Surprised this hasn't been posted already! (and apologies if it has - I didn't see anything though!)
Your thoughts on the movie?
I thought it was very good. For reasons enumerated below:
1) It was very well contextualized. The beginning of the movie places the character of Alice on firm ground, and in such good context that the rest of the movie is very much better off for it. With that grounding, Wonderland and the characters therein take on new meaning and resonance, and the psychology of Alice is very much expanded upon. This means that her character, psychology, and story (despite its surreality) is something that I think most everyone will be able to find relatable. Much like Where The Wild Things Are, Wonderland seems more than anything like a psychological escape from an overwhelming, stifling world that doesn't understand the main character. Burton's movie wraps Wonderland up in a lovely package of contextualization that makes this all the more apparent and shines new light and meaning on the story.
2) The CG, and the movie in general, is beautiful. Burton's aesthetic vision really shows through here. Burton and the CG team succeeded wonderfully in painting a world that was at once amazingly surreal, saturated, and dreamlike and completely believable. I don't know how else to put it -- Burton's Wonderland is stunning, and the VFX are all executed amazingly well. Not to mention the attention to detail in the beautiful costumes. Oh yeah, and it was scored by Danny Elfman. So there's that.
3) Wonderfully acted. All the characters, both humanistic or voiced/anthropomorphic, play their rolls wonderfully (although the choice of Alan Rickman for the Caterpillar was a bit distracting -- I just kept thinking of Prof. Snape..). People often rant about Burton re-using the same actors, but in this movie especially, it works. It's not Johnny Depp as Johnny Depp nor Helena Bonham Carter as Helena Bonham Carter, it's Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter and Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen of Hearts, and in either instance it works wonderfully. All of the performances are equally amazing, but, in my opinion, Depp's is of particular note. While occasionally he lapses into an angry Depp-esque growl that hearkens back to the Sweeney Todd days, for the most part the character is entirely new, and Depp fills that (amazing) costume spectacularly well -- the character of the Mad Hatter is memorable, spooky, detailed, quirky, and unquestionably and engagingly mad.
There are other points, but those are the main ones. Overall, I thought it was a good movie that lends a lot of depth to the often glossed over and oversimplified tale, delving more into the psychology of Alice, etc etc. It offers something different from the bucket full of previous Alice remakes, whether it be the traditional Disney animation or the X-Rated, pornographic version, and does it in a way that is visually stunning and very well acted, all whilst simultaneously hearkening back to what has came before it. It doesn't water things down (too much, anywho) or try too hard to make things into a simple children's movie, and I respect it for that. The characters are very well painted, and all have a good amount of depth and roundness to them -- from Alice to the Hatter, the characters are generally very well rounded and complex (at least emotionally), refusing to remain flat and 2d (literally and figuratively). I wouldn't say it was a perfect movie, however. The character of Alice, however well painted in the beginning, seems to slowly slacken as the movie goes on. I feel like there could have been a lot more done with her character that wasn't (a realm that, excuse me for being a nerd (and please don't hurt me), Syfy's miniseries remake managed to cover pretty well). Other characters, however, grow whilst Alice slackens. The Hatter, for instance, slowly reveals his complexity and depth over time. Overall, however, the movie seems to lack a few things, some of which are hard to pinpoint. Generally, it seemed to ease off as the movie went on -- I felt like there were a lot of missed opportunities and things left undone. While I credit Burton for not watering down things (aesthetically and psychological, at least -- in terms of story faithfulness it can fall a little short, which is neither good nor bad, necessarily) too much and creating a movie with psychological depth, it seems like he is also simultaneously guilty of skipping over some things in the interest of creating a movie that was still watchable and entertaining at a much simpler, more accessible level (it's the median point between Disney and Peter Jackson, it seems). As a whole, the movie seemed to lack a particular punch and resonance that so many great movies, to me, have. While the main characters have complexity and depth in their emotions, many of them still lack contextual background (Alice somewhat excused), not to mention the more minor characters. This means that the apparent depth of the movie is easily scratched -- the well painted aspects of some characters simply can not take on the weight of the rest. We have little background as to each character's individual motivation or history (Another arena in which the Syfy/Sci-Fi remake (my most recent frame of reference, I apologize) excels over this one), and so while each character is deep and complex in terms of emotion and acting, that depth lies merely on the surface.
To condense:
+Good context turns the story into a metaphor for alienation, imagination, and the feeling of being overwhelmed and stifled by the real world
+Characters are well acted, especially the core triad of Alice, The Hatter, and The Queen of Hearts.
+Costumes, CG, and visuals are absolutely stunning. Creates a unique visual world (although, gee, that windmill looks familiar..)
+Did I mention it was pretty?
-Slackens as it goes on
-Characters lack true depth and history, motivation.
-Delves deeper, but not deep enough if that's what you're looking for -- this is not a Peter Jackson film, etc etc. It's still, inexorably, a children's tale, despite Burton's dark vision.
-Has depth, but only surface depth -- it doesn't go far. Not the kind of depth that results in a truly memorable, touching piece.
-Yawnn. Still, at its core, meant to be consumed as relatively passive entertainment. I give Burton credit for trying, though. He contextualizes Alice well.
Score:
6.5/10
Good and worth watching, if not merely for the aesthetics and acting. But hardly great. Burton's vision and potential seems muddied by the fact that this is still a Disney movie, and a PG rated one. It's still passive entertainment, and while it shows potential, it ultimately falls quite short of completely fulfilling it.
Now, that said...
Go watch the Syfy version :3
