Alice in Wonderland (1999)

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.

When you fall down a very deep hole like Alice did, hitting your head on the way down, it is almost certain you'll end up with a sore head and more than likely a certain amount of concussion. In her concussed state Alice begins to experience wild imaginings. At least that is how I explain her strange behaviour.Lewis Carroll seems to have a fixation about body size with Alice only too ready to experiment drinking from unmarked bottles on more than one occasion. When the world becomes all out of proportion, the story takes on a dream-like quality and when Alice cries the whole floor is awash with tears. It's strange how we accept all the nonsense that makes up our dreams. Alice accepts all these weird happenings too.Alice (Tina Majorino) is not the sweet little blond that one might expect in this fantastic tale, but a determined brunette ready and willing to argue a point or save someone in distress. She even fronts up to the screeching Queen of Hearts who seems to be determined that everyone should lose their head.I feel that some of the scenes were too long. I also find some of the scenes not very funny. The knight falling repeatedly from his horse does not send one off into fits of laughter. I also find Tweedledum and Tweedledee a bit of a bore. On the other hand I think that Whoopi Goldberg steals the show as the grinning Cheshire cat. I just cannot forget that face.Some of the sets are top class. My favourite is the Court of Law where the whole building is built of playing cards. And like any house of cards collapses in the end.Alice's imagination runs riot when she sees flamingos being used as croquet mallets. but then, as I said, anything goes in a dream.The story is nicely rounded off when in the end we see the family and friends and relatives and household staff gathered together to hear Alice sing a little song. There is something mischievous about this scene as we recognize the all too familiar faces of Alice's subterranean Wonderland.

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.

To the person who compared this production to the Disney animation and was disappointed: you only have yourself to blame. I imagine that you took great joy waiting in endless lines for the spinning tea cup and "Small World" rides at Disneyworldland.This was an amazing film with an amazing cast that didn't cater to John or Jane Popcorn and their 2.5 children.If you have the attention span of a gnat you'll hate this movie. If you think that Lewis Carroll is the guy in accounting, you'll hate this movie.If, on the other hand, you enjoy cinema and want to give your kids a respite from saccharine shows, you'll enjoy this treat.