Possibilities....

I will try and avoid over-generalizations, but just remember that what I am about to say it probably cutting it close. Obviously, cultural norms are not universals and not everyone follows them, so please correct me if I am wrong.

Friendship.
In American culture friendship bleeds over and spills into others lives. If I am friends with you, then, a lot of times, I am friends with your friends. This is not because you already were friends with their friends, but simply because you became friends with them, you can be friends with their friends.
"Any friend of yours is a friend of mine."

In Japanese culture, friendship is based in groups and mini-clique communities. A single member freely moves from one group to another, but doesn't usually bring that groups friendship baggage with him/her.

Essentially, I see the fundamental difference as this:
Japanese: The group is itself a stationary unit.
American: The group is based on the person with which it is connected .

I could also be wrong about this, but that might be why I've had to get used to the hundreds of variations of the vague, "I have something else going on," or "I'm doing something tonight." Etc.. etc. Sometimes, to me as an american, that comes across as cold, but then I just tell myself, it's something cultural, and get on with it.

Oh, if it wasn't clear why I think its connected, let me explain. If my above theory is true, and Japanese groups are separate entities to which you cannot enter just because you are friends with one of the members, then telling you what they are doing is a moot point. However, to the American who is used to being invited to whatever, just because one or two of his friends are going, then not being told comes across as odd.

meh.. maybe I'm over thinking things again. I may be the one who is just too open and too willing to interact with anybody. I tend to agree with this:
"There are no strangers here, only friends you haven't met yet."

Alice... Alice in wonderland

First, I feel I must act as a tour guide so please take a look at Jared's review.
http://jaredsloger.com/blog/
Jared's review comes from the perspective of an artist deeply interested in the characters and story elements. Therefore, I think he has done an excellent job of critiquing the movie, especially with regard to Tim Burton's quirks.

Now, you must allow me to geek out with my perspective mostly steeped in the linguistic.

First of all, I had forgotten entirely that the story of the Jabberwocky was a Lewis Carroll poem, but I rather enjoyed how they focused on it in the story.
If you don't know the poem, it can be found here:
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html

Nearly all reconizable things and characters from this poem were somehow represented in the movie. A short list:
Jabberwock - The big black dragon-like thing.
JubJub bird - The wacky bird that picks up tweedledee and tweedledum
Bandersnatch - The big white furry thing
Vorpal sword - Vorpal just means "really sharp"
Frabjous day - The day the Jabberwock died

I must point out that while the poem was projected on Alice for the movie, a young boy was actually the subject of the poem originally. They carefully though quoted all but the last sections of the poem. I liked getting to hear it.

Secondly, I now know that I need to re-read both Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There. I find it quite difficult to recall subtleties such, though I know the Disney movie, which sticks far more vividly in my mind, was rather a mash-up of the two.

Thirdly, I have an observation about the way Tim Burton tells a tale. When a writer goes to tell a tale, they must relate only the most significant details and rely on the imagination of their readers. With movies, however, the visuals are most key for focusing the readers, and the sounds help control this mystique. Tim Burton does something slightly different though. His visuals are for the purpose of connecting with something he purports is already in our minds. He takes a children's fairytale that we all know, and expects us to read it into the characters and the scenes that have every so slightly been burtonized.

Instead of communicating with images that mirror reality (such as in Avatar), he artfully adds a twist to each character. This results in each character not only being unique in his or her own right, but allows their world to exist on the fringe of fairyland, halloween town, and reality. This combination places his characters in a unique situation altogther because they are not sinister enough, fancy enough, nor real enough to fit in either.

Fourth, the only reason I find that I cannot rate this excellent is a two-fold issue with its plot and characters.

In the plot, the viewer simply could read what the next step was like an open book. There was no mystery, no suspense, just scenes, which though quite exquisite, theydon't make the plot. The insertion of a prophecy like-factor in the calendar compendium was the drawback for this movie. The most momentous mile-markers were laid out for us. I think Alice would have simply been better off remembering her dream and coming across as in control, if even a little bit.

It's the difference for the viewers of being made to feel like the main character is being pulled along by some fate or charging forward making their own. Though, fundamentally, as Alice's decision to be the champion points out; Being free and fated are two sides of the same coin.

The character issue that I had with the movie was ironically Johnny Depp. First of all, he did an excellent job as the Mad Hatter. Secondly, he successfully avoided coming across as Captain Jack Sparrow or anything like that. He simply did quite well. However, in the stories of Alice by Lewis Carroll, the Mad Hatter doesn't have much of a role. Tim was therefore left to "channel" Carroll and interpret how the Hatter would act.

The dilemma this presents was that the majority of the story relied on our knowledge of the Lewis Carroll stories. The Mad Hatter was therefore forced into a role requiring heroism when as a character in the books, he was just plain mad. In a sense, the movie version left us with the impression of not a Mad Hatter but of a Genius Hatter.

Although, admittedly, there is a fine line between Genius and Insanity.

The ability to break a heart

A wiser man than me once spoke of how the greatest books are great because of their ability to break one's heart. What he meant by that was not disappointment, but the ability for the story to speak to the inner reaches of your soul. Or if I were to put it in my own words: The ability of a story to play a tune on the strings of our hearts. Despite the heart reference, the story need not even be a romance to achieve this overwhelming effect.

Tolkien's Silmarillion did this for me years ago. I was taken by how the Ainur (later Valar) brought about reality through their song, how Beren and Luthien persisted though their love was denied, and how the great tree watched over the elves until the time of the simarils would corrupt one of their own. Perhaps though, you know little of this book and my references mean little.

I must admit, though, that I think very few books have torn at my soul like that one. However, I have noticed of late, that even movies must break your heart to be found excellent. Okuribito was one such movie, and I may have found another: The Time Traveler's Wife. The movie was awesome, and I don't mean say that because I was enamoured with some sweet action sequence or a drippy love scene. The movie had neither. The movie for me just felt so tangibly human. Artfully taking the twists and quirks of time travel and playing with them like a juggler, the author adds in normal people who are seeking only to live a normal life.

Now, I have one dilemma though. I overlooked the fact that this movie is based off of a book. A book that I have not yet read, which is something I don't usually do before seeing a movie based off of a book. Therefore, do I read the book in hopes that it will at least break my heart like the movie did?

I am far too curious, I find, and I believe that I must read the book for two reasons:
1. The book is always equal to or better than the movie. Therefore it will at least break my heart.
2. As the saying goes: Nothing ventured, nothing gained: so I'll adventure!

Tis' all.