Alice in "So-Empty-of-Wonder-Land"

Rating: 5/10 (11 March 2010)

*Readers, ye be warned. Spoilers abound.*
Tim Burton's latest work, "Alice in Wonderland," has hit the theaters. In this age of remakes, I suppose it was inevitable that Lewis Carroll's famous story, already brought to life by Disney so many years ago, would get a revamp. The trailers for the film looked fantastic. It looked fun, dark, mysterious... and who better to bring Wonderland to life than the master of the bizarre, Tim Burton?
After seeing it for myself, five is all I can give it, and that seems a fair score. The film isn't terrible, but neither is it "wonderful." It quickly pales to the Disney version, anyway. While the visuals are good (and with the computer-imaging technology these days, how couldn't they be?), the rest of the film is, in a word, lackluster.
It should immediately be noted that this isn't the typical "remake." Instead of simply retelling Carroll's tale, Burton's film is actually a sequel, its story taking place some ten years or so after the original. Kudos here, I suppose, as at least Burton has brought something new to the table. But what he did bring is lacking.
To put it briefly: years after her original trip to Wonderland, Alice, now about 19, falls down the rabbit hole again. This time, however, she has been deliberately summoned to Wonderland, as it has been prophesied that she will slay the dreaded Jabberwocky and free the land from the tyrannical Red Queen. After a series of misadventures and re-introductions to her old friends, she ultimately faces the monster, defeats the Red Queen, saves the world... blah blah blah. Hardly an original premise, and to be honest, not well executed. There isn't really a solid story here: it all leads up to the fulfillment of said prophecy, but there isn't any build-up as the film nears the big showdown. The movie lacks suspense. It goes nowhere, and it doesn't go there very quickly, either.
My biggest gripe with the film is the lack of what Wonderland should have plenty of: wonder! Where's the magic? the madness? None of the delightful insanity of Carroll's world found its way into the film. Talking rabbits, freakish monsters, vanishing cats, and an army of giant playing cards all just show up in no particular order, with no wonder, no madness, not even introductions. If I hadn't seen the Disney version, I wouldn't have known those weird, red rectangular soldiers were supposed to be living playing cards. In fact, odds are if you aren't already familiar with the story, half the time you won't have the slightest clue what the heck you're looking at.
Like the movie itself, the characters aren't well developed. With the (possible) exception of Alice, you don't really care about anyone here, even if you do know the story. As Alice, Mia Wasikowska expresses none of the, again, "wonder" you'd expect her to feel after stumbling into a world where nothing makes any sense. Johnny Depp's performance was a bit disappointing. For a "Mad Hatter," he was hardly "mad." In fact, beyond the occasional tantrum he has he really isn't "mad" at all, except for the fact that he can make sense of the whacked Wonderlandian vocabulary. On the other hand, his partner the March Hare seems to have been gifted the Hatter's madness in addition to his own. He's completely insane: he throws things, he twitches uncontrollably, and his speech mostly consists of sputtering, sniffling and the phrase "Oh, no!" The Hare is too mad, and the Hatter not mad enough. The others - the White Queen, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the Blue Caterpillar, and the Knave of Hearts - are pretty forgettable. But on a good note, Helena Bonham-Carter was great as the Red Queen. The character was portrayed perfectly: unstable, quick to decapitate, and the only character in the film who is really as "mad" as she should be. Also the Cheshire Cat, my personal favorite, was fun to watch, though he was under-developed and lacked, yet again, "wonder." And, last and maybe least, there is the Jabberwocky itself, a CGI marvel whose two lines of dialogue are provided by none other than Christopher Lee (I wonder how much that cost). The monster was actually well done, but that isn't saying much. Even in Hollywood, it's hard to mess up a dragon.
The unfolding story, as I said earlier, lacks suspense, and therefore lacks payoff. With only one or two engaging characters, the film can lose your attention. The climax and ending are both predictable, and the part near the end, when Alice must decide whether or not to stay or return to her own world, is a blatant rip-off of Wizard of Oz. It may also be worth mentioning that, at least at my theater, the 3D was unremarkable. Halfway through I forgot it was 3D at all.
To conclude, Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is, overall, mediocre. A few scenes will grab your attention: at least one I can think of may even embarrass you. But while it is entertaining, it desperately lacks the "wonder" and "fun" it needed.
Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but I don't know. I expected more. More madness. More magic. More... wonder.