The past cannot be changed, but we can learn from it.
I admit right away that I haven’t read a book about Alice’s adventures, I haven’t seen old movies, just the previous one. I watched this movie and didn’t compare it to anything, just as a separate movie. And in short, I'm not happy. I'm not happy with almost everything in this picture.
The plot is built on the type 'quest' i.e. 'Make it happen', 'Go there, there you will be told what to do next' and so on. Watching was frankly boring. The film did not keep in any intrigue, and the climax turned out to be very blurred. It’s probably because we’re tired of watching it all.
Of all the variety of characters, only a couple were successful. And this is not Alice herself, not the Hatter, but her Majesty the Red Queen performed by Helena Carter, who was simply irresistible. I felt her anger, anger, desperation, desire not to speak of the other heroes. And Time. The time was played by Sacha Baron Cohen, better known to us for the films ' Barat', ' Dictator' and he had, let's say so, a 'specific'' game, but in this film he opened in a new way and eclipsed all the other characters, except, of course, the Red Queen. You do not sympathize with the hatter, you do not worry about Alice, and you do not remember anyone else.
Very impressive and beautiful scenery in this film. With the help of costumes and scenery perfectly conveyed the era of that time.
Dead dialogue. Mother and Alice talk unemotionally, despite the fact that their situation is deplorable. The hatter, played by Johnny Depp, somehow did not finish his role. But I liked the pun associated with 'time' here it is fun and did not let you fall asleep while watching.
The whole movie is filled with cliches. Lots of coincidences with Alice, like she can handle everything and there's nothing she can't handle. A man with no fear, except perhaps heights. All her actions are not natural and predictable, like the whole film.
6 out of 10
Romantic anthem? Fairy tale charm? Waiting for a miracle? I'm disappointed.
So, pluses. These are Characters (with a capital letter), created with a love of detail - only an image of Time that costs, or baby seconds, and good old friends - Rabbit, Hatter, White Queen and many others - all of them I love and appreciate from Alice in Wonderland. Each hero individually and collectively is just perfect – retouched, “drawn”, with the help of graphics and costume design, makeup and other things, we see a fabulous almost reality.
There are no complaints about the actors who played and voiced the characters. It’s a shame that this is Alan Rickman’s last work.
The world is stunningly beautiful and thought out, the flow of the ocean of time is fascinating. Graphics and special effects are ideal for perception. I'm just fascinated and delighted. The world outside the fairy tale is also interesting – the world of living people, “permanence” and reality, it is sometimes gloomy and heavy. And what Alice sees and finds “light” and “color” in her life is just beautiful.
All the mysteries and secrets of the first film are revealed in the second part. What is the wonderful world of Lewis Carroll? Why do we love him? For miracle and absurdity, for mystery, for miracles, for not understanding what is happening at the moment. I’m walking along with Alice on a path I don’t understand, I don’t know what will happen next, I’m curious and even a little scared. Because everything and everything is strange around, and we are also strange, and here everything is shelves, everything is ordered, everything is thought out and decided. I think that’s the biggest problem!
In Alice in the Looking Glass there is no planned love line, which began in the first part. Where is my charming young Alice and the crazy Hatter?
Yes, in some ways the script was “good”, we learn all about the ulterior motives and desires of each character. And here's the curtain. And I'm bored, I already knew the end from the middle of the movie, and the consequent stamping hit my eyes and my nerves. Even in comparison with the first part, which in itself is not so close to the source. The visual beautiful row of the picture is not as captivating as it could with an interesting story told. I don't see Tim Barton.
I'm usually a delighted and grateful viewer, but in the end the film didn't evoke the feelings it deserved. I’m even a little hurt that I didn’t like the script and the subsequent plot so much that this is my first written negative review of the film.
6 out of 10
Everything good that can be distinguished in this film is taken from the work of Carroll (quotations, jokes). The film itself, like many others, in my opinion, does not bring anything new. No interesting creative ideas, no addition of his interpretation by the director. Anyway, nothing original. The original book is a very thought-out witty surreal tale, and it is very disappointing when people with millions of dollars on their hands do not even try to shoot a careful and high-quality film adaptation. As a result, another Disney not painfully smart story.
If you evaluate the film not as a film adaptation, but as an independent film, then nothing good can be said either. Not for a second while watching the movie did I feel intrigued, involved. Such a structure is already puking.
The acting is quite normal, it didn’t happen that someone else’s image knocked me out of the film. Sometimes it is difficult to evaluate acting when you do not know what game the actors, in fact, should perform at a particular moment.
There is nothing to say about music: nothing original and memorable. And during the credits, there was something completely inappropriate music.
Unfortunately, the second part of Burton's Alice evokes mixed feelings. I would say that my attitude towards the film is rather positive, but that’s the whole thing. And in particular, there was something confused, too Baron-Cohen, unique-Burton, but at the same time very instructive, kind and wonderful. Let's try to figure it out.
Sacha Baron Cohen appears before us in an uncharacteristic role of a fairy-tale character. The character was supposed to be funny and majestic, and turned out to be a stupid sociopath with the makings of a Buddhist sage. I didn’t catch the character actor. Frankly cheated. When you look at time, you don’t believe the actor. He is trying to be more comical than a child's fantasy can afford.
There is nothing good to say about the plot. Alice’s transition to the Looking Glass is confused. time travel does not fit into the overall picture of the film, although they are associated with the reality of Alice (which is pleasing). Some scenes with the Black Queen look repulsively illogical, rather than the insanely illogical they should be in Alice. The hatter gradually turns into Sweeney Toda, and in his eyes shines not noble madness, but cruel madness. Not good. However, the most annoying is the excessive speed of some events that occur suddenly, and this suddenness is not happy.
However, the main storyline and its branches give great pleasure. First of all, it was a good story. There is love, care, and remorse. It's a classic fairy tale. I remember the Chocolate Factory with its instructive ending. Everything here is very sweet and spiritual. Individual scenario ideas are impressive in their reasonableness and relevance. Although the plot of the film is very, very far from Carroll Alice, it looks quite comparable to the original. The change of director made the vision of the film different. In Burton we see the idea of madness for the sake of victory. You have to go crazy to be a winner. In Bobin, we see the need to get rid of infantility in order to purify the senses. So Alice learns during the film not to believe in a fairy tale, not to go crazy, not to perform miracles, but to draw the right conclusions and love loved ones. Perhaps this difference in outlook made the film not what critics expected it to be.
It is quite difficult to evaluate the second Alice, since she did not turn out to be Burton. Madness gave way to reason, the heroic saga turned into a fairy tale. Not everyone will like Helena Bonham Carter. Not everyone will like a gloomy hatter. Sacha Baron Cohen is an amateur. Someone likes his crunches. Someone will find the image of time beyond the fabulous world. Many will note that the work does not cause the feelings they expected from viewing. But I personally liked it. It's a great story with little downsides.
Emotions are an important part of being human – it’s great when emotions are positive, and it’s hard to feel when emotions are negative. The film 'Alice in the Looking Glass', just the same genuinely causes positive emotional stress, throughout it. The film is very good and instructive, but about everything in order:
1) Plot. (concept of the director, authors) This film clearly sees the idea of the author of the film - it is visible, it is tangible. The problem of time and that it is impossible to joke with expressed in books, films, cartoons this picture is another very vivid reminder. As well as the authors of the film make it clear that there is nothing more expensive than people close to you and it is more important to spend time on your neighbors and not on fuss, resentment, revenge, etc. The film is surprisingly kind, because it calls for love and forgiveness, hope, as well as the fact that you need to move from words to deeds to help your loved ones, even simple understanding is already a matter.
2) Actors play. Convincing. I really liked it, believable. Alice - by nature the commander, the unconditional leader and just a beautiful, brave and kind girl all these characteristics perfectly played and passed Mia Wasikowska. The hatter is the unsurpassed Johnny Depp, hardly anyone could play this character better than him, at least I can’t imagine. This is all worthy of high praise because it is integral and interesting, although great professionals can of course cheat, it happens, we will not call the movies, but here - neither to reduce nor add everything clearly - Depp is great with all his soul. Beauty - Anne Hathaway, her sadness, some anxiety and guilt, on the other hand kindness and responsiveness - a real white queen - not perfect, but worthy. The Red Queen is a wonderful character because, again, everything is well played and conveyed, as I think the authors and actress Helena Bonham Carter successfully made it clear - the person is him and his circumstances. Time - actor Sacha Baron Cohen, played the most in my opinion plausible invention of the image of time, everything is clearly measured, always in motion - in one word, time.
(3) The special effects, the music, the production, and the computer graphics are high and I think the movie is worth the money. This is not just bright pictures, but a successfully shot and mounted product that is colorful, interesting and exciting. As for the music, it is slightly lower than my expectations, but still at a height, a little quiet or I just could not hear because of the dynamics of the plot, but it means that it is part of the whole, and good.
Summarize. The film Alice in the Looking Glass, James Bobin and Tim Burton, a very successful continuation of the famous film Alice in Wonderland. Dynamics, plot development, acting, special effects, and instructive and beautiful story of two sisters, Tarrant Cylinder, Mad Hatter and the adventures of beautiful Alice. Well, that's all good viewing! Thank you.
I love Tim Burton’s movies. It is no secret that this director can create bright and, at the same time, dark and charming films. In this film, he was a producer, and it is very obvious. But everything in order.
I liked the movie, but that’s because it was originally made for a specific audience. Clearly not for fans of Lewis Carroll. Rather for those who are waiting for the character to be revealed, even if the latter do not require it. I would like to separate each character so that it is clear what I mean.
Alice Kingsley. Let's start with the bad. In the last film, Alice was also not quite canonical and generally quite dubious, albeit the main character. In this film, actress Mia Wasikowska noticeably increased the pace and played her character well. However, the creators of Alice decided for some reason not to work. Here she is shown quite clumsy because of her motivation and actions. She doesn't feel like empathizing. So just like in the last movie, the secondary characters pull the whole movie out. Alas. The only thing that upset me about this movie.
The Hatter/Tarrant. It's as good as the first one. And the case when the background is not needed. We are told about the Hatter’s childhood, about his relationships with his parents, brothers, sisters. None of this is necessary. But the audience wants it! Why do sequels? To give the audience what they want. They want more information about their favorite characters. The creators emphasized this not only in the case of the Hatter. But they didn't take into account that he didn't need a story as a character. According to the canon, the Hatter is an ordinary madman who is interesting to watch. It didn’t matter who he was, who his parents were, etc. But Burton made the first part pretty intricate and added meaning to where it wasn't needed. The audience loved it. The creators made a sequel. And I, as an ordinary viewer, say that I like this presentation of the character. I know I don’t need to disclose it.
The White Queen/Mirana. The character is quite stereotypical, but it's the White Queen. She is what history allows her to be. And then the disclosure of the character was superfluous, so I write that this movie is not for everyone, but only for fans of the first part of the film. In general, the actress played well, although strong acting skills are not needed to perform this character. After watching Les Miserables, I have no doubt about Anne Hathaway. Seriously. She played well there.
Time. Here, I would like to tell you more in detail. Remember that this character was not in the original book. The writers invented it. And he's great. I know Sasha Baron Cohen from Les Misérables, but I’ve heard of his comedies. But not the point. I love it when actors play seriously, when you can see that they like the role. In Les Misérables, he played that way. And it's the same case. When you see that the actor squeezes all the juices out of himself, but at the same time plays on the light, it is interesting to watch him. Nice serve. Interesting externally and internally. The character has character, features. There are jokes sometimes. The story moves forward when it appears on screen. These are the characters I love. Interesting, worked out, not like all, but at the same time, fit into the overall atmosphere of the film. And of course, it is necessary to note that, or rather those who are associated with it. It's Seconds. Seriously, I've never seen such a cute and unusual extra since... I don't even remember seeing anything so cute. And yes, I don't like Minions.
The Red Queen/Iracibeta. Again, this is a case of backstory! A completely unnecessary story about her relationship with her sister. But without it, there would be no plot. And yet the character wants to empathize. So is Time. Or was it just me who was worried about their relationship? I hope not. Again, the character is what the story allows him to be. Canon. The actress managed at the level of the first part. Good. And don’t blame the creators that no one is interested in her background. It's very interesting! As I said, the audience is waiting for it, even if it is not necessary. An interesting case, by the way.
The other characters are bright, interesting, as they should be. Again, not everyone will like this movie. But he doesn't have to be liked by everyone. I suggest you watch. A children's fairy tale in order to relax, forget about problems and even learn some lesson.
8 out of 10
In 2010, the film 'Alice in Wonderland' was released - an adaptation of the famous fairy tale Lewis Carroll, staged by the brilliant director Tim Burton. Of course, this interpretation made a lot of noise and fell in love with millions of viewers from all over the world.
Burton shot a very lively, atmospheric fairy tale with bright and extraordinary heroes who left behind a sea of impressions. The picture collected more than a billion dollars at the box office and, of course, the question of continuation arose by itself. But since Tim Burton did not shoot a sequel, but was carried away by the film adaptation of the novel by Rance Riggs & #39; House of Strange Children', another director was entrusted to film the second film - James Bobin.
What can you say about the new director? He certainly tried to support the second part in the spirit of the first, but the tape still turned out to be frankly weaker than its prequel. But everything in order:
1. Visual side. 'The Looking Glass' Although it turned out to be very fabulous, it is still quite faint in comparison with 'Wonderland'. The first film was very bright, rich and even poisonous. It stunned the imagination, you literally stuck on the screen, and can be traced in this picture 'Berton' atmosphere and mood. In the second part, there is a lot of sadness. It looks like a bright picture, but it smells depressing notes.
2. Plot. Of course, the script is not original, and there are many hanging plot and unnecessary pathos and pomposity. The motivation of the characters is primitive, the narrative is somewhat crumpled and a feeling of dissatisfaction remains from this. 'Alice in Wonderland' was crazy, the second film is again quite dull compared to the first part.
3. Many beloved actors returned in their old images, but they were faded compared to the first 'Alice'. Mad Hatter performed by Johnny Depp was not mad at all, but some kind of dull and sick. Depp is beautiful, but his character in this part is poorly spelled out - there is no such enthusiasm and a share of insanity, although he was given enough screen time. Mia Wasikowska, as always, in his repertoire, or rather - no. What in the first picture she was a log, what in the second. Anne Hathaway is also beautiful in the role of Mirana, but the magic halo that enveloped her in the first part, in this somewhere disappeared. Helena Bonham Carter as always plays inadequate girls, in this case she returned to the role of the Red (now no longer) Queen. In general, its role was played at the level of the first part. Also worth noting is Alan Rickman (let the earth be a feather to him), who perfectly voiced Absolem. For him, this film was his last, it is a pity that we will not hear his unique voice and see his brilliant performance in new projects, but he will always remain in our hearts with his magnificent roles. How can you not mention Stephen Fry ? The role of the Cheshire Cat suits him damn well, his voice fits perfectly with this character.
Of the newcomers, I would like to mention Sasha Baron Cohen. He's a little bit of a '39' in life, so the role of 'Time' was perfect for him. Cohen was beautiful. And a surprise for me was the cameo of Richard Armitage and Andrew Scott — these two Britons fell in love with me — I was very happy to see them here, albeit in small roles.
4. Soundtrack.Danny Elfman returned to the role of composer, so the musical accompaniment 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. There everything complemented and harmonized with each other, and here a rather powerful soundtrack does not combine with this dull picture. It is worth noting the song Pink'Just Like Fire', which became the title track 'Looking Glass'. I really liked the song (if you do not perceive it as a soundtrack), but in the context of this film it looks kind of ridiculous - with its energy and sound, this track does not fit into this gray and dull narrative.
As a result, 'Alice in the Looking Glass' is clearly inferior as 'Alice in Wonderland'. I’m not going to call it an outright failure, but it doesn’t have many of the qualities that the first part had. It's a kind of average.
Who remembers the wonderful fairy tale Alice in the Looking Glass? Of course, there was a wonderland, but I liked the book about the mirror more. Then, in the 1950s, the Disney cartoon Alice in Wonderland came out. Then there was a miniseries about little Alice and how she first got into Wonderland. But now the Disney studio has become fashionable to remake the films and cartoons that the studio itself released in the old years. Alice in Wonderland 2010, The Jungle Book and Pete His Dragon 2016 And that's not all movies.
In 2016, 3 Disneu films were released. And the second one is Alice in the Looking Glass. The second Alice we were all very much waiting for, because the first part made a huge impression on us and on me. Now let's take it all apart, what's bad about the new Alice and what's not.
Plot. The story is very different from the first part. And he himself is worse than the plot of the first picture. Alice herself is always looking somewhere, somewhere flying on a time machine, realizes that this should not have been done, and again flies away on a time machine. That's the whole movie! So let me tell you more about the story.
For three years, Alice has been wandering the Chinese seas doing the affairs of her late father. But one day all her plans change meeting with the Blue Caterpillar (and now the beautiful butterfly Absolem). Absolem tells Alice the terrible news: Crazy hatter in trouble! So it's time to go back to Wonderland to save a friend. This time, Alice will enter the magical world through a mirror and enter into a duel with the mysterious villain Time.
Actors-- In the first film, I liked the Hatter by Johnny Depp. In this film, I liked the doctor from the hospital, played by Andrew Scott. All the actors are good!
Special effects are Medium. I don't see where they spent $170 million. In addition to the time wave through which Alice goes into the past, no special effects were noticed. Not a plus, not a minus.
Humor. Missing. I didn't remember or see any jokes.
As a result, the movie Alice in the Looking Glass turned out not to be good but not bad. In the fight between Warcraft and Alice, I choose Alice.
7 out of 10
Are you ready to plunge into the world of the impossible again?
A good, kind, childish tale. A worthy continuation of the first part. Finally came the "keyboards" to write a review.
The film audience in 2016 was fed up with sequels and remakes, new superblockbusters, so this picture suffered the same sad fate (in the box office plan) as many others (Warcraft, Independence Day 2, X-Men: Apocalypse and others). I watched it in the cinema, and this film was issued a small number of copies in our country, had to be content with a small hall.
I like all the actors in the movie, except for the colorless and gray mouse, Mia Wasikowska. I don’t know who she is or who she is in the film industry, but it’s clearly not for her. In my idea from childhood, it should be a bright girl, both with a rich crazy inner world and pretty outside.
It was funny to see the storyline associated with the Hatter (Johnny Depp), where he came from and why he became so “hatty”. Amused his depression in the picture. Of course, without the famous Johnny Depp, this cinematic universe would not be destined to be, and therefore the screen time of the Hatter should be appropriate, but, without this, you will not go anywhere.
Very successful was the introduction of a new character - Lord of Time (played by Sacha Baron Cohen), and he himself is well represented as a character, and his castle is all so wonderful. Hanging from the sky watch - the life of a particular character - a beautiful find of the creators.
I really liked the scene with Alice’s time travel, something reminded me of time travel from the film “Time Machine” (2002), in the peer-reviewed picture this action is given detailed, fascinating attention (she floated like a fairy between the clouds of time and space).
My favorite actress Anne Hathaway again shone in her glory, with her mannerism and royal manners (gait with ' pens up').
Well, Helena Bonham Carter (the dark queen), as usual, had to confront with Mr. Time all the good and wonderful in this illusory world. She did her job well.
For me, so the second part is no worse than the first, here is full of eccentricities, illusory, phantasmogorous. Who liked the first part, I think will admire this one.
9 out of 10
Being a creative person (I paint), I am a person who is very fond of appearance and beautiful wrap, and therefore could not pass by the adaptation of Alice, as well as many other films by Tim Burton. After watching Alice in Wonderland, I was absolutely thrilled - you could say, I was given what I wanted and expected. And, accordingly, I could not miss the sequel - and again everything is gorgeous! It's just a celebration.
Tim Burton's films are a separate conversation. That the atmosphere of magic and fairy tales reigns in his films, which makes us all feel like children again, who carelessly watch some cartoon - this is something! And since the sequel to Alice was directed by James Bobin, I was a little worried. But it turned out to be a waste! Apparently, he did it under Tim’s guidance, as I didn’t notice any difference from the first part. All the same wonderful magical world of Wonderland is simply fascinating. You just don’t notice how time flies (as symbolic). I especially liked the Time Castle - all these gears, mechanisms - it looks complex and beautiful at the same time (as I love). The director's job is excellent!
In the "Looking Glass" we are again shown this beautiful and already familiar world. But things aren't the same in the world -- the Hatter isn't the slightly cheerful weirdo he used to be -- he's morose now, and it's understandable -- because he misses his family. Our old friends: a rabbit, a Cheshire cat, Princess Mirana and others understand that only Alice can fix this, who has to replay Time itself and change the past. During this exciting and dangerous journey, we are introduced to new characters in this world, as well as reveal some details from the past lives of friends and enemies of Alice. All the characters were revealed not badly, but in this part - even better.
Acting on a level as before. Johnny Depp has a talent for playing weirdos, at least Jack Sparrow. Well, the Hatter is great, too. Playing bad girls is Helena Bonham Carter. Separately, Sacha Baron Cohen - before that I knew him only as Borat and, frankly, I hated - such an idiotic movie. But that's not the case. Time is a gentleman. I can’t say anything bad about the other actors either, and I don’t want to. All actors in their seats.
The musical accompaniment is also high. Separately, I want to note the soundtrack, which plays during the credits P!nk - Just like fire. In this film, even the credits are made with love, and of course, something that is impossible not to mention: the inscription dedicated to Alan Rickman - the great actor. When I watched the credits, I knew for sure that his close friends could not help but pay tribute to him.
Six years after the release of Alice in Wonderland, Disney Studios took up the continuation of the successful project. At one time, this film grossed more than a billion dollars worldwide and received quite mixed reviews from film critics. What did this sequel show us?
First on the subject
The plot of the film takes us three years ahead of the events described in the first film. Alice is already the captain of a large trading company, traveling around the world. Upon her return, she learns that her mother is about to sell the house and is about to be removed from her post as captain. Here she meets Absolem again, who takes her through the mirror to Wonderland. There she meets all her friends again and learns about the Hatter's depression. He tells her that his family survived and asks Alice to find them. Alice decides to go back in time and find out what happened to his family. Along the way, she learns the past of her friends, Wonderland, and why the Red Queen has such a big head.
Pros.
Mia Wasikowska’s acting was much better and showed much more emotion than in the last film. Johnny Depp is better than ever. Helena Bonham Carter is also trying her best and has become very used to the role. I'm not talking about Sacha Baron Cohen, he played 100! This character is filled with charisma and an easy mystery. Special effects were also obtained at the highest level.
And now about the disadvantages, unfortunately, they are here too.
Unlike the first movie, Sonya Mouse, the March Rabbit, the White Rabbit and the Cheshire Cat all play very small roles, which upset many viewers, including myself. I also found the voiceovers of some of the characters a bit low-quality. The Cheshire Cat was very handsome in the last film, but in this film it turned out a little worse. He's not bad, just worse than the first. I don’t know where I got this impression, most likely the Cheshire cat looked good only in a dark and creepy environment.
Towards the end, I can only say that the film is a rare example of a good sequel, despite the fact that the director was replaced, the atmosphere of the film changed and the long gap between the first and second parts.
I don’t know why this film has such a sad fate, but for me this film is a great continuation of Alice in Wonderland.
8 out of 10
In 2010, the world warmly accepted the adaptation of the fairy tale “Alice in Wonderland” with Tim Burton in the director’s chair. But now Tim Burton curates the film from the position of producer, and as a director acts little-known James Bobin. What came of it?
In the story, Alice has to save the Mad Hatter, who is less and less reminiscent of his former self. The only chance to make him the way he used to be is to join the race with his longtime acquaintance, the mysterious villain Time.
The main plus and part-time difference from the first part was drama - it is thanks to him that the characters and their relationships are revealed. You will learn why the Red Queen is so evil, and whether her sister, the White Queen, has always been sweet and kind, and the film will clarify the essence of their conflict. You will understand why the Hatter became mad. This time he will appear kind, pure and sincere, like a child, his appearance is most awaited. Actually, it seems that Johnny Depp is living the role of the Hatter. Alice, played by Mia Wasikowska, will also show herself from a new side - from the side of the ship's captain. Alan Rickman will forever be remembered by us as a critical caterpillar (or rather, a butterfly). Mr. Time performed by Sacha Baron Cohen, as the main opponent of Alice, looks more interesting character than the Dragon from the previous part. Time becomes the main part of humor: “Time is running out”, “Is it true, what are you treating?”, “So you ask, will I not have a little myself to give you?”
The music for this film was written by Danny Elfman, and the great Pink helped him. And you know, the musical component has not become a weak element, and the composition Just Like Fire will not leave the playlists of those who saw Alice for a long time.
The only downside seems to be special effects. The two "main environments" in the film - Ocean of Memories and Looking Glass - can sometimes confuse the viewer in the transition. The special effects were almost identical - something transparent and brilliant winds around the screen.
This film returns to a fairy tale, entering the hall, you forget about all the problems and wait for each next frame, each new plot twist. You become part of Wonderland and don’t want to leave. The film is fully customized to 3D, so watch it in this format. “Alice in the Looking Glass” is suitable for both children and adults. Such family films have not been in the box office for a long time, and it should not be missed.
I love Tim Burton’s movies and his style. Well, the style remains (although the director is different), but the film is complete nonsense. Banal, read in many moves forward, with primitive thoughts. In general, a typical American family film – where the main message “family is the main thing” is repeated constantly (in fact, there is nothing else). Secondary characters participate only for a tick, there would be no them, nothing would change much (including the same Cheshire Cat).
I understand that Tim really wants to be filmed everywhere by his wife (a wonderful actress). But why not make up her somehow and make a normal Alice in the Looking Glass (I mean, at least a little by the book)?
Come on, the movie's already made. And for the content you can put a solid two.
There is another suggestion that the film was shot as a 3D attraction, so there are a lot of flights. But I was not impressed.
For the visual series, I still raise the rating of the film to three, but in general, I did not like the film. I’m not talking about the fact that actors, apparently feeling what nonsense they are filming, play over their sleeves. Not impressive.
The change of director in 80% of cases leads to the collapse of the picture and this second part of the brilliant interpretation of the book, unfortunately, was among the 80 percent.
Expected a worthy continuation, and got children's nonsense: merged clean characters, whose stupidity is now on the verge of a criminal article, far-fetched plot, stupid special effects and stupid dialogue. The movie just went bad. Although the scriptwriters remained the same, which at first inspired confidence, the director gave them mushrooms of Radagast and the dialogue sank into oblivion. The film has less meaning than Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. I have no idea what they spent $170 million on. It's Disney's Alice, not Burton's, because Disney has absolutely no idea of gloom and gothic without a brilliant director. And Bobin with such actors and huge money Disney could not continue the already existing picture, managed to win the trust and votes “for” many.
The old atmosphere is zero! It feels like watching a silly fairy tale for preschool children, and not that dark fantasy with unusual and interesting characters. Everything is too bright and artificial.
The whole plot, which even the plot is painful to call, in fact, is the tragedy of one Hatter, and the heroes, due to the lack of half of the brain that Bobin cut them before the shooting of the second part, help him, without thinking about their decisions and collapsing Wonderland with their own hands.
The capricious, arrogant and cruel Iracibeta became a stupid, resentful child and ceased to be the embodiment of tyranny. The hatter is no longer a madman, but simply a stupid character who is more annoying than delighting. In general, the Hatter is spoiled: there is no such gloomy, attractive madman. Grimm also plays a role that Bobin apparently didn't know, turning the Hatter into a clown. The hatter was the embodiment of madness and the symbol of "Alice", and became the embodiment of stupidity. Alice stopped thinking, turning into a pale shadow, not the main character. In other words, the old characters were replaced, they became only shadows of those interesting and elaborate characters of the first Alice. Actors with such a director could not save their heroes. The only successful character in Alice in the Looking Glass is Time. The only hero with motivation and a head on his shoulders. He is interesting, with his participation, good dialogues are obtained, you want to worry about this character, he dilutes the stupidity of the film with his charisma and logical decisions. The talent of Sacha Baron Cohen betrayed this hero of individuality and character. This is the only character that the director and writers really worked on.
Well, apparently Bobin smoked a lot of Absolem smoke when he decided to ditch the continuation of the quality part of Burton.
1 in 10
I think the new 'Alice in the Looking Glass' for many it was simply banal incomprehensible!
Because - actually 'Alice' - is such a thrash that is just faked as an entertaining movie. Of course, everyone is baffled by relatively decent graphics and no less relatively decent actors. That is, the graphics are so bad, the actors too, literally for every dialogue and frame - shameful, but...
Have you seen the movies 'Tomatoes-killers', 'Attack of monster crabs', 'Manos: Hands of Fate'? This is the tradition that continues!
Hodular plot, ridiculous images, screaming makeup - this is just as it should be. Because out of all of this comes a completely creepy black humor. And it is necessary - first of all - to read from 'Alice in the Looking Glass'. Jokes and ' Jokes' about a bitten nose ('It's even better'), about death and children's complexes, about nightmare relationships in families - that is what forms the basis of this film.
At first I thought, no, there's something wrong. And 'Alice' of course, had to shoot, for example, Guillermo del Toro or Guy Maddin. Here they would accurately and surely lead what is happening into a deep, lush thriller, but ... no.
I didn’t know who James Bobin was at first. But I realized who it is, barely watching his short film 'Spyz' (2003), which I highly recommend to everyone to watch - before 'Alice in the Looking Glass'!
5 out of 10
A film that I was looking forward to, because the first part of director Tim Burton is very passionate. Even when I found out that the film had another director, a James Bobin (never heard of him), my expectations were no less strong, as I saw the trailer, and it is stunning, and certainly capable of interest.
Well, the plot is good, fascinating: Alice again seems to accidentally fall into Wonderland, and sees that something is wrong with the Hatter, he constantly changes makeup, he fell into depression, the aggressive sides of his madness appear. Alice, of course, wants to help him at all costs, and goes on a journey during which she reveals new secrets. It also puts Wonderland and its people at risk. Also, she scavenges porridge, which she made herself, she helps faithful friends. As a result, everything ends well, because in good fairy tales love, friendship, etc. always wins.
The scene where the White and Red Queens come to reconciliation is very pleasing, in the cinema I cried for it was really very nice.
But still, from the very first shot, you can immediately note that this work is not the great Tim Burton (albeit a great job). The story and the characters are the same, but something is wrong. Maybe the lighting is different, or maybe I'm picking on too much.
Nevertheless, this film deserves your attention, it is exciting, interesting, it takes you to ' that' the world.
8 out of 10
The desire to go and this film arose spontaneously. The first part was not very impressive, to be honest. Yes, it was beautiful, but it was fascinating. But it didn't. And then the second part arrived. The trailer was very colorful. It’s smacked in meaning, but the graphic part is at its best.
Like the whole movie. It started out really boring. I don't know about you, but I wanted to sleep right away. There is no tension at this point. You don’t even worry about the heroes, and the ending is clear almost immediately. But further developments will be more interesting. Standard-looking British grooms, the same creepy bride replacements (but ridiculously). And as soon as Alice found the mirror, everything really changed. Walt Disney's Magic worked. The film came to life, played with colors, the hope for an interesting movie was veiled.
The hatter in this part is somehow strange and unusually amorphous. Even when he tells the story of his childhood, there is no sparkle in the eyes, there is no sweet smile of a child who remembers the brightest moments of his life.
Time is a very controversial character to me. I personally don't like Cohen's curvatures very much, but here they sometimes even fit in. The idea of time travel with Time catching up with you, so that this time does not stop and the world does not collapse is very funny. And most importantly, a whole storehouse of moments that can be re-told, revealed from a new perspective. Also, the points that need to be explained ' So to speak, shed a ray of light on the darkest mysteries of Wonderland. For example, where does the Red Queen have a red head?
More positive than negative in this picture. Sometimes boring, but most of the film is at a very high level.
For the pose 'I want a present' Red Queen special thanks!!
7 out of 10
We waited 6 years and waited! The director changed, the concept changed, and the film began to resemble the original Alice Carroll, which does not prevent him from being exciting in himself.
Let me start with the fact that the film is sharpened in 3D. Computer graphics are beautiful, objects fly into and out of the camera, waves rise. In short, beauty coupled with an irresistible desire to poke a finger at heroes and objects.
Unlike the riot of colors and colors that were present in the first Alice during the directorship of Tim Burton, ' Looking Glass' much more monotonous, with a predominance of dark and deep colors, and this situation can only be diversified by the fire-red hair of the Hatter.
Speaking of the Hatter. It seemed to me that Johnny Depp had relaxed and hardly played at all. Make-up artists did the main job for him, because his mood and emotions can mostly be understood by the color of the shadows under his eyes. Maybe the role required it, but I don’t believe that you have to walk around with almost a brick face, playing with two alternating emotions.
Alice, aka Mia Wasikowska, also did not shine with a special game. So skipped the path 'Alice' - 'Crimson peak' - 'Alice' with one facial expression and almost the same costume and role. If in ' Wonderland' it could be forgiven, since the heroine gets into a world that does not really remember, and does not really understand where she is sent and what they want; thinks that all sleep and corruption, then in ' Looking Glass' she could be more hasty and lively in reactions.
Sacha Baron Cohen was very pleased because he came to the place and was very harmonious in the role of Time. Slightly shifted, accustomed to order, and perhaps the only character who understands truisms like the one not to play with time. As a character, I had genuine empathy for him because he showed him where and when he felt bad, when he felt good, and when to laugh at him. It's a good role to play.
The second joy of the characters was the Red Queen, because Helena Bonham Carter is just great at playing characters who are supposed to yell, spit and hate everyone. And how glorious that she ' holds the mark ' and gives out explosions of emotions beautifully and to the place.
The next joy was not the heroine, but computer graphics. A film about a wonderful country should be stuffed with it to the end, but then it did not turn into an alapid extravaganza of madness, but became a calm embodiment of mechanisms of all sizes and water. The first turned beautifully, clicked and swung; the second - no less beautifully shimmered, raged and rolled. In General, combined two beautiful things, not overloaded with color, but still looks spectacular.
Special thanks to the writers for the fact that over time (or Time as a character) was not treated as shameless and ridiculous as it usually happens in films about time travel.
For the first time I watched the film to the end, because the final video on the credits is funny, and together with the music is even interesting. In all its totality, the film pulls on solid ' above average' but I hope that no sequel will suddenly not be invented, because books are books, but films, as already mentioned, are not about them.
Watch ' Alice in the Looking Glass' in the cinema - a good thing and a pleasure, but to review it later at home will be only the most loyal fans.
Alice in the mirror, unlike the first part, is no longer a fairy tale in the usual sense. If the first part ended with a clear division of characters into bad and good, then this part places accents. The White Queen is no longer perfect. It shows why the red queen became evil and why the hatter went mad. Showing their pain, choice and consequences of this choice. The characters have become real people.
I was pleased with the main message that it is possible to change everything except what has already happened (because this is not a fairy tale).
There are also improbable situations in the film, such as the fact that Alice is the captain. The denouement is a bit ill-conceived. But a philosophical view of time, fate, an abundance of quotes - makes the film a wise parable.
As an ardent, but, alas, lazy before writing reviews moviegoer to encourage me to sit at the computer and share my opinion, the task, frankly, not easy. However, the film ' Alice in the Looking Glass' managed to do the impossible. What is the difference between the first and second part of the film? If in the first part the fascinating plot brightened up many moments, and you could even sometimes turn your fingers to look at the game hiding under the guise of Jack Sparrow (and now the Hatter) Johnny Depp, now the viewer did not get this. The beautiful picture behind which many go to such films is likely not to impress those who are already familiar with the first & #39; Alice & #39; Too similar plans and landscapes. Really spectacular (especially in 3D) came the scene of travel on the sea of time, wanted it to last as long as possible. It’s a shame that it was the only thing I wanted to say positively.
The rest of the film turned out, in my opinion, very flat, leaving indifferent, causing an indescribable, incomparable feeling of sorrow for wasted time. Leaving the cinema, you feel an all-consuming emptiness, and even from a light entertaining film, the viewer necessarily takes something with him. Let each one be his own.
The thought of the whole film, ' if you believe in yourself, the impossible turns out to be feasible', runs through the whole film, and it becomes clear under what slogan this film was created. It doesn’t matter that one Mia Wasikowska game doesn’t make a good movie. But you’ll make a lot of money, because it’s easier to do the impossible than to say goodbye to you '
5 out of 10
So, Disney: for a good family story I put “five”, and for Carroll – “nod”.
No, of course, even after the first film it was clear that from the fairy tale Lewis Carroll at Tim Burton in his Alice there was not much to catch, but unsinkable hope whispered to go to the cinema on The Looking Glass. After all, in the atmosphere and heroes "Wonderlands" at times through the literary source. The trailers, of course, were alarming, but they were still trailers, for which we can always say that the authors left the most delicious behind the scenes.
But I was deceived in my expectations. In the second part, Burton left nothing but candy wrappers. However, hiding a completely different filling. I didn’t miss a misspelling – it was Burton, who failed to hide behind a fig leaf with the inscription “producer” and I don’t know exactly what breadth of back formally director James Bobin (with all due respect to the latter). This is a certain and filmed movie by you, Mr. Tim, it will not work to shift responsibility for it to others.
It would seem that the assessment of this film, from which the fairy tale of the English classic was completely emasculated, was obvious. But I haven’t thought about any movie for as long as I’ve given it a score.
The fact is that as a traditional Disney family story in a fabulous setting, the film “Alice in the Looking Glass” is just wonderful, magical and extremely convincing. But as the film adaptation of the fairy tale by Lewis Carroll is absolutely talentless and zero film. Through this prism, accordingly, it is necessary to drive the plot with acting. From the point of view of family history, absolutely everyone played beautifully and sincerely: Helena Bonham Carter, Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, of course - Sasha Baron Cohen, Anne Hathaway, Richard Armitage, Geraldine James. I'm sorry I didn't name anyone. Viewing this film as a family story, the best words can be said about the scenery, the best of which for me personally was the Castle of Time, very fabulous and mysterious.
Even taken from the highest ceiling, Alice's story as the captain of a merchant ship (At that time in the British Empire?!!) This is too much even for Disney!) does not cause protest, let alone other fabrications such as the touching drama of the Mad Hatter and the equally dramatic story of the Red Queen. In short, as a family film, the picture deserves a solid unconditional ten.
Which I would have done if I had... If only the movie wasn't called "Alice in the Looking Glass." Call him, I don't know. “Alice and the Secret of the Mad Hatter,” “Alice Race Against Time,” “Alice: The Secret of the Red Queen,” would have no questions. But the title put on posters and posters, I believe, obliged Burton to pay at least a small tribute to the book with which they wrote off the title. As was done in "Alice in Wonderland". Episodic, but there was. In "Alice in the Looking Glass", sorry for the sharpness, Carroll did not even pass by. In characters with familiar names, other characters are nested – for the sake of family history, not the fairy tale of an English writer. The only exception to the rule was the magnificent Cheshire Cat. I’m sure I want to hear how the inimitable Stephen Fry voiced it! However, Kotik only emphasized the bitterness of the loss of others.
In terms of scenery and atmosphere, the Looking Glass as a creation of Carroll in the tape is also lost. This is a different world, not his.
That is why the film "Alice in the Looking Glass" I found it difficult to evaluate like no other. 7 points - in general, a compromise with which to argue.
P.S. However, "Alice in the Looking Glass" will be dear to me personally due to one circumstance. Alas, sad, because it was the last work in the cinema for the wonderful Alan Rickman, who voiced Absalom. Bright memory Alan!
Fairy tale 'Alice in Wonderland' I love it since childhood. Therefore, when I learned that the film adaptation of this wonderful story came out, and even from such a chic director as Tim Burton... I went to Prem'er. The first part was a fairy tale, but it didn’t make as much sense as the second. 'Alice in the Looking Glass' - a fairy tale with things that everyone should think about.
Alice became captain, as she dreamed, but she didn’t want to live in the present. She told her mother she didn’t want to be like her. But in the end, she and her mother went to meet each other, found mutual understanding. Also, the film shows not only the value of family, but also friendship. Alice had enemies and friends. Because of this, she becomes a person. After all, failures and difficult tasks for her only temper and make her stronger.
The film for everyone looks different for children is a fairy tale, funny characters, a magical country, and for adults it is a film with deep meaning.
I think every movie has its own shades. The bright colors of this film sharpen feelings.
Therefore, the film is sensual, with meaning and a fabulous atmosphere.
P.S. Who liked this film I recommend to see: 'Cinderella' or 'Beauty and the Beast'.
'Even Alice will hardly answer,
What is left of the story later,
After it was told '
V. Vysotsky.
'Alice' is 'Alice', there is something in history that touched the soul as a child, and does not let go. It makes you look and listen to every mention of it. Radio play with Vysotsky: 'Smearing the wheel of time is not for the first prize, He is very hurt from friction. Time should not be offended, it is bad and dreary to live without time' Soviet cartoon with Neelova: '- If you run for a long time, you will definitely get somewhere. - What a backward country. Here you need to run with all your legs, just to stay in place. And if you want to get into another, you need to run twice as fast.39
And stupid Disney. And a bunch of others, even grinding 'Alice' Schwankmeier. And countless mentions scattered across books, movies, songs. From 'Kings and Cabbage' O. Henry with Walrus and Carpenter to Nabokovskaya Lolita with the deliberately careless suspicion of latent pedophilia expressed by Humbert. Just a built-in compass pointing to 'Alice' as normal north. Not bad, not good, not bad.
You have to understand that your story is not necessarily interesting to everyone around you. You understand. And you also know that many who are also interested (allusions to it in books-music-movie), see not at all what you see. Everyone has his own and it's good. 'Alice in Wonderland' Tim Burton accepted unconditionally. Not a fan of the director, as for me - gloomy and strange, but the cinema in Mia Wasikowska is amazingly good - exactly what you expect from a story that is ' all stranger and stranger'.
Did you expect a sequel? No, I thought it was all said. A girl rolls under the ceiling on a rope swing - a video in a cafe. Butterfly, mirror, passing through: Wow, I'm saying it's not for the new 'Alice'? - It's Pink. She doesn't need to advertise any Alice. - Oh, look, it's chess, first card, second chess. - You see it everywhere. - Yeah, and the crazy tea party, too, you say? - All right, I give up. Shall we? - You don't want something.
Did the movie work? Got it. Not the same fireworks experience as the first. Tim Burton is not the director, and time is wasted. Funny, this is about time, and to him in such a precise resonance, as it was with Wonderland, the Looking Glass did not get. And the young lady Wasikowska is six years older (how to explain, when not the brightest actress closer to thirty plays a girl, it is not as organic as a twenty-year-old girl in the same role).
And according to the plot, a very asphalt-laying rink was passed, leaving no stone on a stone from Carroll. That is, Tim Burton with Wonderland also quite freely turned, but there are things left, even though a tea party and a rabbit hole with the Rabbit himself, the Jabberwort, the Queen finally. And here is all this snob with a ship and a fool, and the pathos of the impossible in the entourage of the usual Disney Fairytale Kingdom. It's a bit of a clutter, don't you think?
But most importantly, the absurdity of the source in Tim Burton's blood, it is organic in it, like a fish in the water and a bird in the air. That's what the Muppets see behind James Bobin. Weight, rough, visible. But Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) is good. And the Red Queen headstrong beyond all praise, Helen Bonham Carter can't be bad. And I really liked how gracefully they looped the plot of Mad Tea Party: ' I may not have spoken to Him, but I never thought how to kill Time. - Shh-sh! It doesn't like that. So it quarreled with us and now we have all the time five hours and all the time it's time to drink tea'
I expected a lot from Alice in the Looking Glass, but in the end the film did not meet my expectations. Even the song "White Rabbit", which was supposed to sound at the end of the film, was replaced by a song absolutely not suitable for Carroll Alice called "Just Like Fire", which, although it is more popular among music lovers and fans to sit on the Internet, but it somehow did not satisfy me. All right, let's get to the movie.
The film’s storyline is far from the original. All that remains of the Looking Glass is the name, mirror and live chess pieces and Humpty Dumpty flashed somewhere at the beginning of the film. Instead of sending the main character through a mirror to a magical land that looks like a huge chessboard, she is returned to Wonderland, and all in order for her to find the Hatter’s relatives. And the image of Alice was exhausted. After all, no matter how twisted, the slight brutishness of her character made it clear to the viewer that she was surprised by the events taking place in a mad world, and that she was curiously exploring the land of miracles, drawing lessons from her adventures and gaining determination. In the new film, determination blows, roughly speaking, from all its cracks. She is ready to endanger the entire magical world, just to fulfill the request of the Hatter, who, however, refused to help her in the search for his parents, and desperately tries to correct someone’s past, knowing perfectly well that this is impossible.
However, as a plus, it is worth noting the stunning visual range and musical accompaniment and excellent acting work of Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen, who here plays the role of Time (previously this character was mentioned in Alice in Wonderland). The film contains a lot of philosophy and jokes about time, and it also reveals the theme of time travel, which may be new for Alice, but quite far from the fairy tale about the Looking Glass. Also, the film shows the backstory of the characters, however, blurred by morality and clichés about family values. If in the film adaptation of “Coralina” these clichés took place, then in the adaptation of Carroll’s fairy tale they are absolutely superfluous.
Summing up, I want to say that this film is quite good and differs completely new, but not entirely original for the Carroll fairy tale ideas. This film can be put a little above six points out of ten, but it will still lose to the previous film. However, you can watch it, if only to see how good or bad it is.
6.5 out of 10
I must say that I am a real alisoman. Since early childhood, I just love these two fairy tales about the adventures of Alice in Wonderland, and the Looking Glass, with delight I re-read them and am interested in everything that is associated with them. And “Alice in the Looking Glass” for me is a long-awaited film.
“Alice in the Looking Glass” is an amazingly, incredibly, insanely cute movie. At the same time, compared to the first part, this film is more dramatic, serious. And more soulful... If in Wonderland the whole plot was based on the fact that Alice had to defeat Jabberwort and save the magical country, here it is much more complicated, very exciting, making up a holistic story. And we sincerely empathize with the characters and everything that happens on the screen.
The scenes of Victorian England do not look tediously boring. I love this historical period and it was interesting to watch. It was also interesting to watch the very first episode of the film, which, probably, can not resemble “Pirates of the Caribbean”; on the young captain Alice, giving orders to solid uncles.
About actors and characters.
Alice (Mia Wasikowska) Despite the fact that Mia has very light eyebrows and eyelashes, which is why some viewers consider her to be faded, whitish, I believe that Mia as Alice ... beautiful. Especially when she has loose hair flowing soft curls. Alice in the second film is incomparably more pleasant than in the first. And if Alice in the first part made a face “I’m blonde”, said that she didn’t cut her heads, cried with fear and was capricious, then Alice in the second part with blatantness everything is in order. And she rushes decisively and without hesitation to help a friend. Brave and faithful, sensitive and understanding, sweet, sweet, Alice.
The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) Hatter! Lovely creature! How can you not love him? Johnny once again played brilliantly and incomparably.
The Red Queen (Helena Bonham-Carter). Helena in the role of a miniature tyrant - the inimitable graceful and thunderous Red Queen was simply delightful, but how else.
The White Queen (Anne Hathaway) The airy and sympathetic White Queen is also adorable. And in this part, we learn what is behind her wide sweet smile.
Time by Sacha Baron Cohen. I know Sasha from the movie Sweeney Todd, where he played the temperamental and vocal Italian Pirelli. And in Alice, he plays the role of Time, formidable and majestic (and living in an equally majestic gloomy castle). It also performs some of the functions of death. Time is not a negative character, nor is it the main antagonist. It's just like this.
About everything else.
Well, let's start with the title. It is unclear why the film was called “Alice in the Looking Glass”. Besides the fact that Alice does walk through the mirror several times into the magical land, and the tiny Humpty Dumpty scene, there was nothing in the book Alice in the Looking Glass. In Carroll’s books Wonderland and Looking Glass are two different locations.
Anyway, the magical country is unusually colorful and beautiful. It has something so light and joyful, close and dear, to the pain that hurts in the soul. So I would like to sit on this beautiful meadow at the table with the Hatter, the March Hare and Sonya. And how incredibly insanely and naively they were "producing time." Well, it's easy. And why can't these authors come up with backstory to the people of the magical land? In Alice in Wonderland, for example, Turtle-Body-Legs and Griffin told Alice about their childhood and what they studied at school. And many other characters told about the events that occurred before Alice visited the magical country. So it's very canon! A magical country is also a world. Which also has a course of life. And your laws. Like dreams, despite their irrationality, my dreams have their own laws. In which I am well versed and, thanks to this, skillfully navigate the world of dreams. Alice to the second part of the laws of the magical country also understood and accepted.
The music is wonderful, because it was written by Danny Elfman, a composer who, apparently, was just created to write music for the best fairy-tale films. This fascinating, goosebump-causing "Alice's Theme" ...
I also want to say a big thank you to the actors of the Russian dub. Professional work!
On some episodes.
1. In the scene where the Hatter says, "There's no Alice here!" Go away! he... turns into a replica of Sweeney Todd. Very, very powerful scene.
2. The psychiatric hospital, from the corridor of which clamored screams were heard, and a clearly sadistic doctor, vividly resembled the St. Lucy hospital from the film “Georgino”. And it got a little scary for Alice. And the episode of her running away from the asylum on a long staircase reminded me of my dreams. Hospitals and stairs, too.
3. The episode when it seems that everything is gone is gone. And what will happen next (and whether at all) is completely unknown. Also incredibly powerful and impressive.
And, of course, the best thing about this movie. A sincere and touching friendship between the Hatter and Alice. How Alice hugged the Hatter... How the Hatter hugged Alice, how gently and carefully he held his hands through her hair... No one will understand Alice as the Hatter, and no one will understand the Hatter as well as Alice. And the fact that they are inhabitants of two different worlds gives this friendship even greater, squeezing heart, piercing.
Wonderful, fabulous, magical...
___
Ice and wind, evil and longing,
Rare snow and dim light
Winter has covered the rest of July.
And remember, she did not part with the summer.
But no, I'll find Alice! Where is it?
The story cannot end there... (c)
The first film did not particularly impress me, the only review I had about it was ' Talking white rabbits, a deck of cards and the Cheshire Cat seem less fiction than a woman living in the XIX century who is in business and makes deals'
So I didn’t really want to watch the second one, but I really liked it. Perhaps the secret is in the right balance of madness and meaning.
Alice returns from a long voyage to London, having passed the battle baptism of real life, she is no longer the little lost girl who was in the first film. Returning home, she realizes that everything has changed here, time does not stand still, ruthlessly taking days, years, opportunities like a real thief, does not give time to complete everything planned. Trying to turn back time to change the past, she realizes that it is impossible and useless, and most importantly, that Mr. Time is not so bad if you find a common language with him.
Alice herself this time I really liked, just such Alice - strong-willed, stubborn, cocky rebel without the slightest visible signs of makeup, with white eyelashes - she is beautiful! Since the last film, she matured, became serious and gained a healthy skepticism.
The Lord of Time was also beautiful - at the same time ridiculous in his tight leggings and at the same time formidable and awe-inducing. Later I found out that he was played by Sacha Baron Cohen and was very surprised. That's really the master of transformation.
The film is very beautiful, perceived as a fascinating magical journey into the fairy-tale world.
Against the expectation, I liked the movie. Not even like that. I really liked him. It was surprising what a template, slurred and annoying trailer glued together from such a charming material. I don’t know what critics want. Deviations from the book? So these deviations were evident in the first part. Losing the sense of absurdity in favor of common sense? Why not, actually? In any case, I was more pleased to see the Red Queen and the Hatter, capable of experiencing human feelings, than to see them, mad, taken out of context and without history. I think these characters are authentic only in the world of Lewis Carroll. If the creators have redrawn the plot beyond recognition, it is pointless to demand from them absurdity and unrestrained Carroll fantasy. We have to accept what we have.
And the facts seem to me as follows: new 'Alice' turned out to be a fabulous and touching movie for family viewing, equally understandable for children and adults. There are a lot of funny moments and phrases in it (' Thank you for making me feel comfortable' and 'How is he? - Peace? Very good. I advise you to visit it'), and the scene of tea drinking with Time very cleverly plays the mysterious crime of the Hatter mentioned in the book, and generally leaves a feeling of beautifully done work. Locations are bizarre and not too trivial, and most of all warms my heart that some of them remotely resemble the fantastic views of the Gothic McGuievskaya & #39; Alice & #39;, especially the palaces of Time and the Red Queen. I really liked the excursion to the past of the Hatter with painted pseudo-medieval houses, the little Hatter himself, as well as the Cheshire kitten and the young Bloodhound of Mirana. An interesting parallel with the raging sea, on which Alice moves into the past. Fragments of this very past shed light on the enmity of two sisters - yes, exaggerated, but it is impossible to deny that childhood impressions often strongly affect a person and from the very smallness can grow a whole drama. Each of the central characters contributed their (not always pure and kind) contribution to the created history of Wonderland, and this is also correct. Sometimes one careless word can create a flood of pain and malice. You have to be careful with your words and actions. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the fact that these alphabetical truths are framed in a colorful fairy tale and can impress a child. Most of all, I was struck by the scene where the Red and White Queens in the past stand outside the nursery door, and the words of the little Red Queen repeat with the same pain and resentment, only now they are mixed with contempt for their sister.
Sacha Baron Cohen really unexpectedly captured himself in the extravagant role of Time and looked more expressive than anyone else, successfully combining the comic beginning with the philosophical undertones of the role. Second place would be given to the Hatter, no matter how much effort Johnny Depp put in, but the character of his character has become deeper and more attractive. He’s not crazy, much less frightening – he’s a nice weirdo who thinks inside out, but knows exactly what love and friendship are. I can say the same about the Red Queen. Mia Wasikowska, despite her cold temperament, still showed a dynamic in this film. After 'Jane Eyre' I felt better about this actress. Suddenly, Richard Armitage appeared in the meager role of king-father and did not manifest himself in it. And the Cheshire Cat became less mysterious and ironic, but acquired an extraordinary mimiciness.
But you can't absolutely like it. I still think of Alice’s sea odyssey as far-fetched and to the extreme ridiculous, cheerfully galloping along the ropes, being listed as a captain and giving orders to men four times her senior. It is not clear to me what prevented a global catastrophe, because the chronosphere was not returned to its place. Very template and boring character a la 'Shrek' and 'Ice Age' seemed Garden Sonya, and seconds slightly annoying with its stupidity and slowness. Maybe the kids liked it, though. At least the kids were happy in the room. And I took away the feeling of having a good time. Another question is what will happen to impressionable girls when they read the real Alice 39 and find no family warmth, no simplicity, no little Hatter with his first hat. But answering that question is no longer the director's job. That's life. . .
Although Tim Burton remained in the project as a producer, 'Alice' lost some of her Gothic charm, and with it some of Berton's handwriting. But spitting towards the ribbon, in my opinion, is not worth it. Let the plot became more holes, and the screen less dark romance, the Director James Bobin came out a beautiful fairy tale for children – and especially for girls.
Mia Wasikowska clearly grew up in acting: her Alice is a lively, bright, strange dreamer. She does not care about marriage for the sake of marriage, she is attracted by the sea and the breadth of the world, which is not limited to London. But here's the problem: she has one mother, and years do not make her mother younger. And as soon as the heroine is faced with a choice between a dream and a family, a butterfly flying past calls her back to Wonderland, where new adventures and new challenges await.
In addition to Alice herself, there are many interesting female characters in the film. For example, the Red Queen, perfectly performed by Helena Bonham Carter, about which the film will tell a little more than its first part. The story of evil, which was not born of evil, in the cinema is becoming increasingly popular (remember the same fabulous “Malificent”). Ending the division of the world into black and white in children’s cinema is a very positive trend. Alice’s mother, played by Lyndsey Duncan, is also pleased. Their relationship with their daughter is complicated, but you can see how both women are trying to understand each other. The film is good for family viewing, as it raises and exposes the problem of generations.
Of the male part of the cast, the most pleased was not Johnny Depp, who, of course, coped with his role, but did not bring anything new to it, but comedian Sasha Baron Cohen, who increasingly plays in serious cinema. Everything is beautiful in it: the design of the character, the game, and his self-irony. Time turned out to be a gentleman, and quite merciful.
The rest of the characters, even those that shone to us from the screen in the previous part, alas, were practically not given screen time to reveal.
When it comes to unchanging things, it’s music. Denny Elfman remained as a composer and pleased the audience with the entire film. The music here as it was, and remained magical, easy and mysterious: you can not cling to it.
But the work of the writer can be faulted and even necessary. The plot became a little far-fetched, jerky, and some moments in it remained unexplained, but ... it's a fairy tale. A children's fairy tale in which skeptical adults will be bored (as well as those who expect the film to preserve the canons of Lewis Carroll). But others can spend time with pleasure, enjoying a beautiful picture and a good story.
Despite the star cast and the director's chair occupied by Tim Burton, Alice in Wonderland, released back in 2010, was quite absurd, had little in common with the original work of Lewis Carroll and naturally received many negative assessments from both critics and ordinary viewers. But the box office success predetermined the delivery of the process to the conveyor, and here in 2016 comes the expected sequel – “Alice in the Looking Glass”. It would seem that the old line-up is again assembled, Burton, who lost his post to the little-known director James Bobin, still looms somewhere in the producers, Carroll’s work seems to be taken as a basis again, and on the output we again get a boring and bland action stretched for a good two hours.
Immediately it is worth warning fans of the original work: from the “Looking Glass” itself There is only one name left in this movie. What will happen in front of you on the screens in the near future is nothing more than a plot sucked out of a finger, plenty seasoned with all sorts of cliches and platitudes.
The film begins directly with Alice, plowing the seas and oceans aki Jack Sparrow, who absolutely does not care about storms, winds and any conventions. Here I want to highlight the first plus: the performer of the main role Mia Wasikowska finally stopped playing the talking log and remembered that she is first of all a person with emotions, and secondly an actress. Further, the plot follows the already trodden path: here you have a gray real world with mandatory problems and the main creep, and a magical world that seems to please the eye with bright colors, but in fact turns out to be the same gray and faceless.
You no longer believe that you are in that absurd and surreal tale. Here it seems that Alice meets old friends: Cheshire, Absolem, Rabbit, Tralal and Trulal, the White Queen, Sonya ... But all of them, unfortunately, play only the role of bots that help Alice move on to the next scene. And then there's the Mad Hatter, and you're waiting: Now, now, now, what everybody came to this movie to do is start -- finally, that little bit of madness will wake up, and finally, something incredible will happen. But no, you're getting a bucket of problems and personal dramas again.
That’s the main problem with this film – it destroyed the world of Carroll, trying to make sense of the meaningless. The director gave each hero a backstory, showed that in the insane and so beloved world, in fact, everything is absolutely normal and ordinary, exposed the central characters as simply urban madmen, sewed the plot with white threads - and then on the way out we got "Alice in the Looking Glass."
Depp, Carter, Hathaway are just extras. They don’t play, they don’t even try, and who needs it, right? Sacha Baron Cohen looks bright on their background, because it really surprised: the only character that was interesting to watch.
In the rest of the same: a lot of unfunny jokes, predictable plot twists and annoying compressions. Is this film aimed at a child audience? I don't think. Will adults like him? Definitely not.
The second part is very similar to the first part of Alice. The director changed, but all Burton’s achievements carefully migrated here (including shortcomings). If you don’t like the first one for any reason, you probably won’t like the second one either. On the one hand, it turned out a bright fairy tale with famous characters, and on the other hand, the story was slightly changed. Which a lot of people didn't like. But in the same first part, Burton made a film based on Carroll, and not the film adaptation of the book, and he reported about it (and the film mentions it). So whining about it is not appropriate. Except as your own wishes and preferences, well, not as a reason for underestimation.
What I liked: the feeling of a fairy tale as I managed, cool characters: Hatter, Red Queen, Cheshire Cat, Trulyal and Trailal, Crazy Hare and Sonya and others, a good, bright visual, and some of the backs were almost the level of “Avatar”, and Depp again. A lot of work has been done on the film and it can be seen. Let’s say that the Red Queen, played by Helena Bonham Carter (Muse and part-time wife of Burton), was made up every time before shooting for about 3 hours, plus all this is still and then processed on the computer.
What did not like: Alice herself (Mia Wasikowska) and the White Queen (with her black eyebrows)
The story would like more, too. They made a curious space-time mix, but it seems to me that they did not reach this line. We made an episode with a mental hospital in which Alice finds herself - and this, I think, is a curtsey towards the game. But even here everything is fast, not much deepened and not worked out. And in the beginning, again, an episode from the real life of the heroine, where she is a tough captain, it seems to me, does not fit.
Resume: it is still a bright fairy tale with a good visual and Depp. From the pluses added a cool character Time (which was well played by Sacha Baron Cohen ("Borat", "Dictator" and other similar comedies). There were also some good jokes around him. Quite an interesting film, which may not ' worth' to see, but quite ' can'.