The characters in the movie were right, this isn't the real Alice..

Rating: 5/10 (5 March 2010)

Whenever there is a dark or whimsical movie script floating around Hollywood, you know that Tim Burton is close behind. Then we have Disney tapping into the Hot Topic-like culture that hit full blast with Nightmare Before Christmas. Place the two together and we have a high-budget version of Alice in Wonderland, one of the most whimsical yet essentially pointless pieces of literature this side of Shakespeare. While Disney has dabbed with the story before back in 1951, it was met with massive criticism from major fans of the book. Nonetheless (and rather ironically) that version is not only the best one, but is easily the most well-known. To add some oomph to the accomplishment, there are at least 15 versions of the book that had been released at one point or another.
Which brings us to the biggest issue of the 2010 Alice in Wonderland: it has some major shoes to fill. If imitating Walt Disney's majesty with animation back in the day was so easy, we would have much heavier competition against Pixar. The 1951 version may not be 100% accurate, but it has a lot of classic scenes, a lot of classic characters, and has the crazy random tone of the book. Tim Burton, using a script that mixes both Alice books and provides us with a version that has a bit more adventure, a bit more peril, but at the same time makes little references to Disney's previous version.
Sadly though, it doesn't have the whimsical majestical tone and mood of the book. While the special effects were nice, the acting was good and the music was Danny Elfmanny, this Alice is a pretty picture painted on an empty canvas. The movie won't test your imagination, it doesn't really provide as much laughter and insanity as it should, and towards the end it becomes a retread of nearly every single fantasy flick within the last decade. Why there is a battle that resembles that of Narnia, I'll never know. This isn't the Alice we know. It may look like Alice, it may behave like Alice, but it still just isn't Alice. It is more accurate in content than the other Alices, but it isn't more accurate in tone.
We know the tale, and this movie takes most of the events from the two books and mixes them together into one grand adventure. However the events happening before entering the rabbit hole is much more extensive than usual. We see Alice (Mia Wasikowska) pretty much getting forced to be married when clearly she isn't ready. Upon running away at the altar, she follows the white rabbit and we all know where it goes from there. A major plot difference though is that the characters in Wonderland constantly believe that she isn't the real Alice for one reason or another. Along the way she meets up with talking flowers, a smoking caterpillar (Alan Rickman), a mean queen (Helena Bonham Carter), the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) among others.
Let's at least praise a few things before thrashing the movie into disappointment level. The acting is superb, especially that of Anne Hathaway believe it or not. Johnny Depp is always deep into the role he plays, but unlike other works (Edward Scissorhands, Pirates of the Caribbean, Ed Wood) he isn't given much material to work with. Helena Bonham Carter is a hoot as the Red Queen. As for our Alice, Mia Wasikowska looks the part and plays the part well. The special effects, while they surprisingly weren't utilized that much for setting, definitely enhanced the visual experience. The Cheshire cat is one example of an improvement over the 1951 version.
And now, the criticism. Alice in Wonderland starts off decently, but once she enters the world of Wonderland, its one that isn't full of curious characters and circumstances, but instead is a dangerous world that throws Alice into a quest. Alice in Wonderland was never intent on being a quest, it was a trip through a totally different environment. In the 1951 version, Alice never had a goal in mind, she spent the entire movie dwelling deeper and deeper into an insane world. In here, we see Alice having to fulfill some sort of destiny for reasons not totally explained. The Mad Hatter isn't as mad as in the book (Or..well, you know by now). The Red Queen isn't as cynical or stupidly cruel asthe other installment.
Last but not least, the movie just doesn't have the trippy look or feel as the book portrayed. Tim Burton is a one-trick visual pony: he rarely ever dwells away from dark and gloomy atmospheres. Instead of looking more like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it resembled that of Sleepy Hollow. Then we have the third act, which mimics that of Narnia, Golden Compass, Lord of the Rings, and the other fantasy flicks that propels the viewer into one final battle. Like previously stated, Alice in Wonderland isn't a tale about a quest, it's a trippy tale about a trippy trip into a trippy place.
Bottom Line: The actors were good, the special effects were good, the music was good, but this version of the literary classic just doesn't feel like it should. The movie paces like a fantasy epic, when it should dwell far from it. Part of the charm of the book (and the 1951 version, which by now you should realize I find superior) is that it was so unique, so different, and so defiant of the normality in literature, entertainment, and storytelling. This Alice feels like another movie we've seen before, and with that statement alone, it fails as a remake, retread, or re-telling of the book. Sorry but I won't follow the white rabbit into this rabbit hole again.