Me gusta leer y ver la tele

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Pretty But

You know I was eagerly anticipating Tim Burton's take on Alice in Woderland. I usually like Burton's films, and I love all things Alice. I love Johnny Depp, and the trailer looked great. It seemed like all the planets were aligned for this movie to be amazing, right?

The visuals were, hands down, the best thing in the movie. The costumes and backgrounds and make-up were great, wildly imaginative, whimsical, and masterfully conceived. At the same time, they were incredibly true to the illustrations in the book, which blew me away. The Jabberwocky looked just like the picture from the book, and the drawing of Alice facing him with the sword is taken directly from the book. The dodo (cane included!) makes an appearance, Twidledee and Twidledum carry their wooden swords, the hybrids of rocking horse and pegasus show up, the Gryphon is there, the butler toads… Basically, the characters either look almost exactly like they do in the book, or their design has been improved. Wonderland is a feast of shapes and colors, of creatures and crazy architecture, and that was a lot of fun to look at.

The acting was also great, and everyone in the movie did a very good job portraying their characters. Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter reminded me of Jack Sparrow a couple of times, though, but that is forgivable (as opposed to his little dance, which isn't). Helena Bonham Carter ruled as the Red Queen and looked freakish in a good way, but Anne Hathaway (who looked freakish in a bad way) didn't move me nearly as much. Mia Wasikowska did an excellent job as Alice, and Stephen Fry's Cheshire Cat was extraordinary.

Here comes the but, though. The movie was pretty to look at, granted, and everyone involved convinced me this world was real and the characters were real. Unfortunately, the story was horribly lacking, and that ruined the movie for me. It is not that the story was missing something; there simply was no story to speak of. As soon as Alice lands in Wonderland (and I'm not spoiling anything by saying this), we learn she is supposed to slay the Jabberwocky with the vorpal blade. However, what follows that revelation is basically an hour and a half of touring Wonderland until the elements to fulfill the prophecy come together and she can take a crack at it. That's it. All the character development takes place right at the end of the movie, all the growing Alice does and the realizations she comes to happen right at the end of the film instead of through her time and adventures in Wonderland. During her travels, Alice is simply thrown from one place to the next so that the audience can see this bizarre land and meet its even more bizarre dwellers. It's an hour an a half of pretty scenery and nothing else, a pretty package with no present inside. And that, in my opinion, is a bad idea and a worse film. If this is supposed to be a journey of self-discovery, said discovery of the self should happen throughout the story, not in a mere five seconds right at the end. If felt more like an afterthought, as if the creators of the film, busy as they were giving us a tour of the place, had forgotten all about it, and then realized their oversight and tried to put something together in a hurry.

I hope you have noticed I am not discussing how faithful Linda Woolverton's screenplay is to the books, because that is not relevant. The movie is true enough to the spirit of the books to render that point moot, but there is no story in this movie, no progression, no evolution, and that's what I take exception to. If this is the Alice Tim Burton is satisfied with, well, that makes one of us. What a missed opportunity to craft a memorable tale.

7 comments:

Nash said...

Creo que tenias muy altas espectativas con esta peli y por eso te ha defraudado tanto. A mi Alicia no es una historia que me llame mucho, asi que esperare a verla en DVD y más despues de tu critica

Anonymous said...

Estoy de acuerdo con Nash en lo de tus expectativas, Fel, aunque el argumento que esgrimes es lo suficientemente objetivo y convincente como para saber que a mí tampoco me va a gustar.

Y es curioso, porque recuerdo haber leído unas declaraciones de Tim Burton en las que decía que lo que menos le atraía del libro de Carroll es que no es más que una serie de aventuras no conectadas entre sí, sin una estructura definida. Más o menos lo que es esta película, según parece.

Mario Alba said...

Está claro que tenía expectativas altísimas, pero, como bien dices, Hal, creo que mis razones son bastante objetivas. Una cosa es que la historia me hubiera gustado más o menos, pero es que apenas sí la hay! Mucho me sorprendería que te gustara.

Un crítico en Rotten Tomatoes decía que esta es sin duda la mejor película de Burton, a lo que no puedo sino gritarle si acaso ha visto otras películas del amigo Tim.

Con respecto a sus comentarios sobre la estructura del libro, sí que es curioso. El guión trata de darle unidad a los paseos de Alicia recurriendo a aquello de la profecía y tal, pero la unidad no aparece por ningún lado.

Por otro lado, ahora que vuestras expectativas son más bien bajas, tal vez no os defraude la peli, especialmente a Nacho; aunque, como ya he dicho, me sorprendería que Hal le diera un aprobado :)

Anonymous said...

Pues nada, al cine que iré a verla. Primero, porque si lo mejor que tiene son sus visuales, me pondré bien a gusto las gafas 3D. Y segundo, porque tras esta crítica, seguro que no me va a defraudar. No me espero nada del otro mundo.

Mario Alba said...

Hahaha. Ya me dirás qué opinión te merece, pues. Y qué tal las 3D, porque yo pasé de pagar extra (menos mal) y la vi en 2D.

Y hablando de terceras dimensiones, mañana voy a ver Avatar (esta vez en 2D) con Crystal, que aún no la ha visto.

Nash said...

El 3D por un par de dolares, que no euros que son bastante más caros, merece la pena, no sea ratonil, si es una peli que lo impresionante son los efectos y el mundo.

Mario Alba said...

Con no ir a ver dos pelis en 3D tengo dinero para ver una tercera. Pasando de la ídem D.