Thursday 2 June 2016

Film: 'Alice Through the Looking Glass"

It really must have taken some nerve to have given this film its title, with the clear expectation that it was going to be based on  Alice in Wonderland's sequel book, 'Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There'. It's nothing of the sort. Other than Alice climbing through a mirror any further passing resemblance to the book is utterly discarded in a convoluted, hodge-podge tale involving characters we've already encountered in the 2010 film and just about every one of which here outstays their welcome. In fact, since the story is totally invented why did they misleadingly have to use the mirror device at all? Why not use the rabbit hole again and call the film 'Alice in Wonderland II'? Also, there's now the dubious addition of a lead character, one 'Time' (played by Sacha Baron Cohen), to furnish a reason for imposing an attempted consistent direction and coherence to events rather than the largely disconnected, discursive episodes of Carroll's original work. Furthermore, and to cap it all, the film begins with a preposterous and fatally superfluous prologue in which the now adult Alice (Mia Wasikowska again) has become, of all things, a skilled ship's captain(!) with an all-male, burly and unkempt crew, returning home to London after braving wild and stormy high seas, she now having to face consequences for her having rejected an unsuitable marriage proposal. And this is all before the mirror is entered and the 'proper' story even starts!

Writer Linda Woolverton quite wisely calls the other-side-of-the-mirror domain, 'Underland', though all the characters from Wonderland, which we've got to know only too well from the 2010 film, are present and correct - and played (or voiced) by a veritable roll-call of present-day, mostly younger, British actors too numerous to name. Johnny Depp, he of currently damaged reputation, looks as uncomfortable as ever as The Mad Hatter. (I feel that whenever he plays a fantasy character, be it Edward Scissorhands, Willy Wonka, the wolf in 'Into the Woods', or as here, he never looks completely at ease in the role). He, along with the Alice, the Red Queen (played again by...well, H.B.C. of course) and the 'Time' character are the main players in this hopelessly tangled plot involving time travel in a spherical vehicle, trying to foil the evil machinations of the time lord who, with his huge Gothic castle stuffed with clocks and gadgetry, regulates the time aspects of everyone in Underland, including their pre-determined lifespans. 

I was waiting all the time for other characters to appear - but no talking flowers, no white and red knights, no walrus nor carpenter - and the jabberwock is only briefly glimpsed, if it's recognised by anyone at all. Lewis Carroll this definitely is not.

It's a mighty din of a film though there's no denying that the special effects are spectacular. But they had to be, and it would have been a major talking point if they fell short in any way, and they do acquit themselves well if that's what you want to see. However, throwing everything at the screen does not make it any more interesting. Quite the reverse in fact, as ones visual sense quickly tends to tire and be blunted with so much going on. (Unlike the 2010 Alice, which I saw in 3D, I saw this in flat-screen.)

If any child sees this and is inspired to read the original, that girl or boy is in for a big shock, finding that virtually nothing of the book, apart from some of its characters, feature in this over-long film.

The earlier 'Alice' film was directed by Tim Burton, and I scored that with a '5'. This one has a James Bobin as director, whose main claim to fame so far is having directed a couple of recent Muppets films as well as several 'Ali G' TV episodes. Way to go yet, Mr Bobin. Maybe you'll have better material to work with next time.........................3.






16 comments:

  1. Ha!Thank you for subjecting yourself to this so that we don't have to! I will be giving this one a miss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gave it a fair chance, Judith, but my first yawn came within ten minutes of the start. If you miss it your life will be all the richer.

      Delete
  2. I saw the first film and actually almost liked it, even though I didn't think it was quite suitable for children.

    This Alice 2 film sounds like a horrible disappointment and I have no intention of watching it.

    I feel that children (and adults, for that matter) should always be exposed to the book first - and the film should come later, as a minor supplement. It's a shame that Lewis Carroll's original intent was trashed - or completely ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was wavering too on the 2010 film, Jon, though what that did have, which this one emphatically does not, was honesty of intention. (As a matter of fact I've felt for a long time that aspects of the original Carroll stories of both books need an adult to appreciate them fully).
      I can't get over this present film's deception in purporting to be the second book yet merely using a misleading title to draw in people like me to see it. Unlike the first film, I can't see how anyone at all who's familiar with the second book will feel in any way positive about what they've done. I feel I've been duped!

      Delete
  3. I am quite over Johnny Depp and his wacting [wacky acting] so I will definitely avoid this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm getting the feeling also that he's a bit of a busted flush. It's a pity because when he acted in 'straight', serious roles he definitely showed potential. However it seems a long time since he engaged in a significant one of those. And recent negative publicity is hardly going to help his career anyway, though one can never tell for sure.

      Delete
  4. The "Alice" stories are some of my all-time favorites, which I've read again and again. I was so disappointed in the first film that I wasn't even considering seeing this one. Now I know for certain!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do well to avoid it, Mitch. It's clear that this one would further sully your pleasant associations. What makes it even worse is that it was such a pointless venture, as well as being an attempt to make money by deception. Sad that it'll probably succeed.

      Delete
  5. these stories must be really interesting as i did not read but yeas saw previous movie which was great hopefully new director will treat the story with same elegance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 2010 film, though not very good either, was far better than this one. I can't imagine that anyone would prefer this latest.

      Delete
  6. I detest burtons work and jonney gets on my tits so i'll skip this one

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then this one is only going to confirm your anti-Depp feelings, J.G., and though this wasn't directed by Burton the visuals are very much in his trademark style - in which, I always feel, a little goes a long way.

      Delete
  7. Boo hiss.
    I wanted a proper Through the Looking Glass.
    I have a vague memory if an old black-white version with proper White/Red Queens etc. Do you know of any?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll have to hang around a bit longer for a close-to-faithful interpretation to appear, I regret to say, because this doesn't even begin to approach it.

      As to an old b/w version (of 'Wonderland', I assume you're thinking of?), it could be what my faithful Halliwell's tells me is a 1933 film with some big names (W.C.Fields, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper and more) all wearing masks, and therefore largely unrecognisable. I've certainly never seen it but now that I know about it, it sounds like a curiosity worth investigating.
      Other than that, the only b/w version that comes to mind was the TV version of the mid-1960s created by Jonathon Miller with an all-star British cast - I recall Dudley Moore, Peter Sellers and John Gielgud among others. At the time it was considered a very avant-garde interpretation, coming with a warning that it was "unsuitable for children and for those with a nervous disposition". It was re-broadcast sometime in the 80s, I think, but even then it seemed to be relatively mild for tastes that had developed up to that point.
      Can't recall seeing any other black-and-white versions.

      Delete
    2. 1933! that's the one! I want to see it!

      Delete
    3. I'd never even heard of it till I looked it up, so it's unlikely to have ever been on our TV. It obviously doesn't have much of a positive reputation though certainly now a quaint-ish curiosity value.

      Delete