Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND is as much "Alice in Wonderland" as James Whale's "Frankestein" is "Frankenstein," which is to say that the story is quite liberally adapted from its source material, almost to the point of requiring the phrase "loosely based on" in its press information. Here, there is no Duchess with a cook who uses too much pepper in the soup. The Mad Hatter is not obsessed with time or a clean tea cup. No Gryphon, no Mock Turtle. No Lobster Quadrille. And, most sadly, no ridiculous trial where logic was bent, in the original Lewis Carroll story, to the point of insanity.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND is that his sequel-ish version of ALICE IN WONDERLAND is not crazy enough. In fact, it almost makes too much sense. Much worse, it becomes somewhat conventional, thanks to a script by Disney writer Linda Woolverton that builds the story toward an oft-telegraphed climax in which a reluctant, now-19-year-old Alice must put on Joan of Arc-like armor to battle the Jabberwocky, a character not from the original story but its sequel, "Through the Looking-Glass." This "Alice" actually favors "Looking-Glass" more heavily than "Alice in Wonderland," which is fine. But it puts everything in simple order and builds the story to a traditional result. And, in the process, it kills some of the wonder in wonderland.

Burton's Wonderland pulls the Cheshire Cat, Caterpillar, Mad Hatter, Doormouse and Knave of Hearts from the first part of Carroll's story and mixes them with the Red and White Queens and Tweedledee and Tweedledum from "Looking-Glass." Here, there is no giant chess game, however. Instead, Alice is now 19 and about to be proposed to by a creepy and foppish red-headed aristocrat. A vision of the White Rabbit from her childhood dreams distracts her and sends her back down to Wonderland, where Alice finds out that there is little wonder. In fact, she even got the name wrong. Turns out, it's "Underland." And they've been waiting for Alice to return. That is, if she's the "right Alice." (This turns out to be the extent of the film's nonsense in the true spirit of the original story.)

Probably because of the fact that Burton's favorite collaborator, Johnny Depp, is under the mad hat, the Hatter takes on a much-elevated role in this story, protecting and assisting Alice in her journey toward battle. Depp is as interesting as ever here, but surprisingly downplays the level of insanity one might expect from his character. His Hatter is idiosyncratic, to be sure, but not quite daffy. There are even moments of downright sadness in Depp's portrayal, a gravity given to a character known for being a literary cyclone. A friend of mine told me that he read that a critic referred to this Mad Hatter as "Bozo the Clown with an eye infection." And yes, the visual is striking: it's Kabuki Carrot Top raids Charles Dickens' closet and Marilyn Manson's contact lens collection. Frankly, it's one of the many great visuals in the film, but visuals were, to me, the only things about the film that were great.

Tim Burton is often accused of being so focused on art direction and his visuals that true emotion and storytelling are sacrificed. I find it unfair to unilaterally lob such an accusation at him, though this film reminds me that the charge sticks more often than not. There is certainly no sympathy for any character here the likes of which we felt for Burton's Edward Scissorhands or even his Sweeney Todd, who's cold and bloody revenge was at least brought on by some stunning injustices. If we were to feel sorry for Alice for any reason, it doesn't work here. Sure, I didn't want her to marry the guy who proposes to her, but the whole notion of Alice as all grown-up to become a Victorian-era feminist didn't feel fresh to me, and it didn't work for me. In truth, Alice was in "Underland" because the story required her to be. Unlike Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz," here you were left wondering exactly what Alice had to look forward to if she was able to return home. The film does find an answer to this, but barely.

As for the rest of ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I can say that the 3-D I saw it in did little to enhance the visuals. I've read that this is a result of the film being shot in 2-D and then converted. I think it's more because the last film I saw in 3-D was "Avatar."

Helena Bonham Carter is fine as the Red Queen, though the film continues the tradition of confusing that character with the Queen of Hearts as the two Carroll stories are blended together. She doesn't have many great lines, though. And that's another beef I have with this movie. While it was fun to look at, it wasn't fun at all. I can't think of a single one-liner or joke in the film. It's all stunning visual with a traditional hero's journey of a story arc, but no emotional pull and no humor, the macabre visual whimsy of Tim Burton notwithstanding.

On paper, having Tim Burton directing ALICE IN WONDERLAND feels as perfect as having him direct Sondheim's "Sweeney Todd," though I feel that film worked more successfully on all levels. ALICE is equally as gray as that musical, but needed more color. More humor. More wonder. I can't say that I ever got bored, but if Burton is to be accused for caring more about the look of the film than anything else, this is exhibit A.

2.5 out of 4

Miracle Fish (2009)

MIRACLE FISH is a great example of why short films are worth our time and should be more readily available for the masses to view. In just 17 minutes, writer/director Luke Doolan combines both outrageous fantasy and shocking reality to tell the story of a picked-on boy who, on his eighth birthday, wishes everyone would just go away, only to find that maybe his wish came true.

Eight-year-old Joe is disappointed to find that his birthday is nothing special or out of the ordinary. His mom puts a little surprise in his lunch, though - a "miracle fish" that can make dreams come true. It's not long, however, before Joe's only wish is that everyone would just go away; so sick is he of being continuously picked on and heckled at school.

After retreating to the nurse's office, Joe begins to realize that he is, in fact, alone. He tiptoes quietly through the school to find it fully vacant. Unable to grasp how his dream could have come true, Joe's feelings turn to loneliness. Is he the last person on Earth? That's a scary thought for a boy his age.

The audience soon learns, however, that Joe is not alone, and that the thought of him being the last person on Earth is not the scariest thing that he'll be left to think about. I refuse to give any more details here, because the power of MIRACLE FISH is in the twist the film takes; you need to experience it for yourself.

MIRACLE FISH was nominated for the Best Live Action Short Oscar, eventually losing to "The New Tenants." I've only seen a clip of that film and have not seen the other nominees, so I can't offer a quality comparison, but I really enjoyed MIRACLE FISH. It is a great reminder that one powerful idea is often best conveyed in a short cinematic burst. MIRACLE FISH can be found online if you look hard enough. It will also most likely be available via iTunes, and the Academy has started to release nominated short films in a DVD collection. That's $20 worth spending.

3.0 out of 4

The Morning After: Oscar reactions

I know this feeling well. That morning after the Oscars groggy feeling...that "why didn't I go with my gut on this pick" and "how could they pick that?" feeling. Overall, it's a good feeling; I don't know as though there were many "robberies" last night (with the possible exception of the perpetually maligned Foreign Film category). So here are some basic observations about how I did with my predictions and what I thought of the show.

SEEING MORE MOVIES
This year, there were 58 individual films nominated for Oscars. This includes all of the short film and foreign film nominees. By the time the ceremony aired last night, I had seen 32 of those films, including all five animated short film nominees and some work in the lesser seen categories like live action and documentary short and foreign film. When you do the math, that means I saw 55% of the nominated films. On the surface, that doesn't seem like much: just over half. But when you consider the fact that this includes everything, I'm quite proud of myself!

MAINTAINING MY 'C' AVERAGE
Yesterday, I posted my predictions here prior to the show of what I expected to win. I ended up guessing 18 of the 24 categories correctly, a 75% batting average. I don't have last year's stats in front of me, but if I'm not mistaken, this ties my accuracy from last year. I believe I've done better than 18 before, and I know I've done worse, so I feel pretty good - I'm consistent. I've only been writing this blog for about a year now, so at some point, I should go back and compile an official track record.

WOULDA, COULDA, SHOULDA
Looking back at the six categories I predicted incorrectly, I can honestly say that only two of those were examples of my not going with my gut. The other four, if I'm being honest, I would have gotten wrong no matter what. So I could have ended up with 20 of 24 if I had trusted myself more. The mistakes I shouldn't have made came in the categories of Animated Short and Foreign Language film.

I saw all five Animated Short films this year, and "Logorama" was far and away my favorite. I wanted so badly to pick it as an upset win, but I went with history over my gut, and history says that "Wallace & Gromit" is one of the most Oscar-celebrated cartoons in history. So I went with "A Matter of Loaf and Death." I'm glad I was wrong, but I could have picked up a point by going with my gut instead of my head.

My other mistake was in Foreign Language film, where I thought that an additional nomination for cinematography and the prestige of the Palm d'Or made "The White Ribbon" the favorite, despite the Oscars' history of upsets in this category in favor of a lesser-known, more treacly and emotional string-pulling film. Other Oscar guessers, for that very reason, begrudgingly picked "The Secret in Their Eyes." I defied recent history on this one and went with my head instead of my gut...the opposite of my mistake in the other category. And, consequently, I was wrong again.

As for my other four mistakes, I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't have gotten them wrong anyway. While I'm thoroughly embarrassed to have gotten both screenplay awards wrong for what I think might be the first time ever, there was no way I'd have picked "Precious" to beat "Up in the Air" for adapted screenplay. That, to me, was the night's one true surprise. "The Hurt Locker"'s win for original screenplay was one that I admittedly did consider picking, but my gut told me that Tarantino put the "original" in original screenplay. I knew this choice was a risk, but you have to take a few risks with your picks, and this is where I had planned to take one all along.

Best Documentary Short was a crapshoot this year for me. I had no idea what to pick and simply guessed wrong. And I expected the sound categories to either be split or both go to "Avatar." In the end, they both went to "The Hurt Locker," and I was lucky to get one of the two by predicting a split.

WHAT I LIKED ABOUT THE SHOW
1. I loved the longer clip montage packages for the supporting acting nominees. Instead of 20 seconds of a well-warn award circuit clip for each nominee, we got a solid, edited package pulled from various scenes throughout the film. This allowed us to get a more complete picture of each actor's work on their respective films, which was great. They should have used the same method with the lead categories (see my "what I didn't like" list).
2. Alec and Steve. I don't know why critics are bashing them today...I thought they were hilarious. More often than not, I thought the jokes and jabs were connecting. It appears I was in the minority. But if you ask me, their bits worked out better than Ben Stiller's "Avatar" stuff.
3. The acceptance speeches of Mo'Nique and Sandra Bullock. Thank you, Mo'Nique, for calling out the b.s. of political Oscar posturing for what it is.
4. The producers did a great job of making the short films and sound categories relevant to the audience. I thought the interviews with former short film winners who went on to feature film success was relevant and interesting. And though using "The Dark Knight" to demonstrate the sound awards felt a little dated, it made sense and helped clarify the confusion of those two categories.
5. Best presenter shtick: Tina Fey and Robert Downey, Jr. Hilarious.

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT THE SHOW
1. While the tributes to the lead acting nominees were sometimes interesting and often touching, what did they have to do with the work that got them nominated? This concept drug on for too long, and they should have used the extended clip sequences they used for the supporting actors.
2. If you're not going to perform the song nominees, why would you perform the score nominees instead? I could have done without the interpretive dance.
3. The horror film clip show. What? Desperate ploy for audience connection. And half of the films they showed clips from weren't even horror films!
4. Too long! Same complaint, different year.
5. Worst presenter shtick: What the hell did Sean Penn say last night? I'm still confused!

Another year in the books! Time to get ready for the films of 2010, now that we're a quarter of the way in! I'd love to hear from you about what you thought of the show and the winners.

China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province

The sad truth is that CHINA'S UNNATURAL DISASTER: THE TEARS OF SICHUAN PROVINCE is not just a sad and sobering account of the earthquake that hit mainland China in May of 2008. It is now, in these times, a representation of a number of natural disasters that have occurred around the world in the past few years: in Haiti, in Chile. This short film, nominated for the Documentary Short Oscar, is a crushing signpost of the times, an example and not an exception.

To say that CHINA'S UNNATURAL DISASTER is gut-wrenching and hard to watch is a gross understatement. The film focuses in particular on the loss of children. Of the 70,000 lives lost in this particular earthquake, the film says, 10,000 of the dead were children. The film opens with parents urging their daughter to say goodbye to her classmates and say a prayer for their souls as she stands in front of the rubble of what was once her school. Fat tears cascade down her round face. As a viewer, you hope you won't have to watch more of this, but it's just the beginning. Locations where schools once stood are now transformed into makeshift altars where framed 11x17 photographs of the lost children sit bunched up on tables.

Much as the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina was met with criticism by many citizens, so too is the Chinese government's response to this disaster met with anger and confusion. Much of CHINA'S UNNATURAL DISASTER focuses on questions and accusations on the part of the parents of children who attended schools in buildings that were known to be structurally weaker than surrounding buildings that withstood the earthquake. Some families complain that the military and rescue efforts completely passed their towns by in favor of areas they believed were more damaged or affected. One can't watch this film without thinking about Katrina, even though the devastation here is a much magnified version of what we experienced in New Orleans. The film's title indicates that the disaster was "unnatural" because the parents, in their grief, band together to blame the shoddy construction of the schools for their losses. Not every building, after all, fell to the earthquake.

In just under 40 minutes, CHINA'S NATURAL DISASTER shows us how individual families are dealing with their grief and unanswered questions as the filmmakers tour the region's schools, listing the numbers of the dead along with the names of each school. Because of China's strict reproduction policies, due to their country's dense population, we are told that most families lost their only child. Their compensation from the government? $317. Not even enough to cover burial expenses, as many families are seen at grave sites they chose themselves, sometimes even making their own coffins and being responsible for burying their children with their own hands. And they are the lucky ones; many more families never recovered the bodies of their children from the piles of rubble. The government eventually offers an option that gives families $8800, but it comes with a promise that the families pledge their allegiance to the government and swear to cause no further problems.

CHINA'S UNNATURAL DISASTER received some publicity due to the hostility the film received from the Chinese government after its release. A country with one of the tightest controls over information in the world, China does not take kindly to such a document of criticism and scrutiny as this. And for every teardrop in the film, there seems to be a moment of gnashed teeth as the government officials shown in the film are shown as passive and mute while parents wail with questions and demand answers. No country's government would want to be seen in such a light, but you watch the film with a sense of justice being served. You feel like people need to know, and not just the Chinese, but a global community. If this happened here, what is happening in other areas recently affected by such disasters?

This is good, old-fashioned, search-for-justice film making. Though it's hard to watch, at the end of CHINA'S UNNATURAL DISASTER you feel better for having seen it because you feel like you've been made aware of a horrible secret that's been kept from you. It is also, however, documentary film making of the manipulative and persuasive variety, a tip of the hat to Michael Moore's governmental conspiracy theories. The makers of this film are clear in their efforts to convince viewers that this was a human rights violation more than a natural disaster. The evidence presented feels overwhelming, and it is perhaps the reputation of the oppressive and elusive Chinese government that makes it almost impossible for our sympathies to lie anywhere else than with the parents of these dead children. Yes, it is manipulative. But the evidence feels conclusive. One problem I have with many documentaries is a strong feeling that the other side of an issue is severely underrepresented. It's hard to feel that here.

3.5 out of 4

Keith's Oscar Predictions

Well, today's the big day. One of my favorite days of the year! It seems like a lot of people aren't as excited about the Academy Awards this year because a lot of the races seem like done deals. But when you're someone who predicts the winners, as I have been doing for many years now, you know that not everything always works out. Inevitably, I find myself disobeying my gut when every major online prognosticator picks something else in one of the categories, only to find out that my gut was right.

This year, there are various strategies to consider. One might be to pick "Avatar" for almost everything. With that strategy, you're likely to only get a few wrong. Another strategy says to avoid the build-up hoopla with the acting awards; the four winners are rarely the exact four that everyone expects. To me, the shakiest one there is Best Actress, where I can't help but feel in my gut that Meryl is due for another more than Sandra is due for her first. Yet nobody is picking her.

In some ways, the fact that everyone has their own predictions online has made it harder for me to guess myself because I second-guess a lot more than I used to. Will the sound Oscars be split? Can a Wallace & Gromit cartoon LOSE? I've thought a lot about these things lately.

But, since this year I'm not putting any money on my predictions, I think I'll just have to go with my gut on a few things. If I'm wrong, I'm not out much, right? Maybe just a decreased batting average at predicting these things, as if my success or failure rate at this really translates into anything of substance! So here's what I think...

BEST PICTURE
Will win: The Hurt Locker
Could win: Avatar or Inglorious Basterds (hey, they expanded this to 10 so I can pick two)
My favorite: I liked a lot this year: Hurt Locker, Basterds, An Education and A Serious Man

BEST DIRECTOR
Will win: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Could win: James Cameron, Avatar
My favorite: Bigelow

BEST ACTOR
Will win: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Could win: Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
My favorite: Bridges

BEST ACTRESS
Will win: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Could win: Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
My favorite: Gabourey Sidibe or Carey Mulligan

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Will win: Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
Could win: Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
My favorite: Waltz

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Will win: Mo'Nique, Precious
Could win: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
My favorite: Mo'Nique

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will win: Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds
Could win: Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
My favorite: Basterds and The Messenger

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will win: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, Up in the Air
Could win: Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, District 9
My favorite: In the Loop

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Will win: Das Weisse Band (The White Ribbon)
Could win: Un Prophete (A Prophet) or El Secreto de Sus Ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes)
My favorite: I've only seen The White Ribbon so far, so I won't pick a favorite yet.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Will win: Up
Could win: Fantastic Mr. Fox
My favorite: I loved both Up and Fantastic Mr. Fox

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
Will win: A Matter of Loaf and Death
Could win: Logorama
My favorite: Logorama

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Will win: The Cove
Could win: Food, Inc.
My favorite: I've only seen those two so far and hated Food, Inc., so it's The Cove by default.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
Will win: China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province
Could win: The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant or Music By Prudence
My favorite: I've only seen China's Unnatural Disaster, and it certainly ripped my heart out.

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
Will win: The New Tenants
Could win: Miracle Fish, though based on what I've heard, The Door and Kavi are equally possible winners...there's been no clear favorite by prognosticators for this one.
My favorite: I have not seen any of these films this year!

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will win: Avatar
Could win: The Hurt Locker or The White Ribbon
My favorite: The Hurt Locker and Avatar were both great for completely different reasons

BEST EDITING
Will win: The Hurt Locker
Could win: Avatar
My favorite: The Hurt Locker

BEST ART DIRECTION
Will win: Avatar
Could win: Sherlock Holmes
My favorite: Avatar, though Nine would be my "non-digital" choice

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Will win: The Young Victoria
Could win: Nine
My favorite: Nine

BEST MAKEUP
Will win: Star Trek
Could win: The Young Victoria
My favorite: Star Trek

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Will win: Avatar
Could win: District 9 (but really, nobody else has a chance...)
My favorite: Avatar

BEST SOUND EDITING
Will win: Avatar
Could win: The Hurt Locker
My favorite: Avatar

BEST SOUND MIXING
Will win: The Hurt Locker
Could win: Avatar
My favorite: The Hurt Locker

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Will win: Michael Giacchino, Up
Could win: James Horner, Avatar
My favorite: Up

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Will win: "The Weary Kind" from Crazy Heart
Could win: "Take It All" from Nine
My favorite: "The Weary Kind"

Adventureland (2009)

ADVENTURELAND is director Greg Mottola's follow-up to "Superbad," and though both films share the thematic thread of youth in discovery and the complications that romance (or the seeking of romance) throw into such discovery, ADVENTURELAND is much more nuanced. I probably laughed just as much (or at least almost as much) watching this film as I did "Superbad," and ADVENTURELAND benefits from a realism and sweetness that his previous film lacked.

Starring Jesse Eisenberg (who has been a favorite of mine since the criminally underwatched "Rodger Dodger") as a young man graduating college in 1987, ADVENTURELAND is a story, in many ways, of settling. Fully expecting to go Columbia for graduate school, Eisenberg's James Brennan is blindsided when he learns that circumstances are now such that his parents can no longer afford to send him there. He'll have to defer his dream, they advise him, and get a job. Naturally, James is highly over-qualified for anything available to him. Lord knows I can relate. And he ends up taking a job working at a scrappy amusement park called Adventureland. For those of you who grew up around the time this film is set in the Chicago area as I did, think Santa's Village, not Great America.

James is too serious to get excited in front of patrons playing the park's rigged games, though he is expected to do so by his bosses, a quirky couple played by SNL stars Bill Hader and Kristin Wiig, both in underused, minor parts. And though he might feel as though "turning his brain off" is a good way for him to get over a recent breakup, he soon falls in love with a coworker. The object of his affections is Em Lewin, a girl with relatively grounded charms and a few secrets who's played wonderfully here by Kristen Stewart, the Twilight girl. (Disclaimer: I have not seen or read any Twilight, so the only baggage I brought to this film with her was her work in "Into the Wild," which was also quite good.)

As James navigates the weirdos who work at Adventureland, he befriends a maintenance worker at the park played by Ryan Reynolds in a seriously toned-down role for him. Reynold's character is all the macho that Eisenberg (who could seriously be Michael Cera's brother) isn't, and he seems attracted to spending time with this man just to pick up on some of his lady skills and street wisdom, pig that he is. It's so surprise that the ways in which James is forced to compromise his original vision for himself cause complications in much the same way that Benjamin Braddock compromises his potential in "The Graduate." In fact, I saw many parallels between these two films.

I also saw and heard a lot of the sweet 80s nostalgia that I love so dearly here, and that might have elevated ADVENTURELAND to a higher level for me. I thought that Mottola used music particularly well, from the monotonous repetition of "Rock Me, Amadeus" as a minor sub-plot item to the sweet ennui of "Don't Dream It's Over" and the Flying Bobs-ready anthem of disco pop Shannon's "Let the Music Play." All skate! Mottola makes this film an 80s experience, so it is reminiscent in sweetness and nostalgia to the work of the recently-departed John Hughes. The way ADVENTURELAND keeps from being as forced in pace, tone and humor as "Superbad" was happens to be, for me, one of its strongest assets.

I think ADVENTURELAND is much more accomplished than most of the recent batch of gross-out teen comedies, and probably has a bit more of use to say. This is a slow-moving and quiet film, but it's also an honest one. And for those of us who love our 1980s nostalgia, you can't Beat It. Pun intended.

3.5 out of 4