"Alice In Wonderland" review by Ben Kenber

Disney continues to dig through their endlessly and enormously deep vaults for a redo of another one of their well-known classics, and this time it’s “Alice In Wonderland.” This new version once again brings together the creativity dynamic duo of director Tim Burton and acting demigod Johnny Depp who brings his own touches to the Mad Hatter. The end result however, is surprisingly disappointing. Throughout the running time, I kept thinking to myself:

“Where’s the wonder?”

Crispin Glover, who co-stars in the movie, said to Peter Travers who was interviewing him for his “Off The Cuff” podcast, said that Burton’s film is actually a sequel to the classic many of us grew up with. In the film’s page on Wikipedia, it says that the movie is an extension of Lewis Carroll's novels “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking-Glass.” Looking at both, I think it is best to look at this version as a sequel. Whereas Alice was a little girl in the original, here she’s a nineteen year old who is about to be proposed to by a stuffy headed British guy who (of course) she doesn’t love. Like Princess Vespa from Mel Brooks’ “Spaceballs,” her choices are incredibly limited, and she’s stuck with the boring white guy.

Coming to her inadvertent rescue is the White Rabbit who of course is still looking at his watch constantly, but not because he’s late for a very important date. The rabbit catches her eye and leads her away from her snobby suitor, and she once again falls down that amazingly deep rabbit hole into Underland, which as it turns out is what Wonderland is really called (Alice misheard the name when it was first told to her). Underland is a place of beauty which is enhanced by a lot of clever special effects and some great art direction, but it has its dark side as well. Of course, this adventure of Alice’s also comes to us in 3D now that “Avatar” has made the evolving format seem beyond profitable. Actually, I’m glad they called this special place Underland instead of Wonderland because aside from its wondrous looks, there doesn’t feel like there is not that much inspiration or wonder abounding from it.

Alice herself is Burton’s version of a fairy tale female character, one who does not conform to society’s standards and does not care to. However, she threatens to fall under the pressures of meddling family members who say they have in mind only her best interests. That, and they don’t want to have to deal with “ugly grandchildren.” The one strong thing about Alice in this movie is that we watch her journey from being a simple girl fascinated by the wonderment of the world around her to someone who is more confident and strong willed in what she wants out of life. There is something to be said about that in regards to this classic character here.

This however brings me to the big problem I had with the movie though; Alice is seen as “the one” who will defeat the Jabberwocky, a vicious dragon that destroys everything in its path. When the White Rabbit shows Alice that this has been foretold by the Oraculum, a calendar-like scroll which details every day in Underland, we already know what will happen at the climax of this story. From there, I think the movie really lost me as we see Alice keep telling everyone that she is not the one and believes that this is all a dream. The audience unfortunately is way ahead of her on this, and we know that she will eventually come to accept that she is “the one,” so the ending has been telegraphed to us far in advance. The excitement and prospect of her victory is robbed of its suspense, and the obstacles she faces are ones we know she will conquer no matter how much effort she puts into it.

Now I don’t know about you guys, but I am now really sick and tired of seeing all these movies about characters that are chosen to be “the one,” and who then spend far too long bitching, moaning, and being whiny little babies about their pre-destinies. You have John Connor from the “Terminator” movies who takes forever to accept the fact that he will lead what’s left of the human race to victory over the machines. You have Peter Parker who through three “Spider-Man” movies sulked endlessly over the great responsibilities he got through a spider bite that left him with great powers. By the third movie, we were so burned out from watching act like a baby. Then there’s Neo from “The Matrix” movies who was told over and over by Morpheus that he is “the one.” Well, I’ll give him some credit because he didn’t wait until the movie was nearly over to accept that fact.

To all those characters in movies before this and after it, I can only tell you this in the only way I can: ACCEPT WHO YOU ARE AND GET ON WITH IT!!!! Stop telling us who you really are because like it or not, WE ACTUALLY DO KNOW YOU BETTER THAN YOU KNOW YOURSELF!

For the role of Alice, Burton ended up going with relative unknown Mia Wasikowska, an Australian actress whom you might remember from her acclaimed work on HBO’s “In Treatment.” Mia definitely has a strong presence on display here, but her performance most of the time feels very one-note. You find yourself not caring enough about her predicament, and her love of imagination never truly comes through her. I know her character is a 19 year old, but does Alice really have to be this sullen for the majority of the movie?

Of course, top billing for “Alice In Wonderland” goes to Johnny Depp who takes the Mad Hatter from having a cameo appearance to a much larger role. You can always tell that Depp is having a heck of a good time playing roles like these, and the little details he adds to each one makes his work all the more memorable. Still, this performance feels like it was taken from the spare parts that Depp had left over from “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” as well as “Ed Wood.” He’s fun to watch as always, but there seems to be something missing here as the Hatter doesn’t quite capture our attention in the way we want him to. It’s entertaining, but not the inspired creation we have come to expect from Depp.

Some other actors fare a bit better here like the always great Helena Bonham Carter who makes a wickedly spoiled creation out of the Red Queen. Her head gets digitally inserted on top of a body that is much too small for her, and she is a fiendish delight as she relentlessly orders beheadings without giving them much thought, all while she rests her feet on a pig. Indeed, the easily irritated are always on the lookout for the quick fix. Carter is a hoot throughout.

Anne Hathaway (“Rachel Getting Married”) is also a lot of fun to watch as the White Queen as she gleefully overdoes the character’s graceful movements throughout. Her character does come across as quietly crazed, but in a good way.

But for me, the most inspired piece of casting in “Alice In Wonderland” is Crispin Glover who portrays Ilosovic Stayne, the Knave of Hearts. Now Crispin has been portrayed for so many years as an extremely odd personality in the press, and probably more so than any human being deserves. Whether or not he is as bizarre as they say, Glover is a perfect addition to Burton’s strange universe, and he shakes up this wonderland with his own unique choices that make him unpredictable. Having him here makes this film feel less like your average family movie, and that was the one I was hoping to walk into when I paid my $14.50 (there was no student discount). Whether he is capturing the Red Queen’s attention or making a disturbing pass at young Alice, you constantly wait to see what Glover will do next.

Then there are actors who do the voices of the digitally animated characters on display, and all of them are perfectly cast. Alan Rickman brings his Snape-ish mannerisms from Harry Potter to Absolem, the blue hookah smoking caterpillar. Michael Sheen of “Frost/Nixon” fame voices the White Rabbit, and you can barely tell that it’s him doing it. Stephen Fry is a sly delight as the voice for the Cheshire Cat who appears as often as he disappears. Timothy Spall, also on loan from the Harry Potter film series, voices the bloodhound Bayard Hamar, and you feel for this dog as he is forced to work on both sides of the dueling queens. Barbara Windsor’s voice is perfect for the Mallymkun the Dormouse, Paul Whitehouse is great as the March Hare, and the great Christopher Lee perfectly voices the evil dragon, Jabberwocky.

In regards to Christopher Lee, this is yet another movie where he faces off with another opponent with a sword of some kind (“Star Wars Episode II and III”). Does he ever learn?

Tim Burton’s “Alice In Wonderland” has a number of things going for it, but in the end, I was not all that moved by what was onscreen. When it was all over, I felt it lacked the vivid inspiration and wonder that you can always find in Lewis Carroll’s work. Even the score by longtime Burton collaborator Danny Elfman doesn’t stand out in any way. There is certainly a lot of effort that was put into this movie, but not enough to make it more memorable than the average Disney movie. With Tim Burton, we come to expect anything other than your average movie going experience. I actually was in a play based on Carroll’s books back in high school (I was the March Hare), and that will probably stay with me much more than this movie will. It’s not terrible, but it is far from remarkable.

All this from the same filmmaker who gave us the brilliant “Edward Scissorhands” and the utterly inspired “Ed Wood.” Burton still has a lot of good movies in him I’m sure, but this will not go down as one of them no matter how much money it makes (it has made around $300 million as I write this review). Even if Burton had called this movie “Ed In Wonderland” or “Edward In Wonderland,” it still would not have worked.

The only thing that will stay with me after all this time will be the Mad Hatter’s endless question:

“Why is a raven like a writing desk?”

Like Alice, I’m still trying to figure that one out.

**½ out of ****

By the way, in regards to the use of 3D in this movie, it doesn’t really add a whole lot or draw you into the movie anymore than it would have without it. Unlike “Avatar,” “Beowulf” or even “The Polar Express,” it doesn’t make it any different of an experience than watching it in regular 2D.