Singing and Dancing

While my sister and I were growing up, our parents always wanted us to have a healthy appreciation for the arts and culture. Movies, museums and the theater were visited often, and those trips helped shape me into the man I have become, and continue to guide my perceptions of the world today. One I remember with some clarity was a showing at Boston's Wang Center of Les Miserables, the musical about poverty and revolution, crime and punishment in 1800's France. Even after all this time, I can remember the legendary musical numbers performed live by people who were masters of their craft. On Christmas, the whole country got a chance to see Tom Hooper's vision of that story on the big screen. Hooper, who could have done any project he wanted after scoring big with 2010's The King's Speech, decided to tackle the challenge of turning a story told 98% in song to a cinematic masterpiece. How did he do? Well, let's review.

Les Miserables follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) - a man who served 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's children - after he is paroled. While he at first cannot find work due to his reputation as a "dangerous criminal", Valjean eventually catches a break and manages to make some wealth and do some good for the people of France after fleeing parole and taking an assumed name. His nemesis and the man chasing him is Javert (Russell Crowe), an officer of the law who rigidly enforces the law and cracks down on even the smallest infractions. Valjean finds a purpose in life when he attempts to aid the sick and struggling mother Fantine (Anne Hathaway) and adopts her daughter Cosette upon her death. Meanwhile, a revolution is building as the downtrodden common folk take up arms against the oppressive King and bourgeoisie.

Hope you enjoy Hathaway's performance... it's damned short

The good news is, if you love the musical as much as some people I know, you won't have any problems with the big screen rendition of Les Mis. Hooper changes almost nothing about what makes the musical so impressive, from its memorable musical score to its multiple-threaded story full of entertaining characters. He augments only in the tiniest bits, most notably in the addition of a new song for Jackman at the midway point. Like the musical, the actors rarely speak in anything but verse, and the director gets great vocalization from his cast by having had them sing live during filming, rather than recording it in post production. While it takes some effort to get used to, and at a few moments the singing doesn't quite match the music, the result is a largely authentic emotional response from his actors, who really get into their performances as though they were really playing on Broadway.

She dreamed a dream, and then she was gone.

The cast of course is a big reason for why the whole thing turned out nicely, and the main credit for that can be attributed to Jackman and Hathaway. Hathaway especially steals the show, and considering she has MAYBE twenty minutes of screen time in a two-plus hour movie, that says a lot. She's assisted somewhat by Hooper's direction (the fall into degradation of Fantine just happens to be the most masterfully shot sequence in the whole movie), but for the most part she deserves all the credit in the world for taking an important bit part and wringing everything out of it that she could. I didn't even know she could SING, and here she is belting out solos like a veteran vocalist. She's an Oscar guarantee at this point, bringing talents to the role that very few people could have expected. Jackman, however, has a history with song and stage, and so his excellence as Jean Valjean comes as absolutely no surprise. The part plays to the best aspects of his theatrical abilities, and anybody who is used to seeing him play manly men in the X-Men films or Real Steel needs to see his work here. The rest of the cast are a step down, though both Eddie Redmayne and debuting Samantha Barks will completely surprise you with their acting and singing abilities. Both have long, excellent careers ahead of them at this point. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen put on strong performances as secondary villains (when am I going to stop being surprised by Cohen's talents?), and while Amanda Seyfried did not really impress me with her appearances, she was so barely present that it's hard to really give her a hard time. The only dud in casting was Crowe, who sports a fine singing voice but can't seem to loosen up and look natural for the camera. It's especially surprising when you consider what a good job he did in the unspectacular Man with the Iron Fists. Here, he puts on one of his lesser performances, the weakest part of an otherwise great group.

If it wasn't for Hathaway, everybody would be talking about her.

But while Hooper gets a lot out of his cast and puts on some great visuals, his story feels... exactly the same as the musical. At the core, you're getting pretty much the same experience you would on a stage, and while that is pretty impressive it also speaks to a glaring lack of individuality in his vision. The last time I saw a musical theater-turned-theatrical release, it was 2007's Sweeny Todd, which suffered from much the same ailment. There just wasn't enough to make it feel like more than they filmed a stage play. While Hooper's Les Mis is a far superior experience than Tim Burton's production, at times the director could have mixed things up a bit to make up for the play's... melodramatics, especially in the final act. The final ten minutes are largely underwhelming, shoehorning an obscene amount of plot into a few minutes of film, and the closing scene is almost as bad as Titanic's "applause" finale. So why did this make the final cut? Because it was that way in the musical, that's why.

And he's STILL the manliest man in Hollywood.

There are people who absolutely LOVE the stage version of Les Miserables. Usually when adaptations such as this are made, they alienate fans of the original by completely changing elements that made the original experience unique, whether major or minor. But fans of the stage Les Mis will have no such issues, as few changes and an excellent voice cast guarantee that diehards will walk out of the theater crying and sure they have just seen a masterpiece. For the rest of us, this musical is great, but doesn't live up to that impossible superlative. Keep Jackman and Hathaway earmarked for their exquisite performances, but otherwise this is "just" a great, deeply encompassing good time at the movies, not one of 2012's absolute best.

Darkness Falls

I've been on more or less a hiatus the past two  weeks. A busy work schedule, not to mention plain old fatigue, has been gnawing on me, and between that and the string of blah releases recently the result I'm afraid has been me been neglecting Hello Mr. Anderson and my readers. Still, I couldn't imagine a better return to the site than reviewing possibly the most anticipated movie of the summer, The Dark Knight Rises. The finale to Christopher Nolan's take on the caped crusader has certainly earned it's "epic" label: at 165 minutes, it is the longest of his Batman trilogy, and borrows extensively from the comic book character's mythology in the formation of its story. In this third installment, the director took pages from one of the Batman's all-time great stories, 'Knightfall', which chronicled a hero driven to the point of both physical and mental exhaustion before being broken entirely. With Marvel having dominated the comic book film wars the past few years - Iron Man, Thor and of course The Avengers performing more impressively than DC's Superman Returns, Jonah Hex and Green Lantern - Nolan's films have been a light of hope for the company to somehow find their way back to the quality of storytelling for which they were once known. We're a long way from the "Bat-Nipple" sham that was Batman & Robin, and I was certainly of a mood to see this movie after spending this last weekend in the REAL inspiration for Gotham City, good old NYC.

You guessed it: he's Batman.

Set eight years after accepting the blame for the death of District Attorney Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, Batman has retired his cape and cowl. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has lived in seclusion, avoiding any public appearances both due to the physical trauma his body endured in his battle with Two Face and the Joker and his emotional instability following the death of childhood friend and former romantic interest Rachel Dawes. Gotham has enjoyed a modern Renaissance, with Dent's legacy ensuring that the city is free of the organized crime that had crippled its peace and prosperity in the previous decades. That all begins to change with the arrival of Bane (Tom Hardy), a brilliant, mysterious and deadly mercenary who has Gotham set in his sights, to bring chaos in his wake. What is Bane after? Why has cat burgler Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) targeted Bruce Wayne? And how are Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows involved? It's no wonder the thing stretches out to nearly three hours, as Nolan definitely needed that time to tell the whole story.

You'll wake up to an empty apartment... but it will be worth it.

This was to be the big one. The Dark Knight Rises was going to be bigger, more explosive and exciting than Marvel's The Avengers, being the end of Nolan and Bale's involvement with the storied franchise. It was far and away the most anticipated movie of the year for most people. Naturally this is where you start to pick up that The Dark Knight fails to live up to those impossibly high standards you have set. It's not so much that Nolan does anything particularly WRONG, not really. But there were several curious decisions made that - while not making TDKR as disappointing as Prometheus - seriously hinder the film's narrative flow. The movie starts off exciting with the introductions of Hardy's Bane and Hathaway's Catwoman, two major characters in the Batman universe who benefit from the amazingly talented actors who portray them. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable, has turned himself into a force of nature, and Hathaway masters all the angles of Selina Kyle, from her natural seductiveness to her brilliant strategic mind to her physical prowess. We even get to see a different side of Bruce Wayne, one that has been seriously affected by the battles and losses in his life. For Bale, it might not be as impressive as his turn in The Fighter, but his ability to invest himself fully into a role is nothing if not impeccable. And Nolan has always had a talent for drawing a lot of emotion out of his audiences with stellar visuals and explosive action.

Sure, he's not quite like the comic character, but Hardy's Bane is one of the best villains this year.

Unfortunately, even Nolan can't keep it up in a three-hour film, and when the film inevitably slows down for excessive plot exposition, you start to notice all the things that are wrong with The Dark Knight Rises. Like how Catwoman, despite her and Hathaway's many talents, still turns out to be kind of a one-dimensional character. Or Bane's ending, which is about as anti-climactic as one can get. Or Alfred's (Michael Caine) actions, which would never have happened in the comics. Or how Nolan ceases to focus on Batman for stretches at a time, turning the movie into the John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) show. They're great actors and do wonderful jobs, but the last time I checked the protagonist was supposed to be Bruce Wayne, not some orphan cop. Or hey, remember when the villain conspired to use a Waynetech invention to actually destroy Gotham City in Batman Begins? Well, expect to see that again! Or Batman's steadfast refusal to use guns, while having no qualms about using the machine guns and missiles on his new "Bat" flyer late in the film. Or how there's no reference to the Joker, who contrary to the first law of Batman movies did NOT die at the end of The Dark Knight? I understand that nobody can replace Heath Ledger's Joker at this point but I don't need an actor in makeup, just some sort of sign that he was loose in Gotham as all the craziness was going down. Or the film's surprising predictability. Don't even get me STARTED on Marion Cotillard's character. And that ENDING...!

This guy gets more attention than Batman...

One of the biggest complaints you will hear about films based on comic book characters is that you can't fully get into the story unless you already know all about the character in question. That has at least been partially true of Marvel's recent efforts, especially for The Avengers, which did have some moments that might have been confusing if you hadn't seen any of its predecessors. The irony of The Dark Knight Rises is that newcomers to the franchise will handily be able to follow along whether or not they've read the comic, so long as they've at least seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Even marginal Batman fans, however, may find themselves frothing at the mouth with all the liberties Christopher Nolan has taken with Gotham's favored son. At it's best, The Dark Knight Rises is a fun, exciting and entertaining thrill-ride with enough action, character development and intrigue to overcome its most glaring faults. It's the little things that will dig into your fun at the theater however, and there is no moment like that one Avengers scene of the collected heroes preparing for battle that will make you cheer and clap your hands in pure joy and exhilaration. TDKR is not that kind of movie, and doesn't try to be. Nolan's Batman is a character mired in darkness, ultimately alone in the battle against injustice. It's unquestionably his creation, and I'll say it's good enough to be the #9 film of 2012. That it could have - and perhaps SHOULD HAVE - been so much better is a shame, but Nolan's successes far outweigh his failures. His Batman epic, though now over, will be remembered as one of the best superhero series of all time, if not THE best. It's too bad it didn't finish better, but perhaps this was the ending Nolan's trilogy needed, if not necessarily the one it deserved.

Dancing lessons have since been cancelled.

If Only

I think my stalwart film sidekick Anne put it best when the final credits began rolling. She turned to me, eyes filled with wonder at being at the side of THE Mr. Anderson, and stated "I don't know what to think about that movie." That pretty much sums up my own thoughts on One Day, the newest romance film by Danish director Lone Scherfig. Scherfig, whose 2009 release An Education was a major success and was nominated for Best Picture at that year's Academy Awards, was but one attraction to the title, which was based on the bestselling novel by David Nicholls and stars talented performers Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess in the leading roles. But I couldn't help but feel that there was much missing in the way of unique or significantly different story elements. In fact, heading into One Day felt like being uncertain whether to expect a genuine Italian buffet or a Las Vegas grease pit. Still, I've had some luck with romantic films this year (Something Borrowed being an obvious exception), and with the talent involved, I was at least looking forward to seeing this for the product that it was, rather than the expectations I could perceive.

Get used to seeing these two; there's hardly anyone else of note anywhere in the film

Beginning the day Emma (Hathaway) and Dexter (Sturgess) meet at their college graduation, One Day follows their lives on the anniversary of that day for twenty years. Starting as an aborted romantic fling, the two become close friends, and the film lets us see their interaction one day a year for the entirety of the story. During this a number of successes and tragedies that fill their lives are followed, as both Emma and Dexter find their own paths towards contentment, love, and finally back to one another.

They studied make-outs at F.U.

Wow, that was a short paragraph. Try as I might, I can't think of anything more in depth to say about the film's plot, because what you see above is really all there is to it. Emma and Dexter are complete opposites, which is supposed to be a clear signal to us the audience that they are meant to be together, even if they themselves take forever to come to that same conclusion. The two are so different that they even take the opposite paths through their careers (Dexter has success early on while Emma struggles and later vice versa) before reaching true contentment, proving to me that perhaps this story was better in concept than execution. I've never read the book by Nicholls, but as he also wrote the screenplay I find myself unperturbed by any inclination to read the novel at all. It was a nice idea, but one that is poorly told by both the screenplay and the director Scherfig.

One Day, the awkward teen years

If there is any consolation, it is the acting of the film's two stars. Anne Hathaway's career seems to have faltered a little after her critical acclaim in 2008's Rachel Getting Married, and while she certainly never slacks off in her work, it's disheartening when she's either in bad movies (Bride Wars) or box office bombs (the underrated Love and Other Drugs) or stuck in bit parts that don't suit her (Alice in Wonderland). One major obstacle I thought I would have to overcome was Hathaway's attempt at a British accent, one that had shocked and distracted me during the trailers. Thankfully, she does a fine job with it, and what could have been a disaster is barely noticeable once you get used to the difference. Sturgess has been an unsung talent thus far, his films not receiving a lot of attention since his breakout in 2007's Across the Universe. Since then, I've seen a couple of films with him (21 and last year's The Way Back) but I don't claim to have the full measure of Sturgess as an actor yet. Still, he proves himself charming and a decent talent, showing a wider range than even Hathaway over the course of the story. If there's one problem with their performances, it's the fact that neither Emma nor Dexter are particularly likable characters. Dexter is shown to be such a douchebag that it's difficult to believe that Emma would remain friends with him for so long, and Emma is cursed with both a stick up her ass AND low self-esteem, which make her early whining hard to bear. Both Hathaway and Sturgess do their best, and are helped by a natural chemistry between them, but it's an uphill battle to make us care about the characters and their story, a fight they almost overcome.

Awww... isn't he a cute asshole?

Of course, these two dominate the screen so much that any supporting characters have to really stand out to be noticeable. The best of them is Patricia Clarkson, who over the past year has continually proven that she's got more versatility than most would credit her. As Dexter's sick mother she proves to be both a charmer and scene-stealer, and the best part of the film's early going. An assortment of perfectly okay performances from Rafe Spall, Ramola Garai and Ken Stott are ever present as additional characters for the leads to interact with, but since 90% of the film focuses exclusively on Emma and Dexter, their work is almost unnoticed unless they have something to do with a major plot change. Even then, it is the main characters that move forward, with these side bits barely registering a blip of interest on our radars.

Bad hair days for everyone!

The film's final act is as predictable as it is sad, and though it may inspire a few tears, it's hardly the stuff of legends. As I feared, there was decidedly little that the film offered as different from any other title in existence. With so many good titles having come out in 2011 and even more available for rent on DVD from decades past, there's no reason to waste good money on One Day unless you really, REALLY want to. The great acting aside, this title overall pales in comparison to Midnight in Paris or Crazy Stupid Love, and even fails to live up to the standards of Larry Crowne, as base a romantic comedy as you can get while still remaining entertaining. Failing to reach even this low threshold is disappointing, but for the most part this was not the biggest surprise. Anne said it right in that there are good and bad things about One Day; unfortunately for the film's stars it might take a few more to get where they truly belong in Hollywood's hierarchy.

Love and Lots of Sex

I'm not sure which surprised me more: Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway) exposing her boob less than five minutes after we meet her character in a doctor's office, or that Love & Other Drugs by it's finale had became one of my favorite films of the year. The romantic comedy by director Edward Zwick had drawn me in with a strong trailer and charismatic leads, and with most of the films I REALLY wanted to see unavailable to me or forthcoming, I decided to dedicate my time and money to this film, which if nothing else looked interesting and original.

Chinese food in bed is step #22 in Dating for Wimps

Loosely based on the book Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman by Huffington Post blogger Jamie Reidy, Love takes place in the late 1990's and introduces to us salesman Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal), a college dropout working as a clerk at a small-time electronics store, where he has used his charm - especially with the ladies - to be the best salesman at the store. Fired shortly after the film's opening for engaging in sexual conquest with one of his fellow employees, Jamie gets help from his millionaire brother (Josh Gad) and is hired as a salesman for Pfizer, the commercial drug giant. Tasked with selling Zoloft and Zithromax in the Ohio River Valley, Jamie happens to meet Maggie, a free spirit who suffers from stage one Parkinson's Disease. She's the first woman who doesn't immediately fall for Jamie's charms, and what begins as a raunchy one night stand eventually changes for both of them, as both begin to experience love for the first time.

Quick! It's the 80's and you're Tom Cruise! Go!

Love & Other Drugs is only the second romantic comedy directed by Zwick, who's only other title from that genre is 1986's About Last Night. While his other efforts in the meantime have been more serious dramas such as Courage Under Fire, The Last Samurai, and Blood Diamond, the pacing in this film shows that he hasn't lost his touch in that area. The film flows at a good pace and never feels forced, allowing the story to be told to us at a comfortable level and never dropping things upon our heads that we wouldn't understand. As director and as one of the film's screenwriters, Zwick takes something that might not appeal to most audiences - mainly the operations of American pharmaceutical corporations - and manages to wrap a story around it that we can instantly connect with on an almost personal level. Not only that, but the film doesn't suffer from being aimed at teens or a younger audience. It's an adult romance, never overly smarmy or unbelievable in it's portrayal of a mature adult relationship.

Trying to avoid another "Brokeback" moment

Zwick is helped immensely by his leading actors. Hathaway is simply amazing, her performance subtle and emotional, a character who struggles to be independent even with the knowledge that a disease with no cure will slowly take he life and self-reliance away from her. It's easy to see why Jamie falls so easily for her, and why he would do anything for her. Don't mistake her for a damsel in distress however; she doesn't like the idea of being tied down, and falls in love on her own terms, not his. We knew Hathaway would be good, but Gyllenhaal is the surprise here. Though he tried before to cultivate a career of playing disturbed characters (Donnie Darko, Jarhead) or performing in serious drama (Brokeback Mountain, Zodiac), it was his charming role in the otherwise-repulsive Prince of Persia that I began to suspect his talents as a romantic leading man. The result is one of the best performances I've seen from him, that of the aimless guy who went for so many years simply getting by, only now learning what's important to him and how to care. The two actors have amazing chemistry, and I don't just mean in the bedroom. Every conversation we're witness to is an intellectual treat, as they all make us feel right there in the scene, intertwined in the elegance of speech and the occasional rampaging emotion. Both are so believable that you'd think the two actors were the ones in love, not just the characters.

If Anne Hathaway suddenly strips in your foyer, make sure you're the only one home

It's a shame the secondary characters aren't as enticing as the leads, but that might be asking too much. That isn't to say that the supporting cast is bad, quite the opposite in fact, simply that Hathaway and Gyllenhaal raise the bar far higher than any of the others can reach. Oliver Platt plays Jamie's veteran partner and mentor, training him in the hard art of the sell while aspiring to get the promotion to Chicago so he can be with his family again. For this, Platt puts on his usual scene chewing performance, the same one we've been privy to since forever. Gabriel Macht plays a drug representative from a rival firm with a romantic history with Maggie. There's really not much to say about him, as he loses precious screen time long before the final credits. He's solid when given the chance however. Josh Gad plays Jamie's brother, but his role is somewhat unrealistic and obviously plugged in as a cheap comedic role and a link to Jamie's family history. He works when he's used, and thankfully in small doses, but the idea that Jamie's millionaire brother ends up sleeping on his poorer sibling's couch for about two-thirds of the film does seem a bit unlikely, even if it is because Jamie is his big brother. The best of the group however might be Hank Azaria, who plays the top general practitioner in the region, Dr. Knight. Though he at first comes off as simply an asshole, Knight eventually reveals to us a side disenfranchised with the state of the medical industry, barred by red tape and constantly scrutinized by lawyers waiting for that one big mistake. It's by far the deepest character I've seen from Azaria, whose mostly comedic roles have been doubtlessly funny if a bit shallow.

Unhappy Anne makes us ALL sad...

There is a bit in the middle where we're reminded that the film has basis in real life. I had been wondering why the film used the real names of drug companies and drugs when the turning point of the film turned out to be the company's release of the sex drug Viagra. Suddenly stuff starts happening, and the impact of Viagra is obvious to anybody living today; it was the wonder drug that completely changed the industry, and to blanket that with a fake name would have reeked as obvious to anybody watching. Thankfully having this drug and it's parent company featured by name doesn't hurt the film in the slightest. Though it is portrayed that working in the drug industry is lucrative and the creation of Viagra is treated for the cultural event that it was, the film stops short of overly praising the company for being all-over wonderful. It also doesn't condemn the drug industry for its role in the highly profitable medical institution and the problems inherent there. Those things, the industry and the company and the product, simply are what they are. They don't detract from the romantic story attempting to be told, and that works out just fine.

"So... what do you want to do now?"

In the end, it really falls to the lead characters to make us feel like we're witnessing something different. Hathaway and Gyllenhaal make that happen in spades, and they are helped by a script that feels current, is funny as hell at times and emotionally gripping at others. Kudos to Zwick for successfully getting the best he could out this story, which could have simply taken the easy route and settled for middle of the road fare. Though it may alienate some audiences with its honest and intimate look at Parkinson's, I thought this was a beautiful film that had me constantly tearing up near the end and when the film came to a close, I wanted more, and in a good way. I never thought I'd do this, but I have to: Love & Other Drugs is my new #6 for the year. A romantic comedy that DOESN'T feature extensive video game references making it so high?

I must be maturing in my old age.

"Maybe next time we'll try in the bed."

Heeeeeeeere's Johnny!

There is a scene early on in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in which a young Alice (Mairi Ella Challen) confesses to her father (Marton Csokas) about her strange dreams and wonders aloud if she's crazy. Like a good father, he presses his hand to her forehead, takes it away, and morosely tells her that yes, she is quite bonkers. "But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are."

And so there's the ultimate message of this movie, delivered in the first five minutes. It's actually not a bad message; How obvious is it that the greatest minds of any generation - Galileo, Einstein - often spurned social convention because they were so sure they were right? Alice's father Charles Kingsleigh is portrayed as such a person, one who wanted to reroute English trade routes around the world in such a way that defied logic, or at least the logic of his possible investors, who were sure he was mad. And so many years later after her father's death and when she's come of age, Alice (In Treatment's Mia Wasikowska) becomes one as well. Brought to a party to be proposed to by a charming if dunderheaded lord, Alice steals away from the party chasing a white rabbit that she recognizes from her dreams, only to fall down the rabbit hole and into the place she used to go where she dreamed, a place she called Wonderland.

Tim Burton may not ever have been a great director, but usually he's at least solid. However, he hasn't had a good film since the largely underrated Big Fish in 2003, and his last film, Sweeney Todd, was surprisingly uninspired. For the man who brought us Edward Scissorhands, the quality of his films has been surprisingly shaky. But one thing has always been consistent: his image. There's a dark moodiness to vision that's in all his films, and it's perfectly situated in this film in the place of Wonderland. For every dark, creepy forest, or the zaniness of the rabbit hole Alice falls into, there's just as much in the bright false-happiness of the Red Queen's (Helena Bonham Carter) castle, or the striking brightness of the castle of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). It's that visual element that Burton revels in, which is what made Scissorhands and others of his films such modern classics.

I'll talk about the special effects, first. Alice in Wonderland was advertised as being in available in 3D in most theaters but the DVD version was only in 2D. It's an odd choice by the industry to have these recent movies that succeeded in large part in the theaters to their 3D promotions (Avatar, Clash of the Titans) to not release them in 3D for home consumption. Is it the technology? Coraline was released last year on DVD in 3D but it was not exactly a bright success in that medium. Perhaps they're taking the "special edition" route. In six months 3D versions of these movies will be made available on DVD, when you're not even watching the edition you already OWN. Regardless, you can pretty much tell by watching the movie where the 3D is SUPPOSED to be. Am I relieved that I haven't seen the 3D edition? Yes. Unlike the story-lite Avatar, we don't need the 3D in Alice to distract us from the fact that there's no unreasonable plot to follow. We can enjoy the movie for what it is, not what it wants us to see.

Mia Wasikowska may be playing the eponymous Alice, but Johnny Depp gets top billing. Why? Name recognition, of course! This is Disney we're talking about, and they know what sells tickets isn't necessarily a great story or groundbreaking effects or even great acting, but in fact the quality of the names you hire. And so we have Depp, champion of both Burton and box office, placed in the relatively small role of Mad Hatter...relatively small until Burton re-sized the Hatter's role to much more than just a tea party. The Hatter is still mad, of course, but lucidly mad, rather than completely, bat-crazy insane. And he's a veritable ally to Alice against the Red Queen, who has taken over Wonderland since Alice last visited (dreamed) it. He used to be quite sane, and a talented dancer to boot (unfortunately, we're subjected to this inane dance by the movie's end). All in all, Depp is perfectly cast, as he creates quite the parallel to Alice's father's statement of the best people being insane. Many things are still kept from the books, for instance the tea party. He also frequently asks Alice how a raven is like a writers desk. In all, Depp is probably the best thing about the movie, and so most deservedly earned that top bill.

Other acting was good, if not as deep as Depp. Carter is very campy as the evil Red Queen, something of a combination of characters from the Lewis Carroll books: The Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland and the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass. Whether screaming to off someone's head or in somewhat a more calm scene, It's difficult to take the Red Queen too seriously, as most of the actual evil is better displayed by her underlings, most notably Stayne, the Knave of Hearts. Stayne is properly portrayed by Crispin Glover, and matches a Burton character to a T, complete with heart-shaped eye-patch. Anne Hathaway is actually sort of disappointing as the White Queen, a seemingly air-headed beleaguered monarch who dabbles in something resembling voodoo or necromancy for her powers. Whether the ditziness is real or a show for her supporters is never revealed, but nothing Hathaway does in this film is very important, unfortunate for the actress who garnered such deserved praise in Rachel Getting Married. With so much CGI, there were multiple voice-only roles that were cast, and Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Alan Arkin, Barbara Windsor, Paul Whitehouse and Timothy Spall all deserve credit for their excellent contributions, even is Spall's character, a bloodhound named Bayard, doesn't seem to be based on any character from the books. Finally, Wasikowska is charming and elegant as Alice, the straight woman in a bendy world. Alice never fits in in either world, as she's too screwy to fit in the normal standards of the real world, and Wasikowska does a good job of playing that up, consistently expressing confusion and slow understanding up until she has to convincingly play the part of hero and becomes a strong woman of conviction by the end. She's arguably the early break-out female performer of 2010 and we'll see if this translates to her getting promising work in the future, or if she'll be relegated to being one of Burton's "favorites" and only work regularly in his films. She's too good for that, but Depp is too and he went for years before Hollywood took him seriously.

So what's wrong with Alice in Wonderland? Well, it doesn't run overlong, but what ending there is falls flat. It's as if everyone working on the project finished this big elaborate final battle (on a chessboard, no less) and realized: "Oh, crap, we have to end this movie!" And so it's rushed and obvious and not a little silly, including even Depp's little stupid dance. This can be largely credited to screenwriter Linda Woolverton, who's resume (consisting of Disney animated films and kid shows) doesn't exactly scream for confidence. To wrap up the bad ending, the closing credits began with this awful song who's singer I thought sounded familiar, but I wasn't sure. Alice was sung by Avril Lavigne, and it's just as bad - worse even - as you would expect from any Avril Lavigne song. I mean, DAMN, that's a bad song. I'd rather listen to Kenny G end this film than ever hear Lavigne again.

For most of it's 108 minutes, Alice in Wonderland is as interesting, thought-provoking and wondrous vision of fantasy as you'll find in the theater these days, but the mediocre ending does all it can to ruin that experience for you. Not even great special effects or a star cast can save it, as it's ultimately another disappointing film for Burton's library. This in itself is hardly a surprise, but would it kill Tim to try an original idea for once, as in the past ten years only Corpse Bride wasn't based on someone else's story. If he's going to keep piggybacking onto other people's works, he needs to figure out a better way of telling it his way without the messes to which that inevitably leads. For the message it pertains and strong feminine lead, another director perhaps would have been better.

But this is Disney, and they need their name recognition.