5/10
Pretty much as sequels usually go...
17 September 2016
I enjoyed the 2010 "Alice in Wonderland" that had that unique Tim Burton touch to it. But I wasn't in any rush to get to see the 2016 sequel "Alice: Through the Looking Glass". Why? Well, because just what more could there be to tell about this story?

With that being said, then don't get me wrong. "Alice: Through the Looking Glass" is not a bad movie, it just seems like a movie that hardly was necessary to have been made. It is a good movie in itself, and works quite well as a stand-alone, if you will.

The effects in "Alice: Through the Looking Glass" were great, as they also were in the previous movie. And it was nice to see the beloved characters from the first movie return, and also to see the amazing job that the special effects team pulled off at bringing the world to life. Lots of details, vivid colors and memorable characters.

The actors and actresses in the movie were doing good jobs with their given roles, and it was a great treat to have the original cast return to play their characters once again. The Time character was interesting, but it left a less than savory taste in my mouth that they had cast Sacha Baron Cohen for this role. He is not an actor that I am too fond of, so in my opinion another cast would have been preferable. I do enjoy the Mad Hatter character and Johnny Depp does a great job in portraying him. And it was nice to get to see more of that quirky character and get to know more of his background.

The special effects and wardrobe teams really are the ones shining in this movie, because there are just so many wonderful things to look at throughout the movie. And the level of creativity is just astounding. No matter where you look there is something breathtaking.

"Alice: Through the Looking Glass" is certainly an entertaining movie, but it is hardly one that you will sit down and watch again any time soon.
43 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed