Change Your Image
jarobledo3
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Alice in Wonderland (1951)
Overrated...But Not Bad At All!
I think it would be fair to say that the 1951 Disney animated film is most people's introduction to Lewis Carroll...while I blush to admit it, it was certainly mine. However, having read the books and seen various other adaptations of the stories of "Alice," I find that this one is vastly overrated.
Before I go into the problems with this movie (for me), let me give the good things: first of all, the animation is simply superb, and Mary Blair's color styling and backgrounds give everything a very surreal, cartoonish look...indeed, this whole film feels more like a return to the original "Silly Symphonies" for the sheer amount of "cartoon logic" it packs into it, which, in its own unique way, actually heightens the absurdity of Wonderland and its many wacky denizens beyond what even Carroll and John Tenniel envisioned. The voice acting is superb, and the characters are well done: prior to this movie, I can't think of a single film that captured the characters so well. The 1933 film has...problems, the silent films, obviously, were silent, and there are two films before the 1951 movie that have been lost, so it's hard to count those, as I've never actually seen them, and, sadly, probably never will.
Specific aspects of the characters never before transferred from the pages of the Charles Dodgson's work to film successfully are well defined: Alice's curiosity and innocence, the White Rabbit's impatience and neurosis, the Mad Hatter and March Hare's zaniness, the Queen of Heart's frightful temper, and the mischievous nature of the Cheshire Cat, just to name a few, are all well played, and the voice actors – for the characters I've listed, that means Kathryn Beaumont, Bill Thompson, Ed Wynn, Jerry Colonna, Verna Felton, and Sterling Holloway (who also appeared in the 1933 film) – are excellently picked.
To be honest, it's hard for me to find anything particularly WRONG with this movie, other than the fact that it contains fewer characters from the stories than most people think, and the ones not present in this movie, while very often present in other adaptations, are largely forgotten because of this. Being as much of an advocate for "pure Carroll" as I am, that just bugs me beyond compare. Several poems, bits of dialogue, and other moments are meshed together, dumbed down, or just omitted completely, to the point where this particular film seems less of an adaptation of the books and more of a reimagination, but, let's face it, Disney's just notorious for that sort of thing. Also, the designs – while wonderful – are almost never like John Tenniel's illustrations, or only vaguely resemble them...I think Alice herself is the only exception.
But, gripes aside, do I hate this movie? Hardly! It is one of my favorite films created by Disney, and one of my favorite takes on "Alice" made. Still, as the "building block" that many other adaptations are based on, I don't feel it deserves the reputation it has. Still, it's a very important film, both for the legacy of Lewis Carroll and the Walt Disney Studio, so I guess it deserves a good amount of credit, and I love it all the same.
It's also, in my opinion, the best way to introduce Lewis Carroll's work to kids: it's rather lighthearted, especially for a Disney film (these movies are A LOT darker than many people give them credit), and the spirit of Carroll is decently embodied, and the music and characters are great; if you haven't said "I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date" at least once in your lifetime, you are officially dehumanized.
Other "kid flick" takes on the stories warp and twist it to fit another medium, like "Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland" or Sesame Street's "Abby in Wonderland." This one doesn't: it changes a lot, but it doesn't include previously established characters or a heck of a lot of pop-culture references either, which is a plus. If you haven't seen it, not only are you an extremely strange person, but you REALLY need to.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (2011)
The Art of Carroll Envisioned
Creating a ballet of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" cannot be an easy thing to manage; at least 75% of this timeless tale is in its writing, and so telling the story without any dialogue is a tough ordeal. This is why so many silent films have been lost, or forgotten: sound was the golden segment that allowed for filmmakers to build on the pages and text of Carroll's story. The 1915 silent film, for example, tries to include as much of Carroll's writing in the title cards, but still can't capture quite everything. Obviously, a ballet, having no "title cards" or words spoken/shown at all, must be even tougher.
That being said, the lack of dialogue in this adaptation is to be expected, so it can be given a little leeway.
We open up with a scene of "the real Alice," in the real world (the entire opening is complete historical hogwash), who, similar to the 1999 film adaptation, is at a garden party. When her secret sweetheart, a servant boy named Jack, is fired by her stern, vindictive, slightly nosy mother (not unlike the real Mrs. Liddell, I understand), Alice tries to seek comfort in a family friend...none other than Charles Dodgson, a.k.a. Lewis Carroll. Without warning, Carroll himself transforms into the White Rabbit...and the madness begins.
In terms of Carroll's original story, the scenes with the Giant Puppy, Mock Turtle, and Gryphon are skipped (although the Turtle appears in a cameo role at the Caucus-Race), and the Cheshire Cat, Knave of Hearts, and White Rabbit are all given larger roles. The scene with Bill the Lizard and the rest of the Rabbit's servants is also skipped, possibly because, as a representation of Carroll, the Rabbit is friendlier with Alice (though still neurotic as ever), so ordering her about and mistaking her for Mary Anne doesn't make much sense. Instead, this scene is replaced with him taking her on a little boat ride, which may be a reference to the Sheep scene from "Through the Looking-Glass," or the real boat ride Carroll took the Liddell sisters on, and first told them the story of "Alice," or even both. The Caterpillar scene occurs later in the show than in the story, appearing shortly after the Mad Tea Party.
Like the 1999 film, most of the characters are based on real people at the Garden Party: a top-hat wearing magician becomes the tap-dancing Mad Hatter; a Vicar and a Verger become the March Hare and the Dormouse; Jack becomes the Knave, while Mrs. Liddell becomes the Queen of Hearts, and Dean Henry Liddell plays the King of Hearts (who's often-sleeping character reminds me of the Red King from "Through the Looking-Glass"). A visiting Rajah turns into the Caterpillar, Carroll, as said before, is the White Rabbit, and a rather ugly Duchess who comes to the party becomes Carroll's fictional Duchess in Wonderland. The performances are spectacular: Lauren Cuthbertson is obviously too old for the part, but her performance is soulful, yet innocent, and there's an air of both determination and nearly supernatural curiosity about her, which is just great. Steven McRae's Hatter, tap-dancing around at the Tea Party, steals the show the instant the light hits him. Eric Underwood's slinky Arabian Caterpillar is both mysterious and slightly seductive, and Simon Russell Beale throws himself into the drag role of the Duchess(es) with zeal.
As is the case with many, if not all, "Alice" adaptations, a large part of what makes this stand out is the design. Very little here holds obvious roots in John Tenniel's illustrations – the eerie, living-jigsaw-puzzle Cheshire Cat and Pig-Baby puppet are the only immediate things I can think of, looking very much like carbon copies of the illustrations, which, for me, is a plus – I think, in terms of art and style, this ballet comes closer to Carroll's personal vision than any other show before. Everything is lavish, as to be expected from the Royal Opera, with the effects a mix of animated projections and stage techniques. The odd exceptions are present, of course. Ironically, one of these exceptions is the Queen of Hearts, played with a saucy flair by Zenaida Yanowsky, and a direct contrast to the refined Mrs. Liddell. When the Queen first appears, she is in a gigantic plastic dress(?) that rolls across the stage. When she finally steps out of this plain, yet absurd, garment, she is wearing nothing more than a simple red ballet uniform. Both are hardly befitting the regal presence of the Queen, and are not "revealing" enough to work with the character's "sauciness" in this version. The Executioner and the March Hare have equally bad costumes: the Hare's pastel suit makes him almost disappear amidst the flashes of vivid colors everywhere else, and the Executioner looks a biker.
This show is not for kids: some characters, like the Mad Hatter, look slightly grotesque in appearance, while others, like Caterpillar and the Queen, have a distinct "maturity" to them. The scene of "Pig and Pepper" is given a shocking, Hellish tone: red light illuminates everything, butchered pigs are everywhere, the Cook runs around, quite literally chewing the scenery, while brandishing a cleaver, and the Duchess' apron is stained with blood. (All this makes us wonder what happens to the Baby, once it transforms into a Pig...and is "saved" by the Duchess from Alice.) All that's well and good, but the story's end is another problem: Alice awakens...and, suddenly, we're not in Victorian England, nor Wonderland, but the Modern World. What was going during the time preceeding? A dream within a dream? If so, how did she GET all that into her head? Despite this show's flaws, it has a great look, and the dancing is choreographed superbly. The music is beyond wonderful, and, while the story needs some work, lovers of ballet, art, and "Alice" should enjoy this.
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
"We're All Mad Here" - The Cheshire Cat
Say what you will about this Tim Burton film, but I like it! Of course, it does have its flaws: first of all, the plot seems rather rushed, and the action/suspense sequences seem crammed in together. Like the 1999 Hallmark film, this film suffers from too MANY special things, to the point where the "heart" of the story gets lost in the madness. The second main problem, and possibly a result of the first, is that many great actors and Wonderland characters do not get their "due," so to speak. Michael Gough is a good example: his Dodo (named Uileam, though, for some reason, this is not given in the movie itself) has a grand total of three lines. One of these is whispered, so that we barely catch it, and the other is spoken offscreen. We see him last at the Queen's Croquet Game, as a caddy, and then he just...disappears. We never see or hear from him again. Was he rescued? Executed? Is he standing around, going "Hello? I say, where is everybody?" at the end of the movie? This being said, he's probably lucky he appeared at all; a good number of "Alice" characters do not make it here: from the first book alone, we have the Mouse with the Long, Sad Tail, the Lory, the Eaglet, the Owl, the Duck, Bill the Lizard, Pat, the Duchess, the Cook, the Pig-Baby, the Gryphon, the Mock Turtle, and the Giant Puppy, and from the second, the missing persons include the White King, the White Knight, the Walrus, the Carpenter, the Sheep, the Lion, the Unicorn, Humpty Dumpty, the Goat, the Horse, the Man in the Paper Suit, and the Gnat.
This being said, the characters that do appear, are, in my mind, pretty well done: Tim Burton takes the old adage of "nothing is what it seems" very much to heart in this take on Carroll's masterpiece and its equally famous sequel. The Queen of Hearts/Red Queen and the White Queen are a prime example: the Red Queen is our villain, who is uncertain if what she is doing is really right, and, in all honesty, just wants people to love her. She wants friendship, she wants attention, and she feels she deserves it. But, as if her temper wasn't a big enough problem, she has a tumor that causes her head to swell up to three times its normal size, so that alone will make people disgusted. As for her sister, she is our "good queen," but is not entirely kind and lovely herself: behind her flighty, smiling demeanor, she hides a vicious side, and the capacity to be just as cruel, if not even crueler, than her loathed sister.
Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter (a.k.a. Tarrant Hightopp) is the source of much debate about this movie. I think he does a pretty good job. His Hatter takes the mercurial history of this character a step or two further: rather than simple mood swings, this character has a split-personality disorder, signaled by his eyes and accent changing colors, from neon green irises and a sweet, puppy-like, faintly Ed Wynn-esque voice and persona, to an orange-red eyed, Scottish-accented berserker. Mia Wasikowska, our Alice and the other top-billing star of this film, is beautiful in her part, and she's the only Alice I can see fighting something as dark and monstrous as the Jabberwocky and not lose any affection for. Her search to find her "muchness" is compelling, despite how rushed the film makes her journey, and she's just excellent overall.
Stephen Fry's portrayal of Chessur (the Cheshire Cat) is marvelous, and Paul Whitehouse as Thackery Earwicket, the March Hare, is hilarious (even if his character does get the short end of the wishbone). Crispin Glover is deliciously slimy as the Knave of Hearts, Illosovic Stayne, and Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter play the two Queens to the hilt. Michael Sheen's White Rabbit, Nivens McTwisp, is so much like the original character it's almost frightening, Absolem the Caterpillar is brilliantly voiced by Alan Rickman, and Matt Lucas delights as the voice (and...er...face) of both of the Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
The real show-stealer for me is the Mallymkun, the Dormouse, played by Barbara Windsor. Feisty, loyal, skeptical...and, despite, or perhaps because of, her small size, a darn good swordswoman...er, swords-rodent. This is my favorite incarnation of the Dormouse, a testament to the phrase "dynamite comes in small packages...and sleeps in teapots." All this I've mentioned is heightened by the fantastic art direction, which brings a decadence to Wonderland befitting the supposed decay the Red Queen has brought upon it, yet still fits in this world, giving it a timeless look, as if it has been there all my life. All this is done brilliantly...and rarely looks like the work of the great John Tenniel, but, then, that was to be expected from the beginning, when this movie was first spoken of in mere, whispered rumors.
So, in conclusion, here are the up-sides: great art, great characters, a great story, and, very often, a great cast. The down-sides: the story, while good, is rushed, and the effects get in the way of the emotions, giving this film too much madness and not enough magic. Still, I love it. I am through with this rant of a review. Thank you.
Alice in Wonderland (1933)
Poor Costumes, Poor Acting...Great Music
This film looked promising when I picked up the DVD at a store, and it is enjoyable enough to watch, I suppose, but it has many flaws. As the first "Alice" film I'm aware of to boast an all-star cast – and the fifth "Alice" film ever made, unless I'm mistaken – Paramount's 1933 picture was a flop when it came out...and probably for good reason. Indeed, it was considered so bad that many critics doubted that a live-action fantasy film could ever be a success. (Six years later came "Wizard of Oz," which proved them wrong...but that's another story.) The first problem is, in fact, the cast: now, I wish I could say they're trying their best, but somehow I doubt it. Many of the performances are flat, and this film is poorly conceived in its cast showcase: other "All-Star Alices" either feature a bunch of big name actors, and focus on the actors' performances and styles (like the 1985 miniseries), or use an all-star cast, but focus on the story (like the 1972 film). This does neither one nor the other: it is a showcasing of NAMES. Paramount puts all of its biggest stars and most illustrious character actors in a single, hour-and-fifteen-minutes long flick, and tries to show them off. Not only do the performances suffer, but the actors do to: in trying to capture John Tenniel's classic illustrations – a noble intent, but a miserable failure, for the most part – many of the actors are forced into stiff rubber masks, body-covering costumes, or strange prosthetics...or all three, to the point where we only know who's playing who because the credits tell us.
W.C. Fields is a prime example: Humpty Dumpty is often cited as one of his best performances, but it disappoints me (come to think of it, most interpretations featuring this character disappoint...but, again, that is another story for another time). Some sources claim it was a role he positively hated doing. I believe it; crammed into a grotesque, puppet like body, the eyes behind the mask look dull and weary, and his voice is flat and impatient. This may enhance the performance of this cantankerous and dignified character for some, but all I hear is Fields thinking something along the lines of: "Is this REALLY worth what I'm getting paid?" Charlotte Henry isn't terrible as Alice, but even her performance comes off bland and inconsistent.
Now, not all the performances and/or costumes are bad: Cary Grant is my favorite Mock Turtle, fittingly weepy and yet still able to tell his story, and even sing, and Edna May Oliver is my favorite Red Queen. (Not Queen of Hearts, for those who confuse them: she's played by May Robson.) Ford Sterling, as the White King, isn't too bad either. But the rest of the cast is largely upsetting. The Tweedles, for example, are played fairly well by Roscoe Karns and Jack Oakie, and their scene includes an excellent animated sequence based on "The Walrus and the Carpenter," but their otherwise great performance suffers due to their costumes: their heads look like globs of mashed potatoes, their eyes seem sunken in, and their bellies look more "pregnant" than "plump." In fact, with all the special effects, and the often monstrous-looking costumes, much of this film looks satanic, particularly if the sound is turned off: you could easily and believably transform this into a horror film by just changing the music.
The second problem is the editing: this movie, like many others that followed it, and one silent film that preceded it, combines both "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking-Glass"...and does so clumsily. The editing is odd and sloppy: we open up almost exactly like the second book...and, almost out of nowhere, we find ourselves falling down the rabbit-hole. We get up to the Mock Turtle and Gryphon scene...and, then, again, out of nowhere, we're running with the Red Queen. The Cheshire Cat tells Alice he'll be at the croquet game...and never shows up. Wonderland is meant to be a realm of madness, chaos, and nonsense, I know, but if they can't even decide what story to make, and how to orchestrate it, why do it at all? But thank lunacy for the music: this alone raises the film up. Be it the childish whimsy of a Mad Tea Party, an attacking Monstrous Crow, a feast with the Queens that goes into a state of total disarray, or the appearance of a sly Cheshire Cat, this film tells a whole narrative in pure song. Indeed, with all the music – and the fact this focuses on "voices," not "faces," judging from all the horrible costume masks and face prosthetics – I think this film would have been better as a radio production. There have been radio takes on "Alice," so couldn't Paramount have done something like that and had all their stars there? Still, despite these flaws, fans and collectors of Lewis Carroll, or "old time movies," should get an eyeful...literally.
Alice (2000)
Dark, Depraved, and Pretty Decent
This review is meant to be for both this first game, and its recent sequel, "Alice: Madness Returns." American McGee's "Alice" series and I have an interesting relationship: when it first came out, I hated it. Now, I SORT OF like it...my tastes changed with my age, and, as they did, so did my liking of these games. By the time the sequel came out, I was looking forward to it.
There are a few specific things I like about this game: first of all, the Cheshire Cat, to put it very frankly, is AWESOME. The husky purr of his voice...the skeletal appearance...the manic grin...the constant speaking in riddles...to quote the Joker, "I don't know if it's art, but I like it!"
Then there's the music: this series has, arguably, some of the most hauntingly beautiful (and sometimes just plain haunting) tunes I have ever heard. I think my favorites have to be "Riding on Wings of Steam" and the Boss Theme for the Mad Hatter, both from the first game, and "Hyde Park" from the second. Music box chimes, ticking clockwork, and the "toy-like" quality of several pieces of music heighten the horror of these games.
Thirdly: just the styling, to be honest. The character twists are interesting, if sometimes odd (how did the Hatter become obsessed with Time, again?), and their appearances are often so depraved the player/audience is often left saying, "What the heck happened to YOU?" (In a good way, if that makes any sense.) Some characters – like the Duchess, the Jabberwock, the Gryphon, and Alice herself – are sort of a "warped Tenniel," on par with the designs in "Dreamchild;" close to the famous illustrations, but still obviously...off. Most, however, are so far off from the designs it's hard to believe what has become of some of our cherished childhood characters. For the twisted psychopath lurking in every Carrollian and/or video game lover's heart, this is good. The Wonderland landscape is pretty much the same: the gory grounds of Queensland, the rigid order in the chaos of the Pale Realm, the steampunk dungeons of the Mad Hatter's Domain, the misty marshes of the Vale of Tears (especially in the first game, regarding this one), and, from the second game, the "Roald-Dahl-in-depression" feel to the Dollhouse, are all strange, darkly beautiful, and horrific, all at once.
All this being said, for all the things I like about these games, there's just as many things I dislike: first of all, the gameplay. As a take on "Alice," these are really, really good. But as video games, I hate to play them: I find the camera and the control system frustrating, and the endless battles with Snarks, Boojums, Phantasmagoria, and Card Guards from the first game, along with the contrasting lack of bosses in the second, confuse and irritate me. This leads into a second problem: these games focus so much on being GAMES that the story gets lost along the way. This is especially true in this first installment: wandering through this surreally scary Wonderland is okay, but to get any idea of what's REALLY going on, you have to read Wilson's Casebook WHILE you're playing the game. I mean, what's the point? Couldn't we just put those same things into the game itself? The second game fixes this, sort of...but there are still unanswered questions and uncertainties at the end of the run through. This may be intentional, or maybe I'm just missing something, but it bugs me.
Perhaps ironically – and I may get a good deal of hateful words for this – my third, and main, problem, is Alice herself. I really don't like her. Oh, she has her reasons to be cynical, callous, and cruel...she has her reasons to destroy and horribly mangle everything she faces...but I don't like her. In this first game, it's not too much of a problem: she's extremely violent, but that's to be expected, and her reactions are more believable: she's annoyed with certain characters, hateful towards others, and even has friendliness for a few. In the second game however, she seems cold-hearted toward everyone and everything. I guess you could say that it's because she is going through some hard times, and can't trust anyone in the real world, so Wonderland would reflect that...but she cries when Cheshire Cat dies in the first game, but seems to hate him almost as much as the Queen in the second. If you'll pardon the expression: what's up with that?
All that being said, this game is a little over half-&-half in my mind: it's an intriguing take on Carroll's universe, and these games contain the world's greatest Cheshire Cat...but inconsistencies in the story, and, for me at least, frustrating gameplay, drag it down from being the best. Still, video game fanatics, and lovers of "Alice", should check this out: you won't believe your eyes.
Alice in Wonderland (1985)
A Fine Attempt...A Poor Result
As a two-part miniseries with a length of about three hours, this adaptation of Lewis Carroll's beloved classics doesn't need to rush the story, allowing us to see pretty much every scene and character from the stories, including rarely seen ones like Pat, the Fawn, the Man in the Paper Suit, the Goat, the Gnat, Humpty Dumpty, the Horse, the Sheep, and the Owl. (Two of these characters, for some reason, swap the acts they appear in: the Owl is a character from the first book, but appears in the second act, and the Fawn is a character from the second book, but appears in the first.) Indeed, the only scene missing that I can think of is the Giant Puppy scene, which is somewhat disappointing, but excusable.
But with that being said, the rest of this movie really gets my nerves, especially the first act: for one thing, very few of Carroll's poems appear, and all the songs in this musical are "Americanized" and modern. This wouldn't be so bad if the film was meant to be a modern riff on the stories, like the Hanna-Barbera T.V. film, BUT IT ISN'T. It is very clear that this, like the original books, is meant to take place in Victorian Age England. But here's the thing: ALMOST NO ONE IN THIS FILM IS British! The songs are all obnoxious, as well as "Americanized," and have very little to do with Carroll's text, and, again, with the exception of "You Are Old, Father William," and "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Bat," none of the poems from the first book appear. The second act is just as guilty, but at least "The Walrus and the Carpenter" appears and is fairly enjoyable, and the ending tune is very sweet, and even a bit heartbreaking.
The casting is all over the place: In the first act, the Mad Hatter is played by Anthony Newley, whose rude and grumpy performance hardly makes him laughable (especially odd since his song is titled "Laugh"), and he comes off rather unlikeable. Jayne Meadows as the Queen of Hearts, as well as Martha Raye's Duchess, aren't regal, or even stuck-up...they're just straight up sadists whose accents make them sound like the Marry Murderesses from "Chicago." Scott Baio as Pat especially bothers me: he speaks Carroll's text word for word, but doesn't bother at even attempting an accent, and his flat, highly-rehearsed tone almost makes it sound like he has a speech impediment. The second act isn't much better: Carol Channing as the White Queen is particularly atrocious, and Jonathan Winters is exceptionally dull as Humpty Dumpty.
Now, there are some good performances: Robert Morley is my favorite King of Hearts, and Red Buttons and Roddy McDowall aren't half bad as the White Rabbit and the March Hare. Lloyd Bridges as the White Knight in the second act is bumbling and chivalrous at once, and there's a distinct lovability to him, and a twinkle in his eyes. Not bad at all. Ringo Starr's "storyteller" voice, which any fan of "Thomas the Tank Engine" is probably familiar with, works well in his performance as the Mock Turtle. And, of course, Natalie Gregory isn't terrible at all: she's very sweet, yet determined, and her age (nine years old) in this film makes her to closest actress, age wise, I believe, to play the coveted role of Alice.
Even though the performances are sometimes okay, the costumes rarely are: most of the costumes worn in this film come off as cheap-looking and seem to have very little basis in Tenniel's praised illustrations. Bill the Lizard looks like something out of "Farscape," while the Jabberwock, played by Tom McLoughlin, is menacing, but somehow manages to look like a bad Godzilla costume at comic-con, with wings.
With the mention of the Jabberwock, another problem comes to mind: the designs of the scenery, and the tone of the movie, which go hand in hand. The first act can't seem to make up its mind whether it's dark or light: the rabbit-hole is no longer the fanciful parachute ride from Carroll's story, masterfully captured in other stories, but a terrifying free fall, which ends in a dank tunnel that, for some reason, has lightning and thunder inside it. The Queen's sadism makes her especially horrific, Jayne Meadows' sick, twisted expressions of hate, rage, and insane glee making her moments particularly disturbing...the audience starts to wonder: is this a kid's film, or a prototype for "American McGee's Alice?" The second act seems to have made up its mind: it's a light take on "Alice," but with dark moments...namely, whenever the Jabberwocky appears. The film even involves death: even though the King still pardons people in the first act, as in the books, in the second act, Humpty Dumpty is pushed off the wall by the Jabberwock, and presumably never repaired, and the White Knight dies trying to defend Alice from the same frumnious beast. (Or seems to...he reappears at the very end of the movie, so I guess he was just knocked senseless.) My overall opinion: this miniseries is enjoyable for some, and one of the darkest takes on Carroll yet, despite occasional bouts of typical, childish whimsy, but it's not for me. Still, it does retain 99% of the characters/scenes from the books, so that's something, even if most of the songs and poems are omitted. A good try...but a bad execution.
Dreamchild (1985)
Inaccurate, Yet Nearly Perfect
This semi-biographical film is one of my most prized possessions in my "Alice" collection. This movie has its ups and its down, but, at the end of the day, it's one of the best I've seen. It does have its flaws, however: first of all, the historical accuracy in this is dreadful. While the periods - Victorian Age England and Depression Era America - seem to have had a good deal of research done into them, as has the published book of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," the history of said book and events seems to have been ignored, or only slightly researched. Perhaps ironically, it is the "present day" scenes that give the low points of the film. Coral Browne as the aged Alice Hargreaves, nee Liddell, is marvelous; she puts so much soul into it, I begin to wonder if we are really seeing Browne as Browne, or Browne as Mrs. Hargreaves. However, the fictional character of Lucy, the nursemaid, bores me, and the love story between her and the reporter Jack Dolan (could his name be a possible reference to the Knave of Hearts?), is dull, unnecessary, and historically insulting.
That being said, the flashbacks and hallucination(?) scenes are brilliant. In the latter, Jim Henson's team gives us the world of Wonderland, seen through the eyes of an older Alice. Naturally, if "Alice" has grown older, and "darker" in her thoughts, then so, too, must Wonderland. Expect no hysterical Muppets or cuddly Sesame Street critters here: this Wonderland and its denizens ties with the "American McGee's Alice" games and the Czech film, by Jan Svankmajer, for sheer creepiness. Think "Dark Crystal," not "Muppets Take Manhattan." Henson's team takes Tenniel's illustrations, and twists them, ever so slightly, making them more nightmarish than ever before: The Mock Turtle's eyes are red and sore, his mouth twisted in a perpetual sneer, face stained with copious amounts of tears. The Gryphon, meanwhile, appears to be molting (at least on his upper half). The Dormouse is mangy, while the March Hare's teeth are crooked and bloodstained, his eyes bugged out of his skull, creating a close-up visage that could give Chuck Norris nightmares. The Mad Hatter may be the scariest of the bunch: his hair is wild and red, his eyes bloodshot, his body ravaged and gnarled, his voice gravelly, his body and mind unbalanced, and his temperament expertly mercurial, going from a perfect gentleman to a savage, murderous beast within a matter of seconds. The Caterpillar's blue coloring seems to be due to breathing problems, his bright orange legs giving him a poisonous look. Add two gangly, humanoid arms and a decidedly human face, and he is all the more freakish.
These characters and scenes, despite being historically inaccurate, also seem to have a good deal of research done for them: at the Mad Tea Party, for example, the Mad Hatter strokes the Dormouse like a pet several times, as well as, like in the books, trying to stuff him in a teapot. This is because Dormice, in Victorian times, were often kept as pets, and were sometimes housed in teapots. As well as being why the Hare and Hatter try to put him inside the pot in the books, it also explains the Hatter's actions toward the little rodent during this scene.
These, along with the 1972 musical film, are the definitive versions of the characters, despite, or perhaps because of, their surliness. The flashbacks of Alice's childhood with Charles Dodgson, alias Lewis Carroll, are of equal excellence. Ian Holm is about ten years too old for the part, but, otherwise, is perfectly cast; he captures the spirit of the author so well, that it makes it hard for the viewer to figure out whether we are seeing a realization or an idealization of the shy, eccentric, enigmatic man whose imagination knew no bounds. The debate as to whether Carroll was pedophilic in his intentions around the young Ms. Liddell is never really decided upon, but I, like the movie, believe it really doesn't matter: for better or worse, Carroll's relationship with Alice Liddell gave us the "Alice" stories, and I cannot bear the thought of living without them.
Amelia Shankley makes the list as my favorite Alice: she not only portrays the younger self of "the real Alice," but is also given the job of playing the storybook character we all know and love in the hallucination/dream sequences. While her appearance barely changes between the two, her personality does shift: the "real" Alice is obviously meant to be real, while the fictional Alice captures all the same aspects shown in Ms. Liddell – mischief, naivety, and a dash of impertinence, all still given a lovable, almost sensual, coating – and manages them differently, so that we never get the "real" Alice and the "false" Alice confused. (A possible plot device, or just my silly imagination? You be the judge.)
Despite its historical inaccuracies, which run amok, this film should be REQUIRED as something all lovers of Lewis Carroll and the "Alice" tales should view at least once in their lifetime.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1972)
In a Word: Excellent.
This charming musical adaptation of Carroll's text may be my favorite "Alice" film yet. Regarding the music, it is beautiful and enchanting, and almost hypnotic in tone, drawing us in to a fantasy realm of wonder and chaos. The songs in here astound: alongside most of the poems from Carroll's text ("You Are Old, Father William" and "Tis' the Voice of the Lobster" do not appear, and a few poems, such as "Turtle Soup," are not done in song, but still appear), there are several songs simply taken from lines in the book ("The Duchess is Waiting," "Curiouser and Curiouser," "Off With Their Heads," etc.), and the songs that are original numbers ("The Pun Song" is my favorite) do not get in the way at all. There is a collective, musical whole.
The characters are also well defined: most, if not all, of the portrayals of the characters in this film can be found somewhere on my favorites list. Fiona Fullerton is my second favorite Alice (a scant percentage below Amelia Shankley/Coral Browne from "Dreamchild"), the only thing dragging her down from first place being her age: she is close to twice as old as both the Alice in the stories and the real Alice Liddell, both of whom she plays in this film. That being said, once she starts talking, and later singing (I understand her singing was dubbed, but I couldn't care less), this fact barely intrudes. She SOUNDS like Alice, she LOOKS like Alice, and she is, overall, nearly perfect as this childhood icon. Michael Crawford is equally fantastic as the White Rabbit...it's hard to believe he would later play Erik, the titular character of "Phantom of the Opera," when he starts talking and speaking. His performance as the Rabbit is just as great as this legendary role, and I'm surprised he doesn't get more credit for it. Sir Robert Helpmann, who disturbed generations of adults and children as the malevolent Child Catcher from "Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang," plays another top-hatted, beak-nosed character here: the Mad Hatter, and he is excellent at this role. Dudley Moore's Dormouse is almost unintelligible, but he adds a depth and likability to this often overlooked character, and Peter Sellers, a.k.a. Inspector Clouseau from "The Pink Panther," is wonderful as the March Hare. Flora Robson's Queen of Hearts seems to come straight out of this Carrollian's nightmares: she is the epitome of Carroll's tyrannical, foul villainess, and, having quite a bit of experience as queens and villains prior to this film, it's no surprise she plays literature's greatest evil queen so perfectly. Peter Bull and Patsy Rowlands as the Duchess and the Cook are brilliant, and Davy Kaye steals the Caucus-Race Limelight as the Mouse with the Long, Sad Tail.
Part of what helps these actors is the costumes: these outfits make them look almost unrecognizable, in many cases. This is both a good and a bad thing: it's good for us, as the viewers, because, unlike in many other all-star cast "Alice" films, the big-wig names and faces don't distract us, allowing us to see the characters: so, for example, instead of saying, "Oh, look! It's Spike Milligan as the Gryphon!" we say, "Oh, look! That's an interesting Gryphon! Wonder who plays him...Spike Milligan? Cool!" (It's a bad thing for the performers, because I imagine those costumes couldn't have been particularly comfortable.) And lest we forget them, the sets are magnificent: while faded, thanks to the number of bad quality DVD prints existing, they still manage to be colorful and magical. This Wonderland carries a "Willy Wonka" feel to it, creating a storybook quality in every scene.
My only real gripes are these: first, and already mentioned, is Fiona Fullerton's age. Second, the editing: this film is extremely accurate, and, yet, it isn't: most of Carroll's text and dialogue is kept, either via song or actual spoken dialogue, but two scenes are cut out: first is the infamous Giant Puppy scene, which rarely makes it into "Alice" films in the first place, and is, thus, somewhat excusable. But there is no reason to skip what might be one of the most key points of Carroll's story: "We're All Mad Here." While the Cheshire Cat does appear (played by Roy Kinnear), his conversation with Alice, involving this oh-so-famous line, is omitted. It was filmed, but never included in the final print. Why? It's arguably the most important point in the entire first book! It's also, in my opinion, one of the best parts, and is present in almost every other "straight-out" adaptation of the story I can think of, aside from the Czech film by Jan Svankmajer. This just pushes my buttons...particularly since this film includes Tweedledee and Tweedledum from "Through the Looking-Glass." Fred and Frank Cox are terrific as the Tweedles, but couldn't we have just stuck with the first book, especially given the "real world" premise? (Another problem, especially since I've read the original manuscript...but I digress.) Sigh...all that ranting aside, this is an excellent adaptation of the "Alice" tales. No real restoration of this film has been made yet, despite its being released on VHS and DVD several times. I sincerely hope such a restoration is done in the near future...this lovely film, despite its few flaws, deserves it!
Alice in Wonderland (1999)
Magical
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.
The Care Bears Adventure in Wonderland (1987)
Not Entirely Bad...But Far From the Best
Ever since I was three years old, I have loved the tales of "Alice" by Lewis Carroll. For several years, I have made it my sworn duty to "collect" all I can – photographs (from parks, stores, etc.), videos, games, books, etc. – related to these classics. I have never been a fan of the Care Bears: I never saw the first film, and the second film, which I saw at the age of six, bored me at most points, while the villain, Darkheart, managed to make the list as one of the few villains I've ever seen that managed to frighten me. Needless to say, I was not exactly enthusiastic when I decided to view this film...especially after reading a review on this film from "Time Out," which described it as "hemlock to Lewis Carroll fans." But, I felt it was, again, my duty to watch and "collect" it.
To say the film was a total disappointment would be untrue: the songs in this whimsical little musical are not bad, with only the opening number, "Rise and Shine," being obnoxious in the slightest. The moral(s) it teaches children are good ones to teach, although the execution of this teaching needs tweaking. I also greatly like Keith Hampshire's performance, as both the Mad Hatter and the Jabberwocky; the former's magical collection of headgear has the power to change the personalities of those who wear them. Needless to say, he needs to adopt a series of different voices, energies, and personas to make this idea work...he even does an impersonation of W.C. Fields! However, I still don't hold this "typically bland kiddy outing" (as Leonard Maltin, I believe, described it) in high regard: first of all, the designs of the characters are only slightly similar to Tenniel's timeless illustrations, and, at times, seem to be ripped off from Disney characters. (The Tweedles remind me of Maleficent's Goons, the Queen of Hearts is somewhat reminiscent of the Fairy Godmother from "Cinderella," and the Hatter looks suspiciously similar to Dopey of the Seven Dwarfs.) These colorful, "cuddly" designs are okay, I guess, and no toddler will dislike them, but it pains my eyes.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the "creative" license being taken with the characters: just the names of certain characters really tick me off. The Evil Wizard is a black bishop chess piece. Seriously, since this is based on "Alice," couldn't an Alice-styled name have been used to make things a bit more appropriate? Something like...oh, I don't know...Black Bishop?! They even change established names: Tweedledee and Tweedledum become TweedleDIM and Tweedledum. And worst of all: Stan. This is the name of the Jabberwocky. Are you serious? The most ferocious and frumnious beast in Wonderland is named "Stan?!" I understand that he's not as bad as he seems, but making the character a "good guy," and especially in the way this movie handles that treatment, is a cliché in itself, and giving him a name as plain as "Stan" makes my blood boil.
Aside from the names, there are the personalities: I find the Wizard to be a great disappointment as a villain, particularly when compared to Darkheart: there is only one vaguely frightening point in this whole film, and it lasts for a split second (fans of the Nostalgia Critic might know what I'm talking about). I understand this is a children's film, but, still, the Wizard is extremely stereotyped, both in appearance and personality, and his tune – while catchy – is far too silly to make him seem even faintly like a threat, and his plans and the way he executes them seem a bit...loose. His everlasting dependence on Dim and Dumb (who may be the most bungling of all the buffoons in the history of bumbling henchmen) also makes me wonder: just WHY does he keep these two around in the first place? We've all asked this about countless villains countless times, but in this case his use of them as goons is especially questionable, as he isn't all that smart himself, so there's no "smart boss – dumb thug(s)" relationship going on at all. It's more of a "dumb, dumber, and dumber-er" relationship.
Not only is the idea of the Cheshire Cat as a rap artist ridiculous, the design and animation of this character is really, very...strange, to say the least, and the husky, raspy voice of the character makes every scene he appears in seem really psychedelic and trippy. (Seriously: it's weirder than a Jefferson Airplane tune!)
The ending's confusing...I've already given away too many spoilers, so I won't go into too much detail. Maybe it doesn't confuse people when they (previous viewers of this film know who) switch places, but, too me, it really seems self-destructive towards the moral goal of this story, and also involves plot holes for me. (i.e. Exactly when did the switch occur?) However, the youngest of audiences probably won't notice this problem, so that gives it some leniency.
My overall decision: good for Care Bears fans, maybe, but far from great. Personally, if I want to get an "Alice" film for my kids, I'll just stick with Disney's 1951 cartoon. (It may be overrated, but you really can't go wrong there...)