High Charged and Super Fancy Rendering of the old, oft Psycho-analytical, Literary Wet Dream.

Rating: 7/10 (29 April 2010)

THIS IS ONE story that is most likely widely familiar to a really wide cross section of the public. It had been adapted seemingly countless times to both the Big Screen of the Cinema, to the Small Picture Tube in our Living Rooms. Each we've seen has been markedly different from the next; each having strong points and corresponding frailties.
OTHER THAN TODAY'S honored title, ALICE IN WONDERLAND (Disney/Buena Vista, 2010), the two versions that immediately come to our mind are Paramount Pictures' 1933 All Star Spectacular and the Walt Disney (by the real,original Walt) 1951 full length animated extravaganza. This latest version would seem to combine certain strong suit features of both; while still managing to throw in liberally portioned amounts of additional elements of its own.
WHILE THE EARLIEST of these three, ALICE IN WONDERLAND (Paramount, 1933)had the novelty of using just about everyone at Paramount at that particular time; much of its desired 'Star Power' is neutralized with the use of heavily crafted costume, make up and intricate and sometimes frighteningly gross latex masks. The only one not affected would have to be young Miss Charlotte Henry; whose delicate beauty and youthful innocence are the best features of the film.
ALL OF THE others are acting out roles in virtually anonymous disguise to such a degree that their parts may well be classified as that of 'voice only' actors. Folks such as Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, W.C. Fields, Roscoe Ates and Jack Oakie may be identified by way of voice recognition and credits in the cast.
SIMILARLY, OUR NEW version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND (Disney, 2010) does have a most formidable line up of talent in its cast; which, of course, is not limited by any Studio Star System; that having become as extinct as the Dodo Bird, the Passenger Pigeon or Photomat. Being mainly voice over, the credits prove to be more important than ever; particularly with some portrayals, such as Mr. Christopher Lee as the Jabberwocky.
WHILE OUR 2010 version brings us the physical appearance of the various characters that would appear to have been very closely adapted from the old book illustrations, they still tend to gravitate toward the bizarre tastes of Director Tim Burton. There is none of the old tried and true Walt Disney principle of having the animated characters have at least some resemblance to their individual voice creators. Hence, we can see this in evidence in the physical appearance of The Mad Hatter (Ed Wynn), The March Hare(Jerry Colona), White Rabbit (Bill Thompson) and The Queen of Hearts (name here).
THIS VERSION HAS all of the modern cinematic wonders going for it; what, with digital stereo sound, big screen (even Imax version), full digitally rendered color, various computer generated special FX and 3 Dimensional vision.* FOR ALL ITS supercharged features, we find the movie going experience just so-so. It was okay, but no future classic. Like any true-blue member of the Post World War II Baby Boom, we prefer Mr. Disney's 1951 animated version.
WE GUESS THAT this makes us just a trifle jaded; or maybe just getting old. Well, that's not bad; when you consider the alternative! NOTE: * Ah 3-D! How well we remember the 3D craze of our youth; and that's over a half century ago! Then we had 3D Movies, 3D Comic Books everywhere. Well, as the old French proverb says; "The more things change, the more they stay the same!" Just think that one over, Schultz!