Movie report: Alice in Wonderland (2010)
A few words about my qualifications. I’ve read the two Alice books umpteen times. I’ve seen at least half a dozen movie and TV versions of the stories, and a couple of stage versions. I’ve been on the ride at Disneyland. And I’ve listened to Jefferson Airplane. So, I’m familiar with the Alice story.
That said, if you’ve never seen an Alice in Wonderland movie before, Tim Burton’s version is not the one you should start with. It has none of the wit and cleverness and sly wordplay of the books or the best of the movies. If you started with this version, you would wonder why Alice is such a big deal to people, kind of like reading ads for Christmas sales and wondering how anyone could build a religion around such things.
Mind you, this version has some good parts. It starts years after the events in the original two books. Alice is now a nineteen-year-old young lady, about to become engaged to an upper-class-twit-of-the-year on the Victorian assembly line of marriage, motherhood, social life, and death. It is to escape this fate that Alice runs away from a garden party and falls down yet another rabbit hole into Wonderland.
Wonderland and its creatures are visually amazing. Burton has given pretty free rein to lots of imaginations, and it’s all very much the way dreams or nightmares or legends are.
The Alice is also very good. She is at times childlike in her wonder at her strange surroundings, at other times young-womanly in her pluck and cleverness, as Alice should be.
The main problem with the movie is the guy whose name appears above the title on posters and whose face is on all the advertising: Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. First off, why promote the Mad Hatter of all characters into a lead role? This is like rewriting Romeo and Juliet with the nurse as the main character. Plus, he’s creepy as hell, with green bug-eyes and Ronald McDonald hair, definitely channeling Edward Scissorhands at various points. And I couldn’t understand most of what he said, his voice going in and out of various allegedly UK accents. Subtract him from the movie, and I think you’d have something pretty good. Thank heavens he doesn’t kiss her when she finally leaves Wonderland.
The plot is also odd. Okay, given this is ten years after all of the events of the original two stories, so you can’t use any of those specific incidents. But why make the poem Jabberwocky the main plot, with Alice cast as “my son”? Again, I didn’t get it, although I did like seeing Alice clad in armor and taking on the monster with her vorpal blade.
Except for the creepy parts, I think this movie might make a good role model for girls, showing them alternatives to society’s notions of what’s practical and sensible. But, please, read the kids the stories first.
A few words about my qualifications. I’ve read the two Alice books umpteen times. I’ve seen at least half a dozen movie and TV versions of the stories, and a couple of stage versions. I’ve been on the ride at Disneyland. And I’ve listened to Jefferson Airplane. So, I’m familiar with the Alice story.
That said, if you’ve never seen an Alice in Wonderland movie before, Tim Burton’s version is not the one you should start with. It has none of the wit and cleverness and sly wordplay of the books or the best of the movies. If you started with this version, you would wonder why Alice is such a big deal to people, kind of like reading ads for Christmas sales and wondering how anyone could build a religion around such things.
Mind you, this version has some good parts. It starts years after the events in the original two books. Alice is now a nineteen-year-old young lady, about to become engaged to an upper-class-twit-of-the-year on the Victorian assembly line of marriage, motherhood, social life, and death. It is to escape this fate that Alice runs away from a garden party and falls down yet another rabbit hole into Wonderland.
Wonderland and its creatures are visually amazing. Burton has given pretty free rein to lots of imaginations, and it’s all very much the way dreams or nightmares or legends are.
The Alice is also very good. She is at times childlike in her wonder at her strange surroundings, at other times young-womanly in her pluck and cleverness, as Alice should be.
The main problem with the movie is the guy whose name appears above the title on posters and whose face is on all the advertising: Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. First off, why promote the Mad Hatter of all characters into a lead role? This is like rewriting Romeo and Juliet with the nurse as the main character. Plus, he’s creepy as hell, with green bug-eyes and Ronald McDonald hair, definitely channeling Edward Scissorhands at various points. And I couldn’t understand most of what he said, his voice going in and out of various allegedly UK accents. Subtract him from the movie, and I think you’d have something pretty good. Thank heavens he doesn’t kiss her when she finally leaves Wonderland.
The plot is also odd. Okay, given this is ten years after all of the events of the original two stories, so you can’t use any of those specific incidents. But why make the poem Jabberwocky the main plot, with Alice cast as “my son”? Again, I didn’t get it, although I did like seeing Alice clad in armor and taking on the monster with her vorpal blade.
Except for the creepy parts, I think this movie might make a good role model for girls, showing them alternatives to society’s notions of what’s practical and sensible. But, please, read the kids the stories first.
Comments
Supercalafragalisticexpeadala docious!
Spelled wrong I'm sure.
Great Ed you must be able to type
at hyper speed. I could copy that in about six hours.
Best Wishes
Harry fraser