Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Nowadays, over-reliance on special effects is such a source of contention in the film industry, that it's refreshing to revisit early cinema, where, over a century ago, cinematic effects were akin to magic, and considered the greatest boon in the unparalleled potential of the medium. In this respect, 1903's Alice in Wonderland, the earliest cinematic adaptation of the beloved Lewis Carroll novel, is a treat to watch, if only for the thought of Carroll (who had only recently passed away) tickled pink at the notion that the magic and wonder of his novel could be realized in live action in a fashion impossible on the stage. Ultimately, the eight minute film (reportedly, some cuts ran as long as 16 - an epic for 1903) is an 'adaptation' of Carroll's novel in only the crudest sense, its disconnected succession of scenes likely nonsensical for those unfamiliar with the story. As narrative in cinema was only a recent concept, this was hardly the point. Where the film excels, as is the case for its innumerable remakes, Disney or otherwise, is in its visuals. Again, for contemporary audiences, being wowed will take some suspension of disbelief, but the real joy lies in imagining 1903 audiences gasping in awe at the shrinking and growing Alice (amusingly done by having the actor simply stand closer or farther away from the camera, with varying background sets), or the magically appearing Cheshire Cat (superimposed through double-exposure photography, and sans trademark Disney grin, to boot). The film gets a fair amount of mileage out of its costumes, with the White Rabbit suit and marching playing card army of the Queen of Hearts establishing a proudly storybook aesthetic, demonstrating whiffs of inspiration for the tale's iconic animated and less-admired Tim Burton adaptations alike. Most interesting is the fact that the opening title card declares the ensuing whimsy to simply be Alice's dream, while later adaptations are more calculatedly ambiguous about the fantasy realm of Wonderland. It's a curious paradox that the first take on Carroll's classic is at once its most magical in terms of perceived effect on viewers, and yet the least willing to buy into its own magic. It's no wonder generations of children and adults alike continued to revisit Wonderland, for proper closure of a fantasy, surrealist realm they were allowed to believe to be real. -7/10

This ten minute silent movie presents an extremely condensed version of Carroll's immortal book, but still manages to be quite faithful to the source material (for example, Alice uses a magic fan to make herself shrink after she grows to giant size in the White Rabbit's tiny house). The special effects shots of Alice growing and shrinking are admittedly rather primitive by today's more sophisticated standards, but are effective and impressive for their time just the same. Cecil M. Hepworth's tinted black and white cinematography delivers a few pleasing visuals such as Alice going down an actual hole to venture into wonderland. The sets and costumes are very fanciful and elaborate. Attractive brunette May Clark makes for a fetching Alice. This charming relic offers a neat glimpse into the state of cinema back in its early 20th century infancy: While it may seem kind of plain and rough around the edges to modern audiences, it nonetheless qualifies as a cool piece of celluloid history that both hints at and plays around with the magical possibilities of this wondrous art form.

I just discovered this film the other day and was surprised at how interesting it was. Yes if it were to be made today it would be shot on the spot, but nobody expected anything from movies back then and I'm sure the people who originally saw it thought it was great.I also admire the actors for having to rely solely on body language to tell the story and express what's going on, because obviously it's a silent film and has no sound.I especially think that the costumes, props, and backgrounds look pretty good, even though the card procession was obviously shot in on a park road. :)I just appreciate it for what it is, one of the first films ever filmed and some pretty good looking effects.

Much in the same way as 'The Blacksmith Scene' from 1893, the first filmed version of 'Alice in Wonderland' from 1903 plays out more as a curious look into the history of film making at that time and the importance of film preservation for today, than a credible film adaptation of the book. However, in its initial release to the public, the film was popular, and at a staggering eight minutes in length, it was the longest movie to date. There are some nifty special effects of Alice shrinking and growing in the doll house, and there's an excellent commentary track on the DVD that talks about the people involved in the production of the film. However, through years of neglect and the natural decline of the nitrate on the film, there are more gaps, breaks and white scratches on the film that make its viewing somewhat difficult. No copies of the film have survived through time, the one used for the DVD is the original and it's in terrible shape.You can find this movie, warts and all, on the DVD of 'Alice In Wonderland' from 1966 directed by Jonathan Miller, who's version while clean, starring a stellar cast, and looking beautiful, could also be described as viewing that is 'somewhat difficult'.I'm giving the movie a 9/10. It was a 3, but I took this pill and it grew to a 9.Clark Richards