I've Often Seen a Cat Without a Grin, but a Grin Without a Cat?

So Tim Burton's latest adaptation of a children's novel, Alice in Wonderland, landed in theaters last weekend.  Mr. Burton can thank me for $14 of its $116,000,000 box office take on opening weekend(two dollars for three dimensions, what a deal! I tell you what, how about I take two dollars in quarters and ball it up in my fist while you put on the glasses and tell me what it looks like when I jam my fist in your mouth.  I'll still need the glasses if I want to reach that third dimension, though).  Apparently I wasn't the only one intrigued by the crew of Hollywood oddballs (Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Crispin Glover) and Burton's interpretation of the classic.  I'm not sure to what to attribute this booming success, but ultimately the reasons for it are not important to my thoughts on the movie itself.  Anyone familiar with Burton's body of work will know that his films offer tremendous exercise for the imagination, but with often significant sacrifices in some of the nuts-and-bolts storytelling components.  Let's start with the fun parts.

Burton movies are always visually a lot of fun to watch, and AIW is no exception.  He has a gift for producing great scenery and costumes.  I personally love the vibrant colors of the film and the way a particular character's costume is used to develop that character as much or more than that character's actions or narrative details.  I was mesmerized by the wicked Queen of Hearts and her outsize head.  Helena Bonham Carter played the part with a certain playful vulnerability that made it hard not to like her, despite her being the antagonist of the story and a genuinely awful person.  There was a good bit of odd dialogue that made me laugh out loud a few times.  Unfortunately, some of my favorite characters had barely any speaking lines at all (the twins, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the Cheshire Cat, and the frogs guarding the evil queen's throne room.)  But all told, it was a very enjoyable visual treat.

But as with so many of his movies, Burton displays little skill or patience for developing the characters.  This leaves the audience with little emotional investment in the outcome of the story.  I wanted to like The Mad Hatter (who I heard aptly described as Willie Wonka, but less Michael Jackson-y), but by the end, I couldn't bring myself to really care what happened to him, or to Alice for that matter.  I'd say it's difficult to take on such classics because of all the childhood memories people have of these stories and the expectations that already exist as a result.  But I've never read Lewis Carroll at all, so I had no particular fondness for the characters going in.  Burton's shortcomings as a storyteller are consistent, though.  His lack of patience for plot development and the resulting unclear plot progression left me feeling like I was watching the Cliff's Notes version of a lengthy book, a consequence of trying to fit too much intrigue and too many ideas into one film without enough background context to help the audience understand why. The scene where Alice meets up with the Hatter while he is having tea with the Dormouse and the March Hare is a perfect illustration.  I imagine the dialogue could have been very enjoyable in its nonsensical way, but it was filmed in such a frenzied manner that I couldn't make heads or tales of what they were saying.  Johnny Depp's mush-mouthed delivery didn't aid clarity one bit.  More than that, though, I think this is a complex tale that would require a deft storyteller to successfully translate the script to screen.    
As with my favorite characters that I couldn't get enough of, there were a few that I could have completely done without had their characters not been so central to the story.  The Blue Caterpillar was one, with his stoned rambling about being who you really are.  He was supposed to be a pivotal player in Alice's development, but only seemed to show up when things were pretty well resolved already.  The other annoyance was Ann Hathaway as the White Queen (Ann Hathaway cast as a Disney princess/queen??  SHOCKING.  Wait, look at me.  Are you looking at me?  This is my shocked face.)  While her white hair and black eyebrows left no mystery to the drapes/carpet question, her hands were what drove me the most insane.  In EVERY scene she was in, she was lifting her hands up around her shoulders or face like she was holding two doves palm down.  I understand her intentionally overacting the part, as did most of the actors in this film.  It adds to the fantastical and fun nature of the film.  But Queen Ricky Bobby has no place in Wonderland. 
This brings me to my last thought.  There were scenes that were obviously meant for little kids who would have enjoyed the book.  But there were also a few scenes that may not be best for small children.  Nothing too scary, but I might think twice about taking my 5-year old.  Which leads to the question, who was the target audience for this?  Like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 2005, it seemed to fall into a sort of target audience void.  I'm not sure what that says about me that I enjoyed it as I did, plot and character development notwithstanding.  However, I'm too tired to pursue any deeper philosophical implications.  I will just leave it at this:  not a film that will evoke much of an emotional response, but plenty of fun to watch if you have some time to kill.  On the Humungus Scale of 1-5, I give it 3 cans of dog food.