It has been years since I’ve been enthused by a new Tim Burton movie. When I read, a couple of years ago, that he was going to make his own, dark version of the fantasy classic “Alice in Wonderland” I felt, despite my best judgment, a little wave of hope. If any subject could, this was exactly the one that could bring Burton’s filmmaking back to life. It has all the ingredients of a great Burton movie – the out-of-this-word fantasy, vivid characters, rich settings, and a wonderful, deviant story; the same elements that years ago made films like “Batman”, “Edward Scissorhands”, “Sleepy Hollow” or even “Beetlejuice” some of the most iconoclastic and lovable movies of the late 80’s-90’s. But as much as it tries, “Alice in Wonderland” doesn’t even come close to the level of those early movies; those at least had charm, while “Alice” falls instead into the kind of film that Burton has been producing lately: regurgitated, uninspired and lifeless.

I used to be a big Tim Burton fan. His films were misshapen but original, out-of-place weirdos in the Hollywood industry that still managed to steal your heart and captivate your eyes with lovable monsters as protagonists – more human and warm than the humans around them – and a visual style that was dark and gothic, yet also naïve and enchanting. It seemed that Burton, an outsider himself, could only express himself in his movies, and through them he genuinely managed to reach all of us. But somewhere between his marriage to Helena Bonham-Carter and his “mature” turn with “Big Fish” (a big flop, if you ask me), he lost his way. He lost his ingenuity, his love of film and his touch with the outcast child inside him, and turned into another industry drone converting what had made him unique into “trademarks” and marketable products. It is not a coincidence that many thought “Alice” would be the perfect project for him. It is not only the elements and the story that have a “Burtonish” feel; Lewis Carroll himself reminds me of an early Burton, an outsider viewed as marginal and weird, having trouble to communicate (Carroll used to stutter) and more connected to their childish fantasies than to the real world. But Burton seems to have forgotten how it feels to be the unwanted loner he once portrayed with such heart.

Everyone knows at least vaguely what “Alice in Wonderland” is about. The books, the Disney movie and many, many adaptations have made sure that we know, and have imprinted little Alice, the rabbit hole and the crazy inhabitants of that world into our general consciousness (even “The Matrix” referenced it). But strangely, although both movies share the Disney seal, Burton’s new version has little to do with the 1951 animated film that we all watched in our childhoods. The visuals here are darker (of course), the tone is much more serious (first surprise), but, most strange of all, the new “Alice” actually has a plot. 

The episodic, wandering structure of the 1951 “Alice in Wonderland” animated film is why a lot of people consider it one of the lesser Disney movies, and why it didn’t make as much money when it came out. True, it is a weird product in the Disney factory, not plot-driven and fairy-tale-like like the other classics. It is, however, very close in spirit with the actual book by Lewis Carroll, which, contrary to popular belief, is not so much a fairy-tale as a playful riddle for kids and adults, built on satire and episodic adventures, and characters that are more mocking lunatics than typical heroes and villains. That is one of the reasons why “Alice” is one of my favorite Disney movies. Ironically enough, though, Burton’s new approach tries to be closer to those fairy-tale classics and their structures than to the free form of the original book, which is the last thing I expected from him.  Burton said that he couldn’t connect to the book very well so he wanted to give this movie more of a plot. When Burton was making money with the Batmans and “Edward Scissorhands”, he was often criticized for not having a solid plot. It is true that while his heart and visuals were always in place, one could find flaws in his storytelling, which lacked focus and wasn’t streamlined. But Burton worked better out of the conventional forms, and I believe his movies, although not perfect, had an extra charm because of that. That is why it is so unsettling to see that he not only doesn’t embrace the lack of constrictions that “Alice in Wonderland” offers, but feels the need to turn it into conventional movie fare. Burton takes elements from “Through the looking glass”, the book’s sequel, such as the Jabberwocky (a monster that in the movie is built up as ominous and ends up being a disappointing lizard) and turns them from playful scoundrels to serious villains, thus giving a direction and purpose to Alice and her wanderings. But the plot doesn’t manage to make the movie any better, and it doesn’t seem to bring Burton closer to his subject either.  In fact, Alice’s “trials” and objectives had me yawning once or twice. The plot is plain and uninspired and I would much rather have watched some crazy, aimless meanderings. Burton’s older movies seem actually closer in spirit to Carroll’s surprises and riddles than his actual adaptation of “Alice”, which just falls flat. Burton tries to live up to his fame of king of the dark and strange, but his has become mainly a darkness of the superficial, not a darkness of the soul. I just find it scary that between conservative, syrupy Walt Disney (he was still supervising production when his animated feature was made) and supposedly odd and original Burton, Disney would be making the most alternative movie of the two. In the 70’s the Disney movie was re-claimed by college kids who liked its “heady” elements and strangeness, very connected to drugs. I can’t see who will re-claim this one.

It is not just about the plot. The “Alice in Wonderland” of Tim Burton lacks so much in spirit that I don’t know why Burton kept the “Wonderland” in the title because there is hardly any wonder in it. He even changes the name of the world to Underland (why the change doesn’t extend to the title? I don’t know), and I think it is much more appropriate, not because the fantasy world is moody and twisted in an exciting way, but because it is sad and depressing. I am not saying “Alice” is an easy classic to adapt – there is a reason why many have failed, even the 1951 Disney classic was considered a failure in its time. But it should at least be more fun. The book has some of the most vivid characters and situations in print, yet the movie tends to run slow and not find any enjoyment in any of the craziness. Just like Alice, who simply scowls and looks at people funny the whole time. I would even go further and say that the beginning and the few scenes of social satire in the real world are much more fun and entertaining than the fantasy part. Maybe Burton should stop going for what people expect from him, and dare instead to dip his foot in slightly new territory. Until then, Underland feels as dead as it sounds, and no amount of 3D can compensate for that.

The actors are not badly cast. Both Queens are very visual and engaging (Bonham Carter and her big head; Anne Hathaway and her cute, pure whiteness), and Stephen Fry in particular is the perfect voice for the famous and enigmatic Cheshire Cat, here given a haughty English accent; so is Alan Rickman (the Caterpillar), whom I just love in anything he does.  But Mia Wasikowska, despite having the Alice look – although I don’t know why there was a necessity to make her older – doesn’t bring much to her role. And as much as I like Johnny Depp sometimes, I think his partnership with Tim Burton has gone more than stale. If Burton wants to try a new recipe – which I think would revive his films – maybe the over-disguised Depp could be one of the first ingredients to go…

Finally, as for the 3D, yes, the visuals were pretty beautiful sometimes and definitely worth the glasses; but I haven’t seen much that is new or different from all the Tim Burton movies. His visuals again seem to just be echoes of his past creations, and if that is fine, what is disappointing is that a movie like “Nightmare Before Christmas” made in the unfussy tradition of hand-made-clay, is still today ten times more fascinating than the “Alice’s” modern computer effects could ever be.

All in all, a disappointing film, entertaining at its best, lacking life and full of overused “Burtonisms” at its worst. I do firmly believe Tim Burton can still make a great movie, I just think he has to find again the inspiration he has lost, that used to always win my heart. Above everything, he has to prove he still loves movies, or people will start thinking that the disastrous “Planet of the Apes” was not the unmentionable fluke that every Burton fan wants to believe it was.