DCfnaf Movie Reviews: Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass

DCfnaf WARNING: Some viewers may disagree with this review. If you do, PLEASE respect my opinion and let me know NICELY why you have yours. Thank you.

So I'm sure we all remember the first live-action Alice in Wonderland...or not. It got a 52% (5.7/10) from critics and a 55% (3.5/5). The movie received a failing grade because it "sacrifices the book's minimal narrative coherence and much of its heart". Even I, who was only eight years of age in 2010, got incredibly bored due to how uncharming it was. So surely, after that movie getting destroyed by critics and audiences alike, you'd learn from that and take a huge monster step forward. Instead, Tim Burton took a...well...baby step forward. In 2016, he released "Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass", which was a sequel to the original movie from 2010. Admittedly, this movie was marginally better than the original Alice. However, that's not saying anything meaningful whatsoever.

1. Plot Synopsis

I can't believe I'm including this section on this review because this isn't really a "plot". It's more like a huge cluster of events mishmashed together into a deformed pie of pizza with basil, worms, and peanut butter on top. Anyways, in "Alice Through the Looking Glass," a brand new fun-filled journey starring the "unforgettable" faces of the original and adored Lewis Carroll tales, Alice, who is now a ship captain, returns home from her oversea journey only to find that her ex-fiancé will not allow her and her mother to live in their house anymore unless they sell their ship. This causes a conflict between Alice and her mother. Then, Alice finds the butterfly character played by Alan Rickman, who leads her into the looking glass and back into Underland. Once she returns there, the entire plot between her and her mother is completely thrown away in favor of traveling through the waves of time to save the Mad Hatter's Family. This makes no sense to me. This movie shouldn't be about the Mad Hatter, but rather Alice and her mother. I never felt like Alice was actually focused on as a character on here because of this. It's also a movie revolving around time travel and I will never like movies that involve time-travel within the plot since I always seem to find issues with the story. (Ex. If this happened, why couldn't she travel to ______???)

2. The Visuals are Distracting

My biggest problem with the new Alice film is the visuals. I'm sure that's a very strange and out-of-place issue with the movie, as it's actually pleasing to look at and the scenery was organic the entire way through. The visuals themselves are not the problem here, it's the fact that they're the only selling point for this entire movie. People will only go and see this because it looks bright, colorful, and visually appealing, but this will distract gullible audiences from seeing what it really is. If the visuals were mundane and the setting was dull, then what would this movie be exactly? It'd be your generic and typical adventure story with bland visuals and cliché fairy tale characters. Disney's live-action CGI film "The Jungle Book" had the best visuals out of any movie they released that year, but the reason that worked was because there was a cute little story they were telling and there were actual characters that were PART of it all. Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass has a competitive artstyle, but if the story and characters are not playing their essential parts, then it feels like you're watching an animator brag about how awesome he is at creating visual effects. "HEY!!! Look at me! Look at what I can do over here! Forget the story and the characters, my amazing ability to create great visual style in movies will CLEARLY awe you and make you adore this movie!" That's great! Now do me a huge favor and stop acting like a wannabe Vanity Smurf!!!

3. The Characters Suffer Thanks to the Aforementioned Distracting Visuals

The scenery distracting the audience of the movie also ties in with the characters being as generic and bland as they are. Alice Through the Looking Glass believes that sacrificing actual character and personality in favor of appearance will make the characters more memorable. This does not make the characters memorable. Appearance does not make a character a character, it's personality that makes the character who they are. Let's say you were going on a date Friday Night. You need to choose between two girls. One female is very gorgeous and has a lovely body, face, and hairstyle, but they have nothing in common with you and they're unrelatable. The other lady isn't as good looking as the other one, but she is relatable, kind, and shares similar interests with you. I can guarantee that most of you reading this, assuming that you were properly educated and you have good taste, would choose the second girl because she has a nice personality and is very similar to you in comparison to the other girl. The point of my little Ladies Night story is that you can't just snatch a character and make them look goofy and charming for people to remember said character. You need to give the characters personality if you want audiences to be reeled in and interested in them.

4. No Substance was Provided Here

This movie really just feels like a cold, hard cash cow because it's not really doing anything. A problem with the first movie that returns in this one is that it takes the assets and characters from the original Lewis Carroll story, throws them into the movie, and does...nothing with them. Most of the characters that show up in this movie don't even need to be there. Why is the mouse there? Why is the bunny there? What did Tweedledum and Tweedledee do in the movie? What did the floating cat do in the movie? Exist? Appear? That's not enough! Plus, these characters have no real personalities apart from "weird and eccentric" which is basically what the Mad Hatter's role is supposed to be. Even the White Queen and other characters that are meant to be taken seriously act like this with their hand movements and ridiculous filler dialogue. The writing and acting in this movie are particularly horrendous because there is literally no substance. Most of the moments do not contribute to the boring and simplistic story, but rather show off the visual effects and create moments that are meant to be funny, but always land with a thud. The dialogue was not interesting and was mostly filler as well. The movie has no structure, substance, or legs to stand on, so the movie did not work.

5. Final Thoughts/Recommendation

Overall, Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass is...well...nothing. It's a movie that simply exists for no reason whatsoever apart from throwing the title and assets of Alice in Wonderland into this movie and expecting people to fall head over heels for it. However, the actual effect of this movie was a bland time-slot filler. (It's like the movie equivalent of Planet Sheen). Despite the fact that this movie is way better than the first one in terms of its visuals and artstyle, I never got myself impressed here. I personally don't know how to recommend this, since it's really not possible, especially if you're like me and you didn't like the first one. If you're interested in seeing this based on the visuals, then there's no stopping you from watching this. However, you're not accomplishing anything in your life by seeing this. This movie tells us not to waste our time with our loved ones. I'd have to say that it is a pretty good lesson, since you're not following that moral by watching this film.

4 -- Below Average (Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass does have some high points, but it gave way to glaring faults really quickly. This isn't the worst 2016 Movie ever, but it is difficult to recommend.)

🍅Rotten Tomatoes Score: 30% (4.6/10), 50% of Audiences Liked It (3.3/5)🍅

💁🏻‍♂️How I review movies/games: https://www.thetoptens.com/best-movies/48379.asp

🎥Next Movie Review🎥: 🐦The Angry Birds Movie🐦

What's Happening Guys, this is DCfnaf! I really hope you found this review useful. If you liked this, be sure to stick around for more HQ reviews, responses, and rants. See you next time!


Good Review - christangrant

Wow, this review seems very professional. I've never saw the first one and never really cared to see this one, so I can't say much about this movie. Heck, I don't really remember much from the original Disney animated either. I just never really cared for the original but I still have respect for what it did to the animated movie genre. - cjWriter1997

Thanks for this comment, especially since I want to be a professional when I'm an adult. Anyways, I was never interested in the original either, like you, but I knew what it was and I thought this would be good. Nah, I was wrong. Don't waste your time with this (or you'll be ignoring the movie's moral), the story sucks, the characters are typical and bland, and the writing is awful. Better than the first one, but still complete utter garbage. - DCfnaf

Great review. You need to watch 1951 movie of Alice instead. - visitor

It's probably significantly better than this waste of energy and its predecessor.

Also, I copied and pasted this onto Common Sense Media as well. - DCfnaf

Good Review - VideoGamefan5

Awesome review! - visitor

Well-constructed as always. Keep up the good work, my man. - ModernSpongeBobSucks

I don't Really Like This Movie, The Only Reason People Watched It Was Because Of The P! NK Song In It - VideoGamefan5

People only watch these songs cause of the songs. - DCfnaf

I don't like the first one was trash and the second one was also trying to make logic as well. - visitor

I Personally Did Not Like This Movie
But I Thought It's 2010 Predecessor Was Decent In My Opinion - JPK

Watch out for girlcool - 445956

That was a very nice rating - iliekpiez

Are you looking forward to Disney remaking the Brave Little Toaster - iliekpiez