The Muchness of Alice in Wonderland

I guess I'm about three weeks late, but I just saw Tim Burton's much talked about Alice in Wonderland. I've read all the reviews and heard all the complaints from my friends. Alice has lost her muchness, they all say, faithfully echoing Johnny Depp's hatter.

But has she?

Tim Burton has yet again created a fantastical world with extraordinary characters. Lewis Carol may have very well been writing specifically for Burton's over active imagination. The sets and costumes, as in every Burton film, are the stand out here. From Alice's changing dress to the details of the heads bobbing in the Red Queen's castle moat, everything from a design point is just right.

Well, almost. I'll tell you, in this movie may have had too much muchness. In 3-D, while breathtaking, the constant camera movements, moving scenery and changing focus make it hard to focus on anything. The flowers sway as the camera swoops through them, sometimes they're our focus, but at other times it's Alice and while the flowers are in my face, it is Alice who we should be watching. I think 3-D actually hindered this film, more than helped it. There was too much to look at, and I wished I could have taken a step back to see it all (granted I was sitting in the second row, but I can't imagine it was much different anywhere else in the theater.) 3-D takes you into the world, but what about the films in which you want to sit back and examine it? 3-D was too much.

Also joining in the category of "too muchness," was the addition of names to the characters. Why can't the Red Queen simply be known as the Red Queen? Why did we need to call her the Red Queen AND Bellizabeth (or whatever the hell it was, I never fully caught it.)?

I rather liked the new story line, as this was more of a sequel than a faithful retelling. Alice in Wonderland isn't much a story at all. Alice follows a rabbit down a rabbit hole and playfully goes from one strange character to the next. This version had a plot. Imagine that! Where the central question of Alice in Wonderland (as written) is up for interpretation, this version asks the question: Will Alice fill her destiny? It is interesting, as those who have seen it can attest to, that the issue of destiny comes up both in London, and in Wonderland. After all, she was destined to marry what's-his-face-snaggle-tooth, just as she was destined to slay the jabberwocky and ruin the Red queen's reign on Wonderland. The plot unified the characters, and gave a reason for their existence and involvement in Alice's Wonderland.

One of my favorite characters, the Cheshire Cat, did not disappoint (and partly, I think, that's because he was a slow moving character. The camera stopped moving when we were with him and I was able to focus on his stunning grin.)

The insane March Hare is also a stand out, with the stand out human performance being Helena Bonham Carter's Queen. She's fiendish, likable, humorous and a bitch. She's everything you'd want the Red Queen to be.

Overall, I've got to say that I liked it. The more time I spend away from it, the more I feel that way. Next time I see it, however, it will not be in 3-D. It's too much.