That was an excellent one.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Always thought the US critics reviewed this film, feeling the disappointment of not getting the next Mary Poppins, version of Alice, and comparing it to Disneys cartoon as if that was the Original, this follows the Book not the Cartoon - Have to admit as a 17yo when this was released I did fall madly in Love with Alice (Fiona Fullerton) - as I said view it from the Book not Disneys version. At last it has been released from the original masters for too long we had to endure the terrible TV edited version which was always of dubious picture quality.

Sometimes a movie's triumphs work against it. The triumph in this remake of "Alice in Wonderland" is its magical opening sequence, where we see Victorian haughtiness and manners, the wonders of the imagination, and perhaps even the suggestion of Dodgson's repressed sexual interest in the young Alice Liddel all manifest themselves in less than ten minutes. The expectation created in these wonderfully crafted scenes, aided by John Barry's music score, is that we shall see something truly magical once Alice arrives in Wonderland. Then after arriving in Wonderland, we soon realize that every scene is going to be pretty much like the last one: a bunch of actors dressed up in costumes and singing forgettable songs. The bright colours, the sense of wonder and magic, and witty dialogue -- which existed in the memorable, albeit flawed, Disney version -- have been completely drained from this picture. This film does little for the imagination and fails even more miserably as entertainment.

for all the Lewis Carroll purist who always yowl about how "unfilmable" the 'Alice' books are, this is one of those faithful adaptations that always reminds me of how vacuous that argument always is. yowl all you like you never satisfied puriste. you'll obviously never be satisfied. i grew up on the complete works of Carroll, Snarks and all, and i am more than satisfied with the numerous film and television adaptations that are out there. as a matter of facto, i can't imagine a single literary work that has been as inspiring to the imagination of so many as this book has.this wonderfully faithful, elegant and opulent 1972 film version is one of the most direct and literal adaptations along with the superb Jonny Miller BBC television film and the excellent KCET version with Kate and Dick Burton. along with the other two mentioned this version is so faithful that you really wonder what a so-called "more faithful" version would be like. most of the production design here is based on John Tenniel's famous original illustrations and there is very little dialogue that diverts from the original text. i've found in the past that people who yowl about a better version of 'Alice' are usually talking about some kind of over-produced mega production and have usually not given any of the existing adaptations any thought. the shallow quest for a mega production is the very thing that led everything to the flat and lackluster Tim Burton fiasco in 2011. i sort of liked Tim Burton's mega production, but it was my least favorite of the 'Alice' films and was definitely the least inspired and most brainless. ALL the other films are much better, including a TV animated one by Hanna-Barbera.this 1972 version is widely regarded as the most lavish and faithful adaptation and was also a BAFTA award winner for cinematography (2001's Geoffrey Unsworth) and costume design. it also features a a modest and delightfully tuneful score by 007 composer John Barry. the music score also faithfully brings much of Carroll's poems to music.the only problem i ever have with this version is Michael Jayston playing a virile, potent and somewhat sexy Reverend Dodgson. i mean COME ON! we're talking about the Reverend Dodgson here and not some matinée, cinema heart throb. i've read about and seen pictures of the repressed and uptight Reverend. he twern't no heart throb. he was a ugly little thang. Michael Jayston's portrayal is hardly realistic.aside from that quibble. i love this adaptation dearly. always have since i first saw it as a child in 1972.as for the purist who yowl all the time, keep on yowling like the Duchess's baby, but all that infantile yowling had better not lead to another boring fiasco like the Tim Burton/ Linda Woolverdumb mess up.

I am an Alice obsessive. I recently saw the Depp/Burton project and was horrified at the opportunity missed. So I turned to this, surprised that I had not seen it before.This at least has a couple advantages. Though far less colorful and lacking imagination in the design, it conforms to the text mostly and draws images from the original drawings. That is to the good, because the original has some profound structure and some lines that zing. If you don't have the patience to read the little book, you won't get this anyway, so to recommend the film on this basis is sorta useless.Where Depp pranced and drew something from who knows where, this had Peter Sellers! Peter Sellers as the March Hare! Amazing. He is paired with Dudley Moore and some nobody. This was during a period of substance abuse for them both. While they only speak the lines from the book, it is rewarding just seeing them.There is a very clever extension of Carroll's framing device of Alice in the bank, dreaming. The extension has her on that famous boat trip with Carroll and others where the story was supposedly told. (It actually had been told in pieces developed over seven years, with pieces added in the writing.)Though we have the story more or less as written, the production is a disaster. This is because the filmmaker missed the tone of the thing. This is not silly nonsense that is amenable to a high-school play nonchalance; this is deep silly, funny stuff that makes you laugh and if you think about it demonstrates what von Neumann mathematically proved 80 years later: logic doesn't cut it.The book was written by the leading logician in England, ensconced at Oxford. They miss that this is disorder that matters. Some filmmakers get this. I'd like to see Richard Kellydo an Alice.Because Disney decided Alice's dress was blue, it is blue here. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.