Friday, March 5, 2010

Alice in Wonderland

So I've seen "Alice In Wonderland (2010)" twice now, once at a private midnight screening and once at a public midnight screening. I'm only writing this now because I need something to occupy the time between now and work in a half hour. It's one of those movies where you get about what you expect to get. It's a Tim Burton spin on an old Disney Classic, but frankly, the original is much more entertaining and profound. This one just seems to be full of a lot of clutter that detracts from the plot. Burton's use of CGI and 3D effects is so overwhelming that I often found myself confused about the plot because I was too busy looking at something else going on in that scene. Even more troublesome is the fact that sometimes it's hard to pick out the focus character of a given shot because there are so many distractions. The best part was Johnny Depp's take on the Mad Hatter which was nothing short of hilarious and troubling, making for a well-rounded, enjoyable character. Everything else just seems kind of boring and undeveloped; what I took away from both viewings was that it's a three-hour movie crammed into a two hour time slot.

What I keep finding myself coming back to is the 3D element utilized here. People are paying in excess of ten dollars a seat to see a 3D movie that doesn't really use 3D to its fullest potential. Since "Avatar (2009)" came out in December, a new bar has been set. James Cameron used 3D to create a world so vast and immense and beautiful that it was hard to distance one's self from the movie and the real world. Plot-wise, Avatar sucked. It was the same story that's been told four hundred times over. But god dammit, it looked fantastic. It was visually stunning and for that reason, any movie that uses 3D or creates some sort of new world has to be able to capture the sort of wonder that Avatar induced, or else it just cannot compare. In short: I found myself taking off my glasses at numerous points and didn't see too much of a difference.

Verdict: Meh... less than Stoked. If you think you're going to love this movie, you probably will. It will meet your expectations, and exceed them if you happen to have your standards set pretty low. This movie's nothing spectacular and fails to compete with its animated predecessor.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for the review, Opie. I want to see it because "Through the Looking Glass" is my fave book of all time. I will set my expectation meter to low. I *do* love Johnny Depp in everything, though.

    ReplyDelete