This film is quite zany compared to the first one. It has some new additions - the queens and the time travel - that make it quite fresh. However, showing the backstory of the queens can also make them feel too grounded and not surreal enough. The whole "saving the world" feel is also a bit too typical for Hollywood. The visual imagination is good as always though.
Add a Review
-
briancham19944 June 2020
-
Venom_8113 December 2016Tim Burton refused to direct this movie..and there is a reason..simply the script is terrible. There is no real and solid story behind this movie if not a marketing operation. The direction works well, nothing special but nothing you can complain about, also the rhythm and the storytelling works good, the problem is the script. The movie is visually stunning , probably visual effects are the only reason to watch this movie. Jhonny Deep is probably on his worst interpretation, he isn't able to transmit anything not even the madness of his character. Mia Wasikovska is the only one who truly believe in the project and tries to produce a decent interpretation. Sacha Baron Coen is funny on his character but maybe he could add more personality in his interpretation. As I already said you can watch this movie just for the amazing visual effects..but without a decent story isn't so entertaining
-
lisafordeay10 September 2020Alice Through The Looking Glass is a 2016 sequel to the 2010 film Alice in Wonderland and this time Alice(Mia Wasakaska) has to travel back in time to save Mad Hatter's family(Johnny Depp). By doing this Alice must go to the time realm owned by Time(an unrecognisable Sacha Baron Cohen) and use a time sphere to go back. But will Alice be able to change the past. Bottom line I liked this film. It was also the final film for Alan Rickman(which this film is dedicated to).
-
Don't believe any of The negative reviews. This Is a GOOD Movie! I was amazed to see so many negative reviews about a really good movie. My comment is about not believing comments on IMDb. There has been times when I've read positive reviews about a movie, and the move sucked major ass. Now I read negative reviews about a movie that was really good from beginning to end, and it simply amazes me. That's why I've decided to pay no attention to reviews too much and just watch the film and make my own decision on whether its good or not. There are just too many critics and you just can't rely on what you read. Don't get me wrong, some of the reviews are spot on and I find myself in total agreement with some reviews, but this movie was really awesome. I like when a movie keeps my interest the way Alice through the looking glass did. So for anyone looking for a nice escape from reality, don't go by the negative reviews, give this one look. I promise you will not be disappointed.
-
I couldn't have been less interested in this franchise, completely dumbfounded as to why they were trying to make sense out of an intentionally non-sensical world. This sequel continues that journey into unneeded clarity, though with better results. Maybe I was just more prepared for what was to come, but I also think it has decent emotional arcs and cool visual ideas, despite Depp's lazy performance and way too much plot.
-
I love Alice in Wonderland - In fact I love most fairy tale/fantasy movies. With the first Tim Burton Alice movie I wasn't disappointed, but the story took me by surprise. The same goes for this movie. But the surprise for me was that I really enjoyed this movie. I wasn't sure what to expect, so I went in not expecting much - and though the story line was a little bland - It was nice to see what became of Alice - Also in this movie, you learn things about people you didn't know. Such as the White and Red Queen's childhood. Take a step through the looking glass and follow Alice through an adventure to save The Mad Hatter's family - In a race to turn back time, Alice goes on another adventure and learns some things that cannot change the past, but can change the present.
-
paul_haakonsen17 September 2016I enjoyed the 2010 "Alice in Wonderland" that had that unique Tim Burton touch to it. But I wasn't in any rush to get to see the 2016 sequel "Alice: Through the Looking Glass". Why? Well, because just what more could there be to tell about this story?
With that being said, then don't get me wrong. "Alice: Through the Looking Glass" is not a bad movie, it just seems like a movie that hardly was necessary to have been made. It is a good movie in itself, and works quite well as a stand-alone, if you will.
The effects in "Alice: Through the Looking Glass" were great, as they also were in the previous movie. And it was nice to see the beloved characters from the first movie return, and also to see the amazing job that the special effects team pulled off at bringing the world to life. Lots of details, vivid colors and memorable characters.
The actors and actresses in the movie were doing good jobs with their given roles, and it was a great treat to have the original cast return to play their characters once again. The Time character was interesting, but it left a less than savory taste in my mouth that they had cast Sacha Baron Cohen for this role. He is not an actor that I am too fond of, so in my opinion another cast would have been preferable. I do enjoy the Mad Hatter character and Johnny Depp does a great job in portraying him. And it was nice to get to see more of that quirky character and get to know more of his background.
The special effects and wardrobe teams really are the ones shining in this movie, because there are just so many wonderful things to look at throughout the movie. And the level of creativity is just astounding. No matter where you look there is something breathtaking.
"Alice: Through the Looking Glass" is certainly an entertaining movie, but it is hardly one that you will sit down and watch again any time soon. -
zalouteacher16 September 2016I liked the fact that the script of the movie is full of puns and rhymes taken from the original work. This makes the movie as interesting as the original Through the Looking Glass since Lewiss Carroll was famous with riddles and hidden messages in his works and he was known to include mathematical wonders in the writing such as the case of Alice in Wonderland. Maybe the plot was not greasy enough but overall it was a nice movie. The character that I liked most is Hatter( Johnny Depp) who has again striken me with his ability to wear different hats of roles and to impersonate himself in the character he's given. Also, the character of Alice was a fit with her angelic smile that reflects an innocent adult.
-
GoneWithTheTwins_com25 May 2016After spending a year sailing around the world, Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) returns home to London to find that her mother (Lindsay Duncan) has sold off their shares in the trading company that had been backing her journeys - to scorned suitor Hamish (Leo Bill). Facing the end of her career as a sea captain, Alice escapes her distressing surroundings by jumping through a magical mirror that transports her to Underland. Once there, she discovers that her good friend Hatter Tarrant Hightopp (Johnny Depp) has grown deathly ill at the thought of never seeing his family again. Determined to help, Alice discovers she must travel back into the past using Time's (Sacha Baron Cohen) "chronosphere" to undo the events that would lead to the demise of Hightopp's troupe. Disregarding the clock-keeper's warnings, Alice steals the device, unwittingly setting into motion a chain of events that will threaten the very existence of her beloved alternate world and all of its inhabitants.
The film starts off like a "Pirates of the Caribbean" yarn, sporting a young skipper engaging in high seas battles, spouting orders to disapproving minions, and succeeding in impossible feats of seafaring luck. Impossible for anyone unfamiliar with the realm of Underland, that is. For Alice, anything is possible; for the audience, this belief in spontaneous, inexplicable happenings becomes extremely annoying, very quickly. Every predicament is hopelessly insincere, since solutions can be invented on a whim. No real peril - and therefore no sense of genuine adventure - can exist in a world where nothing is clearly defined.
It seems contradictory to criticize a picture based on the works of Lewis Carroll for being too unrealistic. More specifically, it's not as much an issue of realism as it is reasoning (or explanation), which again might sound contrary to the obviously absurdist concepts that populate Carroll's visions. But when everything is nonsensical, the plot and the characters generate little purpose or drive. Motives and emotions become pointless and hollow. It's a bit like watching a program for toddlers; it's full of colors and sounds and commotion, but it serves merely as a distraction, instead of as thought-provoking entertainment. To anyone not enthralled by the manifestation of key elements from the original stories, this lack of engagement is insulting to the intelligence.
As for the look, even though Tim Burton is no longer directing, the sets and environments are still dark and morbid. With its classic sentiment of an escape from oppression or conflict - or simply retreating into the imagination - the film seems to scrape the edges of significantly heavier material, like "Sucker Punch" or "Pan's Labyrinth" or, visually, "Crimson Peak." But Depp always seems to pop up at random moments to force the mood back into utter lunacy, with his exaggerated, cartoonish movements, grotesquely thick and vivid makeup (which ought to be added to Wasikowska's incredibly pale features), and lisping deliveries. Cohen, too, adopts a strong accent, similar to that of Christoph Waltz, but for no apparent reason. With all the attention to caricaturing these roles, they might as well have been completely computer generated personas.
While some of the dialogue retains a touch of Carroll's rhyming whimsy, most of it is negligible. The jokes aren't funny and the various interactions are either too generic to be poignant or too asinine to be significant ("That cannot be," insists Alice, to which Mirana the White Queen replies, "Unless it could"). Quite ironically, for a film so greatly invested in the concept of time and its value, "Alice Through the Looking Glass" ends up being such a staggering waste of it.- The Massie Twins
-
greg-e-porter29 June 2016Bottom line: The perfectly OK Alice Through the Looking Glass is getting pretty terrible reviews but I don't really know why; it makes me want to ask, "What were you expecting?" 2.5/4
Alice Through the Looking Glass is the sequel to Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland. In this adventure, the Mad Hatter (Depp) is dying of sadness because he believes that his family (long thought to have perished at the hands of the Jabberwocky) is actually alive but just lost. Alice has to, once again, go into Wonderland to save the day even if it means traveling through time.
How's that for a spoiler free plot teaser? Any-who, the first thing I would like to note about this iteration of the franchise is how it's not directed by Tim Burton and you can tell because we aren't being beaten over the head with whimsy. We've got Johnny Depp returning as the Mad Hatter but he's just kind of in the background doing his thing instead of being center stage.
While I didn't see the first one, my wife did and she thought this one was better. I suspect that that might be the case because with the first one, the crux of the movie is the spectacle that is Burton's interpretation of Alice in Wonderland; we have to introduce all of the characters and tie them all together with an adventure. In Through the Looking Glass, we can just have an adventure.
The performances were all perfectly good. In one review, someone said that Sasha Baron Cohen's performance of Time was just Cohen doing an impression of Werner Herzog. Herzog is the guy who made Grizzly Man. Sure, I can see that in terms of his accent but I don't think it's a minus point to the movie. I thought he was a solidly balanced character that I enjoyed watching.
The big thing about this movie were the special effects. I thought there were fine too; not earth shattering nor dull.
Maybe one of the reasons I didn't mind this movie was because my expectations were appropriately grounded. I was expecting it to be unwatchably bad. Another reason was that I had just finished watching Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which I loathed, so Through the Looking Glass felt like a Burton-esque film that wasn't garbage. Overall, I'd recommend Alice Through the Looking Glass if you are looking for a light movie, maybe a weekend matinée. -
ozfan0827 May 2016I usually don't go in depth much about my thoughts on movies, and that's because in most cases, I feel like everything there is to say about a movie has already been said because so many people, not just critics, are able to voice their opinions now with the advent of social media. I also understand that it's very hard to make a movie, especially a good one, so I generally try not to give much attention to bad movies or waste my time and energy bashing them.
With "Alice Through the Looking Glass," though, I feel like I have to put my opinion out there. I'm in the minority with this one in that I loved "Wonderland" and was incredibly excited to see "Looking Glass." Having finally seen the movie, I'm really disappointed. I feel burned.
Tim Burton directed "Alice in Wonderland" but chose not to direct this one - in his place is James Bobin, director of the two most recent "Muppets" films (the first of which I thought was great, the second much less so but still fine). I think it would be unfair to put all of the blame on him, but he's certainly responsible for some of what went wrong here... as is screenwriter Linda Woolverton, who I almost can't believe is the same person who wrote "Alice and Wonderland," "Maleficent," and the original "Beauty and the Beast." While her previous work is whimsical but subtle and sophisticated, "Alice Through the Looking Glass" is an uninspired mess, and I can't help but suspect that she really didn't care about this at all.
You know, it seems like almost no one involved in making this movie cared. Mia Wasikowska is probably the only member of the cast who deserves any praise, and I thought she did an even better job playing Alice here than she did in the first movie. Everyone else though, ESPECIALLY Johnny Depp and Anne Hathaway, should be embarrassed. Johnny's Mad Hatter was one of the best things about the first one, but here, he's just really weird and annoying. Like, super annoying...
I don't even think the composer, the usually amazing Danny Elfman, put forth much of an effort here. The score for "Alice in Wonderland" is one of my favorite scores for a movie ever, but it's like for this one, he thought he could just recycle the stuff he wrote for the first one and that no one would notice? Well, I did, Danny. I noticed.
The visual effects and production design are pretty great, as they should be, but you never get that sense of wonder or escapism that you should get with a movie like this because so much of the movie is just people standing around bantering or delivering boring exposition. The movie is loud and sometimes frantic but rarely fun or engaging. It's a major disappointment and a major step back from "Alice in Wonderland" and Disney's other recent live-action fairytale adaptations. It's just not good. -
safaa_jolha220 September 2016Literally every second of this movie is worth watching ! it's even better than the first one. I love the visual effects, maybe that's why I loved this movie so much, I mean the nature in Underland, the time castle, much effort was put on this movie and it was worth it . I wasn't expecting that much of it, since I didn't expect a good story. But the story of Time is incredible ! And those little seconds of his are so cute, I liked the idea of the white queen not being totally good by lying in her childhood and being part of the reason that made her sisters' head big. I wish there were more parts for the Cheshire cat, I love his grin :D. But, finding The Hatter's family could've taken more light, the hatter just finds them and that's it. We should've got the opportunity to watch more of them after they come back. Still, this movie's became one of my favorite fantasy movies .
-
RosanaBotafogo26 July 2020Gorgeous graphics, impeccable makeup, divine costumes, lots of colors, all very charming, the children were mesmerized, if it weren't for my disappointment and hates, for the formerly loved and deified Johnny Depp, I might even have liked the movie more...
-
choonearmy22 December 2019This movie is bad. Not a passive bad outfit you wore as a teenager that is collecting dust in a trunk in the attic bad...more a something went rotten in your fridge while you were on vacation and can't get rid of the smell no matter what you do and you want to burn your own house down to never smell it again because its so actively bad bad. Yuck.
-
filipemanuelneto9 February 2021There are some films that are made only for the money that is expected to be collected from them. After seeing this film, I think it fits that description. "Alice in Wonderland" was a box office and critical hit, and had a good financial fit. The sequel, expected, takes advantage of the title of a novel that Lewis Carroll wrote after "Alice in Wonderland". Just the title! The story has nothing to do with the book that, out of curiosity, turned 145 years in the year the film was released.
The script begins with Alice's return from a trip to the Chinese seas and the discovery that her mother had gone into debt and passed control of the family firm to Hamish who, by malice, decided to take revenge by forcing her to sell her ship. It's in this context that Alice returns to the magical country that she already knows after going through a mirror. There, she discovers that she was "summoned" to the country to help the Mad Hatter, who is dying of sadness for believing that his entire family, presumably dead, may be alive somewhere. Alice will have to go to the Castle of Time and get the Chronosphere, a time-travel machine that would allow her to discover what happened to the Hatter's family.
I was unimpressed with this film. I think the direction of James Bobin bet a lot on the visual and little on the script. In fact, I found surprising that Burton did not stay with the direction and preferred to stay in production. I think it would have been better for the film to have Burton in the chair. Linda Woolverton's script seemed to be predictable and not very creative, with childish's dialogues, forced jokes and too many puns that fade over time. The material given to the actors was probably not the best either.
Mia Waskikowska is quite good as Alice, she looks safe and confident. Helena Bonham Carter gave soul and emotion to a character who was, therefore, very humanized. Sacha Baron Cohen is also in good shape and this is reflected in the inspired and fun way he brought Time to life. I bet he had fun with the character and did this job with pleasure, I got to feel it when I saw him. However, if we put aside these three actors who, in fact, did very well, the cast's performance is generally poor. Johnny Depp, for example, was a shadow of himself, and he is one of those actors that I consider almost a safe bet for fantastic characters. I believe that the bad phase he was going through at the time of filming had a strong influence (the stormy divorce with Amber Heard), but the bad material of the script did not help him either. Anne Hathaway was also bad in a lifeless, emotionless performance, as if she was not engaged in her work. The film also features Rhys Ifans, Geraldine James, Lindsay Duncan and Leo Bill, but they all seem to be adrift, doing as they see fit and without much support from the director. The voice actors, as their characters, were in the third place of importance, highlighting only the very brief contribution of Allan Rickman because it was his last work.
Technically, the film is great, as its predecessor had previously been. These are films with a great visual focus, and where a lot of money is invested in CGI and state-of-the-art effects. The result is what is calculated: a visual show with a colorful, vibrant and intense cinematography. The effects of the storm at sea and the maritime maneuvers of Alice's ship were very well done and the fantastic world of Wonderland looks incredible, although not as absurd as Carroll's imagination would have liked, I think. This is compensated by the Castle of Time, as extravagant as possible. The costumes also help, starting with Time's and the two queens (I didn't like Alice's oriental costume so much, I confess). Still a word for the good conception of the Seconds and, particularly, of the guard of the Red Queen, inspired by the magnificent art of Arcimboldo, who is one of my favorite artists of the Renaissance period. Whoever has never seen one of his artworks must see it. As for Danny Elfman's soundtrack, I think it meets expectations, but it doesn't stand out. -
mamawhoban22 September 2019Loved the story, characters and special effects Another great family night movie
-
xaciwop19 January 2022The third addition to this Disney franchise becomes the worst of the three. An unconvincing, mediocre plot makes for a movie that seems like it should be in streaming, not in theaters. The cast seems to be up against the film itself, as none of its performances are as strong as in the previous film. Helena Bonham Carter is the strongest character, but she appears too late to save the movie. The VFX is still very good, so if you are a fan of the franchise, watch it to pass the time.
-
jayandre30 May 2016Before I shatter this film, I would like to say that I do respect the filmmakers of Hollywood (somewhat). They are creative geniuses that have transcended the art of filmmaking time and time again. They have continuously pushed the boundaries, especially when it comes to bringing astounding visual effects to the big screen.
However, the art of storytelling has become lost on them. This is primarily because conglomerates have bought out the studios. A movie is merely a commodity to the shareholders. The question they pose themselves before financing a movie is this: Do we already have a built in audience for this story? If there isn't already a built in audience, good luck getting the film financed.
With that being said, it is clear that storytelling is the last priority of Hollywood. Through the Looking Glass is a prime example of this. No matter how many groundbreaking visual effects they throw on the screen, the plot stinks. There was no suspense. Very little irony. No interesting characters. No memorable scenes. No compelling conflict and dynamics between the characters. The entire premise of the film was based on Alice saving the Mad Hatter from his illness. Yet, I could really care less. The story reflects nothing about the human condition. It raises no intriguing questions. Not to mention that the plot itself is aimless and disjointed. It meanders along, zipping in different directions without a clear focus and purpose. One wonders how a script like this even gets greenlit.
Maybe this is what audiences have come to accept. Maybe it's our culture that is the problem. However, I won't lay down without making my voice heard. When the credits rolled, I personally booed the film. My girlfriend tried to get me to shut up.
Story is a metaphor for life. Compelling characters represent something about each of us. We relate to them on different levels. We witness the actions they take, and say "Ah, I would've done the same." or "Wow. I would've never done that, but I can understand why they did it." The problem with fantasy films like this is that they are so far disconnected from reality that they literally represent nothing.
So I shall pose a challenge to those reading this review who have seen or intend to see this film: watch Alice, then watch a movie like Birdman, The Social Network, Nightcrawler, Fury, or a TV series like Breaking Bad, then compare the two. I guarantee that you'll find yourself much more emotionally fulfilled upon watching one of the films I mentioned. Not all superhero/fantasy films are trash. But Through the Looking Glass was an egregious example of all special effects, but a junk plot. -
Alice Kingsleigh has spent the past three years following in her father's footsteps and sailing the high seas. Upon her return to London from China, she comes across a difficult decision that may determine what she's going to do during the rest of her life. After re-encountering Absolem, she finds a magical looking glass and returns to the nonsensical realm of Wonderland.
Alice discovers that things are going very wrong with the Hatter, who is now acting madder than usual, haunted by past events that he refuses to reveal. In order to prevent a heartbreaking end to her friend, she turns to Time himself. Despite his warnings about Alice not being able to win a race against time, and not being able to change the past, she borrows the Chronosphere, a time device that everyone (including the now banished Red Queen) wants, and winds up returning to the past.
As Alice witnesses the hits and misses of friends (and enemies) during their lives, discovering how it prompted them to their current states in the present, she may learn how to solve not only the problem with the Hatter, but her own back in London – but only if she can win the race against the ticking Chronosphere. -
mihai_alexandru_chindris1 April 2018It is "decent". Not extraordinary, nor a waste of time. The sad thing is that it focuses more on the sparkly scenes, like these would impact the viewer the most. In fact, the story lacks substance and this should have been the epicentre of interest. It is far from great, although it's not a disappointment. Something slipped through the fingers of the producers when they were producing this movie. Now it's another commercial film.
-
First off if you are looking to be magically transported to the pages of this beloved children's story, please prepare yourself to be sadly disappointed. The only thing this film has to do with anything from the book is the characters. The story is as ridiculous as the absolutely exhausting Red Queen baby talking and The Mad Hatters stupid lispy over acting. Both are equally annoying through the entire film. You actually just want to shake Johnny Depp and beg him to stop. I understand film makers taking some creative license in adapting a book to film but this is just pathetic. I can't understand how this movie was even allowed to be released with the title of Alice Through the Looking Glass. It made wish there was a looking Glass that I could jump through to escape having to finish the film, but as I was with family I had to endure it til the end.
-
Director James Bobin (Muppets 2011 & 2014), along with writer Linda Wolverton (Alice... 2010) once again bring color, amazing CGI effects and easy storytelling (although a bit complicated at times) to Lewis Carroll's book. Skirting Depp's current personal affairs, he once again captures the Mad Hatter, this time with more believable reserved flair enabling him to slip easily into his shy yet disturbed character. Successfully sharing the primarily (and believable) green screen set is the wonderfully adverturist Mia Wasikowska "Alice," Helena Bonham Carter as big head Red Queen "Iracebeth," Anne Hathaway as the less then attractive floating princesses "Marana," quirky Sacha Baron Cohen as "Time," Matt Lucas as the lovable Tweedledee / Tweddledum, and the wonderful voices (to name a few) of Timothy Spall, Ed Spellers and the late Alan Rickman. "Alice Through the Looking Glass" isn't rocket science, it's just a good family film filled with colorfully special effects, a familiar storyline and good acting - regardless of what many a film critic are saying. If anything didn't quite fit into the fantasy environment of the film, it was the closing credits song by vocal artists Pink. Where the film places one firmly in a fantasy environment, Pink's song is too current, thus pulling one away from the established dream-state. Regardless, when Awards time rolls around, "Alice..." should fill its glass with recognition.
-
suspyria24 May 2016I went to see this on imax on the pre-premiere today, and it was a pleasant surprise. I don't really recall many details about the first one, the only thing I know is that I went in with huge expectations and came out disappointed. This time, I went with no expectations. The film didn't seem that good judging by the trailer, so I just went with an open mind, and this time, came out pleased. I can't say it is an awesome film that will stay engraved in my mind forever, but it is good fun. The film is entertaining enough, although it lacks pace at some moments around the middle of the story, and can be a bit boring. Whenever I notice myself wondering for how much time I've been in the theater, I know that the film isn't doing its job properly. That being said, the visuals are quite stunning and they really make you dive into wonderland. I found the acting to be lukewarm, with some exceptions (Johnny deep did do a wonderful mad hatter this time, as well as Helena Bonham Carter, who never fails to perform). I left the theater feeling not amazed, but pleased with the film. It was a fun experience, not out of this world but still fun, and I would recommend it.
-
jamesrupert201422 January 2017How anyone can take 100 million dollars, a tremendous cast and the characters of one of the all-time great children's books and get this tedious drivel is beyond me. The moment I realised that the opening 'pirate adventure' was not just a dream sequence but rather the 'reality' side of some new post-feminist iteration of Alice's life, I knew that I was going to hate this movie - and it did not let me down. All I can hope for is that the dismal returns on Disney's investment guarantees that the studio won't desecrate another classic. Wishful thinking I'm sure - they didn't learn anything from John Carter. There is a reason why people still avidly read these books a century after they were written - they are that good - they don't need to be rewritten, updated, have their characters co-opted or their name and tradition exploited.
-
neil-47630 May 2018The two Alice books are must-read classics, and have found their way onto screen in many different versions. James Bobin's film is a direct sequel to Tim Burton's Wonderland film: both take their names from Lewis Carroll's books, but neither takes any more than characters from them: Alice Through The Looking Glass is another original story.
The end of Burton's Alice In Wonderland movie saw our heroine ditch her nerdy fiancée and go off to sea. Through the Looking Glass starts with a dramatic sea chase, before Absalom the Butterfly (voiced by Alan Rickman in his final cinema work) calls her back to Underland, where the Mad Hatter (now named as Tarrant Hightopp) is pining away for his lost family. Alice's adventure - seeking the Hightopp family - involves her stealing a time machine from Time himself, a menacing personification of entropy, who is understandably miffed at having this mechanism nicked, especially given that it has the potential to unravel reality.
In short, the story has nothing whatsoever to do with Carroll's book. Having said that, it's not a bad story - it holds the attention, has lots of eventfulness and action, illuminates some of the characters, offers a couple of emotional moments, and allows Johnny Depp to mug from under the Hatter's elaborate makeup. I preferred it to the story offered in the previous film.
The visuals are, as expected, impressive, and Sacha Baron Cohen's Time is a good addition to the cast. Rhys Ifans as the Hatter's Dad makes less impression.
The reservations I had with the first film are still there - Barbara Windsor is just plain Wrong as the voice of the dormouse, naming the characters is both unnecessary and irritating, Anne Hathaway's White Queen's airy-fairy affectations get on your nerves, and Helena Bonfire Carter's Red Queen is still nicked wholesale from Queenie in Blackadder.
Mia Wasikowska's Alice is pleasingly feisty, more so than she was in Wonderland. And so we come to Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter. We've seen the character before, of course, and Depp once more gives us the gentle, lisping, well-spoken and slightly barmy Hatter who has a bond with Alice, as well as the occasional psychopath from the Gorbals. To these he adds the declining depressive, a sad reflection of the heartier main iteration. But ultimately they are all Johnny Depp doing funny voices under funny makeups and, despite their appeal, I do find myself wondering if Depp has now overdone the heavily disguised eccentric phase of his career.
This is nonetheless an enjoyable film, more so than its predecessor.