Alice in Wonderland

Alice's adventures in Wonderland have always been easy to visualize, thanks to Tenniel's classic illustrations; but they have been difficult to realize. With computer technology at the state it's at at the turn of the twenty-first century, for the first time Tenniel can come to life in a way that doesn't look like animation.

This is the best looking "Alice" ever. The backgrounds are consistently excellent. The passage from one episode to the other is suitably dreamlike. The computer-animated characters are superb.

The cast is variable. Tina Majorina was a revelation as Alice. I had to check imdb to make sure she wasn't just someone like Reese Witherspoon, an older actress able to look ten years younger. Her performance was exquisite, even better than Fiona Fullerton's 1972 Alice.

Martin Short was good as the Mad Hatter (everyone has a favorite Mad Hatter from days past, and mine was Robert Helpmann from 1972, who also played the child-catcher in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"). All the royalty were good. Problems in the cast were Gene Wilder; it might've been his most understated performance since his droll turn as Willie Wonka, but good as he was, he was nevertheless out of place and looked ridiculous and uncomfortable in his costume. Too, though Whoopi Goldberg wasn't bad as the Cheshire cat, the point of her performance was to show Whoopi Goldberg as the Cheshire cat rather than the cat itself.

The "Looking Glass" intrusions weren't out of place. A miniseries doing "Wonderland" one night and "Looking Glass" the next might've been nice, but the best elements were taken from "LG" and the results don't look patched in. The cameos, again, are variable. Robbie Coltrane is an actor too little used and it's good to see him anywhere; and though I might've preferred to see him in a dual role, he worked well with George Wendt as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Christopher Lloyd was perfectly cast as the White Knight, but the White Knight got short shrift and was hardly worth sticking in at all, other than -- once more -- to say, "Look, we got Christopher Lloyd in a thankless role!". "The Walrus and the Carpenter" was not at all distracting -- and with Peters Ustinov and Postlethwait one would almost wish for a whole movie just about them.

The problems, however, do keep it from being the authoritative "Alice". For one thing, someone thought it would be clever to add lines. In most filmed novels this isn't so bad, since the dialogue in books serves a different purpose than the dialogue in movies. But Carroll's dialogue is so precise he might've been writing a play; and it's so well known that any extraneous line stands out like re-writings in "Hamlet". One gets the idea that the writers thought they were as clever as Carroll, and proved that the most notable thing about them was their collective ego.

This led to particular difficulties with the caterpillar. Ben Kingsley was a good choice for the role and -- like everyone else in the movie -- was very good. But his part seemed altered enough to make one suspicious of the writers' intentions. The framing sequence wasn't bad (again, perhaps a whole movie with that cast in non-Wonderland parts would be wonderful), not as bad as Carroll purists would say, but was unnecessarily preachy, as if the story had to have a moral at the end.

A number of roles in the "Alice" books should, when performed, have human performers: The Mad Hatter, the King and Queen and Jack of Hearts, the Duchess, Tweeledum and --dee, the White Knight, et. al. Some, since we have the technology, should be done by computer graphics, with famous voices, if need be. Star-studded "Alice" vehicles have appeared in the past: the top-heavy 1985 Natalie Gregory "Alice", for instance, where a famous actor's face had to be seen in every role; and the notable 1972 Fiona Fullerton bomb, where many of Britain's finest actors (including Peter Sellers and Ralph Richardson) made complete fools of themselves.

Overall, this is the best Alice ever made (including Disney's). It has dreadful moments where famous actors are shoehorned into roles just to say they're there. It has peculiar elements from "Looking Glass" mixed in at odd angles, but such as they are they aren't terrible. And it has a beautifully talented Alice. For those who aren't dogmatic about their Carroll, this is the one to see if you're looking for an "Alice" to pass an afternoon. And children, who don't know any better than we opinionated adults, will be delighted.

I like this version the best out of all versions of Alice in Wonderland. Tina Majorino is rock start as Alice. This version has more action and has better action than both of the Disney versions. This is the version I recommend. If you like the Alice in Wonderland book and want to watch an Alice in Wonderland movie this is going to be your best choice. I think it's more entertaining than the Disney versions. It's longer and has enough time to have good acting and good action. I give this one a higher rating.

I love the two Alice books and quite often I find myself looking through the pages, reading some of my favorite parts.

I think for a TV_version, this film works quite well, it is a treat to watch all those celebrities becoming some of the most famous characters in literature. Strangely though, my favorite sequence is the one with Peter Ustinov and Pete Postlethwaite as the Walrus and the Carpenter, probably the only scene in the movie that does not contain CGI.

So, why only six stars? As in most versions, the makers of the movie have mixed all kinds of elements from "Alice in Wonderland" with "Through the looking glass" (Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, The Walrus and the Carpenter, The White Knight). It may work, if you really look at the books just as a collection of episodes, but whenever this is done, the makers miss the point of the books. Alice in "Through the looking glass" is quite different from Alice in "Alice in wonderland" and also, there is a completely different composition to the latter book which is explained in the preface and which finds no acknowledgment whatsoever here. I think the makers of this movie again don't understand the books at all and though I enjoy watching these scenes independently from each other, the whole leaves me unsatisfied.

I have gotten used to mixing the Alice stories, Walt Disney has done the same thing and others as well. But what bothers me most about this film it that it turns the whole thing into a story of initiation. Come on.... Alice does not dare to perform a song in front of her parent's guest but after walking through Wonderland she finally does? This is just plain wrong and completely in contrast to the meaning of the books. Why would you want do make sense out of nonsense? The books are meant to portray Victorian stereotypes, make fun of language etc, but not to enrich a child to become more independent and self-assured. Moreover, it does not make sense at all, why Alice should finally be able to sing in front of the others.

All in all, this movie has fine performances and puppets and decent (considering the time it was made and it being made for TV) CGI, is nice to look at but in the end only mediocre TV-entertainment.

Being a big fan of the books and the author's work, I have seen most of the film adaptations made of the Alice books (and yes, there were two), and this is one of the better adaptations, and certainly a wonderful film.

Filled with famous faces and some wonderful sets, it may not be 100% like the book, but I won't have a word against this film anyway. The writers make the same mistake of mixing the two books together (understandable), and throw in a few new morals and themes (stage fright, mostly), but it's still great. Folks like Gene Wilder, Pete Postlethwaite, Christopher Lloyd, Robbie Coltrane, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Kingsley, Martin Short and others make their own contribution to this magical TV production.

The whole thing was an honest live action work that made a decent effort to correct what Disney messed up. Now, be fair, the animation was wonderful (very), but a terrible adaptation. So applaud yourselves, Halmi & Halmi (and everyone else, esp. Richard Hartley for music). You did a great job. And readers pick up a copy of the DVD, it's a great movie.

I, like most of the rest of you, grew up with the story of Alice In Wonderland- but what I knew was from the Disney story. I never really liked it, but after seeing Hallmark's representation, I decided that Disney completely ruined the book.

Hallmark's costume designer apparently took a look at the sketches that are commonly associated with the story. In fact, the book of Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass that I have from England has these sketches in them, and comparing the costumes to the actual drawings shows very little difference minus color, movement, and the addition of the third dimension. Being a person who tends to favor pretty over plot in movies, the animatronic puppets (such as the griffin, the flowers, and the flamingo-croquet) and other visuals made a very fun and entertaining veiwing

experience.

As for the acting, it is obvious that there is a rather star-studded cast. Martin Short is probably the best I've ever seen him as the Mad Hatter. Sure, he is insane- but he's called a "mad" hatter for a reason. It is very interesting to see the man known for playing ghandi in a large caterpillar suit playing what is commonly known to be the trippiest character in the book. Also, frankly, the queen of hearts in the disney version terrified me as a girl (as well as tweedle dee and tweedle dum), but here they seem less harmful- but they still embody the insanity which basically prevails in the story. Personally I think the "bratty little girl" version of hte queen is a much better take on that character. It makes Alice's maturity over the course of the story more reasonable.

Speaking of story, nobody ever said that Carroll's stories made THAT much sense. So that can't exactly be argued.

Over all- I think its a must see if you've ever enjoyed the stories of Alice.