|
|
Here's a riddle: What would you get if you put Directer Tim Burton and Lewis Carroll together? Why, Disney's new film "Alice in Wonderland" of course.
SideNote: Walt Disney was disappointed with the 1951 Disney animated version of “Alice in Wonderland.”
Seems like a perfect match to me; Director Tim Burton has made a career making weird, odd and somewhat sad movies and Carroll’s disturbing children’s story is nothing but!
You know, it's funny when I first heard that this was an adaptation of Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" I wasn't all that interested, but once I saw the trailers my interest began picking up. More on that later.
As a kid, I found "Alice in Wonderland" to be a creepy and frankly rather scary story. Alice's adventures were filled with a bunch of encounters with characters whose purpose was to tease, puzzle and torment her.
I don't know any child would want to go to Wonderland, much less want to stay! Why couldn't Wonderland be cozy like the world of Pooh?
Tim Burton's new version of "Alice in Wonderland" addresses my childhood concerns. Guess what? This has never been a children's story! There's even sadistic undertones in Lewis Carroll's fantasy.
"Alice" plays better as a dream, which is exactly how Burton interprets it . It was a wise idea by him and his screenwriter, Linda Woolverton, to come up with a reason that Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is now 19 years old, revisiting a Wonderland that remains much the same, (as most fantasy worlds always do.)
Underland to be exact. Supposedly, this is the land Alice visited as a child but misunderstood and thought it was Wonderland. Hmm interesting!
Anyway the story goes like this, Alice flees from a surprise engagement party, flops down the rabbit hole again, does the usual drink-me-eat-me schtick to change her size and ends up reuniting with characters she forgot she met as a child. Forgot about?
No, it doesn't make much more sense when you're watching it either.
Actually for a place called Wonderland/Underland (whatever) that she supposedly loved, Alice seems constantly annoyed to be there and wherever Alice goes, she never displays the slightest hint of wonderment.
I guess they wanted her to play the straightman to a cast of kooky characters. In other words, she did nothing more than react to the green screen creations around her.
She meets up the White Rabbit, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Dormouse, the Caterpillar, the Cheshire Cat, and of course, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp, recycling his role as Willy Wonka.) And while we're on the subject of Johnny Depp; I think it might be time for him and Tim Burton to start thinking about seeing other people. Seven movies together! Time to move on.
As things get "curiouser" and "curiouser", she meets up with the fearsome Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter with big, grotesque head on a tiny body who seems to be having a grand old time), who spares Alice from her favorite thing to say "Off with their heads!" (boy, does that get old) because she, like all the others, needs to know if this is the very Alice who visited so many years before.
Long story short, Alice must slay a Jabberwocky in what shapes up to be quite a big Hollywood battle action ending.
Why does "Alice in Wonderland" have to end with an action sequence? Characters not rich enough? Story run out? Or is it that executives, showing little faith in their product demand an action scene. Any type of action regardless of the fact if it makes sense or not. Do today’s moviegoers really need a vicious beast in their movies to bring them to the theater? I think not. It reminded me of “The Lord of the Rings.” I kept expecting Frodo to intervene -and that's not a good thing!
On a positive note "Alice in Wonderland" reboot is bright and colorful and nothing ever looks entirely real, but then nothing should, it is Wonderland! It is all a bit warped, but really... what were you expecting from Tim Burton's Alice?
Rated PG
|
Posted by oxyjen on Mar 11, 2010
|
|
 |
|
Click to enlarge images
|
Visit our sponsors
Your Ad Here
|
|
 |
|
