People usually get the title wrong. They call it Alice in Wonderland Into the Looking Glass 2016 or some variation of the Lewis Carroll book title, but Disney actually went with Alice Through the Looking Glass. It’s a small detail that matters if you’re trying to find the actual movie among the sea of adaptations. Honestly, by the time James Bobin took the director's chair from Tim Burton, the "Alice" fatigue had started to set in for a lot of critics.
It’s weird.
The first film made over a billion dollars. It was a juggernaut. But the 2016 sequel felt like it was fighting an uphill battle from day one. You've got Johnny Depp returning as the Mad Hatter, Mia Wasikowska back as a much more capable Alice, and Helena Bonham Carter doing her brilliant, screechy thing as the Red Queen. Yet, the vibe was different. It wasn't just a rehash. It was a time-travel movie.
The Messy Reality of Alice Through the Looking Glass 2016
Most sequels try to go bigger. This one went weirder. Instead of just wandering through a dreamscape, Alice basically steals a "Chronosphere" from Time himself—played by Sacha Baron Cohen—to save the Hatter’s family.
Baron Cohen is the standout. He plays Time as a literal person, a sort of clockwork demi-god who lives in a void. His performance keeps the movie from drifting too far into pure CGI nonsense. He’s funny, but also kind of tragic. You’ve probably seen the mixed reviews, but if you actually sit down and watch his scenes, there’s a nuance there that the first movie lacked. He isn't a villain. He's just a guy doing a very difficult job.
The plot hinges on the idea that you can't change the past, though you can learn from it. It’s a heavy theme for a Disney flick. It shifts the franchise from a whimsical "coming of age" story into a "reckoning with grief" story.
📖 Related: Wrong Address: Why This Nigerian Drama Is Still Sparking Conversations
Visually, It’s a Fever Dream
Critics were harsh. They called it "eye-searing" and "loud." I disagree.
While the 2010 film felt very "early 3D era" with a lot of muddy browns and greens, the 2016 sequel is vibrant. The costume design by Colleen Atwood is, frankly, insane. She won an Oscar for the first one, and she should have been in the conversation for this one too. Alice’s "sea captain" outfit at the start of the film is a masterclass in texture and color.
The film cost about $170 million to make. You see every cent on the screen. From the Great Academy of Time to the rusted-out remains of the Red Queen's castle, the world-building is dense. It’s the kind of movie where you need to hit pause just to see the details in the background.
But here is the thing: audiences in 2016 were starting to move away from the "Burton-esque" aesthetic. The movie only pulled in about $299 million globally. In Hollywood math, that’s basically a flop. It’s a shame because the script by Linda Woolverton actually tries to give the characters some emotional meat. We finally find out why the Red Queen’s head is so big. It’s not just a mutation; it’s a trauma-induced injury from her childhood. That’s dark.
What Actually Happened with the Box Office?
Why did it underperform?
👉 See also: Who was the voice of Yoda? The real story behind the Jedi Master
Timing. It opened against X-Men: Apocalypse, which ate up the teen demographic. Plus, the personal life of Johnny Depp was making headlines for all the wrong reasons during the press tour. It created a cloud over the release that had nothing to do with the quality of the film itself.
Also, it drifted very far from Lewis Carroll’s source material. If you go into this expecting a literal translation of the book Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, you’re going to be annoyed. There is no Jabberwocky hunt here. There’s no chess-board logic. It’s an original steampunk fantasy that uses Carroll’s characters as avatars.
The Legacy of the 2016 Sequel
Is it a masterpiece? No.
Is it better than people remember? Absolutely.
The film deals with the death of a parent—Alice’s father—and the realization that our heroes are flawed. The Hatter isn’t just "mad" for fun anymore; he’s suffering from a deep, clinical depression because he thinks he failed his family. It’s a surprisingly mature take on a character that could have easily remained a caricature.
✨ Don't miss: Not the Nine O'Clock News: Why the Satirical Giant Still Matters
Alan Rickman also gave his final film performance here as the voice of Absolem. There is a haunting quality to hearing his voice as a butterfly, telling Alice that her time is running out. It adds a layer of unintentional melancholy to the whole experience.
How to Re-evaluate the Movie Today
If you're going to revisit Alice Through the Looking Glass, don't watch it as a sequel to the 2010 film. Watch it as a standalone fantasy epic about the nature of regret.
- Focus on the Production Design: Watch the way the environments change as Alice moves through different eras of Underland. The attention to "clockwork" motifs is incredibly consistent.
- Pay Attention to Sacha Baron Cohen: Ignore the slapstick for a second and look at how he portrays the loneliness of an eternal being.
- Compare the Themes: Contrast Alice’s role as a female sea captain in the "real world" with her agency in Underland. It’s one of the few big-budget films of that era that didn't force a romantic subplot on its female lead.
The best way to appreciate what Bobin did is to look past the CGI spectacle and see the story about two sisters—Iracebeth and Mirana—and the lie that ruined their lives. It’s a much more human story than "girl kills dragon," which was basically the plot of the first one.
Stop looking for a literal adaptation of the book. It doesn't exist here. Instead, look for the small moments where the film explores how we all wish we could turn back the clock. It’s a movie about the impossibility of fixing the past, and that’s a message that resonates a lot more now than it did in 2016.