Eric Stevenson I wouldn't recommend this version, but I wouldn't say I hate it either. I guess it was just mediocre. I guess the good technically outweighed the bad. The reason I saw this was because it was the longest film version of "Alice In Wonderland". It was weird, because I was expecting this big epic movie. Of course, the Tim Burton movie version and its sequel didn't do it very well. I think this is probably better than those. It seems to capture the spirit of the book more. I really should get around to reading the book.I believe I've seen every movie version of it now and I can easily say the Disney version is the best one. One fault with this movie was how it was, well, too long. It's not a complicated story and it just seems to go on too long. I guess that might be justified in adapting a book, but other versions have done it better. The puppets are pretty good. I am really freaked out by Whoopi Goldberg as the Cheshire cat. She looks really scary looking and that's actually probably the worst thing about the movie! Still, it's great to see such a cast of talented actors. I found out this was Gene Wilder's last movie and may he rest in peace. **1/2

johnstonjames A lot of people are awfully hard on this version. I thought the Tim Burton movie was just great, but I like this better. For one thing it's more faithful. Tim Burton's movie really wasn't the book at all where this is basically a straight adaptation with only a few adjustments made and liberties taken. For Carroll purist I say this, adaptation always involves change of some sort. That's in the definition of adaptation. Change. What works well in written word doesn't always work well in film, which is the reason why so many of the more cinematic of the 'Alice' films tend to rework Carroll's story. If you want a faithful word by word adaptation, there are stage productions available that do just that. But as good as they are they are not cinema they are stage bound.The acting here is outstanding, especially the fantastic Miranda Richardson as a ear piercingly screechy Queen of Hearts. The marvelous actor who plays her King of Hearts also deserves note for his whimsically daft performance. Whoopi Goldberg is surprisingly cute and funny as the little Cheshire puss( i thought she'd be miscast),and Martin Short is simply hilarious as the Mad Hatter, although he is just a shade too frenetic. The Hatter singing a song called "auntie's wooden leg"(not from the books)is almost hard to watch because it's so freaky and funny. Gene Wilder is wonderful, as is Christopher Lloyd and the rest of the mostly English cast.The production values are really good for television, with lots of nice touches. One particularly charming scene includes Alice opening up a giant sized pop-up book that opens to the little White Rabbit house. The special effects are also very good for television. Martin Short's over-sized head definitely pre-dates Helen Bonham Carter's big headed Queen by almost a decade.Some people don't like what director Nick Willing does with 'Wonderland'. I do. I certainly thought the syfy 'Alice' was pretty bizarre and silly, but it was very hip and very entertaining. But this film is much better. Carroll purist that scoff at this adaptation should note that it was scripted by respected British playwright Peter Barnes. Also it's pretty funny and cool that Alice is played by the same teen-ager from 'Napoleon Dynamite'.

waltcosmos When I was 17, even though I was already reading Harrold Robbins, William Burroughs, Iceberg Slim, I also had developed a fascination for the Alice books. Couldn't quite put my finger on it. Course, when I turned 24, I discovered a take on Lewis Carroll that I would have never guessed in a million years, something that justified my re-reading the books with this new knowledge. It was mostly the revelations of his metaphores. The garden Alice was trying to get into, the unexplained growing up and growing down, the idea of the oppressors being "nothing but a pack of cards"...I won't mention what they represent as I am under a restrictive mandate to maintain the secret but it definitely changes the whole picture.This movie followed the book to a certain extent...I'm not crazy about the blending of both stories into one, to tell you the truth. It loses it's thematic thread. That is, one story is essentially about a card game, the other is about a chess game. Who plays chess and poker at the same time? Many of the scenes were surprisingly hilarious. Robbie Coltrane and George Wendt's part as Tweedledee and Tweedledum was a standout. Martin Short literally SHONE in his big courtroom scene. And the scene where Alice comes across the Duchess and her cook for the first time was excellent.However, what was particularly odd was that on the DVD, there were short bios for the main actors...and they said NOTHING about Tina being in Napolean Dynamite, they didn't breathe a WORD about Robbie Coltrane's recurring role in the Harry Potter movies...was this some kind of weird English idiosyncrasy? Then I noticed that this movie was made in 1999, way before those movies I mentioned were ever done. Still, the DVD was made AFTER them, right? You'd think they'd give a backstory.

lual 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.