Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

[EricJ]

Best on-screen Alice has been the 1972 Brit version,

Just off the subject--
The '72 version has been floating around the ex-VHS public-domain gutter in the States...But someone online recently showed clips from a "wow!" cleaned-up widescreen restoration that aired on UK satellite a few years ago.
We SO need this on disk.

[Ben]

It's on DVD in the US (take your pick from a number of cover options!), but only in 1.33 pan and scan editions. I'm guessing the rights holders didn't think it worthy enough to issue a widescreen edition timed to Burton's film.

The UK fares better: there's a letterboxed widescreen (ie: no 16x9) version, which was also given away as a cover disc in a national paper last year. An anamorphic transfer played on TV here towards the end of last year, though this was cropped from 2.35 to 1.78 and had a station logo in the corner, but it was a beautiful print. Looks the same as the letterboxed DVD print, but that disc was a composite interlaced transfer, so not the best to blow up on a big screen.

Perhaps it will get revisited when Burton's film makes it to DVD? I thought that Burton's movie actually worked quite well to a mix of this and the previous Disney version.

[Dusterian]

EricJ, I think things like "why is a raven like a writing desk?" were not about putting importance on the thing itself (since he said "I have no idea" or whatever when asked if he knew), but on the characters. I think it was more about him trying to get closer to Alice, as well as show some emotion. Didn't seem to do much, but I think that's what they were trying to do.

This can't really be called the best version of Alice in Wonderland when it's not really Alice in Wonderland, I think. I mean, they didn't even place the story throughout her first original adventures, when they really could have if they tried. The new story was interesting and exciting, but then so was the original story itself! This film didn't have the whimsical zaniness, the magical otherness, at least not very much. It made the characters more like people in the real world and more normal. I thought it was great for what it was, but as Alice in Wonderland, as the best version of it, or as great as I thought it would be, it was a fail on all those.

I now think the 1951 Disney version is the best, at least of the ones I know and have seen. And one thing - Katherine Beaumont's Alice in that one was more entertaining and memorable! I didn't think Mia Wasikowska's Alice was too great, kinda bland.

[EricJ]

EricJ, I think things like "why is a raven like a writing desk?" were not about putting importance on the thing itself (since he said "I have no idea" or whatever when asked if he knew), but on the characters. I think it was more about him trying to get closer to Alice, as well as show some emotion. Didn't seem to do much, but I think that's what they were trying to do.

As one reviewer pointed out, the Hatter isn't supposed to "wonder" if he's mad, he IS mad...In Wonderland, everyone is, and that's normal. In the book, it's Alice who has the frustration in carrying on a logically flowing conversation, but that's what she gets for trying to bringing sanity to a local tea party.
Here, Tim and Linda's "empowered" female-pandering has Alice as the wise character who straightens out everyone's problems, which comes off as some of the most egotistic condescension to the original source material possible.
(And as this approach comes off as rather snotty, the character comes off as rather snotty, and, in fact, a little bored with her destiny: "Have I woken up from my dream YET? ")

But, to show how much they're not condescending to the book, T&L have to show off as many geek-trivia lines as possible that they remember (like the Raven riddle, or "Frabjous day", or "muchness") even if they don't quite seem to remember how exactly they were used.
Which is the same charge as is often leveled at Joe Dante pretending to do neo-Bugs Bunny movies, and driving off the real fans by looking like the most obnoxious fraud poseur imaginable.

I now think the 1951 Disney version is the best, at least of the ones I know and have seen. And one thing - Katherine Beaumont's Alice in that one was more entertaining and memorable! I didn't think Mia Wasikowska's Alice was too great, kinda bland.

Beaumont still rules (we get an Alice who likes a little bit of nonsense, but is utterly frustrated in trying to restore order out of chaos), but make sure you rent the '72 just in case you haven't seen it.
There are so many lines (as in the Trial scene) that slip by you when you first read the book as a kid, you have to hear them to get them, and most versions just don't take the time.

[droosan]

Just caught it last night.

As has been the case with several kid's movies lately, it felt a lot like watching someone play an Alice in Wonderland-themed video game .. complete with mini-quests and boss levels.

But the art direction and score are marvelous. And I did enjoy many small delightful scenes sprinkled throughout.

The 3-D didn't add much, though, IMO.

[Dusterian]

Well, I think that sounds all true and agree with all that EricJ, though I don't think the Hatter was wondering why he was mad. But you're right, they may haven taken the fact that the mad hatter was based on real hatters becoming mad from mercury poisoning from making hats too far.

But, even though we agree on the things you said, it still may be better if Alice has some effect on Wonderland as well as it having an effect on her, but a whole film about one place and it's people's effects on one girl might work someday, who knows, as long as Alice responds and goes through something that changes her positively (or negatively ala a tragedy, anything about what happens to people, I guess). And maybe it already has in the '51 and '72 versions. Alice learns she wants to learn logical things and be with her family and home, right?

[Ben]

I'm maybe missing the point here, but Alice was a very changed girl by the end of the film, and Wonderland had changed irrevocably too. Or am I nuts? Hard to tell, since it's quite crowded in here...

[Dacey]

Not quite sure why there's so much dislike for this movie.

I really enjoyed it. It seemed faithful to the source material while still being "new."

[EricJ]

Not sure if there's any more or less venom for Tim going for his same cheap-gagged poseur do-it-yourself-goth love for "Anything anybody ELSE ever described as 'twisted'" than there was for the Chocolate Factory--
Except that both movies seem like Tim was third-party "drafted" into them by overenthusiastic fan-zombies who thought he'd be "perfect" for it without really deeply understanding the material, based on imaginary ideas of "what he might do with it" and/or "how trippy it would be"....And as noted before, Tim being so caught up in his own image as to believe them.

For both Dahl and Carroll, Tim's interpretations seem to be the same as the jackass college-slacker teens who make the same old jokes loudly claiming they understand the "real" meaning of the source material...Just that Tim's was louder for actually getting a film made.
Which made him more of a public target for defenders of the original to point out how important it is to pick up a book and read it, instead of going off on wild variations on someone else's jokes.

[Dusterian]

No you're right Ben, she was changed and so was Wonderland.

But I was saying you can do an Alice in Wonderland that is the actual story (not some new story/changed story/sequel) where she is effected by them, and maybe she effects them, so that critics are more satisfied.

But I think the 1951 version did that enough with her learning she really did want to go back home and have logic, and that it's a great version, really. It makes you feel great wonder and magic as well as some drama and other emotions, I don't know why it's so criticized. I guess Alice didn't have enough "heart" like Walt said though I thought she showed enough when she cried, ah well.

And since most critics didn't like this new, "more of a story" Alice either, I think Walt's Alice really does still trump it for being the actual original story(ies) and being a great, memorable film with emotion and a character's journey.

[LotsoA113]

I liked it a lot myself. Felt the Cheschire Cat was the best character in there. One of Johnny Depp's best roles, right there with Ed Wood. I also felt the visuals were stunning even after Avatar!!

I hope Disney dosen't make it a franchise. What's next? The March Hare film

[LotsoA113]

Alice made 9.9 million on Friday, meaning it'll have a 38 million dollar weekend. That will give it the 4th best Second Weekend ever and a 270 million total. Quite amazing for a film I didn't think would Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

[Dan]

I thought this was a good movie. It was visually stunning, some pretty good performances, I think the story flowed pretty well. If nothing else, the Cheshire Cat was superb. I was excited that Stephen Fry was voicing him and I love the design. Such a fantastic character. Matt Lucas did great as Tweedle Dee and Dum as well. Overall, just a nice little film to watch.

[Ben]

Quite amazing for a film I didn't think would Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Is that a new term of phrase? If so...I like it!

Sorry, I don't mean to poke fun, but this tickled me. I could just imagine so many reviews or comments made:

- So, what did you think of Avatar?
- Well, it was alright for a film I didn't think would Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

It begs the question, doesn't it: what does it mean, to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? I'm intrigued!

[droosan]

What the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are you talkin' about..?!