You know the ol' Lewis Carroll story where young Alice follows a White Rabbit into the world of Wonderland and has all sorts of whimsical escapades? Yeah, well, despite the title, this is neither a remake nor a rendering of the original story. Rather, this film takes place years later and tells the story of 19-year-old Alice returning to Wonderland, reuniting with her old friends, and learning that her true destiny is to end the Red Queen's reign of terror.

 
"What was the follow-up book to Alice in Wonderland?" I asked my sister immediately following the movie.

"Through the Looking Glass," she replied.

"So is that what this movie was based on?" I inquired.

"I don't know," she neither cheerily nor despondently responded. "I never read the book."

All we knew was that this was not a retelling of the original Alice in Wonderland, even though the film's title clearly indicates that's what we're to expect. So allow me go straight to Tim Burton and see what he has to say about the origin of THIS film's story:

"With all the movie versions, well, I've just never seen one that really had any impact to me. It's always just a series of weird events. Every character is strange and she's just kind of wandering through all of the encounters as just a sort of observer... The goal is to try to make it an engaging movie where you get some of the psychology and kind of bring a freshness but also keep the classic nature of 'Alice.' And, you know, getting to do it in 3-D fits the material quite well. So I'm excited about making it a new version but also have the elements that people expect when they think of the material."

For those of you who don't speak Burtonese, what he's basically done is take the Wonderland world, its characters, a lot of its original well-known quotes ("curioser and curioser"), injected his own story, and slapped some 3-D on this sucker and released it to the masses. Nothing wrong with that, but does it work? Well, that's highly debatable.

Was I entertained? To an extent. But I never felt engaged. Wonderland looks all cool and Tim Burtony, but ultimately the story falls flat. And while the 3-D is cool, the fact that it was shot in 2-D and THEN converted takes away from 3-D's immersive qualities.

"But Johnny, Depp as the Mad Hatter is perfect casting! How can that not be good?!"

I can't argue with that. Depp is great as the Mad Hatter, but to be honest, he wasn't given much to do. And I couldn't understand 60% of what he was saying. I'm not sure if that's a result of his accent or his usage of Wonderland language. Creating a new language is fine, but you've gotta let the audience know what's going on.

I also thought Mia Wasikowska as Alice and Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen really stood out. Mia is a cutie with pleasant screen presence, and Helena is funny as the conscious-absent Queen with the bulbous head. Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, is downright scary. I don't find her attractive in the first place, so giving her bleached white skin and hair to go along with blackish lipstick and heavily mascara'd eyes doesn't help matters. Rather than looking like a good queen, she looks like a girl with daddy issues who would be most easily found at a Lady Gaga concert.

It's not all that surprising that the film is downright yawn-inducing whenever Alice is in Victorian England, struggling with whether she should accept Hamish's proposal. After all, there's not much they can do with the 3-D during these scenes. However, I was a little surprised at the lack of excitement generated by the climactic battle. "All right, things are about to pick up!" I thought. Unfortunately, all we get is some warring chess pieces bumping into each other and Alice dodging a huge dragon called the Jabberwocky. Not exactly Narnia-esque.

Ultimately, this is the kind of film that you pat on the head and say, "That's nice. So, what's next?" Kids will love it, no doubt, but if you were really looking forward to it then you'll likely walk away with one of two feelings - disappointment or a "cotton candy" high. It might give you a bit of a sugar rush, but 20 minutes later you'll realize you've received no nourishment.

• Crispin Glover portrays Stayne, the Knave of Hearts, in the film, but only his head appears on screen. The body of the character, who's seven-and-a-half feet tall, is computer generated.
  
  
• Tim Burton wanted the animal characters in Wonderland to appear real rather than cartoony. So before creating the White Rabbit, animators spent a day at a rabbit shelter for abandoned rabbits, observing the animals and shooting photo reference footage to ensure they captured the nuances of rabbits chewing and wriggling their noses.
  
  
• The Mad Hatter's eyes were slightly enlarged making them between 10 and 15 percent bigger than Johnny Depp's own.
  
  
• Johnny Depp was in 21 Jump Street in an episode with Josh Brolin who was in Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon.

Rated PG for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar, Alice in Wonderland doesn't really contain any offensive elements, but I can certainly see how little children would find it quite intense and scary. Sure, it's all stylized, but some of the content includes a creature's eye plucked out with a sword, another creature's head severed, a scary creature known as the Bandersnatch, and a moat filled with blood and severed heads. You see how one might wonder why this didn't get a PG-13 rating? Granted, it's nothing that will frighten anybody over 10 years old (unless your 10-year-old is a wuss), but you might want to take some precaution with the teeny ones.

All the commercials I've seen for the film gave me the indication that this would be a pretty weird movie, and it was, but those commercials don't do justice to the 3-D aspect of the film. You'd need to see the 3-D version of the trailer to get a true idea of what to expect. But to be honest, reading my review is your best bet.

Entertaining yet underwhelming, Alice in Wonderland will be a hit with the kids, but the ONLY reason to possibly see it at the theater is for the 3-D aspect. But here in Memphis, an evening showing will set a couple back $26. If you have a couple of kids then you can jack that dollar amount up to $43. Can you say, "Not worth it?" I think you can. Let the economics of your situation and my ingenious review be your guides.