A human being enters a lushly rendered alternative world, meeting an assortment of strange beings before having to save them from a vicious attack. No,this isn’t a review of “Avatar.” Rather, it’s a review of “Alice in Wonderland,” the new 3D take on Lewis Carroll’s classic book, which director Tim Burton and his favorite leading man Johnny Depp have brought to life in visually stunning – yet narratively befuddling – fashion.
I’m admittedly not acquainted with Carroll’s book, and only vaguely remember the 1951 fully-animated version that the Disney studios also created. But the key in reviewing a movie is in determining how it stands on its own as entertainment, and on this front, “Alice” mostly succeeds. It’s fun to look at and most of the performances are inspired, with relative newcomer Mia Wasikowska able to hold her own in an endless series of absurd and sometimes frightening situations.
On the downside, I found some of the gibberish talk by the Mad Hatter and the sometimes endless stream of odd-character introductions to be annoying at times. And while this is fine entertainment for teens and adults, parents of young children should realize that this movie is nearly a full two hours long, has some seriously violent moments in Alice’s fight with the dragonesque Jabberwock and even features a quick shot of a bad creature’s eye getting graphically gouged out. Also consider the fact that Alice drinks from any bottle and takes any pill in sight without questioning it – a fact that has inspired generations of drug-favoring hipsters to consider “Alice” a favorite story, but which might be concerning in the modern age, which is far more sinister than Carroll’s Victorian era.
The comparisons between “Avatar” and “Alice” are ripe for exploration not only because of their similar themes, but because this weekend “Alice” is poised to finally knock “Avatar” out of the weekly box office stratosphere due to the fact it’s the first major 3D film to come along since James Cameron’s epic invention entered theaters more than 10 weeks ago and became the highest-grossing film of all time. The major difference between the films is in their tone and casting – “Alice” maintains a fun if somewhat confusing tone of apolitical wonder, while “Avatar” jams a series of anti-military, pro-environment messages under its awe-inspiring visuals.
“Alice” also centers on a couple of star performances to work its magic, as opposed to “Avatar’s” cast of mostly unknown leads. Most people still wouldn’t know “Avatar” star Sam Worthington’s name enough to rush out for his next film, but the first thing people seem to ask about “Alice” is, “What’s Johnny Depp like?” As the Mad Hatter, he looks like Elijah Wood if Wood had become an honorary member of KISS – wearing a mountain of white makeup under a red-orange fright wig. He also takes the “mad” part a bit too literally at first, speaking in gibberish and sporting a frankly creepy grin throughout his first scenes before settling into a more nuanced and even kind tone after a flashback reveals what drove him into insanity.
Meanwhile, Helena Bonham Carter steals the show as the bulbous-headed Red Queen – an evil, shrieking harpy who loves to humorously use animals (a pig serves as her footstool) and shriek “Off with their head!” She makes a one-note freak into a vibrant, humorously frightening monarch that should draw even more public acclaim than Depp. And Crispin Glover as her evil assistant, the Knave of Hearts, surprisingly proves that he’s able to be more than a freak or a geek and becomes an effective badass villain, second only to the monstrous Jabberwock.
Ultimately, this “Alice” is destined to make a pile of money, but once viewers emerge from the dark theater and into the real world, the fantasy won’t maintain a long-lasting pull on their hearts and minds.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.