Originally posted July 28, 2010. Yep, the typos and outdated opinions continue.
Yo, Cine Beast reporting for duty. No introduction or anything: let’s jump right back into the bizarre and usually mediocre world of Alice in Wonderland!
Directed by: William Sterling
Featuring: Fiona Fullerton, Michael Crawford, Dudley Moore, with Peter Sellers as The March Hare, and Ralph Richardson as The Caterpillar
Written by: William Sterling
Year of Release: 1972
Running Time: 101 minutes
MPAA: G
Budget: $2,500,000
I briefly mentioned in Part Two that this adaptation was one of the few that achieved the quality of a dream. I do not retract that statement: this is a very dreamy movie. I think there are several factors that contributed to this quality:
1. The slow pacing/use of long takes. The movie isn’t all that long, but when you watch it you feel as if you’re watching someones whole life play out. It’s really, really slow.
2. The fantastic score by John Barry. This adaptation, like many others, is a musical, but none of the songs suck, obviously, since the genius behind the soundtrack of James Bond is in charge here. The whole movie sounds great.
3. The gorgeous cinematography. The set design, costumes, and special effects in this version are probably the most beautiful I’ve ever seen in an Alice adaptation. There are a lot of colors, but they’re all slightly muted and faded, which adds substantially to the dreamlike state of the film.
All of the actors are excellent, particularly Michael Crawford as the White Rabbit. Years before he played the makeup-heavy role of the Phantom of the Opera, Michael still has a handle on singing through layers of prosthetics here. He plays WR very expertly, keeping a happy medium between extremely lovable and excruciatingly annoying.
Fiona Fullerton is another example of the great cast: she’s easily one of my favorite actresses to play Alice, although her characterization reminded me an awful lot of Judy Garland in the MGM Wizard of Oz adaptation.
Actually, this whole movie reminds me of that adaptation! The colorful costumes, extensive makeup, fun effects, and beautiful music are all reminiscent of Judy’s trip through Oz. However, when compared to that masterpiece of cinema this film’s flaws seriously begin to stand out.
You see, I believe that the MGM classic is a huge improvement over Frank L. Baum’s original novel. The original has a story, but it’s very unrefined and unfocused. The 1939 adaptation completely rewrote the story and gave it a compelling narrative.
So, my problem with this adaptation of Alice in Wonderland is the same problem with most of the others: it’s based exactly off of the original book, and therefore has no plot. Words cannot describe how disappointing this is, since I believe this adaptation (more than any other) has the potential to be a classic. I mean, come on, guys, write a story! Screw Lewis Carrol! You have everything else: a good cast, cool costumes and sets, beautiful presentation, and an amazing soundtrack.
Where’s the #&%@* PLOT?!
. . . Ahem . . . Sorry, I just really want to like this version. I mean, I like it anyway, but I want to love it. This should be the best Alice adaptation of them all, but it ain’t. It’s watchable, but not actually good. You can’t respect it like you respect the MGM Wizard of Oz, and that’s what makes me feel so horribly disappointed.
Also, it barely had the Cheshire Cat in it. What’s up with that? Why do people keep cutting his screen time? Are secret lobotomies being performed on filmmakers or something?
Anyway, this is still an okay adaptation. It is beautiful, although all of the beauty seems needlessly wasted on a dull, uninspired screenplay. It’s a shame, to put simply. A pretty, feature-length shame.
Cine Beast’s Rating: 5/10
Directed by: Tim Burton
Featuring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, with Stephen Fry as The Cheshire Cat, and Alan Rickman as The Caterpillar
Written by: Linda Woolverton
Year of Release: 2010
Running Time: 108 minutes
MPAA: PG (I mildly disagree with this. The film deserves at least a PG-13, I think)
Budget: $200,000,000 (Whew!)
Okay . . . Tim Burton. Some people like him, some don’t. I do, but that doesn’t keep me from making fun of him every now and then. Now, this movie. Some people love it, some hate it. Me?
I . . . don’t really care either way. My personal opinion is very ambivalent, unfortunately, which will make reviewing the film itself difficult. Also, I don’t really think Tim’s movie even counts as an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, which makes reviewing this even more difficult.
You see . . . this is a sequel. Not a remake or adaptation (strictly speaking) but an unofficial sequel. Wait, I’ve got it: this is fan fiction. An Alice fan fiction supervised by Tim Burton. Does that mean it’s bad? Not really. Let’s investigate the movie the proper way.
What’s the story? And how is it different from the many Alice adaptations out there?
First of all, the movie takes place a decade after Alice’s adventures in both Wonderland and the Looking Glass World, which are combined as one country in this film (not a bad idea). Alice, now 17, is about to be married off to a nerdy doofus, something she’s absolutely opposed to (with good reason, I guess). Right after the Nerd proposes to her Alice runs away to chase the White Rabbit (voiced by Michael Sheen) into Wonderland (referred to as Underland by its denizens).
Once there, Alice (who believes herself to be dreaming) learns that the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has Underland in an iron grip because she controls the vicious Jabberwocky (briefly voiced by Christopher Lee). Alice than meets the Caterpillar (an oracle in this film) who says that she must make the virtuous White Queen master of Underland by besting the Jabberwocky in single combat. By the end of the film, Alice accepts that she is not dreaming, takes up the mighty Vorpal Sword (the only weapon capable of killing the Jabberwocky), slays the Red Queen’s monstrous pet, and saves the world.
Well . . . that’s all very epic and stuff, but it doesn’t really feel like Alice in Wonderland. I know, I know, I must sound pretty idiotic: I spend the past two and a half parts of this review complaining that adaptations of Alice don’t have a plot, and once faced with a version that does have a real story, I criticise it. I don’t know what’s wrong with me. All I do know is that this “epic” adventure story did not sit well with me.
. . . Actually, it might just be because it feels so feminist. Anyone remember Disney’s Enchanted? Remember how the main character (a sappy princess) spends the whole movie being this pleasant, giddy young woman who abruptly changes during the climax into a sword-wielding action hero? Remember how stupid that was?
Yeah, well, this whole movie kind of feels like that. After Alice decapitates the Jabberwocky and returns home she refuses to marry the Nerd, ruins the life of her unmarried aunt, and then becomes an oriental trader or something. It’s kind of cheap, actually, and made me feel like I’d been ripped off.
I guess I don’t need to jump to the conclusion that the film is feminist, though. Tim’s intention could simply have been to give young girls a strong, independent role model, which is a good idea. However, it still doesn’t feel right to me. Like I said earlier, it still feels kind of cheap.
Did you notice how I specifically mentioned that Alice decapitates the Jabberwocky? Yeah, this movie should have been rated PG-13, easily. Alice crosses a bloody moat filled with the heads of people the Red Queen had executed; Alice gets her arm slit open by a tiger-thing; the Dormouse stabs said tiger-thing in the freakin’ eyeball and rips it out. Actually, there seems to be a sort of eyeball-obsession going on in this movie: The Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) has a nasty scar across one eye that he obscures with a patch; the tiger-thing becomes Alice’s devoted servant after she returns it’s eyeball to it (err, what?); and during the climax the Mad Hatter viciously pricks the Knave in his remaining eye with a needle. Ow?
Speaking of the Mad Hatter, no, I did not have a problem with him, not really. Who I did take issue with was his actor, the pirate of the Caribbean himself, Johnny Depp. Remember Johnny as Willy Wonka? Wasn’t that awful? Well, he’s possibly even worse in this. It might just be his strange makeup, of course: he looks like the illegitimate son of the Joker and Poison Ivy.
What’s wrong with him?
Actually, I read that the Hatter’s design was inspired by what a real hatter would look like after catching “hatter’s disease” (mercury poisoning). That’s very fascinating, Mr. Burton, but, um, this is Alice in Wonderland. I really don’t want mercury poisoning involved with a classic children’s story. It’s icky.
Anyway, besides Johnny, most of the actors do a fine job, especially Helena Bonham Carter, who puts the Red Queen on a pedestal as a hilarious, mischievous, sympathetic, and cruel character. She’s really a joy to watch. Alan Rickman, Michael Sheen, Crispin Glover, and Anne Hathaway all put in passable performances as well.
Enough about them, though! Their characters don’t matter! The real question is whether or not Stephen Fry does a good job as the Cheshire Cat.
Well, he does. “Yay!”
The movie doesn’t have nearly enough of the Cheshire Cat, though. “Alas!”
A positive point for the film, however: it looks gorgeous. A little too dreary, sometimes, but generally beautiful and enchanting. The CGI animals and effects are fine, neither obnoxious or groundbreaking, but satisfactory.
So, final verdict. Best Alice adaptation? Well, it’s a sequel, technically, but no, it’s not great. It’s better than most, though, that’s for sure. The semi-feminist story is very cheap and the script needs a rewrite, but at least there’s a plot. Johnny Depp is a burden on the film, but Helena Bonham Carter picks up his slack (or most of it). The cinematography and effects are great eye candy, although they’re sometimes too depressing.
Oh, and the film’s PG rating is misleading: prepare yourself for a lot of eyeball abuse.
Cine Beast’s Rating: 6/10
Hey, only one part/two adaptations left! Hopefully the delay until then won’t be as serious as the last. Cine Beast, signing off.