This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

This sounds cruel but this movie is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. It was a hell to get through the whole movie. Multiple times we wanted to switch it of, but for a strange reason we kept watching till the end. Not that the movie got any better at all...It might be because I have never read the book, but I found the story quite confusing. I didn't understand why Alice is played by Kate Beckingsale. If I'm correct I thought Alice was still a child... maybe I didn't pay enough attention because it was hard to keep watching it. Never ever am I going to see this movie again!! So if I were you take another movie, you won't regret that choice.

One might think that with a stellar cast (Sian Phillips, Ian Richardson, et al) and such rich source material, "Alice Through the Looking Glass" would do justice to the beloved book. Alas, it is far from the case here.Kate Beckinsale is one of the films biggest liabilities. News to any producer or director of any future version of either of Carroll's two "Alice" books: the "Alice" in the stories is between 7-1/2 and 9 years of age; NOT in her 20s! The story is absolutely absurd with an "Alice" that old. The internal logic of both stories depend entirely upon Alice being mystified by the world of adults. How can this work when SHE HERSELF is an adult?! It just makes her look like an adult with the mind of a child.Problem #2: the production values are laughably amateurish, and not in a charming, inventive "Doctor Who" way. The "special effects", such as they are, are the sort that come as handy plug-ins in Adobe Premiere; "liquid mirror", "tunnel vision", and the like. Also, green-screening abounds, in its crudest form. Editing is likewise god-awful, with harsh cuts, bad segues, lost continuity, etc.Problem #3: the music. It really does sound as if the director got his hands on a CD of "Generic Library Music for Fairy Tales", and simply plugged the background music in, and as often as possible. There is none of the creative scoring of great earlier versions of "Alice..." Problem #4: the pacing is glacial. Carroll's wordplay should delight the ears and enliven the plot. Nothing could be further from the truth here. It is a stultifyingly boring production, with long passages of nothing worth paying attention to. There are, thankfully, two recitations that are *almost* magical (by the "Wasp" and the "White Knight"), but those rely more upon those actors' verbal skills than on the images they accompany, which are a potpourri of low-tech gimmicks (stop-motion animation, grain effects, etc.)Surely, someone out there could make a worthwhile version of "Alice Through the Looking Glass". Great cast (well, most of them) notwithstanding, his one is about as far from it as could be imagined. Carroll fans should give it a wide berth.

As an Alice in Wonderland fan, I thought this was a good interpretation of the sequel Through the Looking Glass.I thought this film definitely had the atmosphere of the original novel. And although she is too old, Kate Beckinsale, I think, looked good as Alice and I thought she acted the character very well.It follows the book mostly well, except they skipped "The Lion and the Unicorn" chapter in this film and just moved onto the "It's My Own Invention" chapter after Alice was talking to both the White King and his messenger Haigha. In the scene when Alice goes into the dark shop before she meets Humpty Dumpty, the White Queen didn't turn into a sheep, although there were shots in that scene of a sheep.If you want to look for a good adaptation of Through the Looking Glass, here is one to watch. As a fan myself, I rate it 10 out of 10.

Without infringing on the IMDb guidelines, can I just suggest that this film is a disappointing visualisation of the greatest book ever written? Lewis Carroll's masterpiece is too mercurial to depict - taken out of its literary context, its ideas, incidents and characters simply don't make sense. Its humour and traumas are literary and philosophical. The filmmakers fail to adapt forms, instead relying on swathes of dialogue.Different film styles are used to try and disrupt normality, a la Carroll, but the incoherent script, uncertain acting and muffled diction only grate. There is no sense of narrative momentum (even if only to be subverted), and targets are missed because it is unclear what they are. Changing the book's view from that of a child to a woman renders the whole exercise redundant. Graver still is the unwillingness to trust the audience - the dream/reality ambiguity, crucial to the book's meaning, is too clearcut. The colours and set design can be extremely beautiful though.