Alice in Wonderland 3D
Mar. 8th, 2010 01:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe praise
I saw Alice in Wonderland 3D. I thought it was really good. I expected it to simply be an adaption of the original story, and based on the still pictures I'd seen of it, expected it to be ok, but not really add anything. And Alice, while famous for many reasons, isn't actually that interesting to watch any more, as it's just a random collection of weird things and out-of-date-parodies that are inventive close to our hearts, but no longer really interesting or exciting to watch.
Instead, it's an expansion of the world, asking "suppose there were an interesting and tense world of which a small fraction were comprehended by a six-year-old Alice, what would the rest look like?" Which is generally a disaster of misinterpretation and over-ambition, but Tim Burton does it really, really well. Indeed, after seeing it, I wish more of the original story had appeared in flashbacks.
The Good
The world is beautifully portrayed, and at least to me fits the tradition of Carol's world. Remember the flamingos and hedgehogs? Well, go one step further and imagine how creepy it is when the hedgehog is actually scared! :)
The characters are great.
It's occasionally funny and occasionally tense.
Criticisms of what people said on the internet.
"It wasn't very 3d-y". No, it wasn't. It would be nearly as good in 2d. But honestly, it uses 3d for minor realism, rather than being IN YOUR FACE every two seconds. Isn't that mostly a good thing? People who want IN YOUR FACE can see the stupid 3d piranha attack movie. Whether you like 3d or not, do people complain that "that film didn't make much use of color, it might as well have been in black and white"? Well, maybe, but I don't think that's a reason to dismiss the good stuff!
"3d is a scam by the studios to get people to go to the cinema" That's not really Alice's fault! You can see it in 2d if you want (IIRC).
"Depp was Depp" OK, the Mad Hatter has some correspondence with several different characters Depp has played, but I thought he was very good. He wasn't just randomly mad and eccentric, as I'd feared, he was balanced between madness, doing the right thing, and being terrified.
"It's a bland committee-driven Disney family movie Burton sold out to make" I can see that maybe it could have been MORE telling, and there's a few things which are a bit cliche, but honestly, it was enjoyable and had a strong, simple story. Maybe that's just the level of bland that I fall for, but I have difficulty seeing it as a bad thing, especially compared to movies which are ACTUALLY BAD.
"There was supposed to be genuine mystery about whether Alice was actually Alice" Um. I understand your point, but I don't think there was. I think we all knew that, and the question was "would Alice accept it". Well, ok, that's obvious as well, but I think "hero picks up her destiny", while not the eighth original idea, is a story that doesn't suffer from being told in more than one film.
"It was too weird. I loved it, but no-one else will get it."
"It was too formulaic. Anyone could have done it." OK, people will legitimately disagree about this. But FWIW, I thought it was more-or-less right.
"Christopher Lee steals the show with only two lines" Well, ok, I agree with this one. I don't agree with their criticism of most of the rest of the characters, but I would like to see much much more Lee Jaberwocky :)
The bad
There are several points where it becomes a bit cliched. And I felt it could have had twice as much in. People looking to criticise can probably concentrate on them. But on the whole it does very well.
The ugly
I think every one of the characters was not how I'd imagined them, but convinced me of their portrayal almost instantly. Especially the Jabberwocky creatures which are notoriously hard to depict without argument.
The Bechdel-Wallace: are women portrayed badly?
I give it B+. (Which is the highest score I've given for ages, possibly ever, though I've only rated a random sample of films I've seen.)
Good: Alice is awesome in the champion's armour.
Good: Alice makes decisions and generally drives her own life.
Good: Alice and the two Queens are the major driving characters, and talk to each other multiple times (passing the technical category).
Good: There is no tacked-on love story.
Good: At the end, Alice is not handed an idyllic victory on a platter, but sets off for adventure.
Neutral: The queens are very vivid characters but both have notable negative characteristics that could be seen as negative stereotypes. I do not trust my own judgement on this point, but IMHO the same would be said whichever characters were female, so I think the problem is with the stereotypes existing, not with the film.
Neutral: Alice herself does lots of fun things, but isn't especially distinctive as a character.
Neutral: The film approaches a "independent heroine in patriarchal society has suspiciously modern ideals" cliche (which is an understandable cliche, but often rather overdone and rather a cop-out), but does it very well: Alice comes across not as someone implausibly ahead of her time, but as someone who knows what _she_ wants (and no doubt would seem very dreamy and hopeless to everyone else).
Neutral: There are many female minor characters in the real world, although most of what they talk about it related to the proposed engagement.
Neutral: Most of the non-queen major characters in wonderland were male, as in the original.
Bad: IIRC none or almost none of the wonderland minor characters were female.
Bad: Losing clothes every time you shrink or grow fits the weirdness of the world very well, but as rmc points out was probably shown gratuitously.
I saw Alice in Wonderland 3D. I thought it was really good. I expected it to simply be an adaption of the original story, and based on the still pictures I'd seen of it, expected it to be ok, but not really add anything. And Alice, while famous for many reasons, isn't actually that interesting to watch any more, as it's just a random collection of weird things and out-of-date-parodies that are inventive close to our hearts, but no longer really interesting or exciting to watch.
Instead, it's an expansion of the world, asking "suppose there were an interesting and tense world of which a small fraction were comprehended by a six-year-old Alice, what would the rest look like?" Which is generally a disaster of misinterpretation and over-ambition, but Tim Burton does it really, really well. Indeed, after seeing it, I wish more of the original story had appeared in flashbacks.
The Good
The world is beautifully portrayed, and at least to me fits the tradition of Carol's world. Remember the flamingos and hedgehogs? Well, go one step further and imagine how creepy it is when the hedgehog is actually scared! :)
The characters are great.
It's occasionally funny and occasionally tense.
Criticisms of what people said on the internet.
"It wasn't very 3d-y". No, it wasn't. It would be nearly as good in 2d. But honestly, it uses 3d for minor realism, rather than being IN YOUR FACE every two seconds. Isn't that mostly a good thing? People who want IN YOUR FACE can see the stupid 3d piranha attack movie. Whether you like 3d or not, do people complain that "that film didn't make much use of color, it might as well have been in black and white"? Well, maybe, but I don't think that's a reason to dismiss the good stuff!
"3d is a scam by the studios to get people to go to the cinema" That's not really Alice's fault! You can see it in 2d if you want (IIRC).
"Depp was Depp" OK, the Mad Hatter has some correspondence with several different characters Depp has played, but I thought he was very good. He wasn't just randomly mad and eccentric, as I'd feared, he was balanced between madness, doing the right thing, and being terrified.
"It's a bland committee-driven Disney family movie Burton sold out to make" I can see that maybe it could have been MORE telling, and there's a few things which are a bit cliche, but honestly, it was enjoyable and had a strong, simple story. Maybe that's just the level of bland that I fall for, but I have difficulty seeing it as a bad thing, especially compared to movies which are ACTUALLY BAD.
"There was supposed to be genuine mystery about whether Alice was actually Alice" Um. I understand your point, but I don't think there was. I think we all knew that, and the question was "would Alice accept it". Well, ok, that's obvious as well, but I think "hero picks up her destiny", while not the eighth original idea, is a story that doesn't suffer from being told in more than one film.
"It was too weird. I loved it, but no-one else will get it."
"It was too formulaic. Anyone could have done it." OK, people will legitimately disagree about this. But FWIW, I thought it was more-or-less right.
"Christopher Lee steals the show with only two lines" Well, ok, I agree with this one. I don't agree with their criticism of most of the rest of the characters, but I would like to see much much more Lee Jaberwocky :)
The bad
There are several points where it becomes a bit cliched. And I felt it could have had twice as much in. People looking to criticise can probably concentrate on them. But on the whole it does very well.
The ugly
I think every one of the characters was not how I'd imagined them, but convinced me of their portrayal almost instantly. Especially the Jabberwocky creatures which are notoriously hard to depict without argument.
The Bechdel-Wallace: are women portrayed badly?
I give it B+. (Which is the highest score I've given for ages, possibly ever, though I've only rated a random sample of films I've seen.)
Good: Alice is awesome in the champion's armour.
Good: Alice makes decisions and generally drives her own life.
Good: Alice and the two Queens are the major driving characters, and talk to each other multiple times (passing the technical category).
Good: There is no tacked-on love story.
Good: At the end, Alice is not handed an idyllic victory on a platter, but sets off for adventure.
Neutral: The queens are very vivid characters but both have notable negative characteristics that could be seen as negative stereotypes. I do not trust my own judgement on this point, but IMHO the same would be said whichever characters were female, so I think the problem is with the stereotypes existing, not with the film.
Neutral: Alice herself does lots of fun things, but isn't especially distinctive as a character.
Neutral: The film approaches a "independent heroine in patriarchal society has suspiciously modern ideals" cliche (which is an understandable cliche, but often rather overdone and rather a cop-out), but does it very well: Alice comes across not as someone implausibly ahead of her time, but as someone who knows what _she_ wants (and no doubt would seem very dreamy and hopeless to everyone else).
Neutral: There are many female minor characters in the real world, although most of what they talk about it related to the proposed engagement.
Neutral: Most of the non-queen major characters in wonderland were male, as in the original.
Bad: IIRC none or almost none of the wonderland minor characters were female.
Bad: Losing clothes every time you shrink or grow fits the weirdness of the world very well, but as rmc points out was probably shown gratuitously.
Re: Tacked-on love stories
Date: 2010-03-08 05:52 pm (UTC)