two Matt Lucases

Stephen Fry... who does actual voice acting and doesn't just read his lines

Paul Whitehouse... who against all my expectations, still does know how to be very funny

Alan Rickman... who nearly steals the movie, just by doing what he does best

Christopher Lee... who actually steals the movie with just two lines

AND

Babs Mitchell-Windsor... playing a character her actual, real size

I can see why the they've not really wanted to call the film a proper sequel. It is that, being the story of a nineteen year old Alice who returns to barely-remembered Wonderland, but it also lifts dialogue and scenes from the original books. The story is your standard journey, emotionally, but all set in a very Tim Burton Wonderland.

Which, of course, looks astounding. Wonderland is an amazing place, often colourful, but equally often ravaged and desolate. It's a treat for the eyes, with the imagination and design shining through the technology. (It's very, very good, but strange things happen if you look somewhere the 3D doesn't want you to look and there's the odd moment of strangely stiff animation, especially when human(-like) characters are completely CGI-ed up.)

Unexpectedly, it sometimes feels like one of the Narnia films (though makes those movies look like accountant-led spreadsheets that have been printed out on toilet paper and left out in the rain), but mainly it's exactly what you'd expect from Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. It's a great big treat of a movie, to be sure. Given that it's Tim Burton working with Disney, it's often gruesome and scary, but not too much. It makes you laugh at times, it pins you to the back of your seat at others, it gets you leaning forward trying to drink in every detail of the place, but it's not ever actually surprising. You know what's up, you know where things are going and you're never shocked. (Maybe once, in a quiet, horrible scene that stands out, even amongst the rest.) Even if you've not seen a single still photo or second of footage, if you know Wonderland and you know Tim Burton, you can picture it yourself effortlessly.

So much of it is still in my head this morning, but it's all visual. There's no heartache or sense of triumph that lingers after a great story. Funny as it is, there's only one line I'm ever likely to quote (a single word). I just have these amazing images left in my brain. In that sense, then, it's appropriately dream-like.

I doubt I'll go back and watch it again at the cinema, but I'm most definitely getting the Blu- Ray when it comes out next week, or whenever Disney decided they should bring it out.

If it feels like I've damned it with faint praise, I don't intend to. It's all pretty wonderful for the two hours it takes to speed past you, but I just want to make it clear - nothing that goes into your ears or your heart ever quite matches what goes into your eyes.

Sylvie and Bruno Continued

[tedg · 18 March 2010]

I can usually find something to engage with and love in any film. It is a sort of challenge and promise to myself to do so -- as a choice in building a life. But this movie was a nadir in my adventure.

The Alice stories are special, special absolutely and special to me.

For many people, the stories are simply amusing nonsense for children, something to be fuzzily remembered in the same way as, say, Peter Pan or a Grimm's tale. But it is anything but. Carroll advanced our ability to speak to ourselves when he polished the story and sent it to us.

One can hardly expect someone like Burton, or anyone making a big budget Disney- distributed project to understand the material. But if you cannot understand the soul of what you are working with, you cannot leverage or extend it. You will need to count on your own talents instead. But Burton's strength is simple: the imposition of disordered fantasy on relatively ordered reality. He has exhausted this and was finished as an artist long ago.

By any measure other than color intensity, this is a failure as a movie. When Depp isn't given a complex structure to support, he can at least be amusing. Here, we have not even that.

What is normally considered nonsense sequences in the books are anything but. Dodgson was the foremost theory of logic in Europe at the time. Based in Oxford, he created the story for the child of the Dean, the creator of the then great Greek lexicon. Dodgson/Carroll was a master of the inadequacies of logic within the medium of everyday language.

All the "nonsense" sections are really a catalog of all the strange ways in which logic breaks when it encounters the way we linguistically form thoughts. Many of these parody assumptions Dean Liddell made in his understanding of Greek, mistakes that have saddled us with flawed scholarship on Aristotle and his logic. They are great, great fun: puzzles that even a 6 year old can laugh about.

This is where playful narrative originates. Only Shakespeare, Joyce and Lennon-NcCartney have had similar influence on our everyday thought. Karl Rove, for example, stands on the shoulders of Charles Dodgson's trickery.

None of this is conveyed. None, even though the Marx brothers made this safe territory for film humor.

Even the overall structure of the Alice stories is cool. Dodgson was not a pedophile, nor a drug addict, but he was something more dangerous to his soul. He was a charter member of Oxford's Psychical Society and a student of the inventor of mystical tarot, the self-named Court de Gebelin. The structure of the Alice stories, based on this, is our first structurally folded literature.

His ordination ruined by his guilt about this, he spent the remainder of his life writing a C S Lewis-like Christian allegory, Sylvie and Bruno to make amends. It was every bit as tepid and worthless as this. Every bit as wrong, as offensive to reality.

The movie also mixes in Jabberwocky. That was a poem written years earlier as a teen, to amuse his crotchety parson father, someone obsessed with the perversion of noble Saxon words by effete French. The poem is about the battle between true (Saxon) language and logical language.

(This comment is on the two-dimensional exhibition. I decided that the effects would be beowulf-like and cheaply distracting. I think I was right.)

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Movie Review: 'Alice in Wonderland' is a beautiful world to behold

[d_art · 8/10 · 6 March 2010]

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is a sequel and not a retelling of the original children's novels by Lewis Carroll. In this film, Alice is now 19-years old, and soon after the death of her father, is proposed to be married away. Feeling pressured, she runs off, following a white rabbit, which leads her to Wonderland, a place she only vaguely remembers from childhood. There, she meets past familiar faces as the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Blue Caterpillar (Alan Rickman), the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), and eventually the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), who has been terrorizing the land with her harsh rule and beheading of heads. Alice finds out that her destiny is to end the Red Queen's rule by slaying the queen's dragon, Jabberwocky, as written in the prophesy. Along the way she meets up with all sorts of colorful characters.

If you remember, Steven Spielberg's Hook was the live action sequel to Peter Pan. Similarly, Tim Burton's film is very much like a close cousin, except it's about Alice. The progression of the story is also kind of similar, where the main character, Alice, like Peter, must rediscover herself and finally defeat her nemesis. Likewise, both films are both elaborately staged, they are both about growing up and making choices, and there's a big showdown. Chances are if one liked Hook, one will find many things to like about Alice.

Tim Burton's version of the Wonderland's environments are gorgeous, imaginatively created, lots of colorful details, and breathes life. The castles are sleek and intricately designed. The creatures are generally live versions (CG) of the Disney's previous animated version, and they're even more odder and fun to look at. I particularly loved the portrayal of the Chesire Cat in this film, and the way he snakes through midair like water feels very natural, although it wouldn't feel so natural in real life. Only complaint I may have in terms of visuals would probably be where we see CG versions of natural creatures like dogs--they're not particularly stylized so their CG-ness can be more noticeable.

Danny Elfman's score fits the environment just right, giving added intensity when needed. This film is essentially Tim Burton's playground and even if there wasn't any story, it still would be plenty of fun to just watch the loony characters in their environment. I will add that 3-D aspect of it helped a lot.

Johnny Depp plays the Mad Hatter with usual gusto, as he brings much energy and quirkiness to such an oddball character. I suppose there is a mix of Willy Wonka and Jack Sparrow in there somewhere. Given that other characters are mostly or completely CG, Johnny Depp's character can feel a bit of out of place, as he still feels human. Helena Bonham Carter as the big-headed (literally) Red Queen is fun, expressive, and extremely likable for such a short-tempered character. Mia Wasikowska is particularly noteworthy as Alice, which she plays with free-spirited pluckiness, charm, and beauty.

The story, admittedly, is a simple one, although it is to the story's credit that Alice is now an adult--it helps since many happenings in Wonderland can be quite unfriendly, bizarre, and grotesque. Thankfully, no more worries about some dream causing some lifelong trauma to some poor child. I also appreciated the fact that her Wonderland, like dreams, is an extension of her frustrations with the "real" world, where she felt she had many "expectations" from outside forces. At the same time, it's not like Where the Wild Things Are, where other characters are actually projections of real-life people from the main character's life. For example, to read Mad Hatter as an extension of her father feels a bit like a stretch, although the Red Queen could possibly represent her future mother-in-law since they both dislike animals. Certainly, one can merely enjoy it at face value and the creativity of this world and be fine with it.

Overall, I enjoyed this world of Alice. In one sense, that may be the important thing, if one were to stick to the flavor of the original novel. The story within the Wonderland, I felt, wasn't as poignant as "real life" moments, which were filmed with much love and detail. Given the fact that original story consisted of series of random events and character interactions, it was nice to see the characters work together a bit. The overall result isn't something beyond what one would expect from this style of work, but it's fun, and where it succeeds, it succeeds well, thanks to the consistency of Tim Burton's imaginative visuals. *** out of **** stars.

For more of my reviews, you can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/d_art

Visually Astonishing Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 13 June 2010]

In her engagement party, the indecisive nineteen year-old Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) is proposed in a gazebo in front of the guests by the snobbish and arrogant nobleman Hamish (Leo Bill). Before giving the answer, Alice sees a strange rabbit and escapes, falling down through a hole in a magic world called Underland. After drinking and eating magic potions to reduce her height, Alice meets animals that can talk and the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp). Alice helps the good White Queen (Anne Hathaway) to defeat her evil and tyrannic sister Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and returns a more confident teenager.

"Alice in Wonderland" is a visually astonishing movie with a deceptive story. The lead character is confused and indecisive and her change in the end is at least weird. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Alice no País das Maravilhas" ("Alice in the Wonderland")

Alice against Lewis Carroll

[WithoutPorpoise · 2/10 · 2 April 2010]

I loved "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and remember it as an amazing and timeless adventure indeed. Alice wanders around in a world so enigmatic and unstable that you never know what will happen next, and what twist will put Alice in just new trouble, often unintentionally and tragically made worse by her own doing. Now this is all exactly what this movie does not have. After Alice arrives in the new 'underland', you will soon be in on the entire story: It is two sides, good against evil, and Alice is to slay a monster. Not a single second is unexpected. Nor are there any twists. (But even the first minutes are astonishingly wanting any concept: Scenes without any real characters rush by, there is no focus of attention in the opening.) But most of all, my understanding of then brand "Alice" is that she originally wanders around a dream land that confronts her with her own self, her anxieties, her shadowy anticipation that things will not be all nice and easy, all taking shape in landscapes, characters and events painted in dream-language. Of this essence, it should be no problem to create a movie that really leaves an impression - let alone, if Tim Burton is in the team. But there is nothing, nothing of this concept in this movie. Instead of joining a charismatic and mature character on the journey through her own dismal, natural instabilities that every one carries inside, the story here is already written, and Alice is only to follow marked footprints. For the only reason that... she is the one foretold to do it. There is merely the most silly 'hollywood-intellectualism', where 'good against evil' must be taken as, like, certainly some sort of metaphor representing all our everyday struggles, and it is so much about decision making and all... I'm devastated. Eventually, Tim Burton has added his potential for design to a movie completely without content. The only metaphor I see is Lewis Carroll appearing at the end in the figure of the Jabberwokie, and Alice, slaying him. Carroll is dead, long live 'Alice does Hollywood'.

Call me Mad, but I Hatter really good time.

[rooprect · 22 February 2017]

The setup of this movie sounds like the beginning of a good joke: "Tim Burton and Walt Disney walk into a bar..." You wouldn't think it possible, but it happened. Tim Burton, the master of dark, twisted fantasies where every story involves at least 1 corpse, teamed up with the studio known for bright pink bunnies and such.

The temptation is for Burton fans to expect a Burtonesque flick while Disney fans expect an accurate retelling of the 1951 Disney cartoon classic. Neither happened, not by a longshot.

What happened instead is something you just have to experience. Someone once told me that the root of beauty lies in contrast. A yellow flower in a field of yellow flowers isn't as beautiful as a yellow flower growing on a desolate battlefield of some war-torn desert. So with that in mind, this is a movie for people who can appreciate the contrast between Burton's sarcasm and Disney's innocence. I'll give you an example...

In the Disney cartoon, as well as Lewis Carroll's original story, the Red Queen runs around commanding "Off with his head!" at anyone who irritates her, but of course the Red King quietly follows behind whispering "You're pardoned" each time, thus saving the executioner a ton of gory axe blades. But in this version, in a brief but stark moment, we learn that the beheadings are quite real. And then bam, we quickly return to Disney territory where we are entertained by the banter of cute talking mice.

Literally, I rubbed my eyes, turned to the person sitting next to me and asked, "Wait... did we just see a bunch of decapitated heads??" Confusing at first, this volley between macabre & merry becomes the charm of this film. I should add that I counted at least 3 characters who got an eyeball disgorged. And yet, in Disneyesque fashion you never really feel a sense of menace; it's mostly in good fun.

I purposely didn't mention the plot until now because, to me, the story was secondary to the overall vibe of the film. But in case you're wondering, this is *not* a retelling of Disney's, Carroll's or anyone else's "Alice in Wonderland". This is sort of a sequel to the original where Alice, now 19 years old and about to get married, gets reconnected with her long forgotten adventure of youth. In that respect, it reminded me of how the movie "Hook" was sort of a sequel to "Peter Pan".

To me, that's the only department where this film lost a few points, because it felt like they were weaving too much of a story into a tale that was inherently a stream-of-consciousness that mimicked the randomness of a dream (Lewis Carroll himself invented the story on the spot while rowing Alice Pleasance Liddell and her sisters on a pond). This version follows more of a straighforward plot to defeat the bad guys, and in so doing, it got away from the dreamlike feeling of all other versions I've seen.

Johnny Depp... of course JD steals the show with his alternately endearing and terrifying Mad Hatter. He plays the role as someone suffering from severe PTSD which manifests itself in multiple personalities. There's his normal, gentle, lisping Hatter. And then there's his cruel, dark Scottish Highlander Hatter who sounds like Sean Connery just lost his place in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Honorable mention goes to Crispin Glover (Marty McFly's nerdy father in "Back to the Future") who plays a very chilling Jack of Hearts. And another honorable mention goes to Anne Hathaway who plays the angelic but somewhat ditzy White Queen.

Special effects are good for 2010 but a bit dated for today. The best effects are the subtle ones such as the way the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) was depicted as having an enormous, bulbous head. I also thought the "Drink Me, Eat Me" scene where Alice shrinks & grows was done very well.

In the end, although I had been expecting something of a trainwreck, I think the odd pairing of Burton & Disney was a success. So what's next? Maybe horror master John Carpenter ("Halloween") does a teencom with Lindsay Lohan & Jamie Lee Curtis called "Freaky Friday the 13th"?

A marvellous 3D disappointment

[Slivra21 · 6/10 · 5 March 2010]

To be honest I was expecting so much more from all the hype building up to this film's release. Burton has more than obviously juxtaposed the relationship between good and evil, however this is not what Alice in 'Underland' is about. I was hoping to see a graphical dive into the creativity and imagination of Alice's mind, however what we are presented with is an idolised view of each individual character thrown together in a weak and see through plot about power. The story has no originality, and throughout I was noting similarities between 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.' C.S Lewis may be in touch about copyright. Yes it's quirky and Burton's directing technique is interesting as always, but what is directing without a storyline?

Hope always springs eternal

[vortex007 · 6/10 · 4 March 2010]

Precisely twenty years ago, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp had their first cooperative experience in cinema, the result of this team work was the pretty uncommon and extraordinary fairytale ''Edward Scissorhands''. After they made a lot of successful movies together, they decided to turn the clock back and make another mind-blowing fairytale. This time in their field sights was Lewis Carol's story ''Alice in Wonderland'', if you have ever pondered about the candidate for directing such a movie I think the answer would be obvious - Tim Burton! Apparently nobody else could re-create the same atmosphere on screen that was created by Lewis Carol in his legendary book. Evidently, his old friend and vivid actor Johnny Depp always imbued his films with bright colours and inimitable style. Finally, after many thrilling months, we got opportunity to see their version of ''Alice in Wonderland''.

At first view everything seems to be great. There are terrific visual effects, an exceptionally detailed world and plenty of unique characters that we all loved while reading the Lewis Carol book. We can see the amusing twins Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the kind White Rabbit, bombed grub Caterpillar, the evildoers Red Queen and Knave of Hearts, bloodthirsty Jabberwock, the mysterious Cheshire Cat and a remarkably well performed Mad Tea-Party with Doormouse, March Hare and Mad Hatter.

But Tim Burton's picture has a strong lack of insanity and lack of a firmly funkadelic environment intrinsic to the overblown Lewis Carol's world. His Gothic, grotesque and black humour disappeared also. This was the main disadvantage of the film, many thought it resembled ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'' rather then the ''Edward Scissorhands'' calibre, though it was expected due to obvious reasons. The primary reason being the unwanted influence of Disney which always restricts a wide spectrum of Tim Burton's ideas. Its no wonder that we got what we got. Tim Burton can't be blamed for an incomplete job, taking into account his dependence on Disney we can assume he gave it all he could.

The acting was decent but not awesome. It's hard to acknowledge but Johny Depp is getting older and his acting skill rapidly running low. His acting wasn't as innovative as it used to be. Instead of a true Mad Hatter he just showed Jack Sparrow in a red wig and made-up face. Mia Wasikowska also wasn't the best choice for the Alice role. Her acting style just doesn't fit with the real Alice character and besides, she hasn't got enough acting experience to play the part effectively. The only one really stunning bit of acting was demonstrated by Helena Bonham Carter who played Red Queen. As for the rest, acting didn't impress me at all.

Unfortunately, I should admit that this work isn't as great as was expected. We had already got used to the fact that Tim Burton was a reliable director who never failed his fans, but this time he just made a normal picture for a single viewing. This would be a good result for any typical and ordinary director but a serious misfortune for a high level master like Tim Burton. He definitely should stop tangling with such companies as Disney otherwise he seriously risks to become a simple commercial director without his own vein.

One Word Summary: lolwut?

[bdschwantner · 6/10 · 22 March 2010]

This movie just left a bad taste in my mouth. It had a great deal of potential, what with gorgeous sets and gorgeous and talented stars, but it didn't do much with them. The acting was generally quite good, as befits the aforementioned gorgeous stars, but the lines the actors were speaking were generally average, occasionally just trite and lame.

The writing was nothing surprising. Every single line was formulaic, from Alice's predictably whimsical musings about flying to the Hatter's tritely "meaningful" repetitions, to the reoccurring admonitions that one need only "believe." Seriously, Disney. You've worn these tropes pretty thin over the years.

Howabout an utterly non-whimsical female lead, or a kooky mentor who encourages the hero to -dis-believe? Shake up the formula just a little, pretty please? Let me qualify my statements. This movie is by no means terrible, though it is terribly average. This movie's sin is not proactive horribleness, but rather passive mediocrity. All the usual characters and set pieces are right where we expect them, nothing to surprise us anywhere (not even the rather out of place dance at the end).

The "lolwut" in the title is what kept popping in my head as I saw one well-tread cliché after another break dance across the screen. What indeed. With all this potential squandered on mediocrity, I could not fully enjoy even the otherwise fun story. Bad taste in mouth.

A beautiful, brilliant film.

[greygirlbeast-1 · 10/10 · 10 March 2010]

I went into this film without high expectations. I saw so many ways it could go wrong, and many of Burton's more recent films have left me feeling somewhat indifferent. However, all my fears were for naught. I adored the film, without reservation. Indeed, this is not only one of Burton's best films, it is probably the best screen adaptation of Lewis Carroll ever (with the possible exception of Jan Svankmajer's Neco z Alenky from 1988). It isn't often that a film ends and I immediately want to see it again, but that's how Burton's Alice in Wonderland affected me. The cast is flawless, top to bottom. The film's vision comes the closest anyone has come to capturing the frenetic, nonsensical impossibility of Wonderland (and I loved the whole "Underland" thing). I'm hearing all sorts of bizarre negative criticisms, though none with merit. This is a bold and triumphant film, one that finally addresses, without holding back, the darkness and complexity and maturity of Carroll's writing. I will add that I saw it in 2-D, and was pleased that Burton avoided letting the 3-D thing ruin the movie, as is so often the case with that sadly popular gimmick. The film is a giddy, hallucinatory, unrelenting dance of shadow and light, hilarious and heartbreaking, brash and underscored, possessed of all the marvelously contradictory oppositions that characterize the source material. For the first time, I think, it felt as though Alice were truly an integral part of the landscape, and not just some baffled Victorian tourist passing through. And the climactic battle with the Jabberwocky...just wow. I cannot recommend this film strongly enough. (--Caitlín R. Kiernan)

Hard to have any emotional attachment to the characters

[manuel-marengo · 6/10 · 27 March 2010]

I saw this movie in 3D not too long ago, now i must admit i was warned before hand that it was not an ''edgy'' Tim Burton movie as we are familiar with, but in their opinion just a very good Disney film.

Even though i went to see it with that kept in mind, i still found it very hard to attach to this film emotionally, making it VERY hard for me to really ''get into'' it. sometimes i would even gaze off and look at how weird people looked with their 3D glasses...

After the movie was over i started thinking about why i didn't like it, i couldn't really put my finger on it other then i just couldn't care what was happening with the characters throughout the movie.

In my eyes there was next to no emotional scenes, well, perhaps the flashback of Johnny Depps character when the village gets attacked. that was pretty much it in my opinion. Especially the scene where she leaves wonderland, they could have done so much more with it. The whole movie seemed abit rushed to me.

So in a nutt-shell, because of the lack of emotional peaks throughout the movie i found it VERY hard to bond with anything that was going on... shame really agree? disagree? thoughts? hate? cheers

Disenchanted

[Legendary_Badass · 4/10 · 5 March 2010]

Alice Kingsley (Mia Wasikowska) is, unbeknownst to her, on her way to her engagement party. Turns out this is the famous Alice who 13 years earlier ventured in to Wonderland. Surely there is a creative reason to pull her back into the zany world. Nope, she merely felt the urge to chase a rabbit who himself was seeking to fulfill a prophecy. And so, Alice in roped back into the world of fantasy/absurdity.

If you've seen anything at all on this movie, then the strengths are obvious. It's Disney, it's CGI loaded, it's in 3D. Everything visual is well appointed with lavish detail. It makes me wonder if director Tim Burton is better suited as a set designer since he is always given projects for his vision. I recall a time where his vision wasn't hampered by the concepts of others, at time when his films were so wholly original that nothing else compared, and sadly he's been stuck in a limbo of "revisions" for a decade.

For a girl who can't remember anything, Alice is never surprised. She sees giant creatures, she shrinks, flies on a hat, all without a yelp. The first person to blame would be Burton, since Wasikowska lacks leading experience. Still I wonder what's going through her head when she decided to play Alice as oppressively jaded. Outside the last ten minutes, she's the antithesis of Dorothy. Having a protagonist who's so down trodden in a beautiful world is counterintuitive.

Johnny Depp. You pay the man and he'll do his thing. I can't tell you that his character, The Mad Hatter, is an original. I'm sure it's a combination of other Depp figurines. With the Hatter he has carte blanche to do anything, anything at all, and somehow be considered in character. It doesn't matter that he's periodically possessed by a Scotsman—he's in character and he's Johnny Depp so it must be fantastic, right? More amusing are Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover, the latter of whom you wouldn't recognize.

The White Queen (Anne Hathaway) was in position to be the most complex element of the film. I suppose her role is to assume power in the event that her sister is dethroned. For a character who talks a big game of peace, she sure does mix together an abhorrent potion to return Alice to normal size. Despite repeatedly saying she represents good, I didn't see any evidence. Toes would have been crushed I'm sure, but the vibe from Anne's portrayal suggested that she wanted to be the calculating nemesis.

I can't tell you how stupid this movie made me feel. For some reason it figured a major plot point would be found in determining the identity of Alice. If you are seated in the theatre watching a film called Alice in Wonderland you will not be surprised to find that the lead character of Alice is indeed the very same mentioned in the title. Why we spend most of the film getting to this conclusion feels like an attempt to recreate Hook.

By the end you realize that Alice is the problem with Wonderland. In the 13 years she's been gone, her friends seem to be in good health despite the Red Queen reigning over the land. Why are they looking for her now? The Red Queen was in power this whole time and they seem to be in good shape, but when Alice gets there the queen challenges them. I suppose she's just as upset to have such a lifeless young girl in her land. I for one am disenchanted.

Will take you into a World you really don't care about...

[QuingQuongQuang · 14 May 2010]

Alice in Wonderland will take you into a World you really don't care about and give you characters you really don't seem to care for. It will give you CG you will look at each other and question and an ending you knew was going to happen. Nothing wrong with the actors; they do their thing as in accordance to the script provided and the voices of the little CG puppets, comuppets, cuppets or whatever we want to call them are well cast too. I am really not sure why this was such a yawn fest; maybe it's my age, maybe I am just too hard to please and expect too much; maybe I took too many recreational drugs in my youth and it takes a lot to get me excited now, or maybe it was just pretty boring; who knows?

Flawed...but harmless

[rockndaparadise · 6/10 · 29 March 2010]

Well, well, well. To start things off, I've been looking forward to seeing this movie ever since I first heard about it in 2007. I mean, seeing a Tim Burton adaptation of "Alice in Wonderland" sounded like a really cool idea, and having Johnny Depp, Alan Rickman and Christopher Lee in the cast? How can you go wrong? Well, after seeing it for the first time, it was quite a let down. First of all, this is a Disney movie, and it's kind of weird knowing that this is a remake of a movie that was made by the same company. Well, it's actually not a remake. This is actually a sequel that just so happens to have the same title. However, unlike Disney's line of direct-to-DVD sequels, for this one, they attempted to do something very different. A couple positives I can point out is that we get to know more about the characters such as Alice's last name as well as her sister's name, plus I did catch a lot of references to the original classic. The beginning was interesting, but once Alice came into Wonderland, things went downhill. It's like everything was just shoved into my face. I didn't care much for the story; it was a little untraditional. The characters were OK. The Mad Hatter was good, so was the caterpillar, the Red Queen was consistent, the Cheshire Cat was amusing, but the rest of the characters were just all over the place. It's like, What happened? What's going on? What's this? What's that? What's everything? The whole movie was so confusing. It seemed like the creators were putting special effects before story. The 1951 classic has a lot of charm and warmth, and it makes you look forward to watching it again, but this new one doesn't have the same warmth. Overall, this was not a terrible movie, nor was it a cinematic masterpiece; it's a good movie that has a lot of flaws. If you're wanting to see a good movie that'll live in your heart, then don't watch this movie; it's not worth your time, unless you're a huge fan of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. If you are a fan of them, then I'm sure you'll rank this as an A+ film, 10 out of 10, 5 stars out of 5, whatever. I'd really hate to see Disney do this to other classics they've done. (Oh, wait, I think they already did.) So, yeah, in conclusion, I highly recommend this film to Tim Burton fans and Johnny Depp fans, but not to fans of the original Disney classic.

A Visual Delight, But I expected way more.

[The_Fifth_Echo · 6/10 · 4 March 2010]

Going to theaters to watch Alice in Wonderland, I had very high expectations because of the people in it. The wonderful Tim Burton and Jhonny Depp partnering up again and that made me excited. (Their History together include classics such as Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow and etc.) I was also very excited for the two well respected Oscar-nominated Actresses (Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway) But most importantly is that I love Alice in Wonderland the book and the 1951 classic animated Disney feauture.

Anyways the movie review itself: I thought Alice in Wonderland looked beautiful and even breathtaking at times. You got to admit that the movie looked beautiful visually. But emotionally it didn't really connect and lost a lot of its heart to the original.I was very disappointed with Tim Burton, I thought that he knew what the movie should of been like. This is not Tim Burton's best at all. Hopefully in 10-15 years time, another remake of this movie will be created and hopefully it would be better.

Overall: Alice in Wonderland deserves a much better remake, but the movie itself was visually breathtaking and it was a really fun movie. 6.5/10

Deserves its $116M opening weekend!

[dollface219 · 9/10 · 9 March 2010]

My primary reason for seeing this movie was because it was another Bonham Carter-Depp-Burton collaboration. I was timid to pay the 3D price after remembering Burton's attempt at "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (I wasn't a big fan of the movie, like many other critics), but this was well worth the price tag.

I agree with many of the other reviews available online. The visual experience is breathtaking and when this movie is released, it will be well worth the Blu-ray price. However, I disagree with reviews stating the movie had no "plot" or "substance" or was "too confusing." (For those of you who haven't seen it, be sure to pay attention to the beginning of the movie--everything that happens ties in with Alice's Wonderland experience.) Perhaps this is where people have become disappointed: you can't watch this movie thinking it's just like the book or a remake/live-version of the Disney animated film that was produced nearly 60 years ago. You have to approach the movie for what it is--Burton taking familiar characters, a familiar setting and plot, then expanding on it with his own take (once again with the help of best friend Johnny Depp and long-time significant other Helena Bonham Carter); using superb animation technology and phenomenal costume design--I expect to see various "Alice"s this Halloween.

I give this a 9/10... because, no film is perfect.

Meeza in Punderland writes about the awful "Alice in Wonderland"

[meeza · 6/10 · 6 March 2010]

Director Tim Burton's long-awaited film adaptation of "Alice in Wonderland" is finally here! And ouch! What a disappointment! Unfortunately, Alice is malice in boringland. We all know the trippy story of "Alice in Wonderland" so I will devoid this review the Wonderland narrative (Google: "Lewis Carroll book" in case you want to be reminded of it). The visually stunning and conceptually enthralling movie somehow had too much pot I mean plot to give me a cinematic high. Burton inserted way too many pseudo-eccentric characters in the flick for one to really get absorbed in their wonderland. I wonder why? Let's just say the movie's Cheshire Cat, Dormouse, March Hare, Blue Caterpillar, Bayard, White Rabbit (didn't I go there a couple of years ago for my bachelor party), and Tweedledee & Tweedledum (contrary to popular belief, not played by George Bush & Dick Cheney) did not do it for me. But the character I wanted to white out the most from the screen was the lackluster White Queen; probably had something to do with Anne Hathaway's asinine performance as the pale one. No, I am not going mad- I have not forgotten The Mad Hatter! My jury is still out on The Mad Hatter but let's just say I was expecting more of a charismatic Hatter character from the eccentric thespian maestro Johnny Depp. Mr. Hatter was captivating at first but after a while Depp's "more of the same" performance became more of a persistent hat trick that did not achieve its gravitating goal. I must say that the villainous bigheaded Red Queen was my favorite character in the movie due to her grandiose livid reactions expressed in that petite frame, priceless! Helena Bonham Carter's performance as the Red Queen might just get her a red carpet trip as a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominee at next year's Oscars. OK, maybe not, but Bighead Red did red-rock. Oh, and there is that Alice chic. Mia Wasikowska's starring performance as Alice was as lifeless as acting could be. Her sterile & immobile characterization of Alice made one wish that Alice would shoot down a few shots of Tequila & some Red Bulls in Boogie Wonderland in order to enliven her up! I wonder what hypnotic drugs Linda Woolverton was taking (or for that matter not taking) when she scribed up the unnecessarily-complex adapted screenplay based on a children's tale that is "Alice in Wonderland". The Art Direction, Cinematography, and Visual Effects of the movie were its strong suits, and do merit high praise. But that is not enough to give "Alice in Wonderland" a storybook-ending favorable review. ** Needs Improvement