Dimension Hopping with Alice in Wonderland
Posted March 5th, 2010 by Howard Tayler
Okay, Alice in Wonderland: I’ve been waiting two months to be able to unconditionally recommend a film to you. Unfortunately, I’m still waiting. “Unconditionally” implies “no conditions,” and I have one… I’m not sure you should see the film in 3D.
But it is my favorite film so far this year! Here are the new standings:
1) Alice in Wonderland
2) The Wolfman
3) Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief
4) Cop Out
5) Book of Eli
1 jillionty-five) Legion
Hey, look! A new feature! Now you can read my other reviews with the help of some links! New visitors can lean why I hate Legion so much!
Okay, about that 3D thing… after seeing Avatar late last year I got spoiled. The 3D was so seamless, so close to perfect that anything less seems clunky. And Alice in Wonderland just isn’t as good. Is it really clunky, though? Or am I just jaded? Rather than navel-gaze and question my objectivity (which I know to be absent) I’ll just say this: the 3D added depth, made the Cheshire Cat incredibly fun, and got used a lot for poking spears and swords in my eye. Also, there was this tree in the English countryside early in the film where the sky behind the tree was in the same plane as the tree itself, and the result was that it looked like a tree full of blotchy sky-fruits. Fortunately, all of the Burtonesquely twisted trees down the rabbit hole were computer-generated, and knew their boundaries.
And all that is just visuals. The story? The acting? That was all fine and fun and good. No, this isn’t Lewis Carroll’s plot, but that’s okay. We know how that story goes. This treated the original source material as back-story. And I’m fine with that. I loved it. Not unconditionally, mind you… some of Johnny Depp’s Hatterisms didn’t seem to fit, and Anne Hathaway appeared a little unsure whether she was playing the White Queen for quirks, irony, or comedy, but now I’m just picking nits. Helena Bonham Carter, Crispin Glover, Alan Rickman, and Christopher Lee were all wonderful, and Mia Wasikowska was brilliant. And yeah, Johnny Depp and Anne Hathaway were pretty darn good, quirks notwithstanding.
Go see Alice in Wonderland. And if you don’t see it in 3D, you can take pleasure in saving money and in not being poked in the eye. Sorry about the two-dimensional apparating cat, though.
Explore posts in the same categories: Movies, Reviews
March 5th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Based on your description of the 3D, I think that i’m going to have to see it in that format. A poorly clipped tree will not overshadow, I suspect, the rest of the film, and if there are numerous pointy things, then I know from experience that if I go to the flat version I’ll be thinking “Oh, this was meant for 3D, eh” the whole time.
Thank you for the review. This film has been on my list for a few months now, and now I know *how* I’m going to see it, too. The only thing missing was whether the film was, as one might suspect from the trailers, similar in style to the video game, “American McGee’s Alice,” in which case it probably would not be appropriate for youngsters.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
I don’t think you are jaded, I think the “used a lot for poking spears and swords in my eye” is what makes 3D clunky. Avatar did not do this ONCE and thats what made the 3D so natural.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Zipp, if I may call you that, an important detail in deciding whether this is like “McGee’s Alice” is that it is produced by Disney. I think it’s appropriate for youngsters. (Of course that depends on their tolerance for “off with their head” type stuff.)
March 5th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Saw it this evening. I give it 9 out of 10 stars… only one or two characters had less than convincing performances, and that may have had to do with what they were given. Yes, the 3D is not as perfect as Avatar’s, but I chalked that up to the fact that the entire context was phantasmagorical rather than striving for ultimate realism. For me, the added depth enhanced my experience. Phenomenal movie.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Saw it this evening myself. Apparently the movie was filmed in 2D and the 3D was added in post-production, so it’s not as smooth as something that was designed with 3D in mind. I saw it in 2D – the local theater has been promised their 3D projectors in time for “How to Train a Dragon” later this month. I thought it was a fun, somewhat dark at times movie, nice bit of character development here and there, and had no problems with the original story as backstory – it definitely bore no relation to the Sci-Fi channel’s “Alice” of a few months back. The only problems I had were at the end – the whole “trading with China” thing seemed tacked on, and worse yet, by the mid/end of the Victorian era England had been trading with China for years. In fact both of the Opium Wars had been fought before the book Alice in Wonderland had been written. Rather ironic that, the butterfly identified as the opium smoking caterpillar heading off to China with her. BTW, I think Alan Rickman was created for the purpose of sardonically insulting people. He does it _so_ well.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Just to be contrary, most folks DON’T know the actual Alice stories. Most think that you have Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum, the March Hair, the Mad Hatter, Humpty Dumpty, the Lion and the Unicorn, the Cheshire Cat, and the Jabberwocky all in the same story. And it’s all Wonderland.
I’d really like to see two proper Alice movies: one for each of the books. It would be a nice change of pace from the mishmash we always get, and might actually get people to realize there’s really two different stories.
*shifty look*
I’m not an Alice fanboy, not at all.
Which is why I’ll still see this movie, I’m a sucker for anything Alice.
March 6th, 2010 at 1:08 am
When I saw Avatar, there was a trailer at the start for How to Tame a Dragon which really demonstrated how annoying 3D can be.
On the whole “film in 2D, make it 3D in post” thing, I wonder if perhaps it might have been a good idea to do part of the movie in 2D, and part in 3D. Having part in B&W and part in colour worked for The Wizard of Oz.
As for whether it’s appropriate for children: having seen an interview with the cast, I think it’s okay to take children to see it, as long as they’re not small children.
Does anyone else find it odd that one of the most celebrated works of children’s literature was written by one of the pioneers of child pornography? Then again, the original versions of Rumplestiltskin, Cinderella, etc wouldn’t be considered suitable for children by today’s censors. And there’s a dick joke in Shrek, disguised by the fact that it theoretically could be a reference to the prince’s stature. I really don’t know where I’m going with this, so I’ll stop.
March 6th, 2010 at 2:37 am
I frankly don’t think the original Alice stories are worthy of big-budget Hollywood treatment. They’ll disappoint, and won’t earn back the coin spent making them.
This film took the right approach, and was very, very well done.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:58 am
ARRRRRGH! Now I HAVE to add it to my Netflix queue (which already has over 100 DVDs –and most of those are in series) just to see the 2D version of the film! Then I’ll have to go BUY it to see the 3D version!
…..besides…. if y’all sign up for Gaia Online (www.gaiaonline.com ), you can get your own Mad Hat for your avatar by playing with the Hatter. But hurry; it’s going away soon….
and Yes, that’s why I was hooked on _Kung-Fu Panda_ before it came out in the theatres; Gaia made a nice deal with Dreamworks, and we saw the trailers before they hit the TV airwaves. ;)
March 6th, 2010 at 7:48 am
I’ve got slightly different vision in each eye and wear glasses. The former is a recipe for a splitting headache at a 3D film and the latter means the 3D glasses won’t fit very well, which is worse. So . . . no 3D for me unless the technology takes another leap forward.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Honestly, it wasn’t so much Alice in Wonderland as it was Alice in the Seleighe Court. Johnny Depp made a better elf than Hugo Weaving.
But that I’m okay with. I wasn’t okay with the Johnny Depp dance. Oh, the Johnny Depp dance…
It was a very good movie, besides those two things. Honestly, it was good enough that I saw it at midnight, got three hours sleep, then worked a sixteen hour shift, and still thought it was worth it.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Umm… I feel I must point out that, unless the cast is different for the US showing of Alice, Christopher Lee is not in this film. You have however missed out Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat in your list of Actors.
As for the 3D, I thought it was one of the better 3D films I have seen, although most of the film seemed out of focus, and I came away with a slight headache. I know it was the film, because the 3D trailers for Real3D (the tech used in most 3D films today), How to train a Dragon, Toy Story 3D, and Street Dance 3D were all as sharp as a pin. In fact, Street Dance had a much better 3D effect, as there was one point where a character threw his hat at he audience, and everyone jumped… whereas the similar scenes in the main feature (Alice), failed to surprise or shock anyone.
March 6th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Christopher Lee is the voice of the Jabberwocky…. Sauruman lives!
March 6th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I stand corrected. I didn’t see his name on IMDB before.
March 7th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
_Dear John_ is a watchable chick-flick out now. Won’t kill ya to see it with your wife.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Once upon a time, I had the opportunity to run the light-board on a collegiate theatrical production of a stageplay of Lewis Carroll’s story, Alice and Wonderland. The set designer – Dan Wheeler – also the director, was clever. He added a number of elements to the set deisgn, as based on his research of Carroll’s personality. Along the way, the white rabbit wound up on a skateboard. It was quite a fun production.
I haven’t seen this new movie production of the story, but I saw a preview, on TV, last week. It looks very intriguing.
Frankly I’ve known some women, in memory of whom I more fondly remember the Red Queen, from the story – “Off with their heads!” and all that. Carroll’s ability with the surreal, I think, is quite remarkable.
Pardon me, though, that was but the nom de plume of Charles L. Dodgson. He also wrote a book on Symbolic Logic. Some public libraries would have it in collection (books are *not* obsolete!)
March 8th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I enjoyed Alice, not as much as Avatar, but I was thoroughly entertained. I saw it in the 2D and after reading the comments I’m glad. I was thrilled that Alan Rickman voiced the caterpillar, but I wish he had more screen time. I enjoyed Anne Hathaway as the White Queen, but Johnny Depp was wonderful as the Mad Hatter.
The character design and set design was marvelous, but by Tim Burton standards it felt restrained, except for the Mad Hatter. It was also a movie I could see with my dad and not feel embarrassed.
March 10th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Anyone else flinch every time they called it the Jabberwocky? Jabberwocky is the name of the poem; the creature is called the Jabberwock. The Hatter even says it correctly while reciting part of the poem, but unfortunately noone else gets it right throughout the rest of the film. Didn’t bother me much at first, but it got worse and worse each time someone said it. Other than that, it was a good movie — not as good as it could have been, but it did a fairly good job adapting and adding to the material. Overall definitely an enjoyable movie.
March 12th, 2010 at 7:47 am
I was told the story is from “Through the Looking Glass” as opposed to “alice in wonderland”. Is there any relation at all or is it completely adapted?
March 12th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Completely adapted, I’d say.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I hated Avatar (smooth segue ain’t it?). The crappy science and stupid tactics/strategy kept getting in the way. Same thing happened for 2012. A boat that cannot start its enggnes unless all external doors are closed… WTF!?! Esp desined for a massive world ending flood… GREAT design there! And Diesel? Gonna have lots of diesel about the flooded planet, why not a couple of donated pebble bed reactors ripped out of US/Soviet/Brit subs/Carriers? Fast and Long Lasting, also requires less mass for fuel allowing more mass for consumables/people.
Gah! I hate Hollyworld.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I saw the film in 2D and it sounds like it was a good thing! I’m still a 3D virgin and am saving myself for Tron, later this year- here’s hoping that by that time, Disney will have figured out that poking the audience in the eye is a Bad Thing.
I went in with no foreknowledge of what the movie would be and was hoping to see a more faithful rendering of the original Alice stories than we have seen on screen to date. This was definitely *not*. Even so, I really enjoyed it. It was a very interesting and completely unexpected take on the Alice story. I knew as soon as I saw Tim Burton, Danny Elfman and Johnny Depp in the credits that I was in for a wonderful film and I was not disappointed.
itsdvw: While you’re absolutely right that, in the original poem, the creature was called a ‘Jabberwock’, I think the film can be forgiven for the change. For one thing, 99% of the audience who are less familiar with the book think, mistakenly, that the creature was called a Jabberwocky and the creature has, I believe, been referred to as such in many previous adaptations of Looking Glass. For another, the film already (unapologetically) makes a number of changes to the names of things from the book: giving names to characters that didn’t have them previously and changing the name of the world from “Wonderland” to “Underland” because Alice supposedly misheard the name as a little girl.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
@basset
The thing that bothers me most about Avatar (besides the shortage of non-evil humans) is that none of the humans seem to figure out that the whole ecosystem is artificial. You’d think the science team would have started questioning it when they learned about the bioUSB.
And considering that humans and Na’vi are so similar – right down to having the same facial expressions – they should also have wondered whether the Na’vi’s ancestors had uplifted some Australopithecines. (On Earth, the non-human species with the most humanlike facial expressions is dogs, because we bred them that way.) Do not mess with the Na’vi! Considering the rumours of a sequel, I think perhaps the series should end with bioengineered starships coming to Earth for some regime-change.
Actually, from reading the supplementary material, I also question the design of the starship. They use unobtainium to avoid having to refrigerate their antimatter tanks, but I don’t see why they need the antimatter. They already use beamed energy to accelerate away from Sol. They could use magnetic parachutes (think Bussard ramscoop, except the drag is useful) to stop in the α Cen system. And to get back – well, is an antimatter factory really that much easier to build than a launch beam?
@baggins41
Yes. There needs to be a 3D version of Tron.
“here’s hoping that by that time, Disney will have figured out that poking the audience in the eye is a Bad Thing.”
Don’t get your hopes too high – the age of red/green 3D came and went without filmmakers figuring that out – and, I think, went precisely because they didn’t. Filmmakers are why moviegoers can’t have nice things.
March 13th, 2010 at 5:13 am
Given the Pocahontas retread plot, mixed with the usual evil military/industrial/corporate complex stuff of Avatar, I’ve given it a miss for theater viewing. I’ll catch up with it on DVD, someday.
The latest incarnation of Alice, I may make an effort to see it in a theater. I might even get a screen all to myself, like I did for Speed Racer.
As for the huge amounts of money today’s films are raking in, how many tickets did Avatar and whichever film knocked it off as the top grossing film ever (so far) sell compared to previous record holders?
My eyes are different. -3.25 left -4.75 right. I can’t wear glasses, gives me an instant headache that starts at the back, base of my skull and works its way around and up. Back when Disneyland had the Captain EO show, whatever they used on it for the 3D worked well and didn’t give me a headache. Some type of polarized glasses I think.
“Filmmakers are why moviegoers can’t have nice things.”
Mmmm-hmmmm. Usually better at “original” tales, though there’s really not much original tale telling anymore in movies or TV.
It’s when they do a ham-handed “re-imagining” that (expletives) fans of the original. There’s just too many people in the movie biz that feel they *have* to put their own ‘mark’ on a project instead of just doing their best to put the original story on the screen.
Good. The TV versions of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld stories. When the author says stuff like “It’s like walking around in my own head.”, that’s when you know it’s good.
The new version of “V”, at least the four episodes shown so far. (Will likely tank in the ratings after such a long hiatus and get the axe, dagnabit.)
Speed Racer. Good updated rendition of a cheaply animated old cartoon. Good characterization and kick-arse CG work with plenty of nods to the original. (Plus a shout out to the original Star Wars when Trixie is driving the Mach V.)
Both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movies. While both veered off the original book in several ways, they’re both quite good movies, with the Johnny Depp one being the overall more faithful version.
Half-n-half. The HitchHiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie. Doesn’t matter that every version Douglas Adams was fully involved in had big differences, the movie was just *stupid* in many places and cut the punchlines from what it did use from previous versions. It also wasted a great whack of time near the end that would’ve been better used for story. Looked like after Douglas died the other guys got out the scissors and cut up the script, mostly hacking out things they didn’t write.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Chopped up, jumpy beginning, stuff added that wasn’t in the book, none of the cool scene to scene changes seen in prior films. OK but quite a comedown from the previous HP movies. Could’ve left out all the non-book additions and spent the time on more of the original story, especially near the start.
El-stinkeroo bad, very bad. SciFi Channel’s The Dresden Files, mercifully canceled after 12 episodes. The book fans Were Not Amused. Wasn’t anywhere close to the same thing, other than being about a wizard in Chicago. Even if they’d done it as a show totally un-tied to the books it would’ve been a lower 50% show at best.
Starship Troopers and its direct to video sequels. If you’ve read the original book, even once, years ago, and saw the movie, you know what a bad movie adaptation is.
Sometimes an extremely unfaithful visual treatment can transcend itself and become a really good show. See “Little House on the Prairie”. All the series really had in common with the books was the character names but it was mostly good stuff.
March 13th, 2010 at 6:26 am
The Hitchhiker movie was a strange adaptation, in that it was quite clearly designed for people who are already familiar with the other versions. There’s no explanation of the importance of towels – we just see Ford using his towel for a huge variety of things.
“just *stupid* in many places”
Like the lightsabre bread-knife. Cool on first viewing, but utterly stupid when you think about it. And so just stupid on the second and subsequent viewings.
“cut the punchlines from what it did use from previous versions.”
But the target audience already knows the punchlines from previous versions.
“It also wasted a great whack of time near the end that would’ve been better used for story.”
Um… which bit are you objecting to? It’s been a while since I saw it.
“Looked like after Douglas died the other guys got out the scissors and cut up the script, mostly hacking out things they didn’t write.”
Except, from what I’ve heard, that’s not quite what happened. A lot of the new things in the movie were Douglas’s ideas. And if you need to cut something, isn’t it better to cut the jokes we’ve heard or read before?
March 16th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
“It also wasted a great whack of time near the end that would’ve been better used for story.”
Um… which bit are you objecting to? It’s been a while since I saw it.
—
The grand tour of the Magrathea construction yard. Wayyyy over long. About 10 seconds of story ‘packed’ into several minutes of CGI showing off.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Ah, yes. I think they tried to liven it up with sight gags, but they’re not funny enough for that to work.