My thoughts on Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland: It had to be posted somewhere.

[romgitsean]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 5:22pm

The more I see it, the more it enfuriates me. I really loathe this film. Almost to the point that I want to see it to know how bad it really will be.

Tim Burton was a creative man circa late 80's up until James and the Giant Peach. Charlie...Chocolate Factory was salvagable, Sweeney Todd was actually good in a very non-traditional sense from the musical (I like to think of it like the film & stage version of Cabaret. Both very good, but in totally different respects), but he has gotten more pretentious as time goes on, and this time; he's truly out done himself.

Where do I start? I think my main problem is Linda Woolverton. I hate this woman beyond words. Lion King, Beauty and the Beast--they're fine. But when she tried to adapt Lestat she put in the most half-asked job I have ever seen. Her adaptation was sloppy and non-sensical. There were plotholes everywhere, and she can't characterize worth a ****. I've lost all respect for her because of Lestat. She has proved she can't write anything for a mature audience.

And then they give her Alice. And yet again, Linda succeeds in missing the entire point! ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BOOKS. I can't stress that enough. Alice in Wonderland is showing the younger, more vivid side of Alice, and Through the Looking Glass is about her growing up and having to in some cases, mother, other characters. Her transition into the Looking Glass is representing her transition into womanhood. And the Red Queen trying to guide her? Red is symbolic of menstration, another literary attribute alluding to Alice growing up. In the opening poem of the book Carroll even writes of how a girl he once knew is lost and wants no part of him (in a nutshell). In Wonderland, it shows her growing and shrinking as physical transformations, and it shows as a young girl in Victorian society, most people (note: the characters are predominately aristocrats; and male aristocrats, to add) don't take her, a young girl, seriously. The Queen of Hearts spoofs the lack of violence and absurdity in children's literature. She even matures at the end, realizing that the trial is ridiculous, and so is Wonderland for that matter--and that the Queen's guards are simply a deck of cards.

I guess what bothers me next is that Tim Burton feels that the movie "needs a point". That's half the problem right there; he doesn't understand the material. The book, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, illustrates that children's literature doesn't NEED a point. We have characters in this story that try to make sense out of pure bs! (i.e, the Duchess, Queen of Hearts, Mad Hatter). It is a spoof of most children's literature and spoofs many poems in the Victorian era, and it spoofs the ridiculous "children should be seen and not heard" attitude. Which brings me to my next point, that it is vital for Alice to be a young girl. It expresses a point that she's taking a stand and speaking up and how she matures. So, why would they cast an 18-year-old girl?!

I understand that Alice has to be older, because it's a sequel, but if it's a sequel, why is it called Alice in Wonderland?! And why is she escaping to a land that's blended of Looking-Glass Land and Wonderland characters? What the f*ck?! That doesn't make sense.

It's just one big bad idea, and Disney should've just made an animated Through the Looking Glass using the bits they didn't use from Looking-Glass and Wonderland and called it square.

Anyone else agree? Disagree? Sorry it was a bit lengthy; it's a subject I feel passionate on.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 5:51pm

Maybe you should actually SEE the film before writing such a lengthy diatribe.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 5:56pm

I agree with your criticism. I was turned off by the older Alice. I adore Lewis Carrol's books. You however think more Highly of Sweeney Todd then I do. What disturbed me most about that film was the fact that Depp's Sweeney was portrayed as insane from the first moment we saw him. There was no reveal, no Epiphany. I have given up on Burton Films after he burned me with planet of the Apes and Big Fish (which could have been a truly awesome film if it weren't so superficial and self indulgent)

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 6:14pm

How can you criticize something so vehemently without seeing it?

Why does an adaptation have to be verbatim what the original material was? I see nothing wrong with changing and adapting a classic work of literature, and I'm CERTAINLY not passing any judgment until I see it. Once I do, I may agree the adaptation was off the mark or unnecessary, but until then, I'll keep an open mind.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 6:54pm

"The more I see it, the more it enfuriates me. I really loathe this film. Almost to the point that I want to see it to know how bad it really will be."

That's all I had to read.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:11pm

"My thoughts on Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland: It had to be posted somewhere"

See, just the title alone lets me know that this thread is someone ranting after only seeing previews.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:23pm

I got a headache after the first sentence, so I gave up with the hysterical hyperbole. Between menstruation, Lestat, and the apparent need to make a point that a point need not be made, I just kind of gave up.

[James885]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:28pm

That's certainly a long rant. But I think you should really wait to actually see the movie before you pronounce judgment on it and say that it's awful. You're saying that Linda Woolverton is missing the entire point? How can you possibly know that without actually seeing the movie?

[nmartin]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:30pm

Snafu, you're right about Big Fish. It should have been great. He had Albert Finney for God's sake.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:32pm

PGenre does just fine reviewing stuff he hasn't seen. It's all the rage.

Half-ASSED, not asked.

Alice and Through the looking Glass are two different books? Next you will try to tell me Frankenstein isn't the monster's name. No one cares.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:37pm

"Next you will try to tell me Frankenstein isn't the monster's name. "

Oh, you know that already, Joe!

[romgitsean]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:43pm

I've read the screenplay. It's garbage. And I've watched EVERY media clip that's come out.

"I got a headache after the first sentence, so I gave up with the hysterical hyperbole. Between menstruation, Lestat, and the apparent need to make a point that a point need not be made, I just kind of gave up."

If you don't agree with my theory, that's fine, but it's often been brought up. And it's absolutely true; Linda Woolverton can't write anything with sophistication.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:46pm

There are few things I hate more than criticizing something you know little of. If you have not seen something do not tell me how bad it is. All that ends up looking "bad" is you.


0:54

Updated On: 2/10/10 at 07:46 PM

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 7:49pm

I won't say it, but you know you're begging for a "neither can you" right?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 8:00pm

Someone's having a hissy fit.

Perhaps a cookie will calm romgitsean down.

[romantico]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 8:29pm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/02/wonderland-screenwriter-is-ready-for-haterswn-path-its-audacious-what-weve-done.html

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 2/10/10 at 8:31pm

Wait, so there IS a point or there ISN'T a point? Or is it that there are MANY points, but if it is not YOUR point it is not good point so therefore there should not really be a point at all? Speak English! I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and I don't believe you do either!
And the moral of that is -- "The more there is of mine, the less there is of yours."

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 12:46am

PGenre is that you?

[Perfectly Marvelous]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 12:49am

Can I just say that is an amazing cookie? Now I want one.

As for the negativity, I'm going to keep an open mind about the film. It's easy to judge something solely on whether or not you like those involved or have a strong opinion of them. I'd much rather see the movie and then formulate an opinion.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 1:05am

"And it's absolutely true; Linda Woolverton can't write anything with sophistication."

You said her first two musicals were "fine" but you hated the third one. Two out of three being "fine" is a pretty good track record.

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 1:16am

Yeah, but there ain't no way he's ever gonna love her.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 9:47am

Interesting posts. There's just no way I can be sure about this movie until I've actually seen it. I remember being very disturbed and concerned by the pictures I saw of SWEENEY TODD before it was released -- I just remember thinking that Johnny Depp had stolen Susan Sontag's hair. And then, of course, I saw the film and saw it for the bloody masterpiece that it is.

The trailers for this ALICE thing haven't exactly made me excited to see it. But one never knows. I hope we're not in for another PLANET OF THE APES here, but at least it doesn't feature Marky Mark.

I hope ALICE doesn't suck.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 10:06am

I just hope Burton and Wolverton didn't try to slip in anything about menstruation, aristocrats (mostly male), and Alice's transition into womanhood.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 10:08am

Right, Reginald, because that would be totally alien to Carroll's concept, and we all know that strict fidelity to source material is absolutely essential.

[wonkit]

Posted: 2/11/10 at 10:11am

If the movie is anything like the trailer, I have no interest in seeing it. But I am not a Tim Burton fan to begin with.