I am a long-time fan of Lewis Carroll and "Alice in Wonderland" and will gladly watch many of the adaptations of the stories - as good or as bad as they may be! I have not actually seen this version of "Alice Through the Looking Glass" in quite a while, so I can't call myself an authority on it, but from what I remember, it was very good. We recorded it when it was broadcast for the first time (and as far as I am aware, the last) on Channel 4 one Boxing Day, and my ten-and-a-half-year old self watched it quite a bit. Of the two books, this one is the hardest to adapt to the screen in terms of structure and theme; this is perhaps the reason why simply a few of its best episodes are relocated to Wonderland in numerous adaptations. Despite these short-comings, this version succeeds quite well. The film uses an adult Alice (played by Kate Becknisale) imagining/dreaming herself passing into the mirror realm as she reads the tale to her daughter one bedtime. Using fancy costumes and simple yet whimsical effects reminiscent of Jean Cocteau, Alice embarks on a journey through a chessboard-cum-forest and meets many wonderful characters: TweedleDum and TweedleDee, Humpty Dumpty and numerous chess pieces. This version is hard to find; I unfortunately taped over this by accident (with EastEnders, of all the embarrassing things!) and pre-recorded copies are hard to track down as well. Needless to say, if you can, have a nosey at this.

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.

I taped this for my four year old daughter, who is obsessed with the Disney version and was watching it twice a day if I let her. This was a charming, wonderful change. The actress playing Alice is fantastic, she is really like the character, even though she is an adult. I was shocked that she was also Darlene in "Brokedown Palace" ...she really can play a wide range. This movie is very aesthetically beautiful to watch. It's fun watching humans play the animals and picking out who is whom.

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.