Alice Through the Looking Glass

Overshadowed by Domestic Abuse claims, Alice Through the Looking Glass is bombing, both nationally and internationally. And at this juncture, there is very little Johnny Depp will be able to do to win back fans and draw in an audience for the second installment of this wacky tale. But accusations aside, how does the film stand on its own? Well, the answer is: It stands on two very shaky legs. The first leg being Depp, and his tired interpretation of yet another character that looks and acts like a vast majority of Depp's other roles. The second leg is new director James Bobin. Replacing Tim Burton, Bobin is essentially trying to revive a film that many were happy to see die.

Alice Through The Looking Glass comes six years after its predecessor and follows Alice as she re-enters Underland after leaving three years before. She's met by a large portion of the film's characters and they inform her of the Madhatters extreme behaviour and his belief that his family may still be alive. As with his increase in madness the Hatter's health deteriorates, so Alice sets out to convince Time himself to rework history and save the Hatter's family. This obviously leads to a convoluted journey where Alice tries to right the wrongs in Underland. The tale is more of a clustered mess than Burtons despite both screenplays having been written by the same writer, Linda Woolverton. Woolverton's other works include the animated Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Mulan along with live action hits like Maleficent.

Beyond the film's core story lines of Hatter and his family; the warring siblings; and Alice's race against time, there were some interesting plot points scattered throughout the film. One of these was seen in Alice's return to the real world shortly before the films climax. Institutionalized with 'female hysteria', Alice is restrained by a male doctor who says he can cure her of her illness. As most people know, Hysteria was originally associated with women and their wild emotional capacity. Thought for years to be the answer to many women who suffered from legitimate mental disorders like postpartum depression. 

Hysteria, as a result, is often used in examples of the changing position of women in society. Once considered so emotionally capable that they must be ill, women are now running companies and families simultaneously. The reason why this interests me is because of the film's overall approach to gender norms and the role of the strong independent woman. It seems entirely fitting that someone of Alice's disposition, in such a time period, would have been considered hysterical. Yet, when young Alice is in Underland she is saving not only men but women too.

The film was as visually stunning as the first, with the usual overuse of CGI in scenes that don't always need digital enhancement, but overall Alice's new adventure fell flat. One of my big pet peeves is when a film uses time travel to, basically, start again - I'm looking at you X-Men. And whilst Underland ended up in sweeter circumstances than the beginning of the film, it felt like the last two hours might as well have not happened. Honestly, what's the point? If your film lacks substance and needs to be carried by few interjected feminist trope in order to pass as noteworthy, then you're not doing it right. I think that Depp's personal issues have ended up being a great excuse for a film that would have flopped regardless.

Eye in the Sky

Gavin Hood, director of Enders Game and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, brings us Eye in the Sky. A film about the application of drones during combat and the ethical fallout of such weaponry. Filmed in South Africa, Eye in the Sky focuses on the local people who are effected by terrorism, and the counterstrikes from Western intelligence agencies. The film premiered at the 2015 Toronto Film Festival and had it's international release in April of 2016. 

This is a suspenseful drama reminiscent of many other war films from the last decade, but Hood sets his aside by taking a step back. Unlike other films of this hard to define genre, Eye in the Sky seems to capture, like the all seeing eye, the action across several continents whilst closely focusing on our mission in Kenya simultaneously. Helen Mirren stars as our woman in charge, Col. Katherine Powell, overseeing operation EGRET. Her mission turns from capture to kill and Alan Rickman, Gen. Frank Benson, agrees. But as they wait for final approval, many characters, including Aaron Paul's Steve Watts, begin to question the change and the potential fall out from an unprovoked attack that will cause civilian casualties. 

The film's editing by Megan Gill is of particular note. Most of the film's well executed tense moments are built by Gill's style. This allowed the film to fully dive into it's 'Thriller' sub genre and keep audiences engaged throughout. Her talents were of course magnified by Haris Zambarloukos' camera work. Creating dimension and contrast through his focus on cold, dark interiors with the bright sun and exteriors.

Rickman's second last feature and it was certainly an excellent performance. His partnership with Mirren on screen was a delight and seemingly the perfect match. The two embodied their characters wholeheartedly which shows clear commitment to the film, their director and their craft. Aaron Paul's appearance in this film was surprising. I haven't given him much thought since the season finale of Breaking Bad in 2013. However, once I was over the initial shock of seeing him again, I was pleasantly overwhelmed by his emotional performance. It seemed like Paul was at the brink of tears throughout his entire time on screen, but it wasn't out of place. I had clearly forgotten how emotive his face is and how brilliant he can be on screen in the right role. 

Overall, I felt like this film was reasonably paced and an appropriate length - any longer and it would have been exhausting. Eye in the Sky undoubtedly raises a lot of questions about the processes and chain of command behind any and all strikes. And whether or not decisions can or should be made by government officials any lower than the Prime Minister and the President themselves. Personally, with a utilitarian view on life, my decision in this scenario would have been made much quicker. But that wouldn't have made an interesting film now would it?