BY ALLIE GOLDBERG

In print | Published March 18, 2010

Because of an incredibly busy schedule and a rather lengthy word requirement, I am going to review two completely unrelated movies that I viewed over break.

First, Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” (2010). I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. Although I did not leave the theater with that wow feeling I had after watching movies such as “Up” (2009) and “Slumdog Millionaire” (2009), I wasn’t too terribly disappointed that I had to pay $12.50 for it.

There weren’t any actors that I thought could do a better job in it. The girl who played Alice, Mia Wasikowska, is not very well known but, in my opinion, did a fine job amongst a cast of established Hollywood celebrities. The White Queen, played by Anne Hathaway (“The Princess Diaries”), didn’t look like she knew what to do with her hands the whole movie (just watch and you’ll see what I mean; she looked like something between a germaphobe and a marionette puppet) but she did get the sickeningly angelic role across. Once again, Helena Bonham-Carter (“Sweeney Todd”), who played the Red Queen, outshone Johnny Depp (“Pirates of the Caribbean”), who played the Mad Hatter; her characteristic sharpness brought the perfect amount of humor and sass to the role. However, I was glad to see that Johnny Depp wasn’t as outrageously weird (and thus creepy) as he was in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” (2005). As for all the CGI-animated critters (including the Cheshire Cat and Red Queen’s body), they were a good balance of cute, eerie and mystical.

One thing I really enjoyed about the film was that it wasn’t too macabre, as Tim Burton flicks tend to be. Granted, the cutesy ghoulishness is what Tim Burton is famous for, but it was really neat to see a less morbid side of his art. I was, however, happy to see that he preserved the slightly sinister element to the Cheshire Cat’s smile. It was also nice to see that “Alice in Wonderland” wasn’t too terribly like the 1951 Disney animated film. Yes, the main characters looked very similar to the ones in the Disney movie, but this rendition was surprisingly more adult than its Technicolor counterpart.

“Alice in Wonderland” actually had a “moral” to it, too. And no, not one that induces guilt trips or arguments with your inner Jiminy Cricket, thank goodness. The “moral” was more along the lines of personal empowerment and going for what you truly want out of life. It was a nice, grounding element to the movie and it definitely kept you from feeling like someone sprinkled LSD on your popcorn.

I did not have the privilege of seeing it in the 3D version but I’m almost glad I didn’t — Alice does a lot of tumbling and whirling in the film so I can only imagine that the 3D version tumbled and whirled you right along with her. For those of you with weak stomachs, it might be wise to smuggle in some Dramamine with those candy bars you bought at 5 Below beforehand. Also, because I did not see the 3D version, my friend and I noticed that the screen was often difficult to watch at some points, most likely due to poor translation from 3D to 2D. Hopefully this will be fixed for the DVD version.

Next up for examination is “The Time Traveler’s Wife” (2009), starring Eric Bana (“Star Trek”) as Henry and Rachel McAdams (“Mean Girls”) as Clare. I watched this with my mom and kid sister one day over break and I writhed in pain throughout the whole thing. Okay, it wasn’t quite that painful to watch, but it was definitely not a worthwhile movie. This is probably due to the fact that it’s more confusing than 14th century literature, slightly disturbing and more inherently depressing than “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (2008).

The story is centered around a romance between Clare, a normal girl, and Henry, who has a genetic mutation that causes him to involuntarily travel through time. While this sounds as though it has the potential to be a good sci-fi flick or romance, it was poorly laid out on screen and thus impossible to follow. Throughout the entire movie my mom and I exchanged more dumbfounded looks than contestants on “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?” It was a tough story to portray but perhaps if they had made it simpler, there wouldn’t be so many plot holes.

I said above that the movie was “slightly disturbing.” While the film had nothing even remotely reminiscent of the cannibalism in “The Book of Eli” (2010) or the incest in “Old Boy” (2003), you can’t help but twinge once or twice when you realize that Henry continually meets and converses with the younger Clare (we’re talking age six here), knowing about and sometimes hinting of their future love. Nothing nasty happens, but the hint of pedophilia was a bit too strong for my taste.

As for the movie’s intrinsic misery, I’ll give you a hint as to why: one day Henry from the near future appears on the floor in front of Clare and present-day Henry. Problem is, he’s bleeding profusely and rather fatally. In a sense it was exactly like “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” where you’re essentially watching a countdown to a man’s expiration date. But what made it worse than Mr. Button’s story was that they didn’t know when or how Henry would perish, and a baby was on the way. In short, it was not quite the light-hearted or uplifting film I expected it to be.

It’s a shame that the movie stunk so badly because the actors did admirable jobs. Alas, I don’t recommend seeing it. Ever. Unless you’ve got a hankering for confusion and/or boredom.

« RETURN TO LIVING & ARTS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »