Incoherent and incomprehensible

Rating: 5/10 (9 March 2010)

Tim Burton is one of those directors who believes that "weird" is the same as "good." I ask more from a movie than visual impressiveness and fantastic creatures and settings. I ask for coherent story lines, well-crafted characters and good acting performances. And sadly Burton's latest offering fails to deliver these last three, concentrating instead on the first two almost exclusively.
Okay, the source material itself is not famous for making sense. Indeed, much of the charm of Lewis Carroll's original stories is their creative use of nonsense, such as the poem Jabberwocky and the various puzzles of illogic. So to expect a movie based on this material to be coherent is, you might think, asking too much. And you might be right, but my feeling is that even trying is completely missing the point. Burton revealed in an interview recently that the challenge for he and his team was to find a way of linking together Carroll's works to create a coherent story - in his words, the original was more of a "series of unrelated events". Which is precisely the point - the original stories DON'T make any sense, and that's exactly what Carroll intended. So why bother? If you said to me "Alice in Wonderland can't be turned into a good film without a major rewrite to the story", I would say "Then don't make it. Make something else." But Burton very unwisely ignored any advice of that kind and pressed on regardless. Which would be fine, if he'd actually managed to link the story elements together with any kind of coherency. Sadly, he has not.
The film's "plot" is flimsy and has little internal story logic. Even a story set in a fantasy land needs to have basic internal logic. Instead, Burton and screenwriter Linda Woolverton have attempted to create a brand new story using Carroll's characters but have failed to explain precisely why any of this is happening. Alice returns to Wonderland after more than a decade but doesn't remember her first visit, and no explanation is offered as to why she doesn't remember or what that previous visit meant. There is simply no reason for this element to exist - it adds nothing to the story. It's not excusable because it's an entirely new creation and nothing to do with Carroll's work. Once in Wonderland she encounters the Mad Hatter and helps him deal with the Red Queen by slaying the Jabberwocky to restore the White Queen to power. But no explanation is ever given for precisely WHY she needs to do this. It's almost as if Burton expects everybody to have a copy of the original book with them so they can use it to decipher cryptic plot elements. A movie's story must stand up on its own - if you have to do background reading to understand it, the writer has failed.
Most of the characters seem to be there simply because you expect them to be. They add very little whatsoever to the story; indeed, you could cut most of them out with no major impact on the story. An example is the Cheshire Cat, who literally does nothing but make a couple of cryptically smart-arse remarks. Again, I understand that this is also his role in the book, but Burton isn't making the book - the book's already been written. If you're going to have a story, characters need to contribute in some way to the story. The Hatter's role is expanded and the writer has tried to turn him into some sort of sympathetic character, but no explanation for his actions is ever given. He's simply there. Alice could, one thinks, have saved the day without any of these characters being present. And as to exactly WHY she should save the day...it's never explored.
The writing isn't the only weak point. Burton has hired a cast of actors who are very talented and coaxed them into over-the-top, unsubtle performances. I appreciate the source material requires a certain amount of this, as the characters are supposed to be larger-than-life. But there is a difference between larger-than-life and over-the-top. Bonham-Carter and Depp are the worst offenders - Bonham-Carter's Red Queen is so overtly overdone that it's almost painful to watch. Depp's Hatter is simply weird. Again, I realise this is the point, but it would have been a greater challenge to interpret the character in a different way than chewing the scenery and being generally strange.
The movie does have its good points. Visually it's impressive, but that is what you expect from Burton so it's hardly worth mentioning. Burton's Wonderland is one of vivid colours contrasted with post-apocalyptic scenery, and it does look incredible. I only saw the 2D version but I do have to wonder what 3D would possibly add to the experience. Burton's use of CGI has always been innovative, and certain elements such as the Queen's card warriors and the landscape work very well. But the appearance of a movie is, for me, always secondary to its story and characters, and the effects aren't enough to hold my interest.
Readers of the above might think I hated the movie – that's perhaps a strong word. There was a lot of potential in using modern-day technology to do justice to Carroll's story. It could have been the Lord of the Rings of Lewis Carroll. Instead, it is a film that feels like it was written in half an hour. It should never have been made. It did not need to be made. The story has already been told, and Burton's version adds nothing to the story; in trying to add a story, Burton has completely missed the point of the source material and created, instead of a re-telling or an adaptation, an egomaniacal, self-indulgent acid trip. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to pull out my copy of Batman Returns and remember a day when you used to be cool.