Back to Wonderland: part III

I know what you're thinking: is it a great movie, or only passable? In all this excitement about 3D, Tim Burton and uncommon source materials, it's not difficult to lost track of the most important. But being as this is a book adaptation... you've got to answer yourself a question: Did you really enjoy reading 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Through the Looking Glass'? Really, did you?

Did I call it a book adaptation? I lied. Not a book, but two, and not an adaptation but an impression or more correctly a sequel of sorts. Not a bad approach, as it does away with dillemas about what gets cut, what goes in, and what needs to be changed - Burton could focus on doing his job, allowing the viewers to watch his film for itself, instead of comparing it incessantly to the novels. Unfortunately, he didn't do that well on both fronts: craftsmanship and story.

Lets start with the experience film had with 3D: although only now it reenters the cinemas, it goes quite a way back, actually. And even if we have still to wait for a 3D 'Citizen Kane', there have been time to experiment with the technology and results. In my opinion, among things which don't work well in feature films, are: subtitles penetrating objects and people, blurred objects because they are out of depth of field range, usage of lenses which change perspecitve. All those effects make the film seem unnatural, tire the viewer, and regretfully can be found in the film.

What about the plot then? It got me a bit bored, but what should I expect, having similar impressions after reading the books (unlike, say, 'Peter Pan' or 'Winnie the Pooh')? For start, something better then the classic Disney animation from 60 years back, which I actually enjoyed more. And here are more concrete arguments: for the 'Through the Looking Glass', Carroll created a new world and new characters - it really was a new book, not just same content sold again in a miserable sequel. This is where Burton chose to stay close to the original: despite creating a new story, he recycled the characters, and put them in a fairy tale cliche of a plot. Nothing fresh, no fascination of an imagination let loose. Please, Mr Burton! We know you can do better!

So what's good about this film? It's pretty. The Cheshire Cat is fantastic. Depp is Depp, Bonham Carter is Bonham Carter. Cool chrome on Alice's armor.

Die-hard Burton or Alice fans would see it anyway, most other people probably wouldn't, even if it were better. To filmasters I say: you may, but there's no real reason why you should.