Wednesday, March 10, 2010...12:38 am
Alice’s Adventures in Middle Earth
This is a bit off-topic for Stop.Frame, given that Tim Burton’s new Alice in Wonderland is a part live action and part digitally animated movie, but what the heck. Here’s my two-minute critique (warning: spoilers ahead).
I did enjoy it – certainly much more than the other high-profile 3D movie phenomenon everyone has been talking about. In fact Avatar‘s script weaknesses went a long way towards offsetting its spectacular visual world-building. Alice in Wonderland had much better writing and was in its way more interesting to look at.
But for heaven’s sake – can fantasy film-making never escape the hand of Peter Jackson? First Alice wanders in a blasted landscape on her quest to rescue the Mad Hatter from the evil Sauron Red Queen, then she has to jump from one giant dead floating head to another to get across a stagnant moat. It’s Mordor all over again, from the ruined land to the dead marshes.
When the Jabberwock appears, it’s with a piercing scream straight from the creatures ridden by the Nazgûl in the battle for Minas Tirith. And there’s Alice doing battle on one of the ruined battlements, just like Aragorn (only a bit prettier) all in the service of Galadriel. Oops, I mean the White Queen. Oh dear – Lord of the Rings was a titanic achievement, but please can we move on now?
I also find myself in the awkward position of having to agree with something said by motormouth film critic Mark Kermode.
He hates 3D – in fact he’s made himself a pair of “un-3D” glasses to take the effect away. He pretty much argues that it’s a pointless frippery that takes away from the real purpose of film – telling stories – and adds nothing to the visual experience.
And after seeing Alice in Wonderland in 3D, I can only say he’s right. It would have been just as visually striking, and more comfortable to watch, without having to perch a pair of cheap plastic specs on your nose.
(I also thought this about Coraline. I’d have been quite happy to see that in plain ol’ 2D too – I’m pretty sure it would be just as effective.)
Slightly more on-topic – the animation is terrific. I loved Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and the Cheshire cat was a triumph. I was also taken with the flying rocking horse insects that appeared from time to time. Great stuff.
Which all goes to show that you need more than cutting edge technology to create fascinating and engaging characters. After all, Lewis Carroll first came up with them in 1865…


3 Comments
March 13th, 2010at 10:55 am
I do agree with you… maybe the 3D in this case is not striking because Burton actually shot in 2D, so it really adds nothing to visual experience… apart from the fact of making more expensive to go to the cinema. Apart from that, I loved the animation and some of the characters, but I didn’t like the story much. In my opinion, it totally missed the point of the nonsensical world created by Carroll. But I do suppose that Disney loves more stories talking about “Good” triumphing on “Evil” rather than nonsensical alternative realities showing the nonsense hidden behind the Good vs. Evil divisions in the so-called real world.
March 13th, 2010at 2:51 pm
Hi Serena
I didn’t know that about the 2D – but it makes sense.
And of course you’re right about the way that the film enforces a moralistic storyline on what should be surreal nonsense. Apparently Alice in Wonderland is Lewis Carroll’s critique of mathematics!
March 13th, 2010at 11:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2-TPdB70Lg
Leave a Reply