Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Bill Slocum Was this movie really planned out in advance? Or did they just put some of the biggest names of British cinema in front of a movie camera and tell them they had a fortnight to come up with something to amuse the kids?"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland" is a slapdash mishmosh based on one of the most popular children's classics. The result is something Lewis Carroll may have found curiouser and curiouser, a musical without tunes, a dancing show without apparent choreography, a comedy without laughs, and a high-blown fantasy where sets and costumes seem plucked from a community-theater pantomime.Two of the biggest stars involved were working behind the camera, and apparently with different scripts. Legendary cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth won a British Oscar for this, though his gauzy lenswork fails to disguise the gimcrack artificiality of some remarkably cheap sets. John Barry was a great movie composer here composing his only movie musical, so why are his songs so non-distinctive and at odds in their fussy seriousness with everything else this film is about?Everything about this film is tonally off, beginning with a sequence showing young Alice (Fiona Fullerton) being rowed by a leering Carroll and his effete friend (Hywel Bennett is the first-billed cast member despite just being on screen for less than two minutes and never saying a line). Freudian, sexual undertones seem in play, but then suddenly Alice is chasing Michael Crawford in a giant bunny costume while offering dainty narration for the slower viewers."Goodness, I'm falling! Wh- What's going to happen to me now?"Like it or not, Fullerton carries on like this for the rest of the picture, cueing her audience for their expected reactions. When greeted by a bunch of actors bouncing around in giant costumes, which happens every five minutes or so, she covers her mouth and giggles. When she objects to having her head ordered cut off by the Queen of Hearts (Flora Robson), she folds her arms and looks mad. All this childishness seems rather odd given Fullerton's old enough to practically bust out of her crinolines, which at least gives the Daddies in the audience something to root for.My main reason for watching this film was to see Peter Sellers working through the middle of his early-1970s dry period. The film makes decent use of him as the March Hare, mingling with Alice, the Mad Hatter (Robert Helpmann), and the Dormouse (Dudley Moore) in the film's one well-sustained sequence. Sellers seems to have fun playing his part with eye-rolling excess."Where was the Magna Carta signed?" he asks Alice.I don't know, she answers."At the bottom!"Logic is kind of by-the-by with the Alice books by design, but you need some of it to make a movie, even one set in Wonderland. Sequences come and go too quickly, with no apparent stopping point. The movie seems to have been edited with garden shears.Writer-director William Sterling only directed for cinema this one time, and the production seems to have gotten away from him somewhere close to its inception. How does one cast a film with so many names (Ralph Richardson, Michael Hordern, Peter Bull, and Dennis Price are also on hand), then cover their faces and/or have them romp around in dance productions so strenuous they require doubles?To make a film of this material, you need a strong hand somewhere near the center of things, not just talent around the edges. "Alice's Adventures" is not even that interesting as a flop.

tedg I am an Alice obsessive. I recently saw the Depp/Burton project and was horrified at the opportunity missed. So I turned to this, surprised that I had not seen it before.This at least has a couple advantages. Though far less colorful and lacking imagination in the design, it conforms to the text mostly and draws images from the original drawings. That is to the good, because the original has some profound structure and some lines that zing. If you don't have the patience to read the little book, you won't get this anyway, so to recommend the film on this basis is sorta useless.Where Depp pranced and drew something from who knows where, this had Peter Sellers! Peter Sellers as the March Hare! Amazing. He is paired with Dudley Moore and some nobody. This was during a period of substance abuse for them both. While they only speak the lines from the book, it is rewarding just seeing them.There is a very clever extension of Carroll's framing device of Alice in the bank, dreaming. The extension has her on that famous boat trip with Carroll and others where the story was supposedly told. (It actually had been told in pieces developed over seven years, with pieces added in the writing.)Though we have the story more or less as written, the production is a disaster. This is because the filmmaker missed the tone of the thing. This is not silly nonsense that is amenable to a high-school play nonchalance; this is deep silly, funny stuff that makes you laugh and if you think about it demonstrates what von Neumann mathematically proved 80 years later: logic doesn't cut it.The book was written by the leading logician in England, ensconced at Oxford. They miss that this is disorder that matters. Some filmmakers get this. I'd like to see Richard Kellydo an Alice.Because Disney decided Alice's dress was blue, it is blue here. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

MARIO GAUCI This is the fourth film version I’ve watched of Lewis Carroll’s classic – the 1903 Silent, the 1951 Walt Disney animated version, and the 1966 British TV adaptation; there are at least three more adaptations I’m interested in – Paramount’s 1933 all-star feature, the 1949 Franco-British version mixing live-action with puppet figures, and Jan Svankmajer’s 1988 film. This musicalized version was made in a time when setting literary classics (everything from Miguel Cervantes to George Bernard Shaw, Charles Dickens to James Hilton) to music was quite fashionable. Still, despite the engagement of a tremendous cast – Michael Jayston, Hywel Bennett, Michael Crawford, Ralph Richardson, Peter Bull, Roy Kinnear, Robert Helpmann, Peter Sellers, Dudley Moore, Dennis Price, Flora Robson, Spike Milligan, Michael Hordern – they are mostly ineffective and even unrecognizable under all the heavy make-up! Alice herself – Fiona Fullerton – isn’t very sympathetic either.The highlight is perhaps the tea party sequence with Helpmann (as The Mad Hatter), Sellers (as The March Hare) and Moore (as The Dormouse) – after which the slow-moving film starts slipping into boredom. The music by John Barry and lyrics by Don Black are decent at best, but distinctly unmemorable. Writer-director William Sterling’s adaptation – whose only film in that capacity this was – is disappointingly uninspired, then, turning Carroll’s surrealistic original into a dullish kiddie film! Apart from the opportunity of star-spotting, the film’s main virtues, therefore, are Geoffrey Unsworth’s cinematography and Anthony Mendelsohn’s colorful costume designs – qualities which were also recognized by the BAFTA. Admittedly, I rewatched this via a budget DVD release of a public domain, panned-and-scanned and extremely hazy print – which certainly didn’t aid my appreciation of it in any way!

Cheese Messiah This version follows the classic story faithfully, if a bit unimaginatively. As the original is itself somewhat loose structurally, it makes any film version inevitably seem rambling. I know of no cinematic version of Alice in Wonderland that completely successfully overcomes this. This 1972 is usual in that respect. The set design is perhaps too closely modelled on the original Alice drawings, and as such, it is colourful and lavish although it looks rather dated and stagy by modern standards. One major drawback (which seems consistent with all the other Alice films) is that the songs are completely forgettable. A very youthful Fiona Fullerton is convincing as Alice, and a fun aspect of the film is to guess the identities of the heavily made-up cast of well-known actors, some of whom are more easily guessable than others.