Alice in Wonderland
Posted on 10. Mar, 2010 by Bran Rainey in Movies, Reviews
Going into the theatre, I was worried that Alice in Wonderland would turn out to be another huge facepalm, where Burton’s interesting (and repetitive) signature only serves to detract from the picture as a whole, but it actually didn’t do that at all. Alice is a new Tim Burton movie that doesn’t suffer from being a Tim Burton movie. This is not to say that I dislike Tim Burton — in fact, he’s probably one of my favourite directors — but I do sometimes suffer from Burton Fatigue, where the merest mention of Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and Danny Elfman can turn my stomach.
This is actually a good film that isn’t dominated inappropriately by Tim Burton’s friends (and partner). This is especially apparent with Mia Wasikowska, who plays the titular Alice so well that I almost forgot that I was supposed to be impressed by Depp’s usual great performance. It also helps that she has that wavy hair thing going on for the entire movie. (Don’t ask; I just really love that hairstyle for some reason. It’s awesome.)
This new Alice is really nothing like the old Disney film, and even less like the original Lewis Carroll books, though it still has enough similarities that you could call it an “adaptation” with a straight face. Unlike previous Alices that played a lot with dramatic structure, this new Alice sticks to the standard fairly strongly — there are three obvious acts, for instance. It also has an obvious moral, which, though it’s a bit ham-handed, is still a step up in my opinion. At least for this movie, drugs are optional.
Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a good movie. It’s not incredible or anything, but it’s still a good movie overall. I like it better than the 1951 version, but that isn’t saying much — I really never liked that version in the first place. (And I can already feel my artsy cred evaporating as I type that sentence…)
Should you see it? If you’re a huge fan of the old one, you might not like this new one, which is an entirely different kind of Alice. Other than that, you’ll probably find at least one thing to like about it. It’s a nice fantasy film with good effects and good acting, so, while it’s not really anything special, it’s nothing to hate either. And I’ll probably get it on DVD when it comes out.
Mike
11. Mar, 2010
Although Webster’s supports your use of “titular” it always sounds wrong to me. The older definition is more common — usually implying “in name only”:
It’s more common, and less confusing, to just say “the title character.” Or even “eponymous.” Heh.
Bran Rainey
11. Mar, 2010
I’m well aware of the traditional definition of “titular”. I usually use “title character” because it’s more definitively acceptable, but obviously “title Alice” wouldn’t work, so I just went with what most people nowadays would understand.
On second thought, I could have gotten away with “eponymous”, which I didn’t think of — but does it really matter? :/
Mike
11. Mar, 2010
No.
Ryan Lalonde
13. Mar, 2010
I thought this movie was amazing. I seen it twice in theaters and I loved it both times. It was even better the second time actually. I recommend everyone go see this and I think it’s way better than the older movies.
Across the Universe | Likes to Ramble
31. Jul, 2010
[...] most obviously). Special mention goes to Sturgess’s hair, which beats Mia Wasikowska’s Alice in Wonderland style for the Bran’s Favourite Hair award. Seriously, I’m drooling on my keyboard over [...]