Burton’s ‘Wonderland’ is a pointless remake

"ALICE IN WONDERLAND"(L-R) Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Anne Hathaway. (Disney/MCT)

With more than three dozen film adaptations of “Alice in Wonderland” collecting dust on the shelves of your local FYE, why did we need Tim Burton to make just one more? Granted, another movie based on the Lewis Carroll classic isn’t as needless or as inessential as that upcoming “Stretch Armstrong” movie, but it’s still something that all of us could’ve done without. Especially if it’s a joyless, kinder-goth interpretation from a man whose films now basically function as extended infomercials for Hot Topic stores.

Still, to Burton’s credit, he was smart enough to realize that a faithful adaptation would have been boring at this point in time. Unfortunately, a straighter adaptation would have been preferable to Burton’s “improvements,” which aren’t just boring but self-serious and idiotic as well.

Serving as a sort-of quasi-sequel to the original story (and apparently ignoring the actual sequel, “Through the Looking Glass”), “Alice in Wonderland” opens with a now 19-year-old Alice (Mia Wasikowska) who’s left disaffected by the death of her father and by her mother’s decision to marry her off to a stodgy British lord. However, during Alice’s awkward engagement party, she chases after a rabbit in a waistcoat and finds herself falling through a rabbit hole where the film briefly goes through the paces of the original book. That is until it’s revealed by the Caterpillar (Alan Rickman) that Alice may be the “chosen one” who will free the inhabitants of Wonderland (or Underland, as the film insists on calling it) from the tyranny of the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) when she slays the Jabberwocky on Frabbulous Day. But some doubts remain over whether this Alice is the right Alice, and is all of this just a panic-induced dream or does Alice actually have to slay the Jabberwocky with her trusty vorpal sword?

In interviews, Burton has said that he wasn’t a fan of Carroll’s book. He’s said that “Alice in Wonderland” wasn’t a story but just a series of events. Fair enough. No one’s forcing Burton to like the book. But if he didn’t have an “emotional connection” to the story, why did he bother adapting it into a movie, especially when most of his ideas were so ill-conceived? First of all, “Alice in Wonderland” is many things, but it isn’t an epic fantasy. It’s not “The Lord of the Rings,” and it definitely isn’t “The Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe.” To try to turn it into such is a losing proposition only manages to drain what little amount of playfulness that remains in this story.

As in Burton’s disappointing adaptation of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Alice in Wonderland” is filled with unnecessary backstories that go nowhere and a compulsive need to explain away the more surreal elements of the book. All of this might have been marginally forgivable if, like most of Burton’s projects, the film was pleasant to look at. But it isn’t. It’s so overloaded with CGI effects that it looks flat, dreary and unforgivably ugly.

Even worse, the performances — apart from Wasikowska and Anne Hathaway, who plays the vapid White Queen — are listless, obnoxious and underplayed. Johnny Depp seems to be burnt out by his own quirkiness and brings nothing to his role as the Mad Hatter. Even the usually reliable Crispin Glover is forgettable, and when Glover is squandered, something is terribly wrong.

Disappointing, dull and completely superfluous, “Alice in Wonderland” is an overblown disaster. To quote a line from the original book, Tim Burton can “Eat me.”

Rating: W