Wondering about Wonderland?

I was super excited for Tim Burton's take on the trippy "Alice in Wonderland." After all, who better to produce a crazily imaginative version of Lewis Carroll's literary nonsense? I was not disappointed, nor was I exceedingly impressed. Be forewarned, this review might contain accidental spoilers.

First of all, I have to say that I did not think the 3-D experience was entirely necessary for this film. While the animation was good, to be enveloped within the graphics was not important for the story-telling. I also felt the graphics were not quite as...authentic as past Burton films (for instance, our first look into Willy Wonka's factory was an actual set, not a green screen). But, on the other hand, 3-D is the newest trend in movie-making, and I'm always willing to try in out.

On to the story. I loved the ambiance, both of the Victorian world and that of Wonderland (or Underland, depending on whom you ask). Tim Burton always does a great job with tones and colours (think of the muted grays and vivid reds in "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd," or the contrasting worlds in "The Corpse Bride"), and Alice was no different. The rigid, stuffy world of Britain is awash with neutrals, whites and blues. Into this, Alice nearly disappears, considering her complexion is so porcelain. (This is an interesting juxtaposition, since Alice is "out of place" in her world, but more on that later.) Wonderland, on the other hand, contains colourful landscapes and vibrant vegetation. The Queen of Hearts' realm is dark and not-quite-evil, while her sister's domain is pure and pristine silvers and whites (just a little overkill on the symbolism and such, but there you have it). And the Mad Hatter is bedecked in flamboyant hues to match his wild personality.

As far as the acting goes, I thought such a big-name cast could have brought a little more to the table. Upon my first viewing of the film, I thought many of the characters were a little underdeveloped, but once I researched a little of the movie's production, and saw the movie again, I was able to appreciate more of the actors' characterizations.

Mia Wasikowska, in her first leading role, did not quite live up to my expectations as Alice. Yes, she went through the motions, but after all she goes through, I would expect a person to be slightly more altered. Although she thinks it's all a dream, it should not mean that her reactions differ from those of reality, if indeed everything were happening for real. She just seemed wooden and emotionless for much of the movie, even though she was saying things that would require conviction or feistiness. She was not all-around terrible, but I would have liked to have seen much MORE.

I admit I did not quite understand Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter – at first. Yes, he was adequately schizophrenic, and he looked the part, but I thought him rather silly overall (ie: the futterwacken? Really?). But once I read about it more, I discovered Depp wanted to ground a character who is often seen as two-dimensional. His split personality made it so he could be goofy and nonsensical, while his darker (Scottish…mwahaha) side provided a functional character (particularly when he brings his Scottish personality to the battlefield, complete with kilt and broadsword). Although as far as crazy, tea-loving characters go, my favourite was the March Hare. He was just all-out insane, but his character accomplishes nothing because his state of mind renders him completely useless (he brings a spoon to the battle).

Helena Bonham Carter was amusing as the strangely-proportioned Iracebeth of Crims, the Red Queen (of Hearts…a combination of two Carroll characters). She was wonderfully quick-tempered, demanding, and immature, just like the toddler she was trying to channel. She was also able to produce the fear royalty often creates amongst their subjects, particularly because she was so inclined to impulsively cut people's heads off. I thought her a decently-worthy adversary.

Anne Hathaway as Mirana of Marmoreal (the White Queen), was another one I didn’t understand at first. I found her to be silly, but it turns out she's supposed to have a darker side as well. This doesn't come across very well, in my mind, but once I knew, I could see it in small instances. But overall, she was amusing. She had that silly, dainty, airy, graceful girliness of a Disney princess, but she was humorous as well, manifested in small gestures and facial expressions that were the exact opposite of what one would expect.

I liked how ambiguous the Blue Caterpillar was, and how creepily the Cheshire Cat oozed (figuratively speaking).

Storywise, this is not a remake of the animated version, nor is it a "reimagining" (according to Burton). It's basically a new story, based upon Carroll's characters, much of the plot deriving from the Jabberwocky poem (which is practically all nonsense, so creating a tangible story out of nothing is slightly impressive). I'm admittedly not familiar with Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass," so it did not make much difference to me. It was predictable, but still an entertaining film.

Overall, I liked the movie quite a bit. Perhaps this review is harsher than my actual perception of the film, but I've started thinking about movies in ways in which I can review them, so I start looking deeper. Taken as a whole, however, this movie is a fun adventure into a crazy Wonderland, which is a nice break from the neutral world in which we often find ourselves. I'm not about to go around chasing white rabbits or following instructions on strange bottles of liquid, but I always look to movies to escape everyday monotony for a bit. And this movie accomplished that end, while being reasonably put-together and comprehensive. I'm satisfied.