That book had a mirror, this movie has a mirror, and that is literally where the similarities end. It’s important to state, from the beginning, that “Through the Looking Glass” has almost nothing to do with Carroll’s 1871 novel that continued Alice’s adventures in Wonderland. Now, five years later, “Alice Through the Looking Glass” suffers from the exact same problems-it’s a tedious example of too much much-ness. And there was enough CGI to give anyone a headache. The Red Queen despised Alice because of romantic competition. The movie was a sickening mix of updates to the 1951 animated film and Lewis Caroll’s 1865 novel: The Mad Hatter breakdanced. Family members are either dead or assumed to be killed a young girl suffers a head injury that changes her personality a character ends up in a sanitarium and is threatened with sedation some characters are sick or harmed to the brink of death, another dies, shown falling into a bowl of soup, and we see the implied corpse of another character some romantic tension, involving a jilted lover trying to exact revenge on the woman who rejected him some sibling rivalry, including one child blaming another for something and lying about it an unsupportive father figure and some hurtful insults from children to their parents.Ī movie could not have less to do with its source material than ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass.’ This thoroughly listless sequel to the surprise Disney live-action hit is a dizzying array of mediocrity.įive years ago, Disney’s reboot of “Alice in Wonderland” kicked off the company’s live-action trend in the worst way possible. This extremely loose adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s ‘Through the Looking Glass’ has Alice traveling through time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |