![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
guppiecatTim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in IMAX 3D is a must-see by absolutely everyone that judges a movie strictly in terms in pixel quantity. However, for those of you that demand minor trivialities like clarity of plot, consistency of characters, and an unbroken continuity of interpretation from the original work into the present, you might want to give it a skip.
It's not unusual for producers to come to movies of classic stories with a specific reinterpretation. Jonathan Miller and Jan Švankmajer are some excellent examples. Most of the others, sadly, simply glue together a collection of references that result in a hodgepodge of poor acting, surface-readings and casual in-jokes. Burton's movie has all of this, but it's in 3D (sorta).
The movie world takes place some time after the story we know. Alice has grown up into what Americans think that a modern woman in Victorian times would be like.
What bugged me most were the constant and on-going mixed metaphors. The first book used a card metaphor. The second book used a chess metaphor. This movie, blended the two and illustrated absolutely no understanding of either cards or chess. They also tried to blend the classic "young girl explores and deals with what comes her way" with "spunky young girls didn't fit into Victorian England (OH NOES!)". Then, to top it off, they went with the "world that's gotten along just fine until now has to be saved by the magical outsider". *shrug*, maybe that's a requirement to make a 3D IMAX movie.
The history was also irritating. There were allusions to in-world history that never resolved (while the one-eyed jack was amusing, that character never meshed with the previous story that we know). They screwed with actual history in the framing story by changing Alice from Alice Liddell to Alice Kingsley, and replacing Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) with Charles Kingsley (the author of The Water Babies) and making him Alice's father... then killing him. Really, that made absolutely no sense to me. Alice in Sunderland shows that you can get a LOT of drama from the real history, why mess it up? (There was a brief reference to Alice's maiden aunt having a delusional life that matched that of the Alice Liddell's real one... which was somewhat amusing.)
Other irritations included the rocking horse and dragon flies from Looking Glass appearing in this movie for no reason whatsoever. The concept of building a safe society based on physical deformities was introduced and not explored AT ALL (and there's enough in that idea alone to make one hell of an interesting movie). They introduce classic characters in vastly different roles (WTF was with the white queen?)... which would be interesting if they made any sense at all. The dance number made no sense at all. Like at all, at all. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the Big Dipper had one too many stars in it.
To me, Alice is not about "hero saves the day" and is most certainly not about power struggles, eyeball gouging, violence and killing. I don't know what movie I just say, but it sure as hell wasn't Alice. If anything, it's more like a transcript from an Alice in Wonderland RPG played with loaded dice.
I will probably write a more critical entertainingly scathing review once I get it on DVD ('cause I'm just crazy enough to watch it again).
Oh yeah, the good bits:
* Stephen Fry does a good voice over for the Cheshire cat.
And, um, that's it.
It's not unusual for producers to come to movies of classic stories with a specific reinterpretation. Jonathan Miller and Jan Švankmajer are some excellent examples. Most of the others, sadly, simply glue together a collection of references that result in a hodgepodge of poor acting, surface-readings and casual in-jokes. Burton's movie has all of this, but it's in 3D (sorta).
The movie world takes place some time after the story we know. Alice has grown up into what Americans think that a modern woman in Victorian times would be like.
What bugged me most were the constant and on-going mixed metaphors. The first book used a card metaphor. The second book used a chess metaphor. This movie, blended the two and illustrated absolutely no understanding of either cards or chess. They also tried to blend the classic "young girl explores and deals with what comes her way" with "spunky young girls didn't fit into Victorian England (OH NOES!)". Then, to top it off, they went with the "world that's gotten along just fine until now has to be saved by the magical outsider". *shrug*, maybe that's a requirement to make a 3D IMAX movie.
The history was also irritating. There were allusions to in-world history that never resolved (while the one-eyed jack was amusing, that character never meshed with the previous story that we know). They screwed with actual history in the framing story by changing Alice from Alice Liddell to Alice Kingsley, and replacing Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) with Charles Kingsley (the author of The Water Babies) and making him Alice's father... then killing him. Really, that made absolutely no sense to me. Alice in Sunderland shows that you can get a LOT of drama from the real history, why mess it up? (There was a brief reference to Alice's maiden aunt having a delusional life that matched that of the Alice Liddell's real one... which was somewhat amusing.)
Other irritations included the rocking horse and dragon flies from Looking Glass appearing in this movie for no reason whatsoever. The concept of building a safe society based on physical deformities was introduced and not explored AT ALL (and there's enough in that idea alone to make one hell of an interesting movie). They introduce classic characters in vastly different roles (WTF was with the white queen?)... which would be interesting if they made any sense at all. The dance number made no sense at all. Like at all, at all. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the Big Dipper had one too many stars in it.
To me, Alice is not about "hero saves the day" and is most certainly not about power struggles, eyeball gouging, violence and killing. I don't know what movie I just say, but it sure as hell wasn't Alice. If anything, it's more like a transcript from an Alice in Wonderland RPG played with loaded dice.
I will probably write a more critical entertainingly scathing review once I get it on DVD ('cause I'm just crazy enough to watch it again).
Oh yeah, the good bits:
* Stephen Fry does a good voice over for the Cheshire cat.
And, um, that's it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 03:06 am (UTC)(It wouldn't surprise me if I am. I'm pretty blind to pop culture and the things that pop culture stars do.)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 03:26 am (UTC)it's okay if you drugged and raped children, as long as it was a long long time ago.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-22 05:48 pm (UTC)