I felt the same way, Red. And while I might have given it a 4 out of 5, it would be just for the sheer beauty of the film. I described it as a two-hour music video...amazing to look at, but when you think about it, not much there. I wish they had made it ten minutes longer (still less than two hours), and done a little bit better of a job storytelling.It's hard to believe that this story came from the man who made Edward Scissorhands, or Nightmare Before Christmas. Both of those had so much heart and loveliness. I wish some of that could translate. But, overall, it was so stunning that I didn't feel TOO let down. 

I'm right with you both, Red and Buffs. The visuals were cool and cutting edge, but the story was lifeless. On the way home from the movie I was thinking about what I would write about the film, and really, I can't come up with much more to say. Your critique and the specific examples you raise say it all, Red. I was pretty disappointed, for all the same reasons both of you state. I don't know that I would even say, "well, you should still see it in the theater." I'm not sure that the visuals alone were worth the price of admission - especially with the new 3D 'surcharge.' This film raises a question we were touching on with Avatar, too - are we moving toward movie-making which focuses on creating spectacles without depth? In the same vein I wonder too, if 3D might turn out to be a curse instead of a blessing - if more time and energy aren't going into the effect, rather than into the content effect is supposed to be enhancing.

Totally agree.There is a fundemental problem with this film.  It seems like a souless Tim Burton film.  I would say that they water it down to be a kids film, but we know Tim does great kid films.I would also say that the 3D was bad actually worked against the film since so much of the scene was blurred to do a pull in effect for the 3D. Rent it.  2D is more then fine.I heard recently that Alice in Wonderlad books dont have charcter arcs or any kind of story structure that could be used for a movie, so maybe that is a reason.

Its not a re-make, oh my life do people not know what the film they are watching is about? Its Alice re-visiting wonderland, hence why she's a grown up lady. And I personally think that Tim Burton did a great job at producing the new Alice in Wonderland. I think that his ideas about the jabberwocky and the Red queen or Queen of Hearts, which she originally was, chopping everyones head off was an excellent idea because thats what rulers were like back then. I also personally like the bit before Alice goes to Wonderland because it gives the story more meaning. Did you not realise that at the beginning Alice was young then later she was older which shows it was not a re-make just simply a re-visit. Plus did you not notice the animals/creatures saying "she's the wrong Alice" etc. meaning they were after the Alice that visited the first time. Wow some people are pure noobs at films.

Yeah.  It was like a blind date with a zombie that put a lot of effort into its outfit for the night.Speaking of outfits, I actually got the repeated impression that the inspiration for Alice in Wonderland (AIW) wasn't the original story, but rather a fashion photo shoot.  Basically, before a picture is taken the creative types (photographer, editor, etc) come up with a theme to organize the location, costumes, makeup, and attitude(s) http://photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00U9eq  This impression was heightened by Mia Wasikowska's nearly complete lack of expression.  I mean, yeah, I think she smiled a couple times, but most of her time on camera was spent with a totally relaxed face, just like a fashion model.However, I'll qualify that with a reference to The Phantom Menace where George Lucas' overreliance on green screens managed to turn a half dozen great actors into stone-faced droids.  Apparently, 90% of the movie was shot in green-screen studios, in only 40 days, and I'm pretty sure this is the first movie Burton has done that involved more than one or two uses of green screens.  Burton has always been described as the sort of director that lets his actors interpret their roles, and I think that might have come back to bit him on the ass this time, since an actor surrounded by green screens doesn't have anything to interpret.But I can't blame the actors or the director entirely.  The story has to share the blame as well. I think the script went beyond an over reliance on cliche story elements and actually consisted of nothing but cliche story elements.  It's like someone found a list of "things that always happen in fantasy stories" and just copy and pasted it into Final Draft.  Alice is a teenager unsure of who she is.  Alice lost one or both parents.  Alice is resisting the role she is expected to fill.  Alice is more creative and "free spirited" than anyone around her.  Alice gets emotional and runs away.  Alice is the chosen one.  Alice is the subject of an absurdly specific prophecy.  Alice goes on a voyage of discovery.  Alice finds friends and allies without putting the slightest bit of effort into the relationship.  Alice is guided through an unfamiliar and dangerous world by someone far more competent than she is, but who is still unable to carry out their own plan.  Alice makes friends with every royal she stumbles across.  Alice saves a small, cute, harmless animal who later return the favor.  Alice climbs across a pool of severed heads (okay maybe that one is new).  Alice ignores some political/moral conundrums that are really there for the audience.  Alice escapes from certain death for no good reason.  Alice takes time to reflect.  Alice ultimately decides to do what everyone wants her to do, but becuase she wants to do it.  Alice is the one and only hope.  Alice gets to use a magical sword that totally makes up for her 1/4" thick arms and complete lack of combat experience.  Alice makes some retarded decisions during the fight that increase the stakes but in no way interfere with her ability to pull a victory out of her ass.  Alice fights a dragon on a tower.  Alice's actions, for no particular reason, show everyone on the other side the error of their ways and all fightin everywhere is over.  Alice says her goodbyes.  Alice returns to the real world knowing exactly who she is. Alice rides on a boat.It's kind of like how some movies try to adapt a comic character to a live-action format and fail miserably because they translate the character too literally (see the Cat in the Hat movie).  Burton translated the Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass story too literally when he should have used it as inspiration for an actual coherent storyline.  I mean, Burton said he wanted to follow the Jabberwocky poem.  What makes less sense than the Jabberwocky poem? However, all that being said, I think the biggest reason the movie failed was that none of the relationships between the main characters actually existed.  Perhaps the best example I can think of is that the movie foreshadows some great dance that the Mad Hatter would do when their mission was completed, and then the Mad Hatter totally does a freaky weird dance.  Box checked.  What should have happended was, after the final climactic battle, all the characters move to the final climactic party scene where the audience gets to see all the jubilation the ousting of the evil queen produced among the regular people.  How are we supposed to believe Alice-n-friends just accomplished something great if every single person in the shot just stands around staring at a guy who can't be bothered to move more than the lower half of his body?  Even the surviving knights don't do anything!  They just lived through a war, and put their beloved queen back on the throne, and not a single person rejoices.  No.  What we should have seen was the giant party that all royalty throws when they ascend the thrown.  At this party Alice and her friends should have been the guests of honor, and the Mad Hatter can be cajoled into doing his dance, which then inspires everyone else to dance.  This we we KNOW that something good has been done.  I mean, the other characters couldn't shut up about how much they wanted to see the Mad Hatter do his stupid little jig and when he finally does it, and they've just lived through a war, they all just stand around an smile at each other.  Where's the revelry? I'll tell you what that scene looked like: it looked like a group of acquaintances who don't particularly like each other, each silently wondering if it is too soon to be the first one to walk off.  It looked like an office party.  It looked like Michael Scott made everyone stand in a circle and watch him perform a dance he thought was awesome, but everyone just wants to go home.  Personally, I call this the Star Trek Effekt (c).  The biggest problem with Star Trek is that the characters always stand around like lawn ornaments flapping their lips about how emotional they are and how much they like each other.  Lies!  If you like someone, you give them a hug, or you high five, or you at least interact with them in some way.  In Alice in Wonderland we're supposed to believe that all these characters love each other, and would die for each other, but don't want their personal space bubble violated.  And the final scene was just a good example, the same mistake was illustrated througout the entire movie. 

Absolutely true- there was so much depth unexplored about every character. It felt like Burton tried to pack as many things as possible into a movie but didn't have enough time to let us examine and appreciate the more important ones.The White Queen, for example- I'm glad I'm not the only one who found Little Miss Graverobber more than a wee bit creepy. "Harm no living thing" doesn't prevent her from going out with a shovel and hacksaw (like it appears she does). Yes, she likes it- she may as well have started munching on the dead finger the way she smiled when smelling it. And she just happened to have vials on hand to collect blood from the Jabberwock on the battlefield. Opportunistic pillager of the dead indeed.I'd say Depp sold his role as Hatter quite well, and is one of the characters I don't find terribly lacking- though perhaps being mad gives him a pass on the explaining. In contrast, Stane was about as deep as a wading pool. Evil henchman toady trope all the way. I feel more could've been done to make him either a sympathetic character or one you loved to hate. As it stands you just plain hated him.All that being said, this is really really ripe for an HISHE short. I can imagine the White Queen running around the battlefield chopping bits off the dead people after she sends Alice back. That and the Red Queen simply refusing to march on the prophesied day and staying home for tea instead. I mean, if the magic scroll that's never been wrong before says you're going to lose when you meet on the field, why go in the first place?And I really wish they'd made a little play on "Frumious Bandersnatch" where someone said "Don't make him frumious. You wouldn't like him when he's frumious."

Couldn't agree more with your review. Visually arresting, but completely lacking in the story department (I guess Lewis Carroll is a tough act to follow). As I mentioned elsewhere on the Interwebs, it was missing the literary whimsy and delightful nonsense that made the original books so powerful, and also fell well short of the Disney animated version. The same goes for Tim Burton's earlier remake of Willy Wonka/Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. He should stick to developing original characters and stories instead of reimagining existing works—doesn't Hollywood give us enough of that pablum already?

wuf  i only liked the ending for 2 reasons1 the flutter dance or whatnot it was awesome but only lasted like 10 seconds.and 2 it ended this acid inspirited train wreck of a movie.

ever since i watched Big Fish, i can't shake the feeling that Tim Burton is tired. i like him alot, but his works in the recent years feel oddy disappointed.