Want real wonder? Skip Avatar and join Alice

Rating: 8/10 (8 March 2010)

Honestly, I didn't expect I would like 2010's remake Alice in Wonderland. I did expect all FX and no story or acting, a la Avatar. Enjoying this as much as I did shows why never to judge a book by its cover. (Or other movie reviews, to be precise.) Thankfully, though, I didn't have much to base this on as I have never read any of the books and even though I wasn't a huge fan of the original animated Disney film in 1951, I haven't seen that one in a very long time to remember enough to compare this to. So, I basically went in with a clean slate and saw what Director Tim Burton wanted me to see. As usual, it was his vision.
I was blown away. I loved the spectacle of the Underland, the characters, the actual wonder of the film. Sure it had its flaws, but overall it's a must-see, especially in IMAX 3-D.
Young Alice has nightmares of a "wonder land" of strange characters, including a smiling cat and is comforted by her adventurous and free-spirited father. Fast-forward to "present" day when Alice's 19, her father's long gone and she's courted to marry someone she just met as per custom in royalty. Well, taking a lot from her father, whom meant the world to her, she becomes the Runaway Fiancé and lands into the infamous rabbit hole.
Much like The Chronicles of Narnia and Hook combined, the movie shifts to the odd characters tugging her to this place or that to eventually rid the Underland of the Red Queen by slaying her pet, as foretold by a scroll. The lesson here kids? Alice must choose her destiny and not have her destiny choose her.
As much as I loved the surreal and wonderful world of down-below, I did have some complaints that withdrew a full star from my rating. (Some of this might be spoilers, so you can skip two paragraphs as not to have things revealed.) #1 Why Be Like Hook? If you're gonna make a huge budgeted remake – why start with part two? Though, I did favor this tenfold over Steven Spielberg's Hook, in a sense, they were the same movie. Older Alice/Peter inadvertently gets thrown back into their retrospective "adventure lands" and take almost the ENTIRE movie to remember who they are – despite every character shouting at them all the way who they really are. I would've preferred a retelling of the original classic, Alice's first adventure to Wonderland.
#2 The Chronicle of Narnia's Final Battle seemed forced. Yes, it was foretold, but it seemed like it was just there to mimic Disney's other (unfortunately, failing) franchise. In addition, following was a pretty lame attempt at The Wizard of Oz's conclusion. Perhaps that was part of the book that I missed, but not only did Alice barely change throughout the movie, when she reentered the human world after realizing this was not but a dream, it was as if nothing happened. She shared Dorothy from Oz's sentiments, but lacked the true emotion.
Those said, I liked all the characters and was thrilled they weren't what my own expectations of them to be, i.e. they kept throwing my visions of who they were supposed to be out the window. I liked to be surprised. Despite the previously mention finale, Alice (Wasikowska) did a wonderful job, Mad Hatter (Depp) was good as, again, I expected Willy Wonka and he most certainly created a new character and Red Queen (Carter) was great at being bad, very bad. The twins, or Tweedledee and Tweedledum (Lucas) were two of my favorites in adding humor and Cheshire Car (Fry) was awesome as was the White Rabbit (Sheen.) The only ones I didn't care much for were the White Queen (Hathaway) and Stayne (Glover) for Hathaway didn't sway too far from her other established characters and Stayne was the only graphic I didn't buy throughout the whole movie.
This brings me to another point. As everyone's still googly-eyed over the "spectacle" of Avatar, I found the entire Alice in Wonderland to be so much more believable in graphics, characters and background than even five minutes of Avatar. All except for the too-tall character of Stayne. Luckily, though an important character that does appear for just under half the feature, he doesn't dominate the screen for 90% of the movie like those laughably unrealistic blue smurfs (Na'vi .) Seriously, I never thought for a moment they weren't in Wonderland, or Underland, but I had a huge problem buying the goofy Na'vi and that turned me off for nearly all of Avatar.
At any rate, I would thoroughly recommend the wonder of Wonderland. Everyone seemed to have a good time (in the film, that is) and it's nice and tight, quick and to the point. It gives you what you came for, just the right amount and didn't make you yearn for more. Though I would still see a sequel – pending all parties involved here return, I really wouldn't want one. I liked how this pretty much summed it up, and in spades. Or is thathearts?