jarobledo3
This adaptation of the "Alice" stories is one of my favorites; for one thing, this Hallmark has simply beautiful music. The enchantment, and occasional unease, of Wonderland is masterfully captured in the score, and the transformation of several of Carroll's famous poems into songs is brilliantly done. For another thing, the sets, scenery, and costumes fairly glow (in some cases literally), and the special effects are simply dazzling, giving everything a sense of pure magic.Tina Majorino is an exquisite Alice...the backstory, involving conquering ones fears, has been a subject of debate for many. The "Wizard of Oz"-esque opening/closing of the film are the same. While these are far off from what is in Carroll's work, I don't think they get in the way too much, and they give more of a purpose for Alice to search for the Beautiful Garden, aside from simple curiosity.These things aside, there are a few major problems with this film: first of all, this is one of the most accurate versions of "Alice" made to date...and, at the same time, it isn't. "Moral" values aside, this film retains at least 90% of Carroll's dialogue, but omits several poems/songs, and adds things in...not all of which make sense. The Mad Tea Party and Tweedledee & Tweedledum scene are the biggest culprits of this adding-in and taking-out problem. That being said, all of the characters present in Carroll's original story are present here, including Pat the Gardener and the Giant Puppy...two characters/scenes that seem awfully rare in adaptations of the story. Not only this, but this film still manages to add in scenes/characters from "Through the Looking-Glass," which many films before and after have done, with varying results; the transitions between Wonderland and Looking-Glass Land aren't seamless, but aren't so abrupt and unexplained that it throws the audience off course, either.Some of the actors – Robbie Coltrane and Norm Ferguson as the Tweedles, Peter Ustinov and Pete Postlethwaite as the Walrus and the Carpenter, Martin Short as the Mad Hatter, etc. – seem almost perfect for the roles they've been cast in. Jason Flymyng is remarkable as the Knave of Hearts, making my list as my favorite portrayal of the character yet, and Christopher Lloyd is one of my favorite White Knights, second only to Matt Frewer's portrayal in the SyFy miniseries. However, other roles aren't so well filled out: Whoopi Goldberg has the Cheshire Cat's grin...but that's all she has. The personality is all wrong, and I frankly get bored of her very fast. Simon Russell Beale isn't too bad as the King of Hearts...but the character comes across much too menacing, and, while still second fiddle to the Queen, this King seems far more cruel than I think the character should be played...but that's just me. The Duchess, by contrast, is much too friendly, acting "chummy" with Alice right from the beginning...although her Cook is fittingly raucous and mercurial, and the Frog Footman is, as Alice herself puts it, "perfectly idiotic," just as he should be.The creatures created by Jim Henson's Creature Shop aren't badly done at all (although the March Hare looks more like the March Donkey), and make some of the best characters here. However, they cause a few problems, too: some of the characters that are animals are these "creatures," while still others are just people, dressed in normal clothes, whose outfits give the impression of the animal they play. (Bill the Lizard, for example, does not wear a lizard costume, but a green "scaly" gardener's suit.) Then there's Gene Wilder – who isn't bad as the Mock Turtle, but doesn't come across tearful enough, and has lines that come across sounding a little bit contrived – who is neither one nor the other: he wears a full-out Mock Turtle costume. So...what are these characters that aren't puppets? Animals? People? A bit of both? It seems so disparate that it's a tad hard to keep up.The last problem, and probably the biggest, is, ironically, also one of this film's strong points: the special effects; when I said they were dazzling, I meant it. They ARE wonderful effects, but between glowing Caterpillars that explode into swarms of butterflies, cloud-beast Monstrous Crows, Hatters that can stretch their bodies like rubber, Duchesses that glide across the floor, Alice's growth (and shrink) spells, and Card Guards that turn, without warning, into normal playing cards, it gets hard to "get in the spirit of things" and not just sit back and enjoy the eye candy, so to speak.All things told, this is a spellbinding take on "Alice," and if the sometimes odd portrayals of the characters don't scare you off, and the effects don't become too much, you should find a lot to enjoy in this film. I have now finished my rambling.
annevejb
Tideland (2005) looks to Alice with respect so it seemed worth looking and it was not so long before I found a copy of Wonderland, just I am way past the point were I could find this easy to read. Novels of 1860ish were often read little bits at a time, as with bedtime stories for the rather little? Tina Majorino. Corrina and Santa Fe. These are not stories for kids, as I had hoped. Find the Majorino version of Wonderland I should not expect it to be a story for kids but I should expect it to be a story that tries to have something worthwhile to say. Wonderland is widely quoted in features. The hypermarket copy of Alice, nicely low cost, the Majorino version too. Tideland had told me that it was worth trying to get to know this story and this DVD was the key I needed for approaching the novel. Add that this feature is Babelsberg, their Back To The Secret garden is one that I return to more than most features despite the deliberate flaws in the dining room scenes. Could be that they tried to specialise in here and now sort of stuff. * The feature starts off in a way that shows promise to me. Agony too, what early teens with a sense of dignity would not prefer to run rather than go through with singing such a song? Cherry Ripe. The feel of the start reminds me of Pit and the Pendulum applied to Bar Mitzvah, a useful allusion in helping me to start appreciating Alice. Lots of detail in the opening pointed to detail in the story to come, this Alice as a reflection of the real world as shown at the start and the end. Except that it is a reflection. Wonderland is reached by the Rabbit hole to give a world that is up side down. Looking Glass gives a back to front view. If this story does give survival hints then they will likely be convoluted? Down side. Not long into the story I was needing to concentrate more, as if this is also not so easy to read. Chunks do not have the immediacy that the best stories have made one expect, though bits with immediacy do keep on cropping up so it is a case of knowing that they are there and being prepared to try to not drift off beforehand. My own guess is that this might relate to this adaptation keeping to the novel too closely, in parts. Just a guess. A bigger reason is that in these up side down worlds one can get one's concentration messed up, real bad. A complication. I watch this in order to try to get to appreciate the novel and a key way I did that here, after seeing it all the once, was going through this slowly to try to write my own set of chapters. I got the impression that the DVD chapters did loosely follow the book chapters, my DVD version's chapter 8 matching chapter 8 of the novel. Just at chapter 10 the feature changes track and covers three chapters of Looking Glass before returning to Wonderland. Could be that those three give useful supplementary detail, just I find this story to take work from me, I would actually have preferred it to keep to normal feature length and just the Wonderland novel. Except that this meant that I have now skimmed a freeware e form of Looking Glass so I know that it includes stuff that I have never read or seen. I am getting the impression that Carroll has a lot of experience of the up side down worlds. He also has fluency for writing a range of fictional scenarios. But does he believe that there is an escape route or has he not found one at this stage, that is the main detail that I looked for in this story. I assume no, but that he has been able to adapt well.
oscarhopkins
This is a truly amazing film version of Alice. It is the single best version for sticking to the text, and it sports the best-looking tea party ever.The Henson creatures (particularly W. Rabbit) are shaky at times, and this does detract a little, but the amazing talents involved here more than make up for it. Gene Wilder's Mock Turtle was without equal. Unmitigated joy.Still, at two hours, ten minutes, the film does have some drag and lag. Is this a result of the transition? Perhaps and perhaps not. The inserted plot this time (there's always one in Alice films) is that Alice has trouble being in front of people and speaking/performing in public. Very odd choice, that. But it only interferes at a few points in the film, and mostly the characters and situations go swimmingly.Pulling up second to Disney why? Two reasons: exposure (the Disney's been around a long, long time) and Whoopi Goldberg. How can anyone be totally dull and get to play both death incarnate (Monkeybone) and the Cheshire Cat? I don't get it.
marc_copil
It's brilliant, all the characters are beautiful and you will never forget them, once you'll see the movie. Miranda Richardson has made an excellent Queen, she's just adorable when she plays hysterical, and I'm upset that my English it's not enough developed, so I could tell you more about it. And Alice is at the right age and look to be perfect, naive and willing to learn but not to be pushed too hard into it, I will associate her face and looks with Lewis Carroll's Alice forever. The images in the movie, it's a complete fairy tale, but exiting enough for adult's too. If you forget about the childhood and the your playground this movie will remind you the days when every one of us could be an Alice in Wonderland .I can draw a million pictures from this movie, it's full of frames which you just had to frame it and put it onto your wall, and obtain a perfect painting
