Whether it was listening to the original book on cassette tapes, watching the 1999 TV film version with Whoopi Goldberg as the Cheshire Cat or even playing Alice: Madness Returns back in high school, I have a very ingrained appreciation for the story of Alice’s trip down the rabbit hole into a world where pretty much nothing makes sense. As much as the more logical parts of my brain would like to say otherwise, this appreciation extends to the 2010 film by Tim Burton. It’s one of those rare films where I legitimately don’t care about the plot inconsistencies, of which there are plenty to be found there, and I’m willing to bet that my already-admitted fanboyism for Burton’s work has got something to do with it. Nevertheless, I liked the first film which means that I was probably the only person on Earth who wanted to see a sequel to it, which I also was... initially, at least. Am I going to defend this film as well, or am I going to join the crowd?
The plot: Some years after her last adventure into Underland, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) returns to find that the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is distraught about his family, whom were killed by the Jabberwocky long ago. Wanting to cheer him up, Alice goes into the domain of Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to steal the Chronosphere, a device that will let her go back in time and save the Hatter’s family. However, it seems that time is not so easily re-written and Time as well as the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is catching up to her.
In the six short years since the original film, Mia
Wasikowska has gone from an Aussie anomaly trying to make her big break to
working with the likes of Jim Jarmusch and Guillermo Del Toro. Words cannot
express how nice it is seeing an Australian actor doing good in Hollywood, especially since that extra experience serves
her well here. Moving beyond the wide-eyed slothfulness of her previous outing
as Alice, she manages to translate the supposed strength and smarts of the
character into the film proper this time around. Depp gets a bit more emotional
heft than before, but the Hatter was never one of his stronger performances to
begin with so it doesn’t translate too well on screen. Bonham Carter is as
shrill as ever, Anne Hathaway as wispy as ever, Matt Lucas still checks out as
the Tweedles and Andrew Scott’s glorified cameo as the psychiatrist, even with
how short it is, leaves a definite impression. And then there’s Baron Cohen,
and I’ll be honest, I’m glad to see him in proper form again. He may be getting
a little too much mileage out of his French accent, but he does admirably at
conveying the haplessly regal demeanour of the personification of Time in this
film.
The trailer for this film is incredibly misleading. It gives
the impression that the creators might be going for a more
psychologically-tinged American McGee approach to the story of Alice, something
I was initially quite excited about. Alas, the scene featuring Andrew Scott’s
manic doctor lasts about as long as it does in said trailer, and it doesn’t
even crop up until a little over halfway through the film. That is not to say
that the film itself doesn’t start out well, though. On the contrary, as it
appears that new director James Bobin and returning screenwriter Linda
Woolverton have gotten a better grasp on the source material than last time.
Sure, it starts out on some loud and blaring misogyny courtesy of returning
buttmonkey Hamish (Leo Bill), but it ends up ringing a little truer since Alice well and truly asserts herself as a person
worthy of such scepticism. That may seem a little harsh, but trust me: Seeing
him trying to snark her down to size after the very Pirates Of The Caribbean
opening action scene did make me
sympathize with her a lot more than the first time round.
Then we get into the story proper involving the Mad Hatter and… okay, please take my opening spiel into account when I say this: This might be one of the better interpretations of the connection between Wonderland and the real world that I’ve seen in one of these adaptations. The way it connects the very irrational notion of proving the Hatter’s delusions right, as opposed to convincing him of anything else, with the epitome of permanency and inevitability that is Time and how it ends up taking all of us shows that they have a definite understanding of the utter illogic that Wonderland (or Underland in this case) runs on.
Then we get into the story proper involving the Mad Hatter and… okay, please take my opening spiel into account when I say this: This might be one of the better interpretations of the connection between Wonderland and the real world that I’ve seen in one of these adaptations. The way it connects the very irrational notion of proving the Hatter’s delusions right, as opposed to convincing him of anything else, with the epitome of permanency and inevitability that is Time and how it ends up taking all of us shows that they have a definite understanding of the utter illogic that Wonderland (or Underland in this case) runs on.
This then leads into time travel shenanigans, and as much as
I want to lambaste any film nowadays that tries to involve such a plot, initial
impressions suggest that these filmmakers are aware of the inevitable
conclusion of such a venture. Hell, the fact that Alice trying to change the
past is framed as the irrational notion that it is is a point in favour of the film. It does end up
going down a lot of similar directions as other time travel stories,
particularly The Butterfly Effect with the emphasis on past actions and the
scene set in an institution. However, I am willing to be fair to such stories
because, in yet another notch on my subjectivity bedpost, it plays into the
reason why I watch films in the first place. Back when I talked about Love,
Rosie, I mentioned the film About Time being recommended to me by my
psychologist. What I didn’t mention
was why that film specifically: Because I have a very serious issue with
dwelling on past mistakes, and that film helped me get through that aspect of
my thinking. With this in mind, I have no issue with these stories as I know
that, even with their prevalence, they are still useful to some people out
there.
That is, so long as the story is told well… and here is where things start to slip. While the film initially starts out promisingly enough, it starts to buckle under its own lack-of-weight around the halfway point. This is largely a result of the film not only having very little sense of direction in terms of its overall story but also because it does end up dragging out its ultimate lesson for far, far too long. We get it: We learn from our past mistakes to become the person we are today; Star Trek did a far better job of illustrating this same point in about half the time with the TNG episode 'Tapestry'.
That is, so long as the story is told well… and here is where things start to slip. While the film initially starts out promisingly enough, it starts to buckle under its own lack-of-weight around the halfway point. This is largely a result of the film not only having very little sense of direction in terms of its overall story but also because it does end up dragging out its ultimate lesson for far, far too long. We get it: We learn from our past mistakes to become the person we are today; Star Trek did a far better job of illustrating this same point in about half the time with the TNG episode 'Tapestry'.
So, what about the visuals? I mean, even for people who couldn’t
stand the first film (of which there are an understandable many), there was
still plenty of praise to be had for the film’s visual aesthetic. To be fair,
those comments had some rationality to them, as the 2010 film is probably one
of the best examples of using a digital backlot to craft a world for the film
to exist in, right up there with the film version of Sin City. Well, in
contrast to the writing deficiencies, I’d go so far as to say that the visuals
are actually even better than last
time. As much as I got a real kick of the Burton style garishness of the
original, it did end up making the world of Underland feel a tad small. Insert
your own joke about cakes marked 'Eat me' here.
With this one, it starts really strong on those grounds with the aforementioned opening scene set on a ship beset by pirates. From there, once we get beyond the somewhat bland Victorian décor, Underland shows a definite upgrade. From the Hatter’s house to the oceans of time, right down to the Grand Clock itself, there’s a real sense of world-building as well as scope to be found here. I’d call this a shallow victory, given how the rest of the film doesn’t really hold up alongside it, but I can see some legitimacy in watching films purely for visual splendour. Yes, I have railed against photographically obsessed filmmakers in the past (Terrence Malick, Baz Luhrmann, etc.) but I’m not opposed to the idea overall, and this is such an instance… possibly.
With this one, it starts really strong on those grounds with the aforementioned opening scene set on a ship beset by pirates. From there, once we get beyond the somewhat bland Victorian décor, Underland shows a definite upgrade. From the Hatter’s house to the oceans of time, right down to the Grand Clock itself, there’s a real sense of world-building as well as scope to be found here. I’d call this a shallow victory, given how the rest of the film doesn’t really hold up alongside it, but I can see some legitimacy in watching films purely for visual splendour. Yes, I have railed against photographically obsessed filmmakers in the past (Terrence Malick, Baz Luhrmann, etc.) but I’m not opposed to the idea overall, and this is such an instance… possibly.
All in all, as much as I seriously want to champion this
movie, it’s not good. While it shows signs of improvement and more considerable
effort being made, it ends up succumbing to a lack of direction and an
inability to carve out its own path, instead just following what other films
have done before it to abrasive degrees. I’d still argue that there are
elements worth seeing here, but with how much of a letdown it ended up
becoming, I can’t bring myself to recommend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment