Skip to main content

I once believed I could do as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Alice Through the Looking Glass
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Alice Through the Looking Glass isn’t quite the turkey its critical and box office reception might suggest; it’s certainly more engaging than the torpid Tim Burton original, which rode the crest of Avatar’s coattails to $1bn worldwide on the strength of post-conversion 3D . But, and this is a big but, the motivation motoring this sequel is a real bust, and it means that, for all that some elements absolutely work (Sacha Baron Cohen, perhaps surprisingly given recent form), it entirely lacks the emotional underpinning and pay-off it should. This is largely down to one entirely misjudged ingredient: Johnny Depp.


Or rather, the Mad Hatter. I’m not as down on Depp’s recent career as most (or everyone, if you believe the Internet) seem to be, but the Mad Hatter in the 2010 Alice in Wonderland was an outright stinker as far as the actor’s penchant for eccentric turns go. Up there with his high-pitched Willy Wonka. The problem is only reinforced here, as the emotional journey (literally) is all about him. But the Hatter is inherently unsympathetic, unfunny, and unappealing. His lost family is only important because Alice invests them with importance – no one discussing the matter is able to conjure a shred of conviction about how vital they are   but even given the first film, or because of it, the depth of feeling she holds for the Hatter is mystifying. About the only time the character’s fey English eccentricity proves remotely interesting is when Depp knocks it on the head and briefly turns malignantly Scottish.


So Alice sets off on a quest to recover his kin, which requires her going back through time. And still we wonder why she’s bothering. There’s something of a Shrek Forever After quality to this reflective journeying, by way of Back to the Future Part II, but the passages involving younger versions of the regulars, the Queens et al, aren’t especially captivating, merely a means to assemble familiar faces, albeit with the years pushed back (yet more of the current rage in CGI botox, this time servicing Helena Bonham-Carter).


The quest for the Chronosphere is introduced via some desperately unconvincing and half-arsed exposition, but as soon as Sacha Baron Cohen strolls on the scene, for all the world sounding like ‘Allo ‘Allo’s “French” policeman (if there’s a big screen version, and why not given the rip-roaring success of Dad’s Army, the makers will know who to call), the picture perks up. Time is eccentric, likeable, odd, stupid, threatening, appealing in all the ways the Hatter simply isn’t. Most tellingly so in the one Hatter scene that really works, as Time sits in at a tea party, and the comedy shenanigans’ success are entirely thanks to Cohen’s flawless comic timing.


He’s even wise in a bumbling sort of way (“Young lady, you cannot change the past, but I dare say you might learn something from it”), and something approaching wit surfaces during these sequences (written by Linda Woolverton again, she does better this time); giving chase to Alice, the literal Time implores “You cannot win in a race against Time. Come back. I am inevitable”.


As such, we easily side with Time in respect of Alice’s reckless, selfish (really, since she imperils everyone and is “changing natural law”) desire to help the Hatter; it’s thus appropriate that, come the climax, her scene with Time is resonant in ways the makers surely hoped the Hatter being reunited with his family would be. She says sorry, and even his “and please, do not come back” has the right edge of kindly forcefulness.


Alice is no more successfully established than in the original, so again it’s down to Mia Wasikowska to imbue her with life. The business with Alice becoming a sea captain just doesn’t deliver; it’s the kind of slightly inane female empowerment theme Hollywood thinks will simply because it’s a positive sentiment, rather than because it’s well thought out or motivated. And the interlude in an asylum, where Sherlock’s Moriarty attempts to “fix her” (“Text book case of female hysteria”) may not be alarming, but that’s because the picture doesn’t stand still long enough for the implications to sink in.


But mother Lindsay Duncan’s eventual siding with her daughter actually does have some charge (“Alice can do what she chooses, and so can I”), although it helps that bad guy Leo Bill is such a frightful stinker. I see one review opined “What does this have to do with Lewis Carroll?” Well, since there are no implications of repressed paedophilia in the plot, perhaps that’s no bad thing.


The amount of appropriation from Terry Gilliam is most noticeable, though, even if the results aren’t fit to shines his shoes. From the fixation on Alice not becoming an appropriate, responsibility-bound adult (“This is a child’s dream, Alice”) to the plundering of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen the cogs and sprockets of Time recall the also batty King of the Moon, and the old hatter growing younger before the eyes of the female protagonist is exactly what happened to Baron Anais – you can see the director’s influence on Hollywood, even if he can’t catch a break there.


The director is no Gilliam, though, and the screenplay is both too ungainly and too schematised to settle into something truly involving. James Bobin’s flat, single-plane approach doesn’t matter too much, given how virtually, CGI heavy the whole thing is, and given that his predecessor isn’t exactly the most expressive of auteurs when it comes to camera movements, but it adds to the sense that this is a picture made without much genuine inspiration. It was a cash grab with a third-tier guy calling the shots, or being directed to by the corporate bods.


Alice Through the Looking Glass’ gross hasn’t been sufficient to offset its cost (it made less than a third of the original, although reportedly cost a wee bit less), although it will surely break even and more in ancillaries. But it’s an unnecessary sequel to an uncalled for original that no one especially loved and no one was looking for more of (in terms of which, it’s gross is probably the best that could realistically have been expected). Now what Disney should have done, was take a chance on Tron 3.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…