Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Alice, an unpretentious and individual 19-year-old, is betrothed to a dunce of an English nobleman. At her engagement party, she escapes the crowd to consider whether to go through with the marriage and falls down a hole in the garden after spotting an unusual rabbit. Arriving in a strange and surreal place called 'Underland,' she finds herself in a world that resembles the nightmares she had as a child, filled with talking animals, villainous queens and knights, and frumious bandersnatches. Alice realizes that she is there for a reason--to conquer the horrific Jabberwocky and restore the rightful queen to her throne.
Free Trial Channels
Some of Tim Burton's movies (Edward Scissorhands, The Corpse Bride, Sleepy Hollow), I really like. Then there's this mess. Boring lead, overblown sfx, it just isn't a good movie. Watch the Disney cartoon instead (even though that's not as dark as the story, just Disnifeyed).
Nineteen-year-old Alice returns to the magical world from her childhood adventure, where she reunites with her old friends and learns of her true destiny: to end the Red Queen's reign of terror. Alice in Wonderland is definitely not one of Tim Burton's best films but it's also not one of his worst since it has alot of great things in it like a very good cast but also once again great perfomances from Johnny Depp as Mad Hatter and Helena Bonham Carter as The Red Queen also i did enjoy Mia Wasikowska's perfomance as Alice alongside the action which was very well done although some cgi creatures and just moments were kind of 'eh' but other than that? Great Movie.. (9/10)
The trouble with many of the spectaculars today is that you can't tell if the actors are real, made up to look freakish, or some cartoon with just a voice attached. Modern computer generated special effects were a novelty when they were first making these, but now it's an attraction that often seems closer to "Ice Age" than real live action. Subtle use of this form of special effects made many of Tim Burton's earlier works, but I had a hard time really becoming engaged in this "Alice in Wonderland", feeling I had fallen into the rabbit hole myself and o.d.'d on a dinosaur size order of magic mushrooms.With many famous faces (obviously many of them Burton regulars), this is going to be artistically beautiful to look at, but difficult to become totally engaged with. First of all, you've got an overaged Alice (Mia Wasikowska) who seems like a college student playing dress up, a slam towards Lewis J. Carroll's conception of the lost little girl.The performances of the characters of wonderland are basically extended cameos. Helena Bonham Carter tries for camp and ends up a screeching shrew whose Stewie Griffin like head I wanted to see explode. Johnny Depp, for once, seems to be just an amalgamation of every Burton character he's played, not a bad thing, but basically a performance that he basically texts in. It's nice to look at like a fancy drawing at a museum but after five minutes, it's time to move on.
This movie is so bad it shouldn't motivate anyone to take time and write something about it. But, I see it scores above 6 in IMDb and I ain't doing anything important so.. OK, why not? First, what led me to watch this just now. I knew this wasn't a very good movie because, similar to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this had "Tim Burton butchered a classic" all over it. Interesting enough, while in Charlie and... he was making something bad over a great classic motion picture that had nothing to do with the project, this time around he is doing it for the same company (Walt Disney). Second, what led me to watch the movie. I purchased a 10 "reais" (about 3 bucks) edition of the original story by Lewis Carroll, which also included the Looking Glass bit and an Intro where some kind of book scholar meddles for several pages about how good and interesting these two tales are for children and also adults. The children part I am not so sure because the Alice story doesn't make any sense and in many parts its hard to understand (Carroll frequently changes words so they don't really exist in any dictionary and makes up poems which aren't suppose to say or mean anything). Anyway, the story is pleasant enough even though I am reading it around 150 years after it was first published. Its worth something because of Carroll's creativity in stirring illogical puzzles in a children's make believe fantastic world. In other words, it kind of make you feel like you are inside an awesome dream.Disney's animation on the book is good, despite changing a few details and including characters and stories from "the other side of the looking glass". It is good, mainly because it preserves the essence of what one kind find when reading the book, like I have.Finally, the Tim Burton movie. It is simply appalling. They (Tim Burton and his team or whoever made this happen the way it did) tore the story from the book to pieces and made some kind of Hollywood formula that always works. That worst of it all is that it seems to work, because it made money and now they have concluded a Looking Glass version (second movie on Alice) which makes no sense, because in the first one they have already included characters from both stories (and more that wasn't three of course). The plot is lame to say the least: Alice doesn't want to marry some rich kid that looks awful so she runs away after a rabbit and falls in a hole. After falling violently, she finds herself in a strange world where there are fantastical creatures. Soon she learns that everyone knows her in this world, and most don't believe she is the same Alice. Up to this part it is all interesting enough and things could maybe be mended into an OK flick but check what ends up happening. Alice teams up with a beast that almost ripped her arm apart and that serves no purpose to the story except that he's the guardian of a mystical sword. So, like in Matrix, Alice is the chosen one and she supposedly will save everyone by killing a hideous monster (dragon looking beast) by use of the special sword. Meanwhile, the queen of hearts hates everyone but specially her sister, which is the white queen, and also a "I love all living things" hypocrite douche-bag. Crispin Glover plays some sort of dark knight that is queen of heart's favorite handy man to do all her dirty work. So, with these information one might foresee everything that will happen. To populate this misery of a plot, there are about three characters that at least have something to do with the book: the Cheshire cat, which is magical and can do anything to steer the story to any direction he likes, no questions asked; the Hatter, that is this movie's Captain Jack Sparrow or Willy Wonka or a blend of both (maybe not as important to the story but with the same entertaining purpose); and the blue caterpillar, which, I think, its in the movie so that the audience might think that there are more bits from the original story. The whole think is just too formulaic, the acting is bland, Depp almost achieved making whoever is watching vomit with his bizarre moves (including his happy happy joy joy dance) and facial expressions. Lead actress is mildly charming, but her performance overall very subtle and uninteresting. Helena Carter made something interesting with her queen, and Glover likewise with his knight. And except for some very descent voice acting, everyone else is forgettable just like this movie. Or not.. But I'll probably only remember this movie because it was so painful to watch (and because I reviewed it here), like that moment when you realize you tore your ACL and from now on you'll just have to deal with it.