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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …