Alice is in Wonderland, but I’m not.

This past Sunday I went to go see Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland. And frankly, I was disappointed. Though the graphics and acting were superb and the story-line easy to follow for a children’s tale, it lacked the ‘it’ factor that usually shows up in Tim Burtons work.

 The story begins with Alice in England going to a party at the age of 19. At the party she learns some news that slightly disturbs her. But while she is there she keeps on seeing a rabbit that has made appearances in her dreams. She leaves the crowd to follow the bunny and thus appears in colorful Wonderland for a second adventure.

The colors in this film were astonishing! Your eyes got attacked in a very good way with every talking plant, to every character, to the back rounds of every scene. It was darkly vibrant, as is normal for Tim Burton, and because of that at least your eyes will be happy with what they see.  Tied along with this the graphic were enchanting and could make you believe that Wonderland was a place you could go to and visit. I’m sure England wouldn’t mind that, more tourists. However, the character of Stayne’s, played by Crispin Glover; graphic’s were not always believable. In fact when I watched it and had to think about what they were trying to do with that figure. With that said, the only way to make graphic’s work is if you have actors that can do them justice.

 Every actor did a wonderful job in this film. Everybody from Mia Wasikowska, who played Alice to Alan Rickman, who was the voice for the Blue Caterpillar, was convincing and brought the characters to live. My only complaint was that at times Mad Hatter, played by Johnny Depp was hard to understand. I’m not sure if that was Depp’s acting or the way they wanted the Mad Hatter portrayed. And from what I hear many of the events were accurate to the book.

 Burton likes to, from what I’ve seen, go back to the original story in making his films. Though I’ve never read it I have heard that Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was more accurate to the book and I hear that Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is also more accurate to the book. Some of the lines and even the costumes were in the book, from what I have heard. Whereas many people like to grab the idea or theme from a book in order to make a film; or simply create a new version. Granted, because I have never read it, I wouldn’t be a good judge for this.

 But, lastly, the ‘it’ factor was gone. I sat through the movie slightly entertained, but wanting more. When it was done it was done, and I was just happy I didn’t pay for the movie (date night with my man). I think Tim Burton fans will love it, but movie fans will find it a B-/C+ movie.

-Bethany

One Response to Alice is in Wonderland, but I’m not.

  • Amber says:

    I somewhat agree–Alice was not my favorite Tim Burton movie (that would be Pee Wee’s Big Adventure), but I did get pretty giddy about it. And you were right, Burton did stick close to the original text in style, however he did not reproduce the story like with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but created more of a sequel–a sequel that ironically followed close to the original story…WHICH I LOVED. I think the only reason I didn’t love love love the movie was that it peaked too early for me–I adored the scenes of Alice as a young woman at the stuffy Victorian garden party :-) The proposal just CRACKED ME UP.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>