The most difficult movies to write about are the movies that are good… but you wanted them to be great. When you either love or hate a film, the words naturally flow. When a film is disappointing, even its strengths become a painful reminder of how much better it could have been. This is where Tim Burton’s adaptation of Alice in Wonderland belongs, an enjoyable film but the talent behind it had the potential to provide much more substance.

Taking elements of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is now nineteen years old and is about to get engaged… when she spots a white rabbit wearing a waistcoat and pocket watch. Alice follows the rabbit down its hole where she falls down into Underland. (Commonly referred to as “Wonderland” by its inhabitants) With the help of the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and his friends, Alice learns that she is destined to defeat Red Queen’s (Helena Bonham Carter) Jabberwocky (voice of Christopher Lee) and return the throne to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway).

The film’s strongest point is its style; say what you will about Burton, but the man undoubtedly has a colorful gothic sensibility that fits the the story perfectly. Underworld looks magnificently imaginative and even though some major changes in the overall plot are made, you still get a sense of Carroll’s vision leaking through.

Unfortunately, Burton seems to focus so much on the CGI and 3-D technology that someone forgot about all those old-school techniques like plot and characters. It is not that these elements of the film are terrible, just by the numbers. There are so many compelling and complex themes within Carroll’s work about growing-up and death that fit so well into his thematic narrative style, that you could make a compelling picture with a faithful adaptation. It makes seeing Carroll’s work turned into a Disneyfied, clichéd “Girl Power/Fantasy Action” movie all the more disheartening. As for 3-D, I am not against the idea of technology, as it does add to the theatre-going experience but I need something more compelling within the story to keep my interest. Otherwise what stops films from being amusement park rides instead of works of art?

Though it is not fair to say that the overly simple plot and characters are the technology’s fault. As a die-hard fan of Burton, I will admit that his blockbusters commonly suffer. (Batman, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) While they are fun and still have his visual signature, they lack the personal human touch he brings to his masterpieces. (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood) Despite what seems to be an obvious pairing, the film would have been better suited to Burton’s storytelling abilities had it stayed closer to the source material.

I realize that this review is starting to sound negative, so I want to state that I can never truly hate a film where Christopher Lee voices a dragon. Alice in Wonderland is a visually beautiful film, the 3-D technology while slightly distracting is still a lot of fun. The performances are uniformly terrific, particularly Depp and up and comer Wasikowska. As Alice, Wasikowska brings a great deal of charm to the role and gives us an likeable character that keeps the story grounded and focused on the lead, despite all the craziness surrounding her, the craziest thing being the Mad Hatter. Depp knows how to create a fun character that is distinctive and the right amount of zaniness. The two have a great brother sister chemistry that helps to overcome some of the weak characterization and plot.

So there certainly is a lot to like, just nothing that’s particularly amazing. I guess the best way to get across my feelings for “Alice is Wonderland” is that it is like expecting a pony but only getting a puppy. No one is going to complain about a puppy… but you really wanted that damn pony.

- John Debono