"Steve Buscemi at it again."
I've been having one too many fights over Tim Burton's narrative merits recently. And now, another fight!
Proving that his gift for visuals will never quite compensate for his lack of ability to tell a good story, Tim Burton's totally unnecessary revamp of Lewis Carrol's quirk classic "Alice is Wonderland" has great parts that add up to dissatisfying whole. An alleged $250 million in CGI creatures and oddly eyed Johnny Depp, "Alice" has some cool, gothic and phantasmagoric stuff to look at. But like any art student demo reel, it's all about style and showing the cool stuff — not about saying something about the people or their stories.
"Alice in Wonderland" has talking tight-assed toads, a giant jabberwocky that sounds like Christopher Lee, and some really ridiculous rabbits. Or rather, plenty of soon-to-be-dated CGI creates little worthwhile bits in the middle of a non-movie/story. The film never really feels like an actual story, because Alice's newfound bewilderment in Wonderland brings no real motivation to move forward. No characters are truly developed beyond quirky moments, and no quest can be found beyond getting Alice to a battle scene (???) in the final act. Oh well. Its still worth a gander in the theater.
On those little details of CGI: for the most part, the creatures are cool as hell. From the monkey butlers to the talking hounds to, my favorite, the new March Hare, they act better than the human actors. Unlike "Avatar," I suppose, these CG characters have a bit of personality. So, for my money, the March Hare and his crack-headed brogue and tea-cup tossing made this "Alice" almost worthwhile. I just found him to be so damn weird, and awesome.
But than again, wasn't this perfectly awesome already?
No comments:
Post a Comment