Tim Burton's 'Alice In Wonderland'

[The Dark Knight]

I'll revisit this briefly.

Basically:

The film jumped around too much.
The plot was too predictable and simple.
Too much CGI and little atmosphere.
Elfman isn't what he once was.

[Azrael]

Elfman isn't what he once was.

Everyone should listen to his score for the Wolfman (2010), another case of an excellent film score that was wasted

[Paul (ral)]

Elfman isn't what he once was.

Everyone should listen to his score for the Wolfman (2010), another case of an excellent film score that was wasted

What do you mean wasted? Wasted by Elfman or it is a good score that has been overlooked?

[gordonblu]

Elfman isn't what he once was.

If it wasn't for Alice's Theme I'd agree with you. When I heard the music sample, I immediately perked up and felt that Danny was out of his slump(I haven't heard Wolfman yet). It is a major pity that this theme in it's entirety was relegated to the end credits and everybody has already walked out during the Avril Lavigne(blech!) number. An even bigger disappointment though was that there wasn't a Main Title sequence which is where the piece should go in the first place! The rest of the score isn't necessarily memorable, but I felt it was an improvement over his output of recent years(especially Terminator Salvation).

[johnnygobbs]

It is a major pity that this theme in it's entirety was relegated to the end credits and everybody has already walked out during the Avril Lavigne(blech!) number.

What the hell?  Avril Lavigne?  Since when has Burton made concessions to the damn tweeny market?  Disappointed...

[Azrael]

Elfman isn't what he once was.

Everyone should listen to his score for the Wolfman (2010), another case of an excellent film score that was wasted

What do you mean wasted? Wasted by Elfman or it is a good score that has been overlooked?

I have yet to watch the film, but according to filmtracks.com (http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/wolfman.html) the use of the score as heard in the film was butchered due to not very enthusiastic test screenings, and less than half of it is heard. And it's a pity since on album it's a brilliant old school horror score that reminds the listener of Wojciech Kilar's score for Coppola's Dracula.

[zDBZ]

Elfman isn't what he once was.

Everyone should listen to his score for the Wolfman (2010), another case of an excellent film score that was wasted

What do you mean wasted? Wasted by Elfman or it is a good score that has been overlooked?

I have yet to watch the film, but according to filmtracks.com (http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/wolfman.html) the use of the score as heard in the film was butchered due to not very enthusiastic test screenings, and less than half of it is heard. And it's a pity since on album it's a brilliant old school horror score that reminds the listener of Wojciech Kilar's score for Coppola's Dracula.

The film is horribly forgettable. Elfman's soundtrack on the CD is fantastic, but I hardly heard any of it in the finished film, either through editing or through the score being downplayed in favour of other elements of the soundtrack.

As to Alice, here's my review from BOF:

An annoying trait among most adults is that they can't simply look at things from their childhood and get back the simple feelings those things inspired. For some reason, adults have to make things more complicated. Disney movies have to have some (often imagined) prejudice, children's books need some dark subtext, comic book heroes need to become bleaker and deal with real-world politics.

Intended or not, that idea seems to play a large role in this version of Alice in Wonderland. Alice is not the distracted little girl who wandered after a rabbit and hopped from one nonsensical riddle to another anymore. She's 19, she has identity issues, and her real life is much more complicated now than it was then. Because she's not the same, Wonderland can't be the same. It has to have changed, become more complicated, become more a place to find oneself than a girl's day spent in nonsense.

I think the advertising for this film has been very misleading. It's not the wacky, wild action film they're selling it as. It's about a girl growing up through a fantasy, and it's very restrained IMO. Alice doesn't really remember Wonderland or its inhabitants, and there's little to no explanation given to her or the audience about who these forgotten characters are. There's never a moment when the Mad Hatter goes all-out bonkers, the Red Queen is never as volatile as she gets in other versions, and only small hints are given as to what the White Queen is really like. I don't think we even got that wide a look at Wonderland's vistas. It's one of those movies where I'm not sure I actually saw it or if it was all a dream, and I think that works. Alice herself spends most of the movie convinced she is in the dream, and you can't quite say at the end that it wasn't, so why shouldn't you question if the movie actually happened?

For all the critics who have been complaining how this is "standard Burton fare," I could say plenty, but for now I'll just say that this is unlike any Tim Burton film I've seen, from the lack of a main title sequence to the overall look and that feeling that I dreamt the whole thing. As surreal as Tim can get, every movie he's made up 'til now feels like something that actually happened that I actually watched - because, of course, I did. The whole atmosphere of Alice seemed unique unto itself, as was the cast of characters. Yes, Alice may have some of the "misunderstood outsider" in her, but she seems very much like Carrol's Alice grown up, not Edward Scissorhands. I will never understand why "he casts Johnny Depp all the time" has become a valid criticism, because not only can Johnny Depp act, but each character he's made in Tim's movies has been different, this one included. And Wonderland itself is a distinct place. From what we do get to see, it looks like a world that's not what it used to be, which it isn't, and that's been badly scorched, because it has. It doesn't look like Gotham City, it doesn't look like Fleet Street, and I don't think it looks anything like the Chocolate Factory in Charlie, which is what many people seem determined to say it does look like. Tim Burton has a much greater range than he is given credit for IMO, and while there are certain themes and ideas he frequents, I've always felt that he's great at revisiting those themes in new ways.

Curiously, several reviews I've seen lament the "sameness" of Burton's work in one breath and then attack Alice for not having the same kind of energy as Beetlejuice or Pee-Wee in the next. I find this hilarious. Contrary to the "director is God" bull**** that film school wants me to buy in to, filmmakers are human beings who go through the natural aging process, and Tim Burton is not the 26-year old fresh out of the animation department joyfully hopping from one lucky break to the next. He's 51, well experienced in live-action, and weathered by personal and professional problems over the years. Do you really expect the energy of his work to stay the same? Do Spielberg or Scorcese's movies have the same kind of energy as the work they produced when they were young?

The Alice books were very strange things to read. The most appealing thing about them was Alice herself, but the characters she encountered and the puzzles they presented to her all seemed to be at one constant, high, crazy level, and aside from the Cheshire cat, nothing really stood out. There's no plot, and I think the best way to get the books on-screen would be to break them up into short subjects. Put into one movie, I think you have to try and make each character distinct and give it a story. The Disney cartoon was fairly successful at that. This film, by heading into the future and being more a coming-of-age through a dream, is more successful IMO, and characters like the Doormouse and the Knave of Hearts, who were never that memorable to me before, finally had some personality to them. For character that had stood out before, like the Hatter and the Cat, the takes presented in this film felt fresh and unique. My favourite line of the movie was the Cat's adieu to the Hatter's hat.

It was a very ethereal experience, and my only complaint is that, at the climax, I should have liked to see the battle as some sort of game combining chess and cards rather than a simple brawl. But otherwise, a fine addition to the Burton legacy. 8.5/10.

 

[Azrael]

It was only yesterday that me and some friends rented it on BD.

I regret I didn't catch this earlier. If I was to change one thing, it would be to know how BAD this was from day one. I had heard the negative buzz, even reviewers praising Burton's work bashed on this film, but I didn't pay too much attention. Then it's run passed, and didn't think about it at all. Then the time came to rent it.

I wouldn't hold this movie as "evidence" to accuse Burton of "sameness". Saying this movie is "more of the same" would be a brutal insult to Burton's body of work.

Uninspired production design, badly designed creatures that only little children would care about, unconvincing CGI, bored actors, Depp on autopilot, and a general feel that this is bland kiddie fare by Disney like the two Narnias, rather than "A Tim Burton Film". I don't know if it's irony, considering the "sameness" comments, but this felt like the most un-Burton movie by Burton since Planet of the Apes (some would say since 1989...)  

To sum it up: This movie was a "Shark Sandwich". A particularly nasty one.  

And even if the movie wasn't underwhelming enough, the little dance routine at the finale was the icing on the cake... I wouldn't like the movie even if this scene didn't exist, but the dance turned my mere dislike into pure anadultered hatred. I mean, I would be banned forever if I translated the cursewords I used when I first saw it. I simply couldn't believe my eyes, I couldn't believe what I was witnessing before my very own eyes. What were they thinking???  

Yeah, I know this comment seems a bit out of date, but I wanted to post an unbiased, honest and blunt opinion for this film, coming from somone that loves the work of Tim Burton. This opinion is expressed with tongue firmly in cheek, I don't take movies too seriously and I use the word "hate" jokingly, but the point is that Alice in Wonderland sucks, badly, and I'd rather watch the Twilight "saga" (at least they seem to be AS bad as you expect them to be) than sit through this thing again

Anything positive? I enjoyed some scenes, certain shots (the "moon cat") and some parts of the score reminded me of Elfman's own Black Beauty. But the overall movie left a taste more sour than a few pints of bitter Guinness.

[Paul (ral)]

I think one of the problems with the film (yes I do think it has problems...plural) is that the Alice books didn't have much in the way of plot of character development. They had concepts or, at times, a disregard for concepts.

Tim's film tries to hard to be like the Narnia moviesin that the central character(s) have to learn something.  'Plot' has always been considered Tim's poor point by many so you would have though pure unadulterated nonsense would have been right up his street...it was more POTA than Pee-Wee.

I did understand from the outset that this would be a standalone picture so it is fair to see that Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass have been amalgamated (cleverly at times). Had they not...more complaints that it wasn't like Disney's animated feature would have been more rife.

Johnny Depp was the weak link for me. He did shine at times but on the whole it was mailed in.

[Gotham Knight]

Honestly, all this movie made me want to do is watch Hook, which I consider a better go at this concept. Hook had heart, soul, and a journey with depth and character, albeit with a few cheesy moments (I consider HOOK a masterpiece despite the general hate for it on the airwaves).