Review: Alice In Wonderland 3D Doesn’t Need The 3D

Having read the original many times, watched multiple films and TV series, and collected every object imaginable, I must confess that I’m an Alice whore. Here’s my review of Tim Burton’s sequel: I love it. But not on 3D.

Spoilers ahead

In fact, I like everything about the movie except the 3D. I don’t hate it, but it’s obnoxious and distracting through most of the film. It just doesn’t add anything to the experience beyond the post-movie dizziness. It’s the antithesis of Avatar.

The movie itself – a simple, delightfully wacky, adventure movie set in Lewis Caroll’s crazy world – is good. The story, the dialogues, the photography, the direction and the acting are all spot on. The digital effects are perfect for the story, from the delicate details of the White Rabbit’s embroidered vest to the intricate scenarios. The design – like all Tim Burton’s movies – couldn’t be better: The characters, the costumes, the settings… everything exudes the spirit of the original John Tenniel’s book illustrations. And then there is the adult Alice – who returns after her first adventures in Wonderland. By the end of it, you will fall in love with Mia Wasikowska, especially when she gets into her shiny armour.

Focus!
The only problem with Alice in 3D is that the film doesn’t seem to be directed with 3D in mind. And that’s fucking great (if you watch the movie in a normal cinema and avoid the 3D). Burton plays with camera moves, angle changes, depth of field and different scene planes like he usually does, framing shots perfectly.

One example of this is the first action sequence in the movie, when the Knave of Hearts – eerily played by Crispin Glover – and his card soldiers chase Alice through the woods. As the camera frantically races with the action, Burton plays with the foreground – twisted plants and branches – to increase the anxiety levels of the audience. In 2D, this frames the action, making everything more exciting visually. In 3D, it becomes distracting. The same goes for every time the camera moves, and every time the depth of field changes: The illusion of 3D is broken by the distraction, because that’s not how your brain processes the real world.

In the real world, nobody forces you to change the depth of field. When you are focusing on something, you just focus, it comes naturally to you. But when you shift this around in a 3D movie, your brain just gets confused, as if it’s saying, “Hey, I want to keep looking at that thing.”

In a normal film, a shift in focus is device that is part of the storytelling and the aesthetics of the film. In 3D, it just gets annoying.

Thinking Inside the Box

And that’s precisely my problem with 3D: Whenever you move the camera, whenever you play with the traditional cinematic language, 3D can often get in the middle.

I realised it while watching the credits, which roll inside a box in which fantastic mushrooms and vegetation grow. I was truly amazed by it, as if a new world had opened in front of my eyes. I had a hard time distinguishing the weird plants from reality. And it wasn’t only me: My wife was next to me and I could hear her exclaiming “Wow. Oh, wow.”

So how can I love that 3D but hate the 3D during the movie? Because during the credits, the camera point of view is fixed. The illusion is complete. Nothing bothers you. Your brain completely buys the experience. It’s like being in the cinema watching a play: Everything is there.

What is the solution to this? Since the invention of cinema, humans have developed a language that has evolved into different paths. All of them revolve around the idea that everything is projected in a bi-dimensional plane. Directors frame their movies in their minds, then with their cameras, and it’s all related to that single flat silver screen.

Perhaps directors need to invent a new language for 3D altogether, where everything is in focus, nothing overlaps the action, and the depth of field never changes. Maybe they should look into the rules of cinema and fixed cameras. Or maybe they should watch Up! if they really want to film a movie in 3D.

But whatever they do, you should go and see Alice in 2D. You will enjoy it a lot more.

Discuss

(10 Comments)
  • [–]

    hubris

    Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 12:13 PM

    As I understand it, this movie was not shot in native 3D, but was rather post-processed into 3D.

    Apparently there is a big difference. Avatar, I believe, was native 3D.

    This may be the cause of your problem.

    Hey, if I knew that from just general knowledge, why didn’t you find it out in your research? I thought you were one of the better online journos, Jesus.

    • [–]

      stereoscopic

      Monday, March 15, 2010 at 2:41 PM

      you’re right…the film was shot with traditional cameras and later converted to the dimensional format.

  • [–]

    adelaide dancing

    Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM

    i don’t like it when movies are released in 3d just as a gimmick, they should make more of an effort to integrate 3d into the movie if that is what they are trying to do!

  • [–]

    Jim Krisvoy

    Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM

    Having seen the trailer in Imax 3D, it looks intriguing enough; but its also a matter of how the film works. The two Hollywood entertainment trades were mixed on the film itself, however – the one that gave it a rave also gave the 3D itself a rave as well. The other really had limited comment. Alice in Wonderland was not originally filmed in 3D, but is a 2D – 3D conversion done by a company that has already demonstrated strong expertise at their craft. And that is what the trailer showed to me, so have to go see it to, at the very least, satisfy my curiosity.

  • [–]

    Davyd

    Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 4:40 PM

    I will see any Tim Burton movie. I love the Post-Apocalyptic, dark/gloomy feel his films have. But a film like “Alice” should have been made with Motion-Capture 3D cameras like Avatar instead of being converted latter. Thats a easy way for Studios to rip people off. So that studios can make more money they will take 2d movies and then convert them to 3d during post-production. So if you’ve been wondering how come some 3d films you have seen lately seemed too have little effect.. that’s why. like my family went to see Disney/Pixar’s UP in 3D and I can swear we did not see a single damn 3d Shot thru out the entire movie, and the glasses just took away all of the bright colors and imagery. I love 3D. But it will die out soon if Studios keep claiming Every film is in 3D just to a extra 2-4 dollars a ticket and rip you of!

    P.S. Tron Legacy will probably be the next Avatar.

  • [–]

    Anna

    Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 9:53 PM

    Thank you so much for posting an entry about ALICE but not in 3D!!!
    I dislike 3D with a passion. I totally agree about it being distracting. I feel it ruins movies for me, there’s just no need. once in a while, yeah sure it’s fun. But why is every movie being released in 3D. And old favourites are being re-made in 3D!!!!

    • [–]

      Lui T

      Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 9:40 AM

      Stay in your cave Anna..you Dinosaur.

  • [–]

    Simon

    Monday, March 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM

    This was the same discussion that my family and I had coming out of the theatre after seeing this movie. Whilst it was an entertaining movie, the 3D effects really didn’t add anything to it… it very much looked like a post-production add-on. Where I believe that 3D is a critical element to Avatar, enhancing the feel of the movie without being obtrusive, in Alice it was a gimmick.
    My recommendation to friends (since seeing it) is to wait until it comes out on DVD, as the cinemas in Brisbane are currently only playing it in 3D at the moment.

  • [–]

    bennie

    Monday, March 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM

    I’ve heard criticism that Alice looks like a junkie, but I don’t agree, I think she was great… especially in her shiny armour….

  • [–]

    Tweedle

    Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 12:57 AM

    Oh, la dee da. A new technology comes out and somebody has to complain about it.
    There was probably a journalist just like you who compained about color movies, or movies with sound.

    Here’s my 2c: this was the first movie I saw in 3D and it was with trepidation. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about and I expected it to suck.
    Now, I have vowed I will NEVER see a flat version of a movie ever again if a 3D version is available.
    The ability to see depth, even if it was at the director’s discretion, was a tremendous delight over the flat version (and I slipped the glasses on and off to compare).
    We were meant to see depth. It’s 2D that’s the abomination.

    The technology is still young and the possibilities are limitless. You’re welcome to your flatworld. I’m going to enjoy my depth perception.

Join The Discussion