FilmCriticLalitRao "Alex in Wonderland" is an absolutely different kind of film.It is one of those American films which talks about film making albeit in a very superficial manner.This is one of the few weak spots in the film as its narrative shifts quickly from one philosophical or ideological stance to another.This film can also be termed as Alex's adventures in wonderland as its eponymous protagonist film director Alex tries really hard to strike a fine balance between his professional and personal lives.Director Paul Mazursky is able to make his film appear a serious experience for a débutant film director by ensuring that there is absolutely no coherent link between two phases of a director's lives : personal life and professional life.Although Alex's journey in wonderland begins with a truly shocking scene which might be construed as somewhat scandalous by certain prudes,overall story gathers momentum once more pertinent characters are introduced.Paul Mazursky also plays a brief yet important role in this film to make us aware of the fact that not all filmmakers live in wonderland.His film suggests that most film directors live in ordinary surroundings where they try to deal with their strengths and weaknesses in equal measure in order to invigorate their artistic lives.It does not matter if not all viewers would be able to associate themselves with "Alex in Wonderland" and its hidden motives.One thing which can be said is that some serious fans will not be disappointed as they get to see great master of cinema Italian cinema maverick Fellini and French cinema diva Jeanne Moreau.

Paul Weissman It is so blatantly obvious that Mazursky is gently parodying the self righteousness of the hippie movement. When discussing the black uprising movie, it's the black dude who tells him it's a rotten idea. In a more stern observation, his wife is clearly upset and his family life is clearly hitting the skids and he goes on about an acid trip he and his friend took. His wife makes the incredibly accurate observation that he wants her to do what he wants her to do not what she wants to do.Look I fly a little to the left of the left wing but to blather on about Hollywood being left wing when they want nothing more than to do movies where "things blow up real good" is kind of ridiculous.The movie is good. It's not great. But it is a keen and well observed characterization of a creative man who is trying to keep his personal and creative life together and vibrant but falls prey to his own self doubts.

fedor8 As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.

Herman_Willems The worst movie with Donald Sutherland,one of my favorite actors, I ever saw. What in the world possessed Sutherland to take part in that movie. "Kelly's Heroes" was made in the same year and there he put down one of his best performances as "Oddball". There is no story in this movie. I even convinced myself to watch it twice on Turner Classic Movie channel, to find anything meaningful in this movie but I had to conclude that it is the worst I ever saw. Not even Donald Sutherland could pull this movie a little over the edge of disaster. He was,by the way, the only reason I watched the movie to the end twice.So this film will be erased from my memory as soon as possible and I stick to the rest of Donald's memorable fine performances.