Quote:
Originally Posted by fortunato
------------------------------------------
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Well, I went into it knowing that the script kind of removes the magic from the book (and I love the book), so I didn't let that bother me. I just watched it as a movie. So from there, it's a pretty good watch. Special effects are really fun, but so obviously special effects you can never completely sink into it. I really liked the pacing, and I thought they did a great job taking their time with the story...that is until the end. The third act is mostly awful; it's clear the studio couldn't resist an inflated, extraneously action-packed (and cheese-packed) climax and hurried resolution.
That said, I'm still glad I went to see it. Burton's vision is there, mostly, and that was fun to see. Helena Bonham Carter's turn as the Red Queen is pretty wonderful. And there's certainly more to enjoy in Alice in Wonderland than not, I thought, but there are definitely enough problems to also make it frustrating.
And one more complaint, as pissy as it is: they kept calling the creature the Jabberwocky. Jabberwocky is the poem, Jabberwock is the creature. Sure it's a fairly small issue, but it's a detail you'd think a huge multi-million dollar blockbuster would get right.
|
I have one word for you my Amontillado loving friend, and that word is Svankmajer. Just saw his Alice. Here's a man that cares about Wonderland and as much as he plays with the imagery, he keeps the spirit very much intact. His Alice sees the hollow, frightening, ersatz qualities of the world around her, made up of toys, tools, bare identical rooms and...well, stuff. It captures the wonder and the barebones logic of Lewis Carroll's world wonderfully. For once the Hatter and Hare are as frightening and offcenter as they are in the book. I was really happy with Svankmajer's vision.