Burton's Alice - 7/10
Didn't watch it in 3D and don't regret I haven't.
It's a good movie IMHO. I'm actually glad Burton didn't go the "safe" way, just making a remake of the Disney classic or one of the earlier live action interpretations. It's rather loosely based on the follow-up to the first "Alice-Novel", called "Through The Looking Glass (And What Alice Found There)". I don't think too many people even realize that...
Excuse me if I'll make several comparisons to Avatar, but I think they're valid because both are a) blockbuster, high-budget CGI-fest-fairytales, b) hardly original on script and c) are soaked with the everlasting metaphors of good vs. evil, underdogs vs. tyrants etc. pp.
To make it short: "Alice" smokes Avatar in every way possible IMHO. Addressing first, what apparently is the most important subject for many viewers: the looks. Is "Alice" on the same level as Avatar, as far as borderline realism goes? No it's not. But it doesn't even try. Still I liked "Alice" soo much more visually. Why is that? - It's simply down to aesthetics. Burton's unmistakable style, to me, has just so much more character and unique identity than Cameron's ambitious, but ultimately lacklustre ideas. I know, all of this is very much debatable and I don't claim general validity for my opinion, so please take it as it is: an honest opinion.
Okay, so let's get to the substance of this movie, the script and it's realization in the visual context. It's worthy to the unique vibe of the original novels and early cinematic adaptations, for the most part. Burton's often dark, grotesque aesthetics are a good fit for the trippy world that's the "wonderland". However, a few scenes in much friendlier, brighter scenery would have contributed positively to how Carroll originally described this universe. Burton sacrifices a balance of extremes for a more cohesive scenery that focuses on the very aesthetic trademarks that made him famous in the first place . But - and that's a good thing - it happens for a reason. It's not the "Wonderland" as described in Alice's first adventure because the place has changed due to the Red Queen's reign.
If you have such a strong novel to feed off from, with all the colourful characters in their unique universe, it doesn't surprise that this "fairytale" has ten times the substance and depth than Avatar. And Burton doesn't even really delve that much into the characters.
It's a good 7/10. For a movie to get more from me, it has to offer some innovative artistic value or simply must be executed (near) perfectly. This movie still has to appeal to a large audience and that's where the compromises, the calculation comes in. Even though I didn't watch it in 3D (or maybe that's exactly the reason), I could easily pick out some scenes that were obviously written and trimmed to just do that, to take advantage of this re-discovered technology.
But - and that's the huge difference to Avatar - the movie doesn't collapse if you take these things away. There's still a plot that has more to offer than just the very basics to build the eye candy around.
The movie isn't that long (108 mins.) if you consider the magnitude of the original adventure and some scenes do indeed feel a bit rushed, stringency and depth suffer consequently. But it also doesn't feature many of the Burton-typical, verbose scenes of artistic self-indulgence like we're used from some of his cinematic musicals.
Was the "Mad Hatter's" character blown out of proportion for Depp's role? I don't think that even needs to be discussed. It's somewhat bothering but it doesn't make or break the movie.
So in the end, if you want to make a semi-animated blockbuster, popcorn cinema at its best, that's still worth seeing for a more demanding audience, that's one way to do it. Please, take some notes Cameron!
Again: 7/10 - worth the time and money but nothing earth-shaking, ground-breaking or Kubrick-awing.
