'Ah, Alice. How would we meet...'- once sang the group 'Secret', headed by Nikolai Fomenko and Maxim Leonidov. It was clearly an aria of the Mad Hatter, I think Johnny Depp should have performed this song before he fell into despondency.
Continuation 'Alice in Wonderland'Tim Burton, for some reason considered worse than the original. I watched this film literally on Easter, 08.04.2018 on the STS channel and the film came to me, even better than the first part.
Alice will face time here and it is not like in 'The Tale of Lost Time', Time here is a full-fledged character, he is played by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen'Borat'
All the old characters from the Cheshire Cat to the two queens - Anne Hathaway and Helen Bonham Carter - also migrated to this film. The film will reveal their past and we will learn what brought the Red Queen to the realm of darkness and why she holds anger at the White Queen.
The film reveals the facets of family relationships, tells us that family is something you should appreciate. The film is for children of teenagers who begin to deny family values and trust their individuality.
Excellent computer graphics will take you to the world of Looking Glass. Everything is beautiful and juicy like in a burger Farsh. You will bathe in the narrative of the film as a summer hot day in Lake Sinara.
You will discover both the story of the queens and the story of the Mad Hatter, why he became what he is. In parallel reality, the story of Alice herself is already developing (Mia Wasikowska), she will also have to look into the prism of family relations.
7 out of 10
Oh, Alice, how can we meet?
How to talk about everything?
Oh, Alice, I just can't wait.
Oh, stay in your house. .
Candy doesn’t make sense, whether they’re candy or everyone says “Disney, how to raise money”
Before the resentful young and hot-tempered fans rush in and in heart-unifying rage ignore this review, I must clarify my civic position. I love Tim Burton’s 2010 movie. The only thing I don't like about him is the jig-jerk moment. You can argue as much as you like about the fact that Berton Alice makes to rotate in the coffin of Professor Charles Dodgson, whom the whole world knows under a slightly different name, and that this film is popular only thanks to artists, fanfikers and cosplayers, as well as the eminent director and famous actors, but there is no reception against scrap. Tim Burton’s imagination brought Disney a billion dollars at the box office, which means it’s time to launch the franchise! Disney, you tried. But spring-summer 2016 turned into a disaster for almost all major blockbusters who had the misfortune to come out at this time.
And now about the plot of the film “Alice in the Looking Glass”. I like the plot skeleton of this tape. It has an important idea that the past cannot be returned, that it is necessary to cherish the family and so on. And when I walked out of the theater two years ago after a session, and now I revisited it in the original language, I was tormented by this thought: why can't this be an original story and not an underscreen? It could be a great steampunk adventure. Just imagine: the brave captain of the ship (for I still can’t believe that in strict Victorian society such a young girl was allowed to become captain of the ship, and in general, in the first film she sailed on the ship as a companion of Hamish’s father, how she became a captain, what the fuck, writers?) returns home, finds out that the ship is wanted for the same reason as in the film and accidentally finds herself in the magical country where his imaginary childhood friends live. The captain (let’s call him Elias, to be clear) learns that his closest imaginary friend is sick and decides to help him, to do this, he must go back in time and save the patient’s parents. And then a simple, but soulful adventure with a lesson learned and a good ending. And all in steampunk style, with its rust, gears, watches and Victorian era. The end.
I would be the first to praise such a film, even if it came out average, because steampunk in a movie I last saw in the movie “Wild Wild West” with Will Smith, and would defend such a movie from all attacks. He would have taken a strong place in my heart if he had not been part of the Alice franchise in Wonderland. Tim Burton is only a producer in this film, and we all know what happens when Burton leaves the directorship of a popular franchise and remains only as a producer. Yes, Joel Schumacher? Right, "Batman and Robin"?
The civil position is over. Now for the movie itself.
The film is bad on all fronts. Costume design is not as good as in the first film. I haven't seen any cosplayers in Alice's Chinese-style dress (perhaps because it's an absolutely terrible rusty-eyed distaste).
As for the script, I like the skeleton of the plot, but the development of the characters is just a quiet horror! Writers have tried to deepen the people of Wonderland by adding backstory, but here’s the problem: they don’t need it. Lewis Carroll’s readers never wondered why his characters were the way they were. The world of Lewis Carroll and, to a lesser extent, Tim Burton's film is a world of absurdity, caricature, surrealism. Heroes are original, Wonderland is nothing like a universe. Therefore, the attempts of writers to place certain rules of the game of films about time travel on the chessboard of surrealism in the unpredictable world of Wonderland are doomed to failure. The paradox is that the background of the Red Queen and the Hatter does not make their characters better, but on the contrary, dulls to the standard “misunderstood villain” and “hero with problems in the family.” By themselves, such types work, Marvel Loki from the same Disney combines these two trails, but not in our case. This approach spoils the allure of the characters of Lewis Carroll. As Charlie in another good Tim Burton movie said, “Candy doesn’t make sense, it makes sense.” We love these characters not for their suffering, but for their charisma and satirical overtones.
Acting. I watched the movie today in the original and almost screamed. How bad is Johnny Depp, my favorite Johnny Depp! He speaks with some whispering, gurgling sounds that were not in the first movie (I know what I’m talking about, I have a disc of the first Alice at home with several soundtracks). Like the Joker addicted to severe neuroleptics. Anne Hathaway, in her final scene, gives out wheezing, gurgles as well as Depp, and adds tears to her voice. Anne Hathaway! Who would break anyone’s heart if she started singing “I Dreamed a Dream” in Les Miserables. Tom Hooper! Michael Sheen, the incomparable Michael Sheen in the voice of the White Rabbit beeps, as if his character, sorry, castrated during the absence of Alice! So I want to ask in the voice of Ian Gillan during the performance of the aria of Jesus from the musical Jesus Christ – Superstar: WHYY????? Exactly as it is sung, with tear and despair. I bow at the feet of our domestic backups, especially Alexander Bargman and Sergei Makovetsky, who saved the Russian audience from this nightmare.
And against the background of all this trench, Sacha Baron Cohen looks especially bright and talented in the role of Time. Only his storyline interested me, only he I empathized.
Why is this movie so bad? Maybe it's because Tim Burton stepped down as director? Or Disney wanted to raise money and spat on the plot and common sense? More like the second than the first. The same goes for the latest Star Wars. Only Marvel and Pixar are holding on. But the first studio has Kevin Feige and the second has John Lasseter, who feel their audience and don't spit on common sense and artistic authenticity.
Objectively - 6 out of 10
Subjectively, 2 out of 10, for hints at steampunk and Sacha Baron Cohen. I never want to see this movie again.
The film about the beautiful Alice, who gathered a huge number of people in the cinema halls, I managed to watch only now. I do not know what drove me away from viewing more: either stereotypes about films for the mass audience, or the desire not to waste time on the adaptation of a children's fairy tale, but now I can say that this picture is simply above all praise.
It should be noted that this part turned out to be a head above the previous one. There is an exciting plot, more interesting plot than in 'Alice in Wonderland' where the end of the story we know from the very beginning, and most importantly - Alice no longer eclipses the secondary characters. Johnny Depp, who plays the chic Hatter, finally appears not a couple of times in the whole movie, but gives the plot intrigue, while coming to the forefront. About the sisters ruling in Wonderland 39, we can draw new conclusions, because now they are not empty characters without a past, but full-fledged personalities with their own history and character. Almost every hero has received a soul, found a new life, and it pleases.
Having added the above, I can conclude that this picture turned out to be much more beautiful and interesting than the first part. It is worth watching both children and adults, and the fact that the film is based on a fairy tale does not make it childish and predictable.
8 out of 10
Since childhood I have loved two stories about Alice Lewis Carroll. I grew up on them, and especially love Soviet animated film adaptations of these two fairy tales, which were released in the early 80s. In fact, “Alice in Wonderland” and “Alice in the Looking Glass” are ingenious fairy tales, unlike anything else. Carroll gave the world two magical stories about Alice, full of something incredible and mysterious.
When the fantasy with Mia Vasikowska “Alice in Wonderland” came out, it immediately seemed peculiar to me. The picture is unusual, but will not be to everyone’s taste. I gave her 7 out of 10, and when I was waiting for the release of the sequel and the release of “Alice in the Looking Glass”. When I saw this movie, I was disappointed. I didn’t like the film, and everyone’s favorite and famous fairy tale just turned into porridge with beautiful special effects.
Alice has just returned from a trip on a ship. At home, she is embroiled in the intricacies and intrigues of dishonest people. From the real world, Alice runs into the mirror, where she becomes the epicenter of crazy events. She will meet time itself, but most importantly she will have to save her friend the Hatter.
Such a big-budget failed fantasy still needs to be looked for. From the fairy tale “Alice in the Looking Glass” went very far in this blockbuster, and nothing even next to her. It turned out some sequel to the first film and could be called this something "Alice in Wonderland 2". I wanted to see a familiar tale from childhood, but it was not in the film.
The new processed story in the mirror turned out to be kind of empty. The film was not interesting to watch. It resembled a kind of bitter candy that you chew, chew and for some reason do not spit out. Of course, the visuals and special effects were beautiful, but they do not save the picture from failure.
The script is empty, the direction is weak, but the dryness of the actors killed the most. Famous actors around the world could not revive this dry film. Johnny Depp has played very badly, and this is one of his most failed and dubious roles. The duo of the sisters Queens performed by Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway also did not inspire, and the second completely outplayed. There was a hue of falsehood.
Mia Wasikowska played Alice for the second time, and she was the soul of the film. But it was not enough for the viewer, and I wanted to see something magical, kind, interesting, and the film stuffed some unnecessary and empty story, shown stupidly, and everything was somehow sucked out of the finger. The movie was sad and reminded, as if brainwashing.
“Alice in the Looking Glass” is a loud and disastrous, adventure fantasy of 2016. The movie was big-budget and promising, but turned out to be something dry and uninteresting. I didn’t like this movie and I said no.
Alice in the Looking Glass. 'When we only have a beautiful picture'
So, there were some bad movies in 2016 that didn’t live up to expectations... but today I seem to have seen the worst movie of the year.
The film, compared to which, in 'Zootopia' there is adequate morality
The film, compared to which, the dramatic component ' Suicide Squad' is the benchmark
The film, compared to which, the logic that 'my mom was also called' is quite logical. A film in which the claimed action in the title is even less than in the same 'Batman v Superman'
The film, in comparison with which the main characters of Russian thrash, reviewed by the comedian bad, know how to play.
The film, which is the worst sequel/relaunch of the franchise for 2016.
Alice in the Looking Glass is a film that is better to watch without sound, and admire only the picture.
4/10
The Magic Land is destroyed, and there is no Looking Glass either.
First of all, the first movie was awesome. Why? It was the atmosphere of Tim Burton and Lewis Carol put together, and it's just amazing how it happened, because it's complicated. But ' Alice in Wonderland' was really a real dream, as it should be, there was the Mad Hatter, the strange White Queen with black lips, the charismatic Red Queen, and Edward-like Edward from ' Edward Scissorhands' Alice. That was unusual. It was beautiful and crazy. Brondoshmyk and Barmoglot what are worth.
What can we see in the second film? Nothing. This is a simple story, the most ordinary story. It's no longer a fairy tale or a dream. The White Queen, along with her black lips and nails against the background of general whiteness, lost her charm (raspberry shadows, seriously?!), the Hatter became like a clown and... what?! His family?! It's a magical country, it's a dream, it's crazy! What did you do with all this? !
In the film you can see how mediocrely destroyed the Magic Land, and not turning it into the promised Looking Glass. Now it's just an ordinary city. No, really, just streets, houses, lots of people. It's just a town. And that's where the Hatter family lives. Family, fucking Hatter! And the March hare didn't forget to make a family, did they? Why, why, why? Why destroy all the charm of the first film, all the madness, why turn the country from a girl’s dream into an average town, why create a family Hatter?? I know why. Make money. Why not? Stick bright posters with the face of Johnny Depp, Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter, and go parasitize on the good old movie. The fans are waiting, the fans will. And the fans will come, pay the money, and the hack will pay off.
The Soviet cartoon was cooler! There's no Looking Glass here! Alice goes through the mirror and that's it. Lewis Carroll decided to openly score.
The director demonstrates his talentlessness not only destroying the former charm, he also manages to somehow spoil the game of Johnny Depp. When I looked, I thought it wasn't him at all. How can such a talented actor be so boring? Yes, in his place you could put any other man, no one would notice the difference, there under the make-up, which in the second film is imposed simply nightmare, still nothing is visible.
Anyway, I was terribly disappointed. And even Andrew Scott didn't save the case.
"Alice in the Looking Glass" is a rather pompous film. It comes from critics, it comes from viewers. But it should be noted that in our country (and on this site in particular) this tape is treated more favorably. I will start solely from my perceptions, not looking back at anyone.
I found the film very good. I have to admit, I haven’t seen the original. That's it. I don't know Lewis Carroll's original source. And I gave my impressions based on the first part. I really liked Alice in Wonderland! It was recently revisited.
But here, unlike the prequel, the only thing I was disappointed about was that the Wonders weren’t there. Alas. And yes! The film made, perhaps, too logical, forgetting that “Alice” always bribed by the fact that it was eccentric.
Now our heroine walks on the sea, maneuvering between the shallows and reefs like a tanker. Let's say. Not good at marine physics. And ... binding also seems more mandatory than interesting. The whole Hamish thing... Oh, I didn't like him then. Interesting begins when Alice is sent to the Looking Glass. There's a chordryl The Hatter. He suddenly got into his head that his parents were alive after being attacked by Jabberwock on "an already terrible day." And the Hatter didn't hit a finger to find them himself. Why? You can give Alice a task.
All right. Alice goes looking for her. And she meets someone who, in my opinion, the film "shot." Time. The performance of Sacha Baron Cohen. It was the new face of history. This is where the story starts.
Alice catches the Chronosphere – a prototype of DeLorian – and goes back in time. Then even further back in time. But you can't tell it anymore. That's what the creators did. And I noted for myself that it was these threads of the tangle that ultimately led to a positive result! I didn’t have enough to make the film perfect. It was possible to go deep and deep in time. Yes, there was a risk of turning Alice into the Butterfly Effect. What we have, we have.
I also noticed that the Hatter here is somewhat amorphous. Why? I have to ask Johnny Depp. I have repeatedly noted to myself that, it seems, this actor is “fed”. Here, surprisingly, but it looks like the Hatter almost at the forefront of the story comes out, and at the same time all the canvas pulls down. And I was rather glad that Alice was pulling the blanket over herself.
And the creators, after all, having made such a story, they burned bridges. There are no secrets left in this world. It will not surprise you next time. So it turned out that, trying to do something good (in my opinion, it still worked!), the creators will step on the throat of their own song in the future!
9 out of 10
Do we know much about time? Do you have the right to dispose of them at your own discretion? Are they able to turn it back at their first wish? I think these and other similar questions have arisen in your head more than once, but, unfortunately, they did not have a specific answer.
Today I watched another work of Tim Burton (here the producer) called "Alice in the Looking Glass". This film was a direct continuation of the previously released “Alice in Wonderland”. The film was released on our screens in May 2016 and did not make a positive impression on world film critics, having earned a fairly neutral rating. This was the exact opposite of my impression. I had a great time watching.
The cast has not changed, before us all the same: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, etc. Plus added Sacha Baron Cohen in the role of the Lord of time. Their work, as in the first part, was excellent.
So, to the plot: Already matured Alice traverses the boundless seas and oceans, being the captain of the ship. After completing a year-long trip, she returns home. Upon arrival, Alice travels to Lord Escot's estate with a report of her voyage. Unfortunately, during her absence, the lord died, and his place was taken by Hamish, the previously rejected groom. And this is just the beginning of the bad news. Then she learns that the house is mortgaged and the job is lost. It's all because of Hemish's old grievances.
Lost in the castle, Alice notices the Absolome, which has become a butterfly. He will lead her to the mirror that leads to the already familiar wonderland. But, unfortunately, everything here is not as rosy as before. Best friend is terminally ill. Only Alice can save the Hatter.
The graphics in this film are as incredible as in the first part. The same Burtonian highlight remains, in its colorfulness and mystery of the landscape and characters. And in conjunction with the musical component, a complete picture of a real fairy tale is created.
To be honest, I do not agree with the opinion of critics, on the contrary, the second part made a greater impression on me than the first. Although it is considered to continue weaker. In contrast to the plot of “Walls of Miracles”, “Looking Glass” is filled with a deeper meaning, more mature than that. Don't know. It touches the finest strings of our souls, telling us about the importance of family ties, love for family and friends. And if I could put 11, I would.
The picture is certainly suitable for family leisure and brighten up your boring evening.
I wish you a pleasant view!
Here came my hands raking to Alice in the Looking Glass. I must immediately say that the film is very based on the original work, therefore, it makes no sense to compare it with the plot of the book and therefore we will talk about the film as an independent offspring.
Well, you can see that Tim Burton was not involved in this film. From that the film turned out to be more colorful and fabulous, however, not devoid of atmosphere and its charm.
Very much what is happening resembles the plot of the game and there are quite large similarities with the game Alice, thoughts creep that the authors have heard. The most nostalgic for the game, when Alice comes into possession of Time, a busy man, by the way.
Speaking of characters: Of the new here Time, well, I did not imagine it much differently, although this version is good, a kind of arrogant and wonderful time. It was interesting to see the past of our friends. The creators of the world created a beautiful world. Plus there are jokes and charisma of characters, especially, the March Hare pleased, in the first film it is unforgivably little.
Cons: The image of the Hatter is too bright, he was balancing on a thin line between the crazy, beautiful, mysterious Hatter and the usual figurehead, and the plot is still simple, well, it is for my sophisticated taste.
I wanted to share my opinion, given my wild love for this universe and Alice herself as a character.
8 out of 10
Time heals, just sometimes you need a bigger dose.
When viewers say with surprise or annoyance that this film is completely different from the original and has nothing to do with it except the name of the characters, they are both right and wrong. Indeed, the authors of the film turned out a completely different story, for a completely different audience, but the general message is incredibly similar - not to be afraid of the world and its rules, boldly and bravely go to the queen, even when life and especially adults put you in the place of a pawn.
Linda Woolverton is a unique screenwriter and just a very talented woman who knows how to take a familiar fairy tale with a typical villain, whom everyone perceives as a mehera simply because it is her essence, an unchanging constant from birth to death, and ask how she became one. To show the very foam of anger on the mouth of an angel from which the devil is born. First, this wonderful trick she did with the cult horned Maleficent, and then with the big-headed Red (in our translations, the Black) Queen. Both of these women, or rather girls, were betrayed by loved ones, caused them terrible mental pain, which is scenario-enhanced also as physical pain (cutting off wings, severe head injury), and a small lake of grief, which could drain repentance and a request for forgiveness, turned over the years into a bottomless ocean of anger and revenge, which is almost impossible to calm down. There is an obvious repetition, but the repetition is incredibly talented, important, truly touching the heart of the viewer.
“Alice” were children’s stories written for children and about children, constructed by logic (or rather its amazing absence, paradoxical “contradiction”) of sleep, fantasy, chess games and mathematical-worldview jokes. Alice talks with someone for a long time and tediously, while a bombastic game of childish meticulousness and naivety is combined with a pompous game of adult meticulous reasoning about meanings. Only sometimes will what happens shine in some miraculous way, which Carroll’s illustrators so wonderfully portrayed, but then again plunge into a rather amorphous and almost without any moral component of the story. Under such a fairy tale I could fall asleep now, if it did not cause me bewilderment and disappointment, turning into rage. Woolverton realized that the dry and terribly talking “Alice in the Looking Glass” as it is on a Hollywood scale is impossible to screen, and it is wise to dispose of the carte blanche given to you not for a senseless attempt to revive Carroll’s cards and chess, but for telling your living history. Postmodern, folklore, in this case I don't mind. It turned out in something deliberately, template, but it is absolutely certain that a serious and adult story has developed, which can teach something and help already adult viewers in something, as the original Alice could once help children not to be afraid of the Victorian world of adults.
Lewis Carroll recorded his stories, which he invented for friends who complained about the boredom and severity of the world around him. But he wrote more for children than for adults who were once children like Exupery. Turning a frightening world with its rules and rituals incomprehensible to a child into card flat pieces, into chess characters, he seemed to secure it, charmed, turned into fascinating adventures and an endless series of questions. Alice is a girl and does not owe anything to anyone, she moves freely through the world of fantasy and dreams, cognizing it. Alice Woolverton is a feminist in spirit who owes everything: mother, father, company owner, herself, the Mad Hatter, Time. It is not she who fills everyone with stupid childish questions, but the world fills her with adult and mirrored demands and claims - be submissive, you are a woman, give up your dream of being a captain, do paperwork, heal from mental illness, do not disappoint me, find my relatives, return the chronosphere, do not be late, save the Hatter ... Alice of the boring world of adults should be a normal humble woman, Alice of the Mad Hatter and company should be a hero that nothing can stop. That's relevant, isn't it? From all the mirrored, glossy world of women's magazines, superhero films, we are shouted that a person can live a fantastic, beautiful and successful life, but the environment, our real life and people around remind us rather that being a pawn or a rook is very cool, it is strange - to want to be a queen. By the way, if there were any kings in the book, then there are no kings in the film, which confirms that this is a purely female, feminist showdown, in which Woolverton, in fact, is a master. Do you remember what a pitiful shadow the Prince was in Maleficent? "Frozen", "Maleficent" - the decisive saving kiss in these modern fairy tales no longer comes from a wandering male, it comes from full of heat and sacrifice of repentance and prayer of a woman. And because there are human fights in the heavyweight among the fair sex. In less than twenty centuries we have lived to see female authors and full-fledged female stories. I can't help but be happy.
Mia Wasikowska has outplayed, it seems, all the decisive and courageous female characters of classical literature – and Jane Eyre, Emma Bovary, and Alice. If a woman has some core and will to live a full life, Mia will always convey this inner challenge to the world. And her Alice is the same - absolutely conscious, but without age, not stopping at difficulties, not a boy, but her husband - not a girl, but a non-accessory woman. A new myth about a woman - she is not afraid of the opinion of society, runs a ship like a salted sea flibuster, runs away from the pretty Moriarty with a syringe of sedative, like a venerable criminal genius, saves the world when it collapses, has the honor of being worthy of his father and the wisdom to accept before death. The Hatter’s “My Alice” is such a Wonder Woman in a colorful dress that sets a high bar for all the women around. Whether people need such a fairy tale now, I believe it is very necessary. A story about the strength and pain of women. Perhaps the creators did not act quite honestly, luring the audience to a cheerful and moderately bloodthirsty fairy tale, and began to talk about absolutely not funny things – about principles, about family, about strength of spirit, about faith in oneself. Let all this be sprinkled with cute little things like baby seconds and a costumed symphony, the story turned out to be the most that neither is vital, and post-World Mirror. Helena Bonham Carter, of course, stole the show from Alice, and almost for the first time not because of her charisma, but because of the genuine unexpected compassion of her character, but in any case, this universal, wise and instructive story is worthy of your attention. After all, we often love fairy tales for morality and for good catharsis, when evil can be stopped, and mistakes can be corrected. And heal our soul a little.
Under the direct guidance of the brilliant animator Walt Disney, remarkable paintings were shot, which are rightfully considered classics of world animation. Having organized its own and quite successful company, Disney year after year increased its influence on the entertainment industry, filming both its own original ideas and the classics of children's fiction. Not afraid to invest in the production of full-length cartoons stunning sums of money and incredible efforts of the constantly expanding staff of animators, Disney presented the audience with such unforgettable masterpieces as “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” & #39; “Cinderella” & #39; “Pinocchio” & #39; and, of course, a charming phantasmagoria called “Alice in Wonderland” & #39; Unforgettable tape 1951 rightfully entered the Golden collection of masterpieces from Disney, repeatedly reissued and rolling through cinemas, delighting the audience with the opportunity again and again transferred to the magical world of Disney. Carroll's on the big screen. Over time, the original 'Alice in Wonderland' turned into a true example of the film adaptation of the fairy tale of the same name and no one could even come close to the sacred status of the Disney tape. However, the fashion that flooded Hollywood for a global rethinking of the classics, which arose with the onset of the new century, had nothing against turning to Lewis Carroll again using the style and developments of the classic cartoon. Attached to the full-length game remake 'Alice in Wonderland' Tim Burton gave the studio a perfect entertaining hit, and after the release of the successful film, the producer talked about a sequel that was planned to be released in pursuit of the first part, but work on it had to be postponed, which led to not the most rosy consequences.
Having collected more than one billion dollars at the worldwide box office, 'Alice in Wonderland' although she received a fair share of criticism, she nevertheless met the expectations of the Disney board of directors, who made a risky bet and won with an amazing result. Tim Burton himself for some reason did not want to return to the mythology of Lewis Carroll, believing that there are other, no less intriguing stories that deserve his attention. Therefore, the producers had to look for a replacement for the director, rework the script, solve various production problems, while leaving dreams of an early continuation, using the glory of the original. After a long search and negotiations to replace Tim Burton, who remained in the franchise as an executive producer, the author of the latest films about the Muppets & #39 appeared. James Bobin, while the script was again in charge of Linda Woolverton, a Disney staff writer. Johnny Depp and Mia Wasikowska returned to their roles, the company of which was as always shocking British Sacha Baron Cohen. The story itself borrowed the plot canvas of Lewis Carroll for the fairy tale “Alice in the Looking Glass” & #39; but the final script was no less reworking than the synopsis of the Tim Burton tape. But if in 2010 the studio was able to erect around the project proper hype, then in 2016 the audience has already had time to cool down and in detail to understand the artistic shortcomings ' Alice in Wonderland' which is not the best way reflected in the rolling fate of the sequel, which did not save even Johnny Depp for a couple with Sasha Baron Cohen.
As for the story itself, it unfolds some time after Alice (Wasikowska) saved Wonderland from the machinations of the evil Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and led the bankrupt company of his father, leading it from oblivion to the expected prosperity. However, both in a magical country and in the real world, a fragile girl has a hard time, because her amazing imagination sometimes leads to very awkward situations that cause frank bewilderment of others. Having been called a brave captain, desperately fighting an inhospitable fate, Alice nevertheless could not win the respect of business partners, from which all her ambitious undertakings are in danger of collapse. And in a moment of extreme desperation, she reopens her way to Wonderland, where, according to tradition, something wrong happens. Walking through the mirror into a magical land, Alice learns that her longtime friend the Hatter (Depp) is in deep depression, grieving for long-lost relatives. The only thing that can help him is the time he has to travel. But, as you might guess, such a powerful wizard, responsible for life, death and the current order of events, is not going to adapt to the wishes of some girl. And then Alice will have to resort to incredible tricks to save a friend from destruction caused by insurmountable sadness.
The authors of “Alice in the Looking Glass” faced the most insidious trap, which often lies in wait for sequels of successful films. Instead of helping the writer in the development of the sequel, giving him the help of talented colleagues, the producers completely and completely trusted Linda Woolverton, who is frankly tired of the magical country, coming up with an extremely tortured, controversial and logically broken plot, necessary only to return your favorite characters to the screen and allow them to release a few successful jokes on camera. The plot of the story, revolving around the unimaginable moron of the Hatter, which arose only because it is so necessary, causes acute bewilderment. I don’t dispute that Tim Burton’s film is also far from a model of absolute logical validity, but it felt a solid concept, executed by the director with knowledge. Quite different cards lay on the table of James Bobin, a famous puppeteer, but completely inept narrator. If Burton from flaws managed to sculpt an attractive, magical movie in the corporate Gothic style, transformed to the influences of Disney, Bobin blindly followed the script, afraid to make any changes to it, focusing mainly on the visual side of the project. But when you do not believe in history, even if it is so eccentric as “Alice in the Looking Glass”, it is not possible to feel the experiences of any of the heroes.
In the undoubted dramatic talent of Johnny Depp and Mia Wasikowski can doubt only the blind, and yet even they sometimes need a clear indicator of what to do on the set and how to read your image from the script. In Alice in Wonderland, the actors formed a definitely winning tandem, without which the production of the sequel was impossible, and Depp and Wasikowska agreed to continue cooperation, but at some point relaxed and completely lost interest in what was happening. Alice Kingsley performed by Vasikowska clearly distanced herself from what was happening, periodically turning into an apathetic puppet of James Bobin, and Johnny Depp played the role openly lazy and unsophisticated, relying solely on his famous eccentricity, which has long been annoyed even by his most loyal fans. Thus, the soul of “Alice in the Looking Glass” was manifested only in Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, who played a full range of emotions for a couple, effectively stealing the film from the leading stars. Especially good is Cohen, who did not squander the light in his eyes even after a series of unsuccessful projects that can decimate any actor.
In the end, I want to say that “Alice in the Looking Glass” turned out to be visually attractive, but artificial and empty. James Bobin removed a beautiful wrapper, filling it with fresh filling, which leaves no aftertaste.
Not being a Lewis Carroll fan, but respectful of Tim Burton’s work, I think he screwed up with his version of Alice. The film came out really ordinary Disney attraction, but we have to pay tribute. Looking at this beauty through trailers and commercials, you feel the attraction of such a large black hole. The picture attracted, no sucking. The wormhole led to the rabbit hole. And crushed expectations, with its colossal gravity.
It's easier with James Bobin. The cult plume behind him does not drag, he calls into his mirror not for a masterpiece, but for a tick. And then collapse, paradox, and what other clever words. Second to Burton in everything, and even more so in the beauty of the picture that Burton was beautiful once in eight, Bobin's film also falls into the dirt, but his face is ugly, terribly painted, slightly floaty, and most importantly, he falls from the height of his very short stature. And in the cut, it doesn't even disappoint. Quite the opposite. While Alice is running from time to time (well, Carroll!), you spend that time on funny pictures with Depp and Baron Cohen. If the first one in the first movie was dragging, then here only drags. The source of the craving is Cohen, who really can when charisma is not directed to the anal bed. Only now Alice, the second film, remains on the margins of audience attention. Mia Wasikowska does not pull a blanket, although it is in the center of the film.
Something author, in the film to find hard, too highlights the studio. Burton’s “Alice” could not satisfy the hunger heated up by advertising, while Bobinovskaya, with subdued appetites, copes with a hurrah. Not a bad tale of time. Lost and found. For this fun of two hours is not a pity, and the course "time-money", each viewer will set.
She will return to Wonderland and change the course of time.
I have been waiting for Alice to continue. I wanted to know how she would be in front of everyone this time. The second Alice turned out to be no less interesting than the first - with its own characteristics.
Alice has to save the hatter, as well as his whole family. To do this, she has to wander through memories on a time machine. From her memories, she learns not only about the family of the hatter, but also discovers many secrets about the Red Queen. At the same time, she needs to resist the insidious plans of the evil Time and the Red Queen.
The visual component is at the level. Drinking tea together with Time was fun. The total abundance of time is traced ( spinning gears). With the time that Alice is given, a lot can be changed.
Acting. Johnny Depp (The Hatter), Mia Wasikowska (Alice), Helena Bonham Carter (The Red Queen) - played as well as in the first film. Alice this time turned out more soulful, more courageous. Sacha Baron Cohen (Time), Anne Hathaway (White Queen), also performed well.
'Alice in the Looking Glass' - a bright sequel, which is not inferior to the first Alice. A good and interesting fairy tale, which has meaning, and a beautiful magical atmosphere. A fairy tale on which you do not regret to spend your time.
It's hard to write about this movie! For me personally, he was remembered for a riot of colors and a scenario on the verge of taking drugs, ' by type ' Ecstasy and LSD. I experienced something similar after seeing it on the screen, and I didn’t understand what was happening for the last 113 minutes! And all this Alice in the Looking Glass Fantasy and the continuation of the original film Alice in Wonderland, released in 2010 and made a lot of noise in the film industry. The first film was staged by the notorious Tim Burton, the script was based on the famous fairy tale by Lewis Carroll. The picture was warmly received by critics and audiences and collected at the box office more 'yard' green. Taking advantage of the success of the progenitor, putting James Bobin in the director's chair, uploading 175 & #39;lamov' it was decided to shoot a sequel. So what happened? I’m not a fan of Carroll, and I read the original when I was 10. Then he seemed very interesting to me, and now he is for me more 'brain-bearing'
In the plot there is a lot of hanging, unnecessary pathos and pomposity. The motivation of the characters is primitive, the narrative is somewhat crumpled and a feeling of dissatisfaction remains from this. Moreover, the plot does not lend itself to any logic at all. A set of bright pictures and dialogues on the edge ' delirium' replace each other forming a crazy cocktail!
On scripts I will not dwell on it in detail, since it has already been described briefly and easily above. I’ll just add that I was only tormented by one question throughout the movie:'Why?!'
Actors: I will characterize the actors' play as good, sometimes tolerable. I don’t want to mention anyone.
Soundtrack: Danny Elfman is back in the role of composer, so the music here is at a high level. He tried to give the film its atmosphere, but still something went wrong and the picture does not look as holistic and soulful as the first part.
Visual: The mirror turned out to be very fabulous, an abundance of bright, warm sometimes transient acid tones. Very beautiful makeup, outfits, inventory. The picture is very vivid and vivid! I want to step away from the plot with the script and just watch the riot of colors.
Conclusion: In fact, I described above. If it weren’t for my friends, I doubt I would have been in this movie of my own free will! Fans of the first part and the books of Lewis Carroll recommend!
4 out of 10
Alice is back in the loop again. Fleeing from personal problems in the Looking Glass, she learns that her friend the Hatter is seriously ill. He got it into his head that his family, who died at the hands of an evil dragon, is actually still alive, and is now literally dying because he cannot find a person who would believe him and help him. To find out the truth, Alice sneaks into the Time Castle and, borrowing its Chronosphere, goes to the distant past.
In 2010, when the first 'Alice', directed by Tim Burton, came out, I hadn’t written reviews yet, but I didn’t understand why all the critics were so excited about this film. In my opinion, the fairy tale was wonderful: bright, cute, with cool characters, cool artistic finds, equally curious for children and adults. Yes, of course, she was a bit out of line with the proverbial canon, but no one promised that she would follow Carroll’s text exactly. Yes – Mia Wasikowska did not hit with her acting, but, as they say, go try to stand out yourself against the background of a brightly made-up, inspired in an interesting way, Johnny Depp, the huge head of Helena Bonham Carter and juicy characters drawn on the computer, and even in the voice of such mastodons as Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman. Wasikowska was nice enough not to be annoying, and for that it is worth thanking her.
However, with all the negativity that resulted in ' Alice' from the media and film critics, the release of the second part of the film for some reason was waiting for many. Moreover, when Burton announced that he would not direct the new Alice, limiting himself to producing, the level of expectations even increased for some reason. Maul Burton, of course, well done, but not the cake, and here fresh blood - the author ' Muppetov' who, however, could not realize their potential. And what we saw in the end. It's the same thing. The defeat from critics, and even the box office is crushing - they still managed to discourage the mass audience with their speeches. And in fact, the new 'Alice' - exactly the same fairy tale, just as vividly shot, with the same cheerful characters, the same slightly confused and gaggy, which exactly corresponds to the spirit of the original source. Probably, only a scene in a psychiatric hospital is knocked out, but it is beautiful ' works' on contrast.
I liked a lot about this movie. Especially, of course, the new character played by Sacha Baron Cohen - Time in person. In his solo films, I cannot stand this actor in spirit, however, when he plays with other directors, his crazy energy and light weirdo often manage to channel in the right direction. Time with its caricature malice and endless jokes turned out to be a clear decoration of the film. I also liked the whole storyline associated with the two queens: a rather difficult drama for a children's fairy tale, in which naive ideas about good and evil are turned inside out. Well, in general, the style and atmosphere of this film, preserved unchanged over the six years since the release of the first part, still pleases my eyes and heart.
So, I see no reason not to give this tape a high enough rating. We are all children inside, we all sometimes want magic and magic, even in the performance of the pale-faced Johnny Depp, and the mustachioed Sacha Baron Cohen in a strange hat.
8 out of 10
As an ardent fan of the first part, I immediately began watching the second one from the moment of release and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw. I will try to write everything down:
From the first minutes the picture amazes the viewer with its variety of colors and effects. Alice, already an adult, goes on a voyage and due to circumstances, is again forced to get to a fairy-tale country, where her faithful friends are already waiting for her. She later helps the Hatter find his family. And while traveling, he meets the master and tries to change fate.
Hatter - I dedicate a separate line to him and bow to the game of Johnny Depp, he once again manages to show THIS hatter, which is in my view.
The musical accompaniment in the credits pleased me even before the release of the film in the trailers, Pink wrote a wonderful song for the release of the film for which she has a huge plus +
It is also worth noting such a character as Time, it is very cool designed, here you can not even stick with it.
In the piggy bank of plusies runs a galloping moment in the fortress of the Red Queen, where the corpse of the Jack was shown (I just wondered what became of him).
I really liked the storyline associated with the past tk is quite interesting to look at the world before the complete madness. So we can see our favorite hatter, being still at a young age and understand where his "Hobbies" came from with other people's heads:
Summarizing the above, I can say with confidence that the film was a success. I received a lot of positive emotions and do not regret the time spent (even thinking about reading this wonderful work). Therefore, dear reader of my review, if you are devoured by doubts “Should I watch” the answer is simple and obvious – SHOULD I put a bold point and hope that there will be more such films.
With such a good quote, my review begins. I will try to be concise and readable.
The second supergraphonic Disney epic on the book of science fiction - esoteric Lewis Carroll, came out solid middle.
The story, in my opinion, was written on the move. He revolves around Alice, throwing her in various troubles and unusual encounters. And the connection between the events seems awkward and boring. And it seems that Alice throws herself to chance in the unknown distance, but I do not want to empathize with her, no matter what beautiful picture was (about her later). Neither naive dramaturgy nor abstract humor catches on.
About dialogue. Fantastic quotes were thrown only by their banality. Maybe the Russian dubbing contributed to this. In general, they carry the idea in simple and intelligible language, but I, as a fan of veiled references, morals and simply reasons to reflect, did not notice something truly memorable.
What is really good and throwing is the visual component. Everything is bright and colorful, in the genre ' Wonderland'. High-quality graphics, bright characters and amazing landscapes. That's all in the movie. I will especially highlight the first scene of penetration through the mirror, when Alice was at first miniature, and then...
Also, the soundtrack complements the soundtrack perfectly. It's wonderful and it stirs the imagination. I advise you to turn it on, close your eyes and imagine your sky-high and boundless Mirror World.
James Bobin's film, Alice in the Looking Glass'' is a good way to make money, links to the success of the previous part. I advise you to watch it as children, and adults who are at heart like children.
6 out of 10
Where does the world go with Marvel's G appreciate 7 and 8 balls a quality cinema deserves only 6?
Having listened to all the over-fed film critics to watch this film, there was no desire!
Initially, there was a negative bias towards this picture, but after watching a little more than 15 minutes, I began to catch myself thinking that the film then drags on both the plot and the picture, which by the way is above all praise! Dep was really different from himself and the joker with him from this film did not lose absolutely nothing.
By the way, the film uses a very strange style of narration sometimes it seems that the main character Alice for a while becomes the same spectator as we are she is unable to influence anything and turns into a kind of decor but with this did not overdo it and everything looks quite organic.
Sacha Baron Cohen impressed! Against the background of his old frankly thrashing roles of course.
If I'm honest, the film is a little bit guilty of plot holes, I won't voice them so as not to spoil anyone's impressions, but in general, the movie turned out to be very atmospheric and left just indelibly pleasant impressions, PS I continued oddly liked more and much more, That doesn't mean the new director beats Tim Burtan, but the story of the second film is so interesting to me.
The creation of sequels of certain successful paintings has long since turned into a natural and ordinary concept of things. Especially now, when the risk of failure of new ideas and projects “forces” filmmakers to turn any successful project into a potential franchise. A similar axiom is that these continuations are almost always noticeably worse than the original and rare exceptions can be safely counted on the fingers. This film directed by James Bobin is definitely among them.
Though the original film collected impressive box office in the billion-plus dollars, but the picture of Tim Burton was definitely quite a peculiar product, to which there were a lot of comments. Despite this, all this time there was a feeling that the sequel would be noticeably worse than the original, but this feeling evaporated immediately when viewing the picture.
Before us is a rare case when a change of director really positively affects the quality of the product. Even if the victim of the replacement was Tim Burton. Rejecting the excessive friction, eccentricity and other madness for which Burton is famous, the director of this film James Bobin shot a very competently balanced family blockbuster.
The family is at the expense of history itself. Let the creators of the tape dealt with the original work of Lewis Carroll and came up with a lot of new things, but it is definitely the history and morality inherent in it that in many ways add significant quality points to the picture. The creators of the film not only came up with a great fairy tale full of incredible adventures, but also repeatedly returning to the past of the heroes, allowed the audience to see previously seen events from a completely different angle and study previously unexplored facets of the characters on screen. Even having the opportunity to significantly change their opinion about individual characters.
The film is also interesting from the point of view of morality, which in my opinion is easily absorbed by both adults and small viewers, but is equally relevant and addressed to each of both groups of viewers. After all, throughout the tape, the creators shout in one voice that time flies incredibly fast and flies irrevocably, which means it is very important to appreciate this very time. Having spent this time on what it is worth, drawing conclusions from missed moments of life and simply having time to do and say the most important thing to our loved ones. Since any moment may be our last and unexpected moment, it may be too late for all of this.
The visual side of the picture also became noticeably better. Visual effects have become more colorful, spectacular and pleasing to the eyes. Spectacle and spectacular scenes are quite moderately distributed throughout the tape. And all this fabulous splendor looks incredibly realistic and cool in 3D. Even if the picture does not boast of the excessive visual eccentricity that Burton took with him. Moreover, all this looks even more magical against the background of the stunning soundtrack of the composer Danny Elfman, which can be safely called the best in recent years of the composer’s work.
Mia Wasikowska played much better than in the previous film and watching her character is really interesting throughout the film. Very not bad Johnny Depp, Anne Hathaway and Rhys Ivans, who except that, suddenly shifted to the background. Thus, creating the impression that the actors did not have the opportunity to prove themselves better. Unexpectedly, the best role in his career is demonstrated by Sacha Baron Cohen, who turned out to be absolutely magnificent in the image of Time. The eccentricity and friction inherent in Sasha remained in place. In addition, the actor perfectly complemented it with an incredibly natural game and dissolved into it completely. Separately, I want to note Helena Bonham Carter, who bribed by how she presented her character to the audience. Having given the opportunity to hate her in some moments, and in others, they will imbue her with some sympathy and even sympathy.
8 out of 10
Alice in the Looking Glass is a rare example of how the continuation is not only not inferior to the original, but also easily surpasses it. Very beautiful, spectacular, interesting and just magical adventure fairy tale with a deep moral, which is relevant for viewers of absolutely all ages.
The past cannot be changed, but lessons can be learned from it.
You have to be a half-crazy science fiction writer, a crazy graphomaniac to come up with a movie like Tim Burton. But he doesn't always fantasize on his own, and then it transfers everything to film, it happens that Burton takes on projects that were already created by someone in his time. And it is hardly possible to find something better than the creation of Charles Latuige Dodgson, better known under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll, who invented a genius madness called ' Alice in Wonderland'. In 2010, Burton took the director's chair and directed the production of the film based on the first part of Lewis Carroll's fairy tale, and six years later the second one came out, only that Burton was already limited to the functions of a producer, and the director's place was transferred to the company ' Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures' James Bobin, who at the initial stage of his career worked closely with the shocking comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, and then made attempts to regain former fame ' Muppet show'.
How did this change of leadership work? You can only blame Bobin for the fact that he shot ' Alice in the Looking Glass' according to a template created by Tim Burton. But the latter, as has been said more than once, has a flight of thought associated with a certain risk of being misunderstood by the public, but no one denies his genius. But Bobin did not jump for a long time, but he did not get close to the peaks of Burton. Everything is colorful, you can see where the multimillion-dollar budget was invested, but the box office success of the second 'Alice. .' can be directly associated with the successful rental of the previous part.
From a technical point of view, namely in its visual display 'Alice in the Looking Glass' very good, the taste of fabulousness is maintained, the characters are original and memorable, but only to get into the fairy tale from James Bobin somehow does not want, so you watch the development of the action with a slightly bored look. And no matter how amazing the special effects and computer graphics were, they did not have exactly the necessary originality that so emphasizes the work of Tim Burton. You can only highlight those scenes that took place in the monastery of Time (Sacha Baron Cohen), but the rest is like a sweet gingerbread house from the story about Hansel and Gretel.
And I couldn't even use James Bobin's cast, which hasn't changed much. There was something unpleasant in the image of the White Queen performed by Anne Hathaway, somewhere lost her airiness in movements and lines. According to the idea, this character personifies good in the fairy tale of Carroll, but in the film ' Alice in the Looking Glass' according to the stage characterization, she is completely eclipsed by Helena Bonham Carter, who had a long romantic relationship with Tim Burton, which resulted in two children, but you can see all the irritation and anger to the former lover, the actress put into the image of the Red Queen: she turned out a wonderful narcissive and hysterical lady, screaming in a bad voice ' Do not leave me alone with my capriza 39! In the first ' Alice...' the character of Johnny Depp - a long-term friend and associate of Burton - Mad Hatter unexpectedly received almost the main role. Although there is something to be surprised about, friendship and popularity of Depp that it turns out that he should be the main one. B'... Looking Glass & #39; Depp leaves his memory only with a decorated face and attempts to make the Hatter a dramatic character. But Mia Wasikowska clearly outgrown her character Alice, so much so that in the classics of Soviet animation, our Alice was much more mobile and convincing.
James Bobin turned out not a fantasy fighter, as it was in the previous film by Tim Burton, but a dramatic picture where only the action takes place in a fairy-tale world, but the feelings and emotions of the personalities inhabiting this world are quite correlated with our ordinary and down to earth. I don’t think Lewis Carroll had that idea. And only good visual special effects with computer graphics help out this picture, and a good transfer of their images from Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen. And something wanted to watch our cartoon with vocals from Nikolai Karachentsov and a sad song about an elephant.
6 out of 10
The film is dedicated to the great actor Alan Rickman, who left untimely after this film, which voiced Absolem butterfly for him.
Alice in the mirror. Unfortunately, I can put this film in the category of empty films. Who looked and forgot. He's like a butterfly at the beginning of the movie, just as beautiful, also short lived and dies fast. What does Lewis Carroll say about Alice in the Looking Glass? Just the title and a few characters from the original story. Nothing else. The plot does not shine with any interesting twists, but still present. Actors, too, are famous, charismatic. This is Depp and Hathaway and Wasikowski and Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, all of them are great actors, and even here they play noticeable. The characters they play are very colorful. But they don’t bring anything to the movie. Everyone is good in their own way, but there is no general unity, and therefore the overall rating of the film is not quite positive.
The film takes place in several locations. Which the main character crosses from left to right, and the remaining half of the film goes along them, only from right to left. The name “Alice in the Looking Glass” is unclear. We could call it “Mad Hatter” or “The Revenge of the Mad Hatter,” which would be more consistent with the concept of the film. I think the film has exhausted itself already in the first part, and the sequel is simply sucked out of the finger. So why was it to continue, one might wonder. The answer is simple, money! We wanted to collect a cash register with minimal creative investment, but it did not work out. On colorful, memorable characters, which, according to the authors, have not yet exhausted their potential, you will not go far.
The third part, if it comes out, will not go out of principle. Authors, I think, need to know when to stop. In order not to slide into the thoughtless stamping of the same type of clones.
'Alice in the Looking Glass' is, if you think about it, not just a heartfelt farewell to the cinematic Universe, filmed on the fairy tales of Lewis Carroll (and looking at the collections of the second film, the farewell is most likely already certain for years to come), but also, a light waving hand to the whole generation in general. In particular, the farewell role for the young actress Mia Vasikowska, who is already almost twenty-seven, which means that she can hardly play in little girls due to her age (even if she wants to). And the brighter the basic morality is drawn against the background of the unfolding story in the sequel.
The second film of the series, as it should be, enchanting (although, I would like more enchanting), bright, charming and yarschist. But more importantly, he became more witty, philosophical, and even an adult to some extent. James Bobin, who replaced Burton in the director's chair, did not break firewood, but did everything according to the canon, carefully and as circumstances required. Namely, the grown-up Alice and the story is a little older. That's fair, you agree.
No, no. Cinema is perfect for a children's audience with its rich set of bright juicy colors, charismatic cute (and not so) characters, beautiful quality scenery and special effects. But it is also good that the tape is also suitable for the viewer who not only wants to dream a little and relax in front of the screen, but loves and knows how to read between the lines.
Time does not spare anyone, you cannot deceive him, you cannot agree with him, and all our hours, minutes, and moments are his gifts. What else can be added to such a fair statement? Nothing. That's it. The clock is ticking, people are growing up, life is fast, it cannot be stopped at any point. People grow up, and fairy tales in their lives are sometimes very desirable, regardless of gender and age (only fairy tales can be different). So the image of Alice in the sequel is somewhere at a crossroads - to make a confident step into adulthood, or to cling to fantasies, to make fun of childish infantility, because there is more interesting than in reality. The whole philosophy of the film is not complicated, it lies on the surface, but useful. We can say that cinema is both for eternal children and about them.
In the fairy tale, there was a place (and time) and childish naivety, and kind sentimentality, and energetic calculating humor (especially delivered a scene where the Hatter and the company undermine Time for tea), and instructive moments. To the wonderful melodic music written by Danny Elfman, watching it all is pure pleasure. And although, sometimes, you catch yourself thinking: 'Am I not too old for the Looking Glass and its inhabitants?', but this process does not much interfere.
Colorful Baron Cohen in his important key image, delivers a make-up ageless madman - Depp, stands out with a bright spot on Helena Bonham Carter canvas. As for Vasikovskaya, the grown-up girl who honestly tries to be persuasive, in fact, well reflects the overall message of the picture. Farewell to the residents of the Looking Glass, leading a heartfelt conversation with Time itself, she seems to say to the viewer: '. You won't see me here again! I've become an adult!' But not everything is so hopeless and categorical as it may seem at first glance.
- Oh, Hatter! We may never see each other again.
- Sweet Alice! In a fantasy castle where dreams live, you and I will see each other again.
- But dreams are not reality.
Who distinguishes one from the other?
The picture, thus, mercilessly speculates on impressionable eternal children and their emotions, intoxicates, but also calms them. Yes, someday we all grow up, age, get adult problems and wrinkles, go to completion, but to believe in a fairy tale is not just possible, but necessary and, sometimes, useful. On this note, the story logically ends, leaving the viewer a pleasant aftertaste.
'Alice in the Looking Glass' in truth, it turned out even better than the original. Not devoid of visual ornaments and performing chips, expressive touching, especially for the universe of charm invented by Carroll, she acquired new subtexts and moral teachings for different ages. The values are the same - family, friendship, courage. But are they supposed to be different ideally, guys? At least in a fairy tale, if life is more complicated. Someday, five years from now, or twenty-five years from now, when today’s kids are growing up, Hollywood will return to the universe, find a new young actress to play Alice and bring the fairy tale back to the screens. And we may be happy to watch it, rejoice in the childish naivety, remember something pleasant from the past, regardless of how old we are - forty, fifty, or more. And that, I think, would be right. And whosoever disagrees, that is a bad grumpy grumpy.
8 out of 10
'Alice in the Looking Glass', the sequel to one of the most successful films 'Disney', turned into a deafening failure. It turned out that in just six years, people ceased to be interested in large-scale fairy tales and, apparently, finally switched to comic books. And even Johnny Depp in the lead role is unable to attract them.
Meanwhile, 'Alice in the Looking Glass' as a film, perhaps even better than the original. She's much older, darker and tougher. It has problems with money and even a psychiatric hospital - with the brilliant output of Andrew Scott from ' Sherlock'. And Wonderland itself has fallen into disrepair. And the Mad Hatter is about to die. And to save him, you will have to turn to Time itself - ruthless mustachioed Sacha Baron Cohen in piercing blue lenses, living in a magnificent and frightening castle. And with time to joke, as you know, is not worth it.
Unfortunately, 'Alice in the Looking Glass' inherited the main weakness of the original film - the script is frankly weak. To come up with a convincing reason that would bring together the actors, the authors failed, and dialogues sometimes cause embarrassment.
But otherwise 'Alice' good. There are many very beautiful scenes like flying over the ocean of time & #39, many interesting finds - for example, the castle of the exiled Red Queen in the spirit of Archimboldo. Sacha Baron Cohen turned out to be very good - it turns out he can play not only in ambiguous comedies. But Johnny Depp, unfortunately, disappointed. When his Hatter was just one of the heroes of Magic Country, you could say, ' First Among Equals' he graced history. But as soon as he had to pull the script, alas. Of the pluses, I would name another line with Mirana and Irasebeta.
Strange and even hurtful that 'Alice in the Looking Glass', to put it mildly, did not receive the love of either critics or the audience. Of course, in a sense, it was too much like the original, even without Burton, but it really brought a lot of new things to the story, and the morale was a little less. Although, I agree, it would be worth cutting off a fair part of the final.
Fans of delirium of white fever, schizophrenic hallucinations and cheerful frenzy without auxiliary substances is dedicated. "Alice in the mirror," sliding like a surfer in the chronosphere along the waves of time. British James Bobin. Who else, but an unborn Englishman, with his pristine punctuality and perfectionism, to talk about the topic of time?
The plot of the long-awaited sequel "Alice in Wonderland" (D. Tim Burton, 2010) screenwriter Linda Woolverton built not on the eponymous book-sequel "Alice in the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll, but on the shameless female curiosity and compassion. Her Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is not limited to the space of the chessboard on which the writer built his story, but quickly, like a lady without money shopping, travels through all the historical milestones of Wonderland. Her main goal is to save the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) from a murderous depression, or make the impossible possible again. Along the way, she inadvertently opens the closets of the warring queens – the Good White (Anne Hathaway) and the Evil Red (Helena Bonham Carter) – and dumps all their skeletons out. They are willingly talkative and answer her and the viewer to all natural questions, for example, about the big head of the Red Queen, which arose after the first part.
A couple of new notes based on old components, a familiar shell, but a great color scheme and a taste bouquet without burning the fabulous aura of Gothic pepper. Director James Bobin, a specialist in the unpretentious farce of the Muppets for children, eventually makes the impossible possible for the joy of adults. In The Looking Glass, he improves on the soma formula, the twenty-first-century legal drug that Aldous Huxley may have meant in part in his Brave New World. Soma, whose formula according to Carroll's secret recipe six years ago was reproduced by the king of fiction with elements of psychedelic Tim Burton in the bizarre forests of Wonderland.
Bobin pill acts quickly, gives a funny taste, releases exactly two hours without wanting to increase the dose and is not addictive. It is shown for use to everyone who is older than 12 and by his age managed to fixate on grayness, stuck in standards, starved imagination and poisoned by an excess of platitude. It can be used both on an empty stomach and after a dense meal "Alice in Wonderland", because concisely, but capaciously contains the components of the first composition. However, a stronger impression "Looking Glass", like the sun after the rain, and happiness after adversity, produces after a preliminary disappointment in the fabulousness of the previous part.
At the same time, excessive admiration for the variety of landscapes and fascination with the dynamics of events - from captains to secretaries, from a fairy tale to a madhouse, from friend to enemy - can cause side effects. Among them, irritation, involuntary rolling of eyes and nervous tapping into the folly of costumes, an abundance of makeup and deliberately superficial play of eminent actors. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter dimmed behind the bright colors of the makeup artists and, thereby, lost even a small but important part of the individuality of their heroes. Alisa Hamish’s ex-fiancé from Leo Bill, on the contrary, got the opportunity to show his nasty character and did it, albeit caricatured and stereotyped, but transparent and easy. Covered, covered and saved this mess Mia Wasikowska and Sacha Baron Cohen as the inexorable Time. Having laid out at zero on the set, they became that life-giving glass of water of realism in the plot, which is so necessary after just a sip of atmospheric castor pun.
And still, as a result of the film sessions, a larger percentage of test subjects confirm that "Alice in the Looking Glass" is the perfect drug, easy, legal, harmless. Its only contraindication is individual intolerance to any components of the drug: phantasmagoria is a story torn to pieces, a circus wardrobe or simply a lack of vitamins B-combativity, T-thrillerism, K-blood, U-kills. However, like any other unpleasant side effects, this one is also easily blocked by a hypoallergen called "long lazy weekends". Already under this “pill” even the most boring pickle no dust is not afraid!
7 out of 10
There are films that are really memorable, not important in a positive or negative way, but are so empty that the next day after watching there is literally nothing to remember about it. Everything was absolutely on duty and faceless, so much that you seem to want to scold, and you do not know why.
Well, I'll start with the smallest and insignificant nitpicking in Alice in the Looking Glass there is actually no Looking Glass itself, from the word at all. Instead, we find ourselves in the already familiar incarnation of Wonderland. And therefore, even the slightest coincidence with the original book should be forgotten. Yes, Alice in Wonderland did not follow the canon of the book, but she actively adapted and changed the world and its inhabitants.
Here we see an introduction to the plot of a character named Time, and yes, at first the funny puns associated with him will have time to get bored by the middle of the film. And then the whole action turns into an extremely ill-considered and full of chrono-opera. In addition, most of the time we see old characters, and if someone really pleases the eye, then most exist as story furniture.
To see Alice in the Looking Glass, of course, it is possible, there is nothing terrible in it, that’s just what it is worth I did not understand.
4 out of 10
After the battle with the Jabberwock, three years have passed, during this time Alice (Mia Wasikowska), becoming the captain of a merchant ship, managed to visit China, establish trade relations with the local, and on the way back even put the chased pirates aground. Returning home to London, she finds herself at a disadvantage. The former head of the trading company has died and his son, rejected by Alice, stands in his place. He immediately takes revenge on her, demotes Alice as a clerk, deprives her of the opportunity to travel by sea and throws her in a difficult position (sexism is fierce!). Here, Alice suddenly meets a butterfly from the Lower Country (we remember, because this is the name of the same “Wonderland” filmed by Tim Burton), and after chasing her, she finds herself in the Lower Country. There, our heroine is asked to bring the Hatter out of a lingering depression, and find his family, Alice decides to go to Time (played by Sasha “Borat” Cohen) in order to change the past and save the family of poorly made-up Depp.
But now about the most “painful” points, starting from the moment Alice entered the house to the Hatter, all the good in the film begins to melt without a trace right before his eyes, there is a sharp degradation, the script flies to hell. Why? It's all very banal and just comrades! Time travel, fucking time travel, it's very complicated, it's boring. And you can personally count on the fingers of one hand of a miller of the first category, how many successful films on the topic of time loops, where everything was staffed neatly, came out. Not surprisingly, the scriptwriter of “Malifesent” failed to pull this off, the plot itself is very blunt. And although the action itself moves dynamically (the first half hour), the impressive visual effects along with Elfman's music try to cover up the script flaws, but the film does not get better, it also turns into a dreary capito.
About the discrepancy with the original, you can not bother at all, the creators immediately started from the film by Tim Barton, or rather from the success of the average blockbuster, and I will not blame them for this. But, damn it, how sick do you have to be to add the idea of time travel to a dubious project? Of course, the film paid off, due to some no, but still the success of the audience, no matter how you scold it, there are good sides in it: the character of Alice is more revealed to us as a person who has acquired character, and you worry a little for her (even despite her ability to create trouble); several memorable visual images and ... All! The further action that takes place in the film resembles the events of every second blockbuster, and the production itself is like an unassembled toy with a broken mechanism, and the most offensive thing is that the creators again ignored the spirit of that magical country from the book, I am not saying that they follow every letter of the original source, I naively hoped that it would appear here, but it became even less in comparison with Burton’s work.
If Burton’s overloaded film was satisfying, some were even wildly delighted. And those who did not like him (including) still noted some novelty, and a good technical side, the first of Bobbin could not appear, it remains to press the effects, and they look no more, and together with a second-rate story, realized for 170 million greens, we got a fairy tale about the influence of cake crumbs on brain injuries. How are you guys?
The story is not on the screen, the story is in your heart. .
I will not hide, the continuation of my beloved Alice I was waiting for a girl waiting for a guy from the army. That is, inattentively, distracted by other novelties of cinema. And if it were not for the intrusive advertising on the huge 3D billboards of the city and in the noisy subway, I probably would have missed this beautiful fairy tale, continuing to live in my own kingdom of curved mirrors.
But! The rush of the soul and the day off sent me in the right direction, and now I am in front of the screen and listening to the action. There's a lot to watch! An exciting beginning made you unwittingly hold your breath, and interest, fueled by the memory of ' the first' Alice, did not allow to be distracted by rattling a mobile phone in his pocket.
Yes, Alice again! My Alice! (Not Lolita)
Mia Wasikowska hasn't changed at all. The same polite half-smile, the same mischievous brilliance in the eyes, the same impulsiveness in movements and phrases. I was glad that the heroine kept this impetuousness in her actions, did not turn into a pale spot on the screen. What can not be said about the other characters of this fairy tale.
Not enough Hatter. Very little Hatter. Depp may surprise, but it takes time. There is no time here... Well, wait! There is time here, in view of the Borat (Cohen) I do not recognize. He is very impressed with his acting.
The Red Queen. That's who I love, that crazy woman. A dream woman. This is her crown ' head with a pleech' I always say when they say not ringing, but calling It!!
And this time the queen was enough. Enough to be angry with her, to sympathize with her, to accept her as she is.
The rest of the characters were nearby, but only in the final they could be seen in more detail. The author’s idea, in my opinion, was to focus the viewer’s attention on three characters: Alice, the Queen and Time. And we managed to tie them together in one plot. Excellent.
A childhood tale... The new chapter was interesting. It was exciting at times. But I still didn’t get the effect I had after watching the first Alice. Of course, that was the first time I tried the 3D effect and caught butterflies in the hall with my hands flying at me from the screen. But still, the director lacked that gloomy-fairy-fairy crazy, which brought Tim Burton in the first chapter.
I recommend watching.
Because learning to believe in a fairy tale means forgetting the word ' impossible'
I don’t understand the outrage over this film. The film may have moved away from the original book, but I didn’t read it and I wasn’t disappointed with the film.
Cons first.
1. A hatter, in my opinion, is not enough. For a movie whose trailer clearly sets the problem 'Save the Hatter' it doesn't have to be there for 10 pitiful minutes.
2. Johnny clearly passed. In recent films, it is clearly visible that Depp has aged, somehow plunged or something, and this affects the manner of play. Maybe it had to do with the scandals about his family life, and he wasn't up to the game. But already in the film ' Mordekai' he played a little weakly, and his corporate style became not so natural and easy, so more like curves. Or maybe he didn't have time to open up, because he spent all his time on time. But that's just my opinion.
And yes, what comes out of it is unclear: whether Johnny Depp began to play poorly and he reduced the footage in the film, or he was not given time and it seems that he is not as good as before. But, definitely, in shouts 'The film is not the same!' and the like is to blame this embarrassment with the Hatter.
3. A little incomprehensible interweaving of fabulous and real. If in the first film she left at the beginning - in the end she came, then here is more complicated, and this is not good and baffles the scene of the return.
4. Not everything in the trailer is in the movie. Deception and sadness.
Now that's what I like.
1. Personally, despite the blunder with the Hatter, I liked the second film more than the first! It has some kind of tragedy and sweetness, and a hint that evil is not always ' pure and all-consuming evil' a kind of reference to 'Malificent' and I even cried to the end. Unlike 'Alice in Wonderland' there will be no action scenes, there is a bet on the script and the acting. I personally like this approach more, and some do not.
2. Alice’s strange behavior in this film is more harmonious than in the first. Honestly, I will never be able to understand and justify that Alice is a knight who defeats a dragon. But in 'The Looking Glass' to her recklessness and fearlessness prepares the first scene at sea and, oddly enough, the first film.
3. I cannot say anything bad about the pre-decided finale. In the pictures of such subjects (time travel) it is quite normal, and plus she fought in the last film with dragons - a foregone conclusion in the square turns out. But I think this fact should be taken as a given before viewing and not to blame the authors of the picture.
4. I liked the villains. But given that almost all the time is devoted to them, it should be.
5. I liked the final. You can say that Alice, who fled from the difficulties of everyday life to her fairy-tale world, found her Magic Country in reality, and this is good. Because any cured schizophrenia is always great.
To sum up. The picture is good, lyrical, raises very deep problems, reveals beloved characters (except the Hatter), gives a new character. But! For lovers of Depp’s glorious play, for lovers of unpredictable and non-banal endings, this film is not yours, guys. But for a family viewing with children - just amazing, there will even be something instructive.
9 out of 10