Like an arranged marriage.

Rating: 3/10 (11 March 2010)

So many people were absolutely thrilled at the prospect of this seemingly fantastic grouping; Burton, Depp, the classically trippy tale. Surely this would be the ultimate Burtonesque experience.
I first caught wind of it well over a year ago, waited anxiously, scheduled the day off of work 6 months in advance, bought my tickets a week ahead of time and drove an hour to the largest IMAX screen in the area to see it in 3D.
I walked out feeling robbed, confused, overall discontent.
I've been contemplating my true feelings towards this film for nearly a week now and I'm finally in a comfortable place about it: Tim Burton was just not meant to direct Alice in Wonderland. It should have been so obvious.
Created by Disney (CalArts), rejected by Disney (Giant Zlig, his work on The Black Cauldron) and then suddenly reclaimed by Disney when his "twisted" style became trendy and parental approved, and ultra lucrative (Nightmare) we have finally witnessed the disaster that occurs when Burton actually PAIRS with Disney to make a film.
Remove the element of Wonderland entirely and what you have is Tim Burton and Linda Woolverton. A visionary artist paired with the writer of "Rescue Rangers" and "My Little Pony" scripts. It seems as though Disney signed Burton for the project and then blindly plucked one of their talentless fluff writers from their pool of many, just so they could accredit a "writer" during the opening titles.
So now that we have this disastrous equation, let's throw the base concept back into it: The original Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking glass are, by nature, pulp tales without concrete plot or intention. The only thing they offer is satire and political and social commentary. There exists no plot that could save it from Linda Woolverton. This film was thrown to the Woolves. (heh) Tim Burton is a storyteller. (Remember "The Storyteller" series for God's sake!) Burton's signature visual style is obvious, but as a director, he shines in films that have strong syntax and evoke raw human emotions... as his artistic point of view often juxtaposes and reinforces the overall emotional experience of those films.
So we get this Disney broad trying to force a completely dead plot upon a concept that was never meant to have a plot and it's up to Tim Burton to save the whole damn thing with some strategically placed shadows and polka dots and twisted trees and personified knick-knacks.
Throw Depp's thoughtless recycled characters into the mix (Was it Jack Sparrow? Wonka? I'm so confused), it's like salt in a wound.
Disney's pockets are full, Burton's pockets are full, mine are empty. And I'm not so concerned about the $30, but the fact that I spent that $30 to witness Tim Burton lend his artistry to another vapid Disney cash-vortex? Very upsetting.