Tockinit not horrible nor great

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

TheLittleSongbird Not the best, I personally have a preference for the 1933 film, the Disney film, the 1985 version(though it is uneven) and the 1983 theatre production. It is on par though with the 1999 and 1972 versions and is much better than Tim Burton's film and the Burbank Films Australia and Jetlag versions. This Alice in Wonderland is certainly fascinating and is the most unique adaptation of the book, though Anne-Marie Mallick's Alice was too detached and expressionless even for a character that was written in the film to be like that, the film drags in places and the Old Father William poem recitation made little sense truncated and felt pointless. The croquet match sequence is also on the strange side, though in a way it's meant to be. The black and white photography is beautiful though, and the costumes and sets are very charming and surrealistic. Ravi Shankar's music is very hypnotic and dream-like in quality, very ideal for the atmosphere. The story has a much more surreal and darker touch than most Alice in Wonderland adaptations, but it still entertains and the Mad Hatter tea party sequence is truly memorable. The highlight is the Gryphon and Mock Turtle scene, brilliantly done. Jonathan Miller directs with a wonderfully weird style with a touch of subtlety when needed. The dialogue is in keeping with the tone of the film yet doesn't completely ignore Lewis Carroll's writing either. The best line? Personal favourite is Peter Sellers' "they don't have verdicts like that anymore"(or something along the lines of that). The supporting turns are excellent, especially Peter Cook as the maddest Mad Hatter there has ever been- and in a good way-, while Wilfred Brambell's jittery White Rabbit, Michael Redgrave's aloof Caterpillar, Michael Gough's twitchy March Hare, Peter Sellers' hilarious if too brief King of Hearts and John Gielgud's touchingly melancholic Mock Turtle stand out too. To conclude, a good Alice in Wonderland adaptation and very uniquely done. 7/10 Bethany Cox

claudia_osteen Does anyone know where or how I can get this Soundtrack? I love it, but can't find it on any Ravi Shankar compilation albums. If you can tell me where to find it then I will be infinitely grateful! And I will love you even more if you email me the answer to my yahoo account...it is claudia_osteen@yahoo.com..... thanks! p.s. I am a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland in general and this is by far one of the best adaptations (along with jan svankmajer's "Alice") because it gives the impression that maybe alice is the one who is going insane rather than everyone around her. The cinematography is beautifully done, and the music is perfect...not to mention there is a wonderful cast. I believe that this is suitable for children, but is very much made made for adults. It is a work of art!

Steven Capsuto This is an experimental TV-movie from the BBC's "Wednesday Play" anthology. That series was always willing to risk trying something different, and this ambitious, low-budget "Alice" is certainly different. I don't exactly *enjoy* this film, but it's certainly fascinating.I appreciate it as an experiment in what television could do. I admire the cast of iconic and talented Britons who wouldn't normally coincide in the same project: Peter Sellers, John Gielgud, Leo McKern (in drag as the Duchess), Michael Redgrave, Peter Cook, Wilfrid Brambell, Alan Bennett, Malcolm Muggeridge, etc.I also admire the creativity it took to imagine this quintessentially British tale accompanied by Ravi Shankar music.Some viewers may find the film too creepy and surreal, but the original book is pretty disturbing to begin with. This film is fairly incoherent, but then so is the book, which follows the ever-shifting logic of a dream.The biggest problem (aside from pacing that now seems too leisurely) is that Miller's production assumes you already know what's going on. For instance, it assumes you know that the two men dressed as... um... men are actually the Gryphon and the Mock Turtle.In other words, this is an "Alice" for people who are already overdosed on adaptations of "Alice," and who might appreciate a weirdly different take on the familiar story. Or to narrow that audience a bit, people age 12 and up who might appreciate a different take on the story.

P. H. I'm just writing to disagree with previous comment which complained about Alice's dialogue /expressions not matching upto accepted conversational practices. I think it's obvious that the whole mesmeric quality of this version was intended to portray how things disjointedly happen when you are actually dreaming. Sometimes, you are just observing the bizarre things going on around you (when dreaming)and your thoughts may contact other figures who are there even if your mouth isn't actually doing anything.Basically, when dreaming anything can happen, so to knock this adaptation because it wasn't made like any other prog' following conventional methods is pretty crass.If you want a pretty accurate portrayal of what a dream 'could' look like on the screen then this is a very good attempt. Also, to get all these seasoned players together in one film is a fine achievement-Peter Cook steels the show for me!