McGeesJabberwock
Posts: 16
Joined: 26/9/2010
|
Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland has been adapted for the screen many times, even if it’s difficult to replicate what made the book so special with actors and a camera. The book is mostly made of conversations and dream logic, which rarely works as well for movies as it does for a written novel, which is probably why so many adaptations of the story, including Disney’s animated version back in 1951, fall flat on their face. However, if there’s anyone who could make a great film from this source material, it would be Tim Burton, master of the surreal and innocently macabre.
This Alice in Wonderland, released in selected theatres March 5th 2010, actually isn’t an adaptation of Carroll’s work. It’s meant to be an unofficial sequel, but feels at times like a complete reimagining. The changes made here, sadly, are not for the better.
Alice Kingsley (Mia Wasikowska) sees a White Rabbit running around in a garden and follows it into Underland, as the movie renames it, where the inhabitants believe she is the only one who can rescue them from the tyranny of the evil Red Queen (Helen Bonham Carter). In order to fulfil her destiny, she joins forces with her old acquaintance the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), to restore the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) to the throne.
This is quite a departure from the tone of the original books, but it can work; the idea of Alice needing to restore peace to a war-torn Wonderland has been done well before, with the video game American McGee’s Alice and the Looking Glass Wars trilogy of novels. Alice in Wonderland, though, relies far too much on the typical fantasy clichés. A prophecy about the hero freeing the world that does nothing but deflate tension, the hero having to steal a treasure from a sleeping beast (which comes to a baffling conclusion this time) and, of course, the huge, climatic battle. One can see why someone would want to update the timeless story, but there are better ways to do it then this.
It doesn’t help that the main characters aren’t really engaging or interesting. Alice is bland, and her constant denial of the world’s reality grows weary after a while. Both the White Queen and the Hatter are embarrassing to watch, especially when the latter puts on a Scottish accent. The more minor characters are more interesting to watch; Matt Lucas is amusing as the balloon-like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Stephen Fry is perfectly cast as the mysterious Cheshire Cat and the Helen Bonham Carter is a treat as the snooty Red Queen. The Jabberwock was also well-done, but used too little. If the movie was going to climax with his defeat, and had none other than Christopher Lee performing the voice of the beast, more should have been done with him.
It’s unlikely much people will go and see a Tim Burton movie for its plot, though. It’s really the visuals his repertoire is known for, and Alice in Wonderland delivers. Underland is delightfully varied in appearance, with murky purples and greys dominating its forests, the Red Queen’s castle being darkly regal and the White Queen’s realm emitting a heavenly aura. The landscapes are detailed, yet still feel somewhat artificial, and it’s not easy to forget these actors are performing in front of a green screen.
The CGI is used better on the characters, making the animals look more natural and the humans look as adorably grotesque as the illustrations in the original book. The White Rabbit blends in almost seamlessly with Alice’s mundane world, the Caterpillar looks appropriately mystical and the Red Queen’s bulbous cranium just makes that character all the more enjoyable to watch. There are times when the film just seems to be using special effects for the sake of using special effects – there was no real reason Alice’s dress couldn’t have shrunk with her – but it is satisfying to see a well-known classic rendered in this realistic yet surreal way. An adaptation of something like The Wind in the Willows or The Wizard of Oz made using this style would be welcomed, if they had a better script and better actors, that is.
Alice in Wonderland could have been something special, but instead feels like the majority of Burton’s recent output, as well as last year’s Avatar, a stale story with forgettable characters, which is still worth watching for its visual beauty. It’s more entertaining than Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but, despite the huge marketing campaign, one would be forgiven for giving this a pass. Adaptations of Alice in Wonderland rarely shine, and this is no exception.
< Message edited by McGeesJabberwock -- 26/9/2010 7:38:28 PM >
|
Printable Version
Tim Burton's Best YET! - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread