.jpg "Mia Wasikowska in Tim Burtons Alice in Wonderland (1).jpg")
With Alice in Wonderland, it becomes clear that Tim Burton has run out of imagination sauce. He used it all up years ago and now he’s created a film that’s just a big, hollow CGI concoction his predictable scribblings of creatures and landscapes. Rather than find harmony with Lewis Carroll’s classic work, Burton takes the names, characters, and lingo, and thinks he can apply them to a better narrative. He is sorely mistaken and Alice in Wonderland is 108 minutes inside the director’s creative nadir.
Burton’s Alice is a sequel where a teenage Alice Kingsley (Mia Wasikowska) has dreams of Wonderland, but believes they were only dreams. However, her vacant stare and pale skin belie a creativity and independence that is a no-no in Victorian England. About to be married to a drip of an aristocrat, Alice sees the White Rabbit, chases after it, tumbles down the rabbit hole, and her “adventure” begins. I use the term “adventure” loosely as the majority of the film has recognizable Wonderland faces like the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) instruct Alice of where she must go and what she must do. Alice accepts all of these instructions without question because she believes she’s in a dream and nothing can hurt her. She’s a protagonist who blindly follows any mission but has hardly any investment in the mission’s success.
Alice’s return is meant to herald the end of the Red Queen’s rule and the restoration of the kingdom to The White Queen (Anne Hathaway), the rightful leader of Underland (“Wonderland” is what young Alice called the place). Other characters shepherd Alice around to accomplish various tasks so she can fulfill the destiny laid out in a prophecy scroll. The only time Alice makes an independent decision while in Underland is when she goes back to the Red Queen’s castle to rescue the Mad Hatter (even though he let himself be captured so she could get away and meet up with the White Queen).
Alice in Wonderland has a sloppy, thoughtless script and the lack of imagination on the page reveals Burton’s lack of imagination in designing his Wonderland. It’s full of his dark, whimsical designs grafted onto Carroll’s creativity, but void of any symbolism or cleverness. Burton’s creative stagnation becomes even more apparent if you see the film in 3D because it gives you an extra dimension of style over substance.
He also wastes a talented cast, most notably Mia Wasikowska. After watching her searing performance on HBO’s In Treatment, I was excited to learn that the young actress would be leading this film. After watching her performance in Alice, I wondered if they had cast a different Mia Wasikowska who looks the same but has almost none of the talent. Her line delivery is stilted, her facial expressions are dull, and her energy is almost non-existent. I’m left to wonder if any actress could have done any better with such a wisp of a character, and I hope she’ll come back with a stronger performance in a better movie.
Wasikowska’s fellow actors don’t fare much better. The film’s marketing is using Johnny Depp’s star power, but his Hatter oddly fluctuates between an effeminate Englishman with lisp to an angry Scotsman. Hathaway is barely in the movie, and Carter and Crispin Glover’s (who plays Stain, the Red Queen’s lead enforcer/sycophant) performances are hamstrung by their distracting CGI bodies.
Up through 2003, I was a big fan of Burton’s work. Yes, there were the occasional flops (Mars Attacks, the Planet of the Apes remake), but I think Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Ed Wood, and Big Fish are all fantastic. Sadly, the director’s work has continued on a steady decline ever since 2005′s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. His ideas about the nature of imagination have transformed into a celebration of his own limited creative ability. Burton’s let us inside his head for over twenty years and Alice in Wonderland may be the clearest example yet that there’s nothing left in there. He’s become trapped in his comfort zone with Depp and Bonham Carter serving as avatars of Burton’s creative atrophy. Burton has an artistic style, but it’s frustratingly futile when it becomes an end unto itself.
Rating: D
Creator Ryan Murphy Reveals Details on AMERICAN HORROR STORY Season 3; Jessica Lange, Sarah Paulson, and Evan Peters to Return
13 Images from CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 2 Reveal Food-imals Such as the Hippotatomus, Bananostrich and Fruit Cockatiel
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Comic Prequel STAR TREK COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS Provides New Look at Klingons
First Trailer and Poster for RED 2 Starring Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich
16 New Images from A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD Featuring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney and Yuliya Snigir
I just realized Tim Burton looks like Nicholas Cage, key example is Nicholas Cage in Adaptation; change the hair up a bit and you got a look alike of Burton.
I had a feeling Johnny Depp would take center-stage in this film.
I greatly disliked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as well, and it seems everything that has come since has been just plain awful – with only nice visuals to speak of.
Wasn't itching to see this so i think i'll give this a miss and see it on DVD since Disney are so eager to shovel it to consumers. Burton's been creating fantastical worlds for the majority of his career of which people seem to be getting tired of. I don't think his films this decade have been woeful, they're decent enough but they tap in to the same well far too often. Perhaps a change will do him good.
I wasn't gonna watch this anyway but yikes! did anyone really like it..?
“I greatly disliked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as well, and it seems everything that has come since has been just plain awful – with only nice visuals to speak of.”
Wow! How anyone can say that Sweeney Todd was anything other than a masterpiece is beyond me! That movie was outstanding from start to finish. The only Burton movie I haven't enjoyed was Sleepy Hollow.
Someone had mentioned Sweeney Todd, which I suppose is an alright film; certainly not terrible- it still falls into the same trap as his other films though which makes it no different. So since Charlie he has continued to make cliched goth-pics (4 so far in row), that all heavily resemble Beetle Juice. Before then his films were mostly quite good with a few failed exceptions.
I thought Sleepy Hollow was a great film, I really dug the atmosphere of the film and the mystery – I decent adaptation, definitely worth the watch.
Someone had mentioned Sweeney Todd, which I suppose is an alright film; certainly not terrible- it still falls into the same trap as his other films though which makes it no different. So since Charlie he has continued to make cliched goth-pics (4 so far in row), that all heavily resemble Beetle Juice. Before then his films were mostly quite good with a few failed exceptions.
I thought Sleepy Hollow was a great film, I really dug the atmosphere of the film and the mystery – I decent adaptation, definitely worth the watch.
Ya, Corin P. he does look like the Cage man, hehe, and I also really like Sleepy Hollow the atmosphere is what sells it for me.
I think I’m going to Alice mostly for the Tron Legacy trailer. Would rather see it in 3D than on my crap computer in standard def. Wish theaters would have a screen just for trailers and pay was less than for a movie, but they wouldn’t get the $$ they would for an actual movie so… oh well one can hope and dream…
End of Line
Ya, Corin P. he does look like the Cage man, hehe, and I also really like Sleepy Hollow the atmosphere is what sells it for me.
I think I’m going to Alice mostly for the Tron Legacy trailer. Would rather see it in 3D than on my crap computer in standard def. Wish theaters would have a screen just for trailers and pay was less than for a movie, but they wouldn’t get the $$ they would for an actual movie so… oh well one can hope and dream…
End of Line
If you think that Alice in Wonderland isn’t creative, I’d like to go see you make a better movie.
This movie was more a celebration of Burton’s ideas of quirky humor and celebration of the novel more than anything else. It’s a FUN movie, a ride– not an in-depth analysis of what it means to be a blue caterpillar. If you can’t appreciate that, then that’s just too bad.
If you think that Alice in Wonderland isn’t creative, I’d like to go see you make a better movie.
This movie was more a celebration of Burton’s ideas of quirky humor and celebration of the novel more than anything else. It’s a FUN movie, a ride– not an in-depth analysis of what it means to be a blue caterpillar. If you can’t appreciate that, then that’s just too bad.
Dear Mr.Goldberg,
Though I agree with your thoughts about this movie, I feel you could have portrayed it in a better way. Being increasingly repetitive doesn’t get your point across more. It’s just irritating. “Alice in Wonderland has a sloppy, thoughtless script and the lack of imagination on the page reveals Burton’s lack of imagination in designing his Wonderland.” Yes, what you are saying is correct, but couldn’t you have reworded it? It doesn’t support your point it just makes you sound like you are a poor writer. You seem to have a vendetta against Burton lately to the point of where you can’t even think about the words you are saying. I mean, as an adult, or skilled and practiced writer, don’t you think you can come up with something better than “imagination sauce”? It’s sounds like you didn’t care how your article sounded, just that you needed everyone to know that you thought this movie was a complete failure. I mean none of this in offense. It is just how the article came across to me as a (hopefully) soon-to-be journalist.
Dear Mr.Goldberg,
Though I agree with your thoughts about this movie, I feel you could have portrayed it in a better way. Being increasingly repetitive doesn’t get your point across more. It’s just irritating. “Alice in Wonderland has a sloppy, thoughtless script and the lack of imagination on the page reveals Burton’s lack of imagination in designing his Wonderland.” Yes, what you are saying is correct, but couldn’t you have reworded it? It doesn’t support your point it just makes you sound like you are a poor writer. You seem to have a vendetta against Burton lately to the point of where you can’t even think about the words you are saying. I mean, as an adult, or skilled and practiced writer, don’t you think you can come up with something better than “imagination sauce”? It’s sounds like you didn’t care how your article sounded, just that you needed everyone to know that you thought this movie was a complete failure. I mean none of this in offense. It is just how the article came across to me as a (hopefully) soon-to-be journalist.
you're an effing idiot
Sweeney Todd was great.
Though the movie may have lacked an in-depth feel of Carroll's well-loved story, it was a great ride into the world of wonderland nonetheless. The creativity shown by Burton in the movie was astounding and though the story may have been disconnected and ineffective, it was still very engaging
I hated Charlie In the Chocolate Factory. Though I think Mars Attacks has a campy genius to it.
And Matt, as a fellow writer I have to agree with the above comment regarding your method of writing this review. It really lacks professionalism. I'm not looking for a stilted formal review but I do want an actual analysis of the movie rather than just you repeating that Tim Burton's imagination well has dried up over and over. We got it by the 4th time. Explain the flaws rather than repeating that the filmmaker is out of ideas. There is only one paragraph that is analysis. And only barely.
I completely agree with Cassie Kuchta:
“This movie was more a celebration of Burton’s ideas of quirky humor and celebration of the novel more than anything else. It’s a FUN movie, a ride– not an in-depth analysis of what it means to be a blue caterpillar. If you can’t appreciate that, then that’s just too bad.”
It’s true, not every movie someone makes has to have some deep, literary meaning behind it. It’s fun and entertaining, which is just as good. I loved the movie. And I thought he did quite well with the characters, which I think are most important in a story. And even if he’s staying within his “comfort zone” by using Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter in another of his movies, who cares? They’re amazing actors and they’re his best friends. Let him do what he wants. Everyone can’t make the best and most outstanding piece every time they go to create something. (Although I thought the movie was great anyway.)
I completely agree with Cassie Kuchta:
“This movie was more a celebration of Burton’s ideas of quirky humor and celebration of the novel more than anything else. It’s a FUN movie, a ride– not an in-depth analysis of what it means to be a blue caterpillar. If you can’t appreciate that, then that’s just too bad.”
It’s true, not every movie someone makes has to have some deep, literary meaning behind it. It’s fun and entertaining, which is just as good. I loved the movie. And I thought he did quite well with the characters, which I think are most important in a story. And even if he’s staying within his “comfort zone” by using Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter in another of his movies, who cares? They’re amazing actors and they’re his best friends. Let him do what he wants. Everyone can’t make the best and most outstanding piece every time they go to create something. (Although I thought the movie was great anyway.)
Bella and mlskjlsdfs: I appreciate any constructive criticism of my writing, but I believe your criticism here is ill-founded.
I believe (as do most writers attempt to prove an argument) that you lay out a thesis, provide an argument for it, and then re-state it in your conclusion. My thesis of this review: Tim Burton's “imagination” is no longer imaginative because we know exactly what to expect.
Argument (which I agree could and should've been better better developed): Burton did not symbiotically approach Carroll's creativity, but instead acted parasitacally and grafted his own tired designs onto Carroll's characters.
Conclusion: Burton has stagnated as an artist because he does not explore new ideas or have any new designs. He has nothing left to show us and that's ironic because for a man who's always been interested in exploring the concept of imagination, his own well of it has run dry.
Matt,
I have to agree with Bella and mlskjlsdfs, in that your style of critiquing this movie is very weak. I understand the way to prove an argument and yes it includes re-stating your thesis but that is not what makes this so-called 'review' of Alice in Wonderland' so sloppy. My problem is that when I came to read this review it was to read about both the pros and cons of the movie, yet nowhere in this did I find any examples pulled from the movie. This is not a review of Alice in Wonderland, it is a critique of Tim Burton's work over his projects over the years. Please title your critique better and don't mislead your readers who want to know about the movie's strong/weak spots.
totally agree with you matt and im a angry scotsman!!! after watching that rubbish, overhyped for a childrens movie there was some scary bits for children under a certain age I spent more monitoring the audience and many families of children I would say under 7 left, the little girl behind me was in tears at the jabberwokcy as for depps fattenach dance it was more like bill cosby dances old school hip hop. I should have went to see from paris with love at least you know what to expect from that movie
I love this movie. It's soo cool.Alice is very pretty.Amd her armor is so cool.. i just love this movie!
I disagree with this review wholeheartedly. I loved the movie, the actors and actresses, the script, the CGI, and the beautiful cleverness behind it. This review is completely wrong.
Really? I commented on the story, the performances, and the use of 3D. But I chose to use Burton as the lens through which I focused my review. I don't like to do pro-con reviews. I think they're boring. I prefer to look at a larger theme. My focus on Burton instead of a dry pro-con list may not what you want out of a review, but it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of my writing.
Matt, don't get to hung up on these guys; most of them are Burton fans out to wreck havoc on anyone who questions his “ultimate wisdom,” I can't necessarily judge this film since I haven't seen it (and don't plan on doing so until it hits DVD), but somehow I doubt it is any more than a mediocre film not unlike 2012 (though maybe a little bit better, hopefully).
Mmm, but why is it wrong?
i LOVE the movie! this review is completely off the hook. i liked the 3D effect and i felt that Burton has used the correct cast for this movie. its BRILLIANT!
I'm not a big Burton fan. In fact I agree with Matt's perception of Tim Burton. My issue is this review didn't review this film. It was about Tim Burton. I want to read a review telling my about the film. It's pros and cons. It's overall value. The review merely read as an analysis of Burton. Not Alice in Wonderland.
i saw alice in wonderland yesterday and i thought it was great Depp is an amazing hatter who put a great spin on the character like he always does with his roles and Mia is quite a good actress considering she is new to the industry and this is her frist major role. Burton has always had dark twists on any of his movies but none the less they have all been pretty esquisique. I thought this was a wonderful film and will be pre-ordering the dvd asap. Bravo Burton & Depp another great movie. x
I think that people are missing the point of this movie. Of course Tim Burton, known for his expertise in gothic cinematography, wasn't going to remake an Alice in Wonderland that is verbatim to the original story. Instead, he created a new script that is simple enought that it won't tarnish the orginal by Lewis Carrol, but also entertaining enough to serve as a vehicle for Burton to express his own vision of Wonderland. And he has done atleast that; the movie looks BEAUTIFUL. The CGI landscapes are masterfully done, every shot is breathtaking, and all of the characters are fantastic. Though I am not a fan of 3D films, I liked how it didnt disturb the viewing experience, but rather emersed you further into the world. 4.5/5; great movie
Idk. I'm not quite sure it's an issue of missing the point. I just saw it and it seemed a lot like taking Carrol's characters and forcing them into a plot against their will. While the movie did look wonderful if felt a bit flat script wise. The movie sort of lacked a point. Though I did enjoy the acting for the most part. Especially the voice acting. My only point is it was by no means a “great film.” It added very little to the world as film. Not many particularly memorable moments or wonderful dialouge. And Depp was good but it was him being weird which is something we're used to. It was a fun portrayal but nothing spectacular.
C'MON, Mars Attacks was great!
Alice in Wounderland 2010.
I was a film extra at Antony House. The one week of filming at Antony House was very interesting to be in, but we all had to arrive on set by 5am to prepare for the days filming. A lot of filming was made of different scens. I was very lucky to spot myself in this movie behind Alice.
I was very anode to notice that Tim Burton did not use all the shots filmed, we all had to satnd around in the hot sunny day thinking that he would use all the scens. We all did well on that day to ensure that we had postion ourselves correctly.
Now I find out that the reason he had not used all scens, he decided to move everything back to America to be filmed behind green screen. This was so bad of the man, because we all had worked so hard on that hot sunny day of filming, and now to find out what has happened to the scens filmed at Antony house. So bad.
At the start of the film, very short scene of the start with Alice at her engagement party.
I notice at the end of the film, Tim Burton did the same with the scene at the port when Alice was on the ship.
I cant understand why he had done this, so there wasrealy no point in filming in Cornwall in the first place if he had in mind to shorten the scens film at Antony house,in his mind it could of been all made in the USA.
Its a realy shame this had happened, and the film had been shorten too.
Maybe he is a Mad Hatter.
I do hope in the future if this film is remade, they will not treat it as so bad as this film by Tim Burton.
Alice in Wounderland 2010.
I was a film extra at Antony House. The one week of filming at Antony House was very interesting to be in, but we all had to arrive on set by 5am to prepare for the days filming. A lot of filming was made of different scens. I was very lucky to spot myself in this movie behind Alice.
I was very anode to notice that Tim Burton did not use all the shots filmed, we all had to satnd around in the hot sunny day thinking that he would use all the scens. We all did well on that day to ensure that we had postion ourselves correctly.
Now I find out that the reason he had not used all scens, he decided to move everything back to America to be filmed behind green screen. This was so bad of the man, because we all had worked so hard on that hot sunny day of filming, and now to find out what has happened to the scens filmed at Antony house. So bad.
At the start of the film, very short scene of the start with Alice at her engagement party.
I notice at the end of the film, Tim Burton did the same with the scene at the port when Alice was on the ship.
I cant understand why he had done this, so there wasrealy no point in filming in Cornwall in the first place if he had in mind to shorten the scens film at Antony house,in his mind it could of been all made in the USA.
Its a realy shame this had happened, and the film had been shorten too.
Maybe he is a Mad Hatter.
I do hope in the future if this film is remade, they will not treat it as so bad as this film by Tim Burton.
i don't know why this movie got such a low rating from everyone, this movie is mainly directed at young teens and do u really think young teens give a crap about CGI and other effects, no.. this movie is meant to expand your imagination and get caught up in Alice's own little world .. this movie isn't supposed to based on little details like commuter animation
i completely disagree , i dont think burton should change anything. This is what tim burton does best he creates these fantasy worlds for kids. kids love fantasy. kids love the whole idea of losing yourself in this magical world, its the closet thing their going to get to reality is through this ginormous projector screen that paints their dreams for the world to share in. i would know, im a kid
by mike in shrews
OK i would like to start by agreeing that this is not a review, i do see this as more of a critique at the fact “Tim burtons imagination well has run dry”. to make a review on a film one has to 'review' all aspects of the film. i do not feel this was in enough depth to hold up the title review ( sorry matt, this isn't here to critique your writing ability, just had i not see the film before reading this i would have liked to know a bit more about it.) but i guess the inclusions of such things are more of personal taste than what should be expected.
The film for me was good, i enjoyed it. i also feel that people may expect too much from tim burton ( in the way that, if he does a simple and non-complicated film, nobody like's it.) My interpretation of the film was merely TB not remaking, but expanding upon the future of alice. we have to remember TB wanted this film to be watched by kids (although i agree some scenes may not be suitable, the film is a PG.)
i would not say TB's imagination is not there in this film, i would say its not at his best. i mean, how many people would have conjured up the image TB creates. i feel the scenery is good and as are the characters. Jonny Depp plays the mad hatter extremely well. the switching between accents is a great way to show the mad hatter as MAD, as that is what he is. the original book even says that the hatter was capable of many different voices. i can see where mia can come under some critiisism as she was weak at times, but i dont think we should expect 'hollywood Acting' from someone so inexperienced.
so all in all i would say the object of the film was to entertain people, and in my view it has done this.
once again matt, none of this is me criticising your writing, just me giving a some
what brief review on the film.
mike in shrewsbury, UK
stephen,
i dont think TB has set out to offend anyone is doing this. The film is computer animated and therefore, most of it would be shot against a greenscreen. Your scenes would have been cut shorter in post production. the chances are that in editing the movie needed to be shortened and in each scene some had to be cut. so long as the scene still got its point across there is no need why it shouldnt be cut. you should also note in the case of an hour and a half movie hundreds and possibly thousands of footage is taken and there never will be space for it all.
this is something i have studied and i am just letting you know my feelings on your comments.
mike
I think Matt's point is it isn't imaginative if your simply ripping yourself off. Its the equivalent of Steven Spielberg taking his filming techniques and style from Schindler's List and then making 10 other movies with the same effects. A director can have a signature style, but Tim Burton seems to have fallen into a complacency that is no longer original but simply rehash. I for one am not interested in replaying the same thing over and over again, which is precisely why I don't play new Super Mario games, because why should I waste money going to see a lesser version of an original classic when I can go re-experience the classic. Tim Burtons older work is still worth watching, but until he comes up with something unique and quits living in the past he'll never muster up the same kind of creative energy he commanded in the 90s (and to some extent in the early 00s).
A lot of films entertain people, but that doesn't make them quality films. If a film critics only objective was to let you know if a movie was entertaining then every movie would get stellar reviews, hell I found Cabin Fever 2 entertaining but it was one of the worst piece of trash movies I've ever seen… and plenty of teeny-boppers have found Twilight interesting also. The reason I think the review was decent is simply because is touched both on the film and on Tim Burton's career as a director, using a creative teams past to judge their current work is a great way to calibrate how good the film is. Sure not many directors could make a film like Alice in Wonderland, but not many directors have created the reputation and have the financial support that Tim Burton has to do such a film either; with extra rights comes extra responsibility.
i like it
i like it