Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

He_who_lurks This 1903 film by Cecil M. Hepworth is said to be THE first adaptation of the classic story "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll. Running at a little over 8 minutes, the film is laughably poor when looked at today because of its primitiveness. However, such a comparison is not allowed because of its age. You cannot criticize this movie for having no computer graphics because there were none by 1903. Instead, superimposing and dissolves were done in a much harder way and took a deal of work. Thus, the special effects used in "Alice in Wonderland" are actually very good for the time.The entire story is not even told in this short adaptation. Instead, they show some of the highlights of the book--the shrinking and growing to get through the door, the Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, the Queen of Hearts. Because it is so old, it is understandable they didn't tell the whole thing--full-length features were still in the future. But the fact is, the surviving print of the film is very deteriorated looking. Not your typical few specks and scratches, I mean actual, crumbling deterioration. You can still see what is going on enough, but the fact is, modern audiences just won't find much value is what's here and film buffs who are used to this sort of thing will get much more out of this beat-up copy.That said, it does have some interesting things to note. At the beginning of the film, they superimposed the film's title on the bush by which Alice sits before she falls asleep. This is something I don't think I've seen before from the early silent era and looks more up-to-date then a title card (although it was still there when the White Rabbit came along, and when he passed his head in front of it you could see his head right through the type). Also, several title cards too which looked authentic, not modern cards added to help with the story. This makes it one of the first movies to use title cards!

Lee Eisenberg The very first screen adaptation of Lewis Carroll's novel will look crude to the modern viewer but it's still impressive what they managed to accomplish with the minimal resources. This "Alice in Wonderland" only lasts a few minutes, so it only contains the novel's major scenes, but they look pretty neat.I understand that in cinema's infancy, a number of the short movies were based on famous novels - "A Christmas Carol", "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde", etc - so that people would understand the stories without having to hear anything. I've seen a few of these early adaptations. More than anything, they're interesting to watch, just since they give one an idea of what movies were like in their first years. Anyway, this one's worth seeing.

pyrocitor 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

tedg Spoilers herein.I suppose we should be amazed at seeing any film that is 100 years old. But this has no appeal or interest either as a film, or as an Alice. Don't bother the search it out unless you are a collector.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.