Well, here we are back again in another 3d megamovie. This one is a really bad adaptation of Lewis Carrol's "Alice in Wonderland" directed by the macabre imagist Tim Burton, starring his partnered star as of late, Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter and Mia Wasikowska as Alice. And yes, I saw it in 3d, which was fortunate, there's just no way this would hold up in 2d.
The first 15 minutes are so bad with Alice being a whinny little 19 year old that I was inclined to reach through the 3d images hurtling by me like planets and throttle her. She does transform by the end into a reasonably believable heroine so there's something to be said for her character arc.
If you caught the fact that Alice isn't a little girl(like in the actual book) but a 19 year old , bully for you. When you adapt an iconic work of literature like "Alice" you have to make some tough choices. Note that I said "tough" not "wrong". But when Alice is changed from a little girl to a teenager who is supposed to marry some titled twit, you've taken one too many liberties.
So, is "Alice", with all it's bad ideas, spectacular? Yes. It may be the most colorful movie I've ever seen, with the vibrant reds in the antagonist red queen camp and glowing whites in Anne Hathaway's good white queen camp and most of the characters wearing layers of clowns-on-acid makeup.
It could be argued that Burton uses 3d to better effect than Cameron's "Avatar". There's more ducking under branches, running an inch off the ground and flight scenes that are almost as good as those in Avatar. But I never got any expansive feel, it all felt a little hemmed in, as if the horizon was at the end of big room, not the end of the world.
The character's are superficial and secondary to the scenery, but at least the main ones were played by actors instead of CGI. Burton had the right idea here, Helen Bonham Carter's massive distorted head is a good example. It's CGI en chanced, but at least there's an actress in there. Having noted that, it's a bloody shame that the acting isn't better. I thought Wasikowska's Alice was instantly forgettable and Depp, handicapped by bulging CGI eyes, never roped me in. Time to get back to independent cinema with good stories and characters, Johnny.
"Alice", despite all the scene wizardry, never hits the right key. It's not daring enough, as if Disney execs decided to family-safe buff the whole thing. And when it makes bold choices, like with the story, they're often head-scratchers.
3-D Directorial dudes, seriously, get it together, or you'll lose everyone who wants more than just spectacle and you'll wreck the promise of 3d. Use real fucking actors from head to toe. Where's a 3d action movie, I mean with real people? What about Bourne or Bond in 3d? Top Gun in 3d? Enough of the CGI, go outside into the world, and go to real actors.
Maybe it's just that we're in the 3d revolution's infancy and no one's secure enough to stage a huge car chase and get out from behind a green screen. They'd better find a way- or only jocks and the under 25 year old set are going to go to this kind of film. They'd better find a way, or most of us will go blind- just like Burton- who got so physically sick from staring at a green screen all day he had to wear lavender glasses.
There's this thing called the outdoors, guys. I hear there's even a sun somewhere.
Rating:
Presentation: 30 -wild and limited at the same time
Character: 18 my kingdom for good acting
Plot: 22 diverges too much from "Alice" with inferior choices
