Burton’s “Alice” is a blunderland of suck

“Alice in Wonderland”
DIRECTED BY: Tim Burton
STARRING: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter.
RATED: PG
SHOWING AT: Area theaters, tomorrow, March 5.

Tim Burton performed a clever trick when making his rendition of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” Instead of trying to remake “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory,” he went back to the source, structuring his film on author Roald Dahl’s original text and distinguishing his film from the unmatchable ’70’s classic.
One would assume he’d make a similar move with “Alice in Wonderland,” but instead Burton does the opposite, departing from Lewis Carroll’s work to create a film that heavily alters the author’s world.
This “Alice in Wonderland” presents a 19-year-old Alice (Mia Wasikowska), who is an unwilling recipient of a wealthy lord’s marriage proposal. It’s not that the lord is off-putting (though he is); she’s more concerned with fanciful dreams and unladylike acts, like going out sans corset.
Once down the rabbit hole, it turns out the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has usurped the White Queen’s (Anne Hathaway) throne with an unstoppable dragon called the Jabberwocky, and now rules Wonderland with bigheaded fervor.
Her servant, the Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover), finds a prophecy saying Alice will slay the Jabberwocky and restore peace to the land, so naturally she must be destroyed.
This altered plot makes it hard to get our bearings, especially when we’re told the events prior to Alice’s return are different from every “Alice in Wonderland” currently in existence. We’re essentially getting a sequel without a predecessor, which leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion.
To make matters worse, the new plot feels more C.S. Lewis than Lewis Carroll. There’s a draconian queen, a prophecy about a messianic human from another world and repetitive action sequences involving anthropomorphic animals and ancient weapons.
The action-adventure folly thrown onscreen is largely attributable to screenwriter Linda Woolverton, who tries molding Alice into a dynamic, rebellious heroine. Displaying Alice’s newfound skills in trade routes and swordsmanship feels distracting and slightly preachy in a tale that celebrates nonsense.
With each new film Burton directs, he dives deeper into the mixed bag of CGI, and now he’s using 3-D, too. The visuals are not entirely disappointing — the Cheshire Cat is a noteworthy exception. But, as dark and quirky as the film looks, there’s a certain spark missing overall, a humanity that permeated his early work.
If there’s a saving grace to this movie, it’s undoubtedly the acting. Johnny Depp leads the field with his methed-out-Elijah-Wood Hatter portrayal, toning down the 1951 version’s manic lisp and jumping back and forth between flamboyance and a feral Scottish brogue. Too bad the script gets distracted penning him to have contrived valiant motives.
Only the Cheshire Cat remains untainted. He looks like a dream with his glowing blue fur and post-evaporation smoke trails. As he floats along with airy nonchalance, he betrays his sinister smile with feline swagger.
Sadly, Depp and a sly cat are not enough to save the day. This attempt at “Alice in Wonderland” was undone from the beginning, the result of a stock script centered on drastic textual changes. It’s understandable that Burton and company would be reluctant to do yet another “Alice in Wonderland” remake, but with a story so different from the original, the question becomes, why bother with Alice at all?

2/5 Stars