Alice in Wonderland (3D)

I put off writing this one for a few reasons.  In fact, it may be too late to influence anyone, but the irritation I felt still lingers. 

Burton did Alice a disservice.  There I said it.

I wanted to like it, I really did.  I had been excited to see it from the day I heard Time Burton was taking the classic out-of-body tale on.  Until the day I saw the first trailer.  It looked nothing like what I had expected, but Burton was fresh from Sweeney Todd, which I found brilliant, so I hoped that perhaps it was a just an unfortunate edit.  But doing a little non-spoiler research, I learned that the story was completely made-up - a sequel to Alice's first well-known trip.  Yet I pressed on, setting aside my usually-vehement protection of literary sources to see if this reimagining could deliver.

It delivered numerous sighs, forehead-to-palm slaps and a headache (not caused by the forehead slapping). 

An older Alice (Mia Wasikowska) finds herself being forced into a society marriage with a useless fool and in a fit of fear, she runs off and follows a rabbit (Michael Sheen) down a hole.  She meets a string of familiar characters, but doesn't remember that this is her second trip to Wonderland (actually, Underland, we come to find out).  The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is still impetuous and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) is useless and she needs the help of Alice to restore her to the throne -- and she can't do it without also saving the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp).

None of these seasoned actors manage to bring anything inventive, though they are not at fault for following Burton's direction.  It all starts to feel vaguely like a Narnia story (human girl must save the magical land, talking animals, good and bad royalty, Quixotic yet wise creatures) that we have seen before.  With all the characters of Wonderland and Burton's imagination, this should have been something incredible.  Sadly, it is as if Tarantino did a fairy-tale in gothic style (not a complement).  It is flat, story-less and boring.  

Little good stands about the animation and effects either.  The Knave (Cripsin Glover) is half-CGI, half-actor and he never looks right.  The Red Queen's floating CGI head is too disturbing and distracting to be effective.  They use cheap 3D tricks like a Atlantic City amusement park.  The opening (and closing) sequences, set in the English countryside, are the only convincing minutes.  Here we see what Burton is truly gifted at.  His Todd-styling is in full swing and there is a subtlety to the characters that is lost everywhere else.

Only the animation of the Chershire Cat (Stephen Fry) is enjoyable.  Whoever was in charge of his creation has a cat - and did their homework.  I'm sorry to see this film raking in so much at the box office.  Though I can't really blame the ticket-buying public.  I was sucked in, and fell down the rabbit hole myself.  But all I was left wondering was why they couldn't manage to get this right. 

Sherlock Holmes

I grew up on Sherlock, quite literally.  I grabbed my dad's heavy volumes and looked at the original Strand etchings even before I could read the complicated stories.  And Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes.  Doyle himself couldn't have a qualm with that casting.  So I was initially thrilled when I heard of the pairing of Robert Downey, Jr and Jude Law as the storied sleuths.  Then I saw a trailer and felt betrayed.  Since when was Sherlock an action hero?  And Watson a slimy-looking ingrate?  I even get annoyed at the Basil Rathbone films when Watson is portrayed as a bumbling fool.  He is an doctor!  It was explained to me that this film was being based on graphic novel, not the stories, but I wasn't satisfied.  Sherlock is great - why mess with it? 

Then post-Christmas ennui set in and as the family sat around eating leftovers for dinner we contemplated our entertainment options (As funny as the word "squeakquel" is, we weren't going to sit through a story about hip-hop rodents).  We agreed (amazingly enough) on seeing Sherlock Holmes, all with the understanding that it not be compared to any other adaptations, or even the writings, really.  I chose to think of it as a guy in Victorian London who gets involved in sci-fi adventures.  

I am not an easy convert, but Sherlock ended up being a fun film and much more literary than I anticipated.  The "case" was not taken from any story I am aware of, but had elements of Holmesian problems.  Indeed, the consequences for not solving it in time were much more monumental than anything that Sherlock faced, except maybe the Naval Treaty.

It employed an interesting device, that was thankfully not overused, of letting us in on Holmes' thoughts and reasoning before seeing him carry it out.  It works, particularly by being introduced in a boxing match, that no Guy Ritchie movie can be without.

Downey, Jr. brings a nice levity to the character, and clearly was inspired by Brett's facial tics and idiosyncrasies.  Jude Law does well as Watson, but the character itself doesn't quite find its footing.  I don't blame Law, but rather the storyline.  It uses him as a soundboard for Holmes, which he often is, but it falters when it tries to give him his own backbone.  

The heroine, if she can be called that, is played by Rachel McAdams.  She too is passable, has a few scenes in which to shine, but her talent is underutilized.  Her character is also the only one that   drops the ball in terms of production design.  Her frocks are ridiculous and hot pink.  Not a good idea.  The rest of the set design was superb.  221b is a fabulous mess, one can almost smell the stench of the Thames, and the villain's lairs reek of turn-of-the-century nostalgia  (I am fairly certain they used the same prison yard and warehouse in Nolan's The Prestige.  And I think Watson wears the same jacket as Branagh's Hamlet).  

This jacket.

And this prison yard.

The Prestige - Jail Guard | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

The face off with the bad guy got a bit long, and the "girl" isn't all that, but overall, the movie was very enjoyable, even for a stalwart Holmes fan. There is plenty to make a fan smile, and enough to keep a general viewer engaged.  The clues were dropped is a smart way, something not often seen anymore.  They weren't overt and obvious.  There is nothing more annoying than knowing the answer to the mystery but having to wait 2 hours for everyone around you to figure it out.  Not the case here.  Ideas were subtle enough to be mysterious yet visible enough to avoid the cliche it-was-the-guy-you-never-saw-who-did-it-the-whole-time (i.e. Bone Collector).

In short, go see Sherlock Holmes, even if you think you won't like it.  It won't be like any Sherlock you've seen before - but it won't be unrecognizable.