I haven’t seen the movie but I can’t let this statement pass without addressing it.
First, Burton is not married to Helena Bonham Carter (who, I assume, is the person you’re talking about). Second, contrary to your assertion, she did have a career before she met him with roles in such movies as **Room With a View, Hamlet **(Mel Gibson version), Howard’s End, Mighty Aphrodite, Wings of the Dove (Oscar-nominated), and Fight Club.
Now, if you think she’s a crappy actress all I can do is quote the Dude and say, “Well, that’s just your opinion, man.”
I won’t argue your opinion because quite frankly I have several unpopular opinions myself so I completely understand what it’s like to have someone say “you’re wrong” about such things.
But I actually quite like Helena Bonham Carter, and most Tim Burton movies I would have skipped seeing altogether if it were not for her being in them. She was the biggest reason I went to see Sweeney Todd for example (since Johnny Depp was all uglied up) and as far as I am concerned she is what made that movie (which I loved).
In Alice in Wonderland I didn’t care for her performance quite as much as I usually do, but I think that had more to do with the special effects and character she played. I thought the character itself could have been done better and that she (as an actress, not the character) should have had more screen time. In short, while I love Helena Bonham Carter I am not sure that particular character was the right one for her in this particular film.
I thought she was horribly miscast in Sweeney Todd. Mrs. Lovett is supposed to be an undesirable, desperate woman, not the nubile goth that Helena Bonham Carter played. Carter’s reedy singing voice didn’t help, either.
Well, Sweeney Todd himself was also originally about 15 to 20 years older. However, that changed once Depp was cast. If they’d kept Mrs. Lovett around the same age she was in the stage version and cast, say, Meryl Streep in the role, it would’ve been like watching a homicidal mother & son team rather than two people who were supposed to be around the same age.
Anyway, I liked Helena Bonham Carter in the role but I’ll admit I’m biased on this point. Besides, I can’t really think of any known actress in HBC’s age range who could’ve convincingly played the role AND be an at least adequate singer with some musical experience. Maybe Catherine Zeta-Jones (but, then again, if people objected to HBC’s Mrs. Lovett of being too much of a sexpot, they would’ve had conniptions over her).
I just saw the movie, and it was an entertaining enough diversion, but not really all that great. And I’m a Burton fan–PotA is the only movie of his that I really dislike.
The best thing about this movie, by FAR, is the actress who plays Alice. Wow, she’s beautiful! Looking her up on IMDB… Mia Wasikowska, 21 years old. And though this wasn’t the most challenging of roles, I thought she handled it well and held her own against Depp and Carter. She carries the movie and I couldn’t take my eyes off her. I’m sure we will be seeing much more of her.
I liked the movie. I suppose not being tied to the original was helpful.
I saw it in regular and in 3D. The 3D was not necessary to enjoy the movie. In fact, at times it made my eyes water. But it was interesting in places.
Mia Wasikowska was great. I liked how they visually portrayed her differently at the beginning and end. It really captured the essence of her maturing and getting confidence, getting her “muchness”. pancakes3 said:
That was intentional.
Many people in the Red Queen’s court were oddly disproportionate, just like the Red Queen. She had the overly large head, so surrounded herself with people with strange dispropotionalities and odd sizes. Many of whom, it turns out, were faking it for the Queen’s attention. The Knave had disproportionately long arms and legs, making him awkward looking and making his motion bizarre.
MissTake said:
I’m trying to decide if that was intentional because of his disproportionality.
Mr. Duality said:
I specifically listened for that the second time, but now can’t remember.
Martini Enfield said:
I don’t think they were trying to imply opium trade. She talks about her father’s business proposal, the venture to Sumatra and Borneo, and then she talks about spreading their business to the markets in China. I suppose opium might be the most notable product that the Chinese had that the British wanted, but I don’t think it was meant to imply that. Perhaps that’s where actual history interferes with modern sensibilities.
Martini Enfield said:
There was that parallel, and the bit where the lord’s mother complains about the white roses and Alice suggests painting them red - which came from her original trip. But on the whole I don’t agree. For starters, the scratches on the arm were healing - that doesn’t occur in the few minutes she was gone. Plus, it really does conflict with the element of the story where she spends most of the movie assuming she is dreaming, and only really accepting it is real right before the big battle. So if she didn’t think it was real, then it really would be lame to in fact not be real.
Gangster Octopus said:
She certainly had an odd thing going with the hands and the posing. I took it as the character trying to hard to be delicate and gentle and avoiding her darker nature. That whole “making people fall in love with her” thingy.
Tangent said:
I really liked her in that stretching underthingy dress. I could had done with seeing more of her.
based on my initial reaction, and some cursory googling, i’m 85% certain the hatter said down with the bloody big head to the dog.
as for the knave, if he was meant to be disproportionate, they should have exaggerated it more. if a majority of the audience couldn’t tell, then it wasn’t done right IMO.
i think the opium trade is too significant to dismiss. it would be analogous to if this was set in the early 1930’s and alice went to germany to “pursue political aspirations.” maybe disney thought that being a kids’ film, it would be harmless enough, but still to even allow an allusion like that to slip through is kind of weird.
as for Anne Hathaway… is she evil? did she used to BE evil and had a change of heart? see, the problem with the movie being driven by a plotline is that the nonsensical has to now make sense. if this was more like the animated alice, where things were nonsensical for nonsense’s sake, we could all dismiss the White Queen’s mannerisms. However in putting the story against a standard 3-act tale of redemption format, we - the audience, demand logic.
i… just don’t like this movie. it’s not bad, but in realizing how good it could have been, the movie becomes bad.
I could have lived with the by-the-numbers plot if the Wonderland characters had had some energy. They were all just bland, weird looking people.
If you’re going to do a Wonderland themed movie, you may as well make the Wonderland characters act like Wonderland characters, not just look like them.
Well that depends on what kind of movie it is. The books are definitely not that: they are full of subtle puns and logical jokes. (Carrol was a mathematician after all.) So it’s quite natural to expect the same from the movie. And Burton doesn’t seem like the kind of director who wants his audience to turn their brains off. On the contrary (or should I say, “Contrarywise”) he seems unduly impressed with how smart he is and wants us to be too.
OTOH, I was quite able to enjoy Transformers that way, because that was clearly what I was meant to do. I mean . . . giant robots. Megan Fox. What was there to complain about?
i would have turned my brain off if burton had let me. someone else mentioned transformers. you could switch your brain off for that movie because the story was really straightforward and the giant robots loudly and explicitly explained the situation. bad robots are here, these were the good robots, battle ensues.
in Alice though, it wasn’t quite so clearcut. i went in expecting the characters to be weird for the sake of being weird and to not really read into their actions. however, in THIS alice, the writers decided to introduce a storyline that had logic and structure and couch it in a way that wasn’t immediately obvious to the audience. things like:
how the queen of hearts came to power, the backstory of the queen of hearts and the white queen, the resistance movement, how alice fit into this plan, etc.
the problem for me became to differentiate which parts were clues that the writers were dropping me, and which parts were part of the whimsy of wonderland.
little things like:
why the courtiers had on prosthetics? to appease the queen? were they not loyal? was one of them supposed to be someone in disguise? maybe they were just mad and liked to have on different prosthetics. oh snap. the scene’s over? what was the significance of that?
or
what was up with anne hathaway’s hands? what was up with her vow? what is up with her eyebrows? is she evil? was she evil? am i supposed to ignore this? wtf is going on? she can’t kill yet she has no qualms sending others into battle? is this a subtle reveal that she is in fact evil? she must be evil right? what’s she doing with all those fingers? ok. she’s not evil because johnny depp breakdanced?
nitpicks aside, the biggest disappointment for me was
the sparce use of the bevvy of available characters. the walrus and the carpenter is ICONIC of alice lore. mome raths, the dutchess and the cook (instead of the march hare), a white knight, lion/unicorn… just disappointing.
I thought it *was *exaggerated. You couldn’t tell his limbs were too long, his head didn’t match his height, that he was awkward and gangly?
shrug Her father and the company are trading in the Indian Ocean and Asia. Lots of things were traded. The idea was to take their trade goods to the market in China, a vast new market of people. What would they get in return? Whatever would be marketable back in Britain and Europe. Would Alice have been involved in trading for opium? Would she have wanted other things - like silk, spices, exotic tapestries and fabrics? I guess you’re welcome to your own interpretation.
The White Queen is sister to the vile Red Queen, from the same family and influences, but has taken a vow not to harm any living thing. I think she has evil tendencies, but is aware of them, and is purposely trying to restrain them. Thus the vow, and her attitude in court - which is definitely an affectation on her part to convey the attitude she wished she possessed. The mannerisms are part of her regal persona, an indication that she is trying, because it is not her nature. Also note the round of eye-batting and the Red Queen calling her on it, the use of charm and persuasion. So the White Queen knows she has evil thoughts and desires, but wants to be good.
The Red Queen had a hugely disproportionate head, and was mad, and would have people killed on a whim. Ergo, the courtiers were trying to curry favor and not get executed. So they put on prosthetics to pretend that they, too, were disproportionate in some way, and that thus being disproportionate was a good thing, and they couldn’t laugh at her for her head, they shared her plight. But of course they were faking, and when the Queen found out her reaction was typical - “Off with their heads”. Basically, she realized they were insincere, and felt they were thus mocking her.
It wasn’t that confusing.
In addition to what I said above, the hand thing was odd. As I said, I think it was a sign of affectation on her part, of trying too hard. Also perhaps of her control over people to make them like her. Her use of potions was definitely creepy - she makes the potion to fix Alice, but none of the ingredients are particularly pleasant, and some downright disgusting. As for sending others into battle, that is what leaders do. Besides, the folks going into battle on her side were doing so in the name of freedom and goodness, and were willing subjects, not slaves. She didn’t force them to fight for her (like the red cards did for the Red Queen), they were fighting as much for themselves as for her. She was just the figurehead. She will be a Good Queen and not an Evil Queen because she chooses good over evil, rather than by her nature.
I thought it was strange that the White Queen gave Alice the potion to shrink her back to regular size. She was about to fight a Jabberwocky - wouldn’t it serve her well to be a bit bigger?
