Alice Through The Looking Glass

Disney provides a sequel that no-one actually asked for

Alice Through The Looking Glass is, quite literally movie-making by numbers. The end-product is tick-boxing, almost as if it is following a guide called Pretending To Be Weird For Dummies, but it was only ever made due to the admittedly very large numbers of the first film. Six years ago Alice In Wonderland made a worldwide total of $1,025,467,110 at the box office. It currently ranks at number 23 of the highest grossing films worldwide. It’s therefore not unsurprising that this film was made, though the fact it took six years to get it done is and the fact its sequel film is equally mediocre is no excuse at all.  Interestingly Alice Through The Looking Glass was predicted to earn $55–60 million  from its opening weekend but instead earnt only $27 million. Alice In Wonderland earnt $116 million  in its opening, a difference with its sequel of 70%.  Considering it earnt so much money Alice In Wonderland had a frosty reception with critics and audiences alike. Clearly the people sat around the table who greenlit Alice Through The Looking Glass cared more about getting money out of its audience as opposed to actual enjoyment or satisfaction. Deciding to see ATTLG was due to curiosity and to quote the 1951 animated Alice In Wonderland, “Curiosity only leads to trouble.”

Alice (Mia Wasikowska) has spent the past three years sailing the high seas upon her father’s beloved ship ‘Wonder’. Alice returns home she finds that her family’s finances are so poor that they will have to either give up ‘Wonder’ or the family home. It’s at this point that Absolem (Alan Rickman) in the form of a butterfly calls her back to Wonderland. The Mad Hatter/ Tarrent Hightopp (Johnny Depp) believes that his family may actually still be alive. No-one else believes him which is causing him to fade away. Alice must use a time travelling device stolen from Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to save Hatter. Old foe Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) wants the time travelling device for a different reason, to get revenge on her sister White Queen (Anne Hathaway). Will Alice succeed in her mission to save Hatter, will she be intercepted by Time or will Wonderland be destroyed forever through her trying to change time?

 SPOILER ZONE (SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU WISH TO AVOID SPOILERS) The main problem with this film, its fatal flaw if you will, is that so much of it is so utterly pointless. Time tells Alice from the outset that she can’t change time. But she tries anyway, for an hour of the film’s running time, only to find out that she can’t and in the process may have destroyed Wonderland for ever. Not only does it lead to feelings towards Alice akin to my current view of Bran from Game Of Thrones ( I still can’t hear the phrase ‘Hold The Door’ without nursing an internal sob) but there’s also an ironic feeling of having had your time wasted. Time is established as a villain who accent-wise seems to be impersonating Arnold Schwarzenegger yet arguably (this may have come about due to my less than satisfied feelings towards this film) he was surely trying to do the right thing? Alice is the one who nearly destroyed everything, yet she is the one lauded and celebrated from stopping it happening..? 

Anyways…the big problem that Alice In Wonderland had was that it tried to be weird. The ridiculousness of Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter personified this problem with a truly grating performance. Mercifully he has less screentime in this one but it is still enough to make you wince and feel slightly creeped out. It’s a combination of make-up, costume , performance and vocal choice that I just do not understand. Wasikowska is wonderful as Alice, an actual wonder to watch in a land filled of synthetic versions of it.In fact I’d argue the film’s best moments are when Alice is bringing that wonder into the real world – how society views her with such ill-regard and her brief stay in the ‘care’ of female hysteria speicliast Dr Bennett (an underused Andrew Scott) are moments when the film feels real fresh and lacking the self-consiousness that lingers of the rest of it.

A surprising appearance of Richard Armitage as King Oleren reminded me of Middle Earth and how Peter Jackson managed to create a fully fledged world that athough different from ours seemed equally real. That has not happened with AIW or ATTLG. Instead we’ve been given two films that try to be quirky and strange yet are truly not – neither film has heart to it – and are instead synthetic manifestations of it. The first film may have succeeded on trying to profiteer from the ‘strange’ but the huge defeat of its sequel suggests that people have learnt their lesson. On a grander scale it’s hard not to ponder what this huge loss means for future Disney films. Nearly all of Disney’s upcoming slate is of remakes or reimaginings as they seemed to be safe entities with a pre-sold audience. Just a few weeks ago with Jungle Book (click here to read my review)  Disney proved it could do it well. But after this, I’m not so sure now. Hollywood has taken an approach of putting all of its eggs (monies) into one safe basket (a film based on a book/previous film) yet the scale of ATTLG box office after numerous others may require a change in thinking.

A huge budget and elaborate sets yet no-one appears to have worried about the plot. It’s a mess.

1.5stars

Tomorrowland

Disney does dystopia – and it’s a rather dull world after all…

tomorrowland_ver5

With a running time of 2 hours and 10 minutes it is difficult when watching Tomorrowland to understand where that time goes. Unfortunately, this is not in the positive way of ‘time flies when you’re having fun!’ More like, ‘what took you guys so long?’ The film is so generic and vague with terms of the audience it is pitching to that it ends up appealing to no-one. The entire film feels like a set-up for a sequel – a sequel which, judging it’s current box office takings, will not happen. The film is a victim of scriptwriting – of safe, as opposed to lazy, scriptwriting.

All the expected tropes of a Disney film are here; a main character (Casey Newton, played by Britt Robertsonwith a unique ability that makes her an outcast (her instinctive knowledge of science, in case you didn’t work that out from the surname); a sibiling who acts older than their years (looks roughly 11 but has the wisdom on someone five times that); a single parent upbringing (mum died under mysterious circumstances, leaving behind an embittered genius scientist of a father); a British villian (Hugh Laurie); a call to arms (in the form of a mysterious young girl) and an opportunity to save the world (from it’s self – more on that later…) aided by a maverick elder figure (George Clooney).

All of this combined creates a film which we feel like we have seen before – arguably just with a new and futuristic setting. The idea is that we are aligned with Casey, as she is inducted into this world via a pin. The pin is delivered to her by an unknown source (unknown to her, we know it is Athena who has established links to Tomorrowland) which upon touching takes her to the ‘World Of Tomorrow’ (if you are a fan of Futurama you just got that reference and probably read it in your head in the appropriate tone of voice…) Casey spends two minutes (literally, as shown by the back of the pin) in Tomorrowland and is desperate to go back. Frank Walker (as played by George Clooney) is just the man to do it.

What procedes their meeting is the exciting set piece you have probably seen from the trailers, which have been front-loaded for the past few months. It is a fantastic set piece. It is also the best bit of the film. The rest is merely set up – conversations, discussions and fights which delay our arrival to Tomorrowland. Once we arrive the film’s messages, which have been not-so-subtly placed throughout the film, are then articulated in their entirety – obviously via the British villian giving a great speech. True, there are some important ideas being highlighted within this ‘great’ speech, but there are also some ideas which are either unnecessary or contradictory. It is hard to establish as a viewer whether I should be trying to fix my current world, or using my creativity to help establish a new and better one.

The film also has an important message about hope – of never giving up on one’s dreams. I hope that this film helps Hollywood realise it needs to get some original ideas…

No, not really George. Thanks for the offer though...

No, not really George. Thanks for the offer though…