jonathanruano Sometimes a movie's triumphs work against it. The triumph in this remake of "Alice in Wonderland" is its magical opening sequence, where we see Victorian haughtiness and manners, the wonders of the imagination, and perhaps even the suggestion of Dodgson's repressed sexual interest in the young Alice Liddel all manifest themselves in less than ten minutes. The expectation created in these wonderfully crafted scenes, aided by John Barry's music score, is that we shall see something truly magical once Alice arrives in Wonderland. Then after arriving in Wonderland, we soon realize that every scene is going to be pretty much like the last one: a bunch of actors dressed up in costumes and singing forgettable songs. The bright colours, the sense of wonder and magic, and witty dialogue -- which existed in the memorable, albeit flawed, Disney version -- have been completely drained from this picture. This film does little for the imagination and fails even more miserably as entertainment.

johnstonjames for all the Lewis Carroll purist who always yowl about how "unfilmable" the 'Alice' books are, this is one of those faithful adaptations that always reminds me of how vacuous that argument always is. yowl all you like you never satisfied puriste. you'll obviously never be satisfied. i grew up on the complete works of Carroll, Snarks and all, and i am more than satisfied with the numerous film and television adaptations that are out there. as a matter of facto, i can't imagine a single literary work that has been as inspiring to the imagination of so many as this book has.this wonderfully faithful, elegant and opulent 1972 film version is one of the most direct and literal adaptations along with the superb Jonny Miller BBC television film and the excellent KCET version with Kate and Dick Burton. along with the other two mentioned this version is so faithful that you really wonder what a so-called "more faithful" version would be like. most of the production design here is based on John Tenniel's famous original illustrations and there is very little dialogue that diverts from the original text. i've found in the past that people who yowl about a better version of 'Alice' are usually talking about some kind of over-produced mega production and have usually not given any of the existing adaptations any thought. the shallow quest for a mega production is the very thing that led everything to the flat and lackluster Tim Burton fiasco in 2011. i sort of liked Tim Burton's mega production, but it was my least favorite of the 'Alice' films and was definitely the least inspired and most brainless. ALL the other films are much better, including a TV animated one by Hanna-Barbera.this 1972 version is widely regarded as the most lavish and faithful adaptation and was also a BAFTA award winner for cinematography (2001's Geoffrey Unsworth) and costume design. it also features a a modest and delightfully tuneful score by 007 composer John Barry. the music score also faithfully brings much of Carroll's poems to music.the only problem i ever have with this version is Michael Jayston playing a virile, potent and somewhat sexy Reverend Dodgson. i mean COME ON! we're talking about the Reverend Dodgson here and not some matinée, cinema heart throb. i've read about and seen pictures of the repressed and uptight Reverend. he twern't no heart throb. he was a ugly little thang. Michael Jayston's portrayal is hardly realistic.aside from that quibble. i love this adaptation dearly. always have since i first saw it as a child in 1972.as for the purist who yowl all the time, keep on yowling like the Duchess's baby, but all that infantile yowling had better not lead to another boring fiasco like the Tim Burton/ Linda Woolverdumb mess up.

Kieran Wright First of all, let me say that, in my opinion, the music is totally wrong for the film. It sounds like it's straight out of a love scene from of a James Bond film, and with good reason - it was actually composed by John Barry, famous for the JB theme. The acting is certainly up to adequate standards, and the cast is as sterling as they come. In order for this to take on 'classic' status, I would recommend that it be re-edited with an alternative soundtrack. It's all too easy to lose one's concentration watching this film, although admittedly the subject matter is dreamy. Surely this ripe for a remake, perhaps with Tim Burton at the helm?

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!