Monday, 8 March 2010

Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland (2010)

Title: Alice in Wonderland
Rating: PG
Released: 2010
Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Barbara Windsor,

Our Verdict: **** 4 Stars
In a line: Visual spectacular, re-imagining and revitalising the classic fairytale

Background: Tim Burton is a director who needs no introduction. His films have captured the weird, the quirky, the dark and the downright bizarre for the best part of 30 years. He is the champion of films depicting misfits. His films are instantly recognisable, and he has a cult following of dedicated fans around the world. His collaborations with actor, Johnny Depp, are now infamous. Recently, the pair came together to bring the musical 'Sweeney Todd' to the big screen, but their relationship goes way back to 'Edward Scissorhands' in 1990. The two are now close friends, and are Godfather to each other's children.

'Alice in Wonderland' features a number of Burton's friends and even his wife, Helena Bonham Carter, who has also featured in a number of his productions. The film is actress Mia Wasikowska's first starring role. The film features live action and animation which is even simultaneous in some scenes. 'Alice in Wonderland' was produced for $200million, only $37million less than James Cameron's blockbuster 'Avatar'

Burton has made it clear that the film is neither a remake, nor a sequel, he has referred to it as a 're-imagining' of the original Lewis Carroll 'Alice' books.

The screenplay was adapted from the original Carroll books by Linda Woolverton, best known for writing the screenplay for Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' (1991) and 'The Lion King' (1994), and for later adapting both for Broadway/stage. Woolverton has stated that she researched how young women were expected to behave in the Victorian era and then made Alice the opposite. Writing for the film began in 2007.

Synopsis: We first meet Alice Kingsley as a young girl, haunted by nightmares of a bizarre world that she has visited in her dreams. Her doting father reassures her that whilst she's mad, 'all the best people are'. The action then moves forward 13 years. Alice is now 19 attends a country party held by the aristocratic Ascot family. Her father has recently died. She learns that the party is actually in honour of her forthcoming engagement to Hamish Ascot; an engagement she knew nothing about. During Hamish's proposal, Alice runs away. She sees the White Rabbit and follows him to a rabbit hole, which she falls inside. Alice finds herself in Underland. There she meets a host of eccentric characters, including the Doormouse Mallymkun (Barbara Windsor), Uilleam the Dodo (Michael Gough), and Tweedledum & Tweedledee (Matt Lucas). The Underland residents are worried that they've got the 'wrong' Alice; as the girl they need to save them from the clutches of the evil Red Queen has visited Underland previously, and Alice Kingsley has no memory of the place.

Alice is told that on the Frabjous Day, she will slay the Jabberwocky (the Red Queen's guardian) using the Vorpal Sword and in doing so will allow the White Queen to reclaim her throne and restore peace. Alice finds herself hunted by the vicious Red Queen and her Knave of Hearts. Along the way, Alice meets Chessur (the Cheshire Cat, voiced by Stephen Fry), Tarrant Hightopp (the Mad Hatter, Johnny Depp) and Thackery Earwicket (the March Hare, voiced by Paul Whitehouse).

Thanks to the help of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), Alice realises her destiny as the slayer of the Jabberwocky. She also comes to realise that Underland is the place she visited as a child; and that her dreams were in fact memories of her first visit. After defeating the Jabberwocky and helping the White Queen reclaim her crown, Alice returns home where she refuses Hamish's proposal and takes up a position as an apprentice in the company her father had owned. Having conquered her fears, Alice has big ideas for improving the firm, including taking it to new locations like China.

Review: This film has had so much hype. Any Burton-Depp collaboration does. But the first Burton-Depp Disney Digital 3D production has really caused a stir. I saw it an almost sold-out cinema on its opening night (March 5th 2010) and the first thing that struck me, before the lights even went down, was the bizarre mix of children, young adults, studenty-types, adults and pensioners. Burton and Depp appeal to everyone. They present whimsical stories that appeal to children, and yet include wicked humour that appeals to the older contingencies. The underlying darkness in their films draws in a whole different crowd, and the stunning visuals promised by the tag of 'Disney Digital 3D' brings in yet another group of people. The air was thick with excitement, with nervous apprehension, but most of all with anticipation.

The film opens with the gloom of Victorian London. Memories of Burton's 2007 'Sweeney Todd' are immediately invoked. When the film moves to the countryside and some 13 years later, you could be forgiven for thinking you were watching a period drama; not quite a lavish reproduction of a classic fairytale. There are subtle hints that Alice's everyday life has parallels to the mystical 'Underland' she visits; we are introduced to Alice's potential step-mother who is clearly a parallel for the Red Queen, and a set of twins that scream of Tweedledum & Tweedledee. Snippets of Burton's wicked sense of humour begin to show at an early stage of the film.

The film changes totally when Alice finds herself in Underland. The audience practically gasped as we first saw the amazing technicolour world at the bottom of the rabbit hole. The brilliance of the colour that Burton uses to create the magical landscape just cannot be described. It must be witnessed. The Underland garden is simply stunning. The animated characters are equally fantastic; the March Hare is a testament to how much CGI has improved; next to Alice he looks completely real. The mix of animation and real footage of Matt Lucas used to produce the Tweedledum & Tweedledee characters is really very impressive. The furious Bandersnatch and the hideous Jabberwocky are both perfectly created and are all they should be.

One of the best scenes has to be the 'tea party' in which we are introduced to Johnny Depp's 'Mad Hatter'. Once again, Depp has totally transformed himself into an amazingly complex character that supersedes all expectations. Even down to his constantly changing accent to reflect his inner turmoil, Depp plays the part brilliantly. His rendition of the original poem 'Jabberwock' in a haunting Scottish accent is particularly wonderful.

The three actresses in the film also give brilliant performances. Bonham Carter is wonderful as the bloody-curdling Red Queen (with a head that is digitally enhanced to be three sizes bigger than normal) and Anne Hathaway is the perfect antithesis. Mia Wasikowska gives a great first big performance. There was a lot of press speculation that casting a basically unknown actress would lead to the film's downfall. I personally think that Wasikowska is perfectly cast and has the right amount of on-screen presence, youth vitality and actual acting talent, to pull the role off. She looks alarmingly like Gwyneth Paltrow; not sure if that's a good thing or not.

Overall the film suffers in one area; the narrative. The plotline is a little slow, very obvious and really not very exciting or interesting. If it wasn't for the brilliant acting and truly amazing visuals, this film would be a very sad story indeed. I really can't say enough good things about the actors (including those that merely lend their vocal talents), or about the visual effects. The film looks fantastic. The actors are fantastic. The plot is mediocre at best. It's obvious from the start that Alice is the Alice (despite some confusion over that), and that she will slay the Jabberwocky. Despite a couple of attempts at twists in the plot, it really is incredibly linear.

I'd recommend viewing this film (of course in Disney Digital 3D) because it is a joy to watch thanks to the stunning Underland that Burton has created, and thanks to the brilliant acting involved. If you're looking for a deep, complex or exciting plotline then this isn't the film for you. But, if you want to be immersed in a beautiful fantasy world, and want to find yourself totally engrossed in the performances you're watching, then this is the film for you. It's a good watch, it's visually amazing, it's just very obvious and doesn't attempt to disguise what it is; a retelling of a simple fairytale.



6 comments:

  1. I have real problems with 3D. I think it's just a gimmick. I've not seen this film.. but why "re-imagine" it? I love Burton/Depp films but I think over the last few years they've been watered down. I wonder if someone will "re-imagine" Edward Scissorhands in 10 years time?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Baz,
    I find the digital quality of 3D really gives a film visual strength. It's basically like the difference between watching High Definition or regular television.

    The 're-imagination' was because Burton said he felt that the original Disney Classic (1951) didn't have a coherent storyline and was just Alice walking around bumping into different characters with no real purpose. His version has a distinct narrative - although, as I said, it's very linear.

    As for the watering down, I quite agree, except in this case it's important to remember that it is a PG-rated Disney film that is predominantly aimed at a younger audience.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi C.

    I understand about your last point, I guess I always see Burton/Depp collaborations as 18's. I'm not sure why.. having said that, I've not looked but I bet most of them are Cert 12. I feel that films have changed over the last 20/30 years and suddenly we are in an age which rarely sees a Cert 18 film anymore. More and more films are suited with the youth audience in mind. Which is very sad. Even Paranoid Activity which I suppose the lastest scary movie to do the rounds manages to get a 15! Why are cinema execs so scared to do a Cert 18?

    C, do you not think 3D is a bit gimmicky? I think if the scene lacked strenght before 3D, then what does depth do? given that cinema audiences are now having to choose between watching HD at home on a massive TV and paying more at the cinema? Also I cynically believe that no sooner have we got blueray that we're going to have to buy something other 3D addon or drive to cater for these effects in the home.

    Ive sadly not seen High Def.. again i'm cynical about that too..

    Why didn't Burton produce more ridgid adaptation of the original book.. instead of reimagining it.. I'd like to have see that.

    By the way, great idea for a blog, well written and brilliantly pitched.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi again Baz,

    Regarding the Burton/Depp collaboration; Depp has featured in 7 of Burton's 15 films. Of those, four have been rated PG, two have been rated 15 and just one has been rated 18 ('Sweeney Todd', 2007).

    Continuing in the vein of film classification; I do agree that there are less 18-rated films than there was even a decade ago. I think the reason for this is that films once thought to be violent (etc) enough for an 18 rating are now deemed as suitable for a lower rating.

    This is probably due to society's desensitization towards violence, sex, drug-use, etc. I constantly see films of a lower classification that I feel should be rated higher. I think the boundaries for film classification are changing to reflect society's tolerance. 'Paranormal Activity' is a good example; if it had been made 10 years ago, it would probably have been an 18. At least we can still depend on films such as those in the 'Saw' franchise to provide us with 18-rated productions. There are a number of horror films due to be released this year that are likely to be rated 18 including 'Scream 4', 'Nightmare On Elm Street' and 'Saw VII'.

    Regarding 3D - I think as cinema-goers we have to accept that technology will evolve and change. James Cameron has even hinted that he wants to work on a 4D film - similar to the 'Shrek 4D' ride at the Universal Studios theme parks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek_4D

    Blueray will be replaced with another technology, but every advancement in cinematic technology only stands to improve the cinema-experience. I personally am very much in favour of 3D, in most cases I think it really does enhance the film and adds an extra dimension that draws you into the film further. I have, however, seen some 3D films that I agree are quite gimmicky. The 2009 remake of 'My Bloody Valentine' in 3D was probably the worst example of 3D that I've seen. Like the 1982 'Friday 13th Part III', there were a number of shots that were purely designed to play up to the 3D effect, that if viewed out of 3D would look really quite random; for example, in 'Friday 13th Part III' there is a scene where one of the doomed teenagers is sat playing with a yo-yo, which they thrown towards the camera. This yo-yo technique was also used in the 1953 horror 'House of Wax', which was also released in 3D.

    So yes, 3D can be used in a way that makes it gimmicky; but it can always be used to enhance a film and to improve the cinematic experience.

    I'd also like to mention that Sky television are about to bring out a 3D 'box', to replace their High Definition 'box'.

    As for Burton's reimagining VS. a closer adaptation of the original text; I think Burton's vision is so beautifully done and well crafted that straying from the book isn't a big problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm a champion for books being adapted closely, but in this case I don't see it as an issue. This is largely because everyone is familiar with the Disney Classic 'Alice in Wonderland' (1951), and the Burton version shares the basic outline; Alice falls down the rabbit-hole where she meets a host of eccentric characters and has to try and save the mysterious and beautiful Underland/Wonderland from the evil Red Queen. That is the basic premise of the books too; so Burton's adaptation isn't so far removed from the original sources.

    Thank you for your positive comments about this blog, and thank you for you discussion.
    -CKB

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scream 4? is it going to be a Wes Craven Film?

    No worries I'm a big film fan..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Latest on 'Scream 4' is that Jamie Kennedy (who played 'Randy Meeks') is in talks to return to the franchise, despite his character being killed off in 'Scream 2' (1997). Alongside Kennedy, actors who have been rumoured to be featuring in the film or actually linked to it include Neve Campbell reprising her starring role, and the Arquettes who, as recently as the 17th of January, have said they are part of the project.

    As for Craven, he has been linked to the project as recently as February 2010. He told the Los Angeles Times that shooting for the film would begin in May. However he has also 'tweeted' through Twitter.com that he isn't officially contracted to the film.

    So we have some speculation... only time will tell.

    ReplyDelete