Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Wonderfully offbeat film!

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

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.

I remember seeing this version of Alice in Wonderland as quite a young child (around six) and thought that it was fantastic. Having passed the 20 mark, I decided to look at it again, and I regret doing so. Not that it tarnished any sentimental childhood memories; I honestly felt that I wasted my time. Aside from perhaps some cheap direct-to-video animated versions, this probably ranks as the worst adaptation of "Alice in Wonderland" I have ever seen. It comes across like some blind attempt at creating a latter-day "Wizard of Oz" or "Mary Poppins", and it completely fails.It at least annoys me that they didn't get a British Alice, but some cutesy American girl. Even Walt Disney, king of Americanisation, understood that Alice should be portrayed by a British actress. A contrived attempt at depicting Alice's nationality comes from a single framed picture of Queen Victoria hanging up on the wall in her house at the beginning.In any case, the story progresses in the traditional manner: a girl named Alice follows a white rabbit down a mysterious hole and into a strange fantasyland home to the Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts and other funnies. "Through the Looking Glass" is also featured, linked to the Wonderland sections by an encounter with the Jabberwock. With practically all the characters invented by Carroll appearing, many of them often ignored by other filmmakers, you might be mistaken for thinking that, despite an American Alice, this adaptation is pretty faithful. This is hardly the case, however, as the tone of the original is alarmingly distorted.Anybody who is familiar with Lewis Carroll's original books will remember "Alice in Wonderland" being anarchic, rarely sentimental in the traditional sense and above all means not didactic. Equally, the best adaptations, from the 1966 BBC film to theDisney classic, don't necessarily follow the original narrative completely; they instead re-interpret the material but stay true to the overall tone to achieve their own filmic equivalent. This version of "Alice in Wonderland", however, comes across more as a wannabe "Wizard of Oz" intent, and tones down the original's anarchy into a moralising story about Alice growing up so that she can have tea with the grown-ups. The characters, many of them sadly played by a good number of normally talented actors and actresses, will suddenly jump from acting somewhat akin to the grotesque verse-reciting loonies of Carroll into behaving like creations bent on teaching how Alice can mature. Moreover, they usually do so through horrible songs. The use of the Jabberwock as a personification of Alice's childhood fears is equally as stupid, as is the constant use of artificial thrill moments and cheesy science-fiction sound effects. In fact, the production values on the whole are pretty dire. The sets seem lifeless and go overboard on fake plants. Most of the costumes look like they were hired from a fancy-dress shop, and, some of them look like they were made by six-year olds. For example, the Jabberwock looks like he's made of latex, and the oysters from "The Walrus and the Carpenter" look like people who got stuck in beach party props.I understand that there are thousands of Americans out there who adore this version on the grounds of nostalgia, and by no means am I trying to wreck their childhood memories by trashing this film. However, as far as everyone else is concerned, I'd say that it's best worth avoiding. From every point of view, it's well and truly a bad, tacky, dated piece of fluff.

Since the new beefed-up 3D Hollywood spectacle came out I had to go back and REMIND myself and others about this excellent made-for-TV version from 1985!This version was a charming yet extravagant 4-hour tale told in 2 parts, 2-hr prime-time slots. The 1980s 'Alice' featured the ENTIRE Alice storyline - 'Wonderland' and 'Through the Looking Glass'(with the Jabberwocky). I emphasize this point because the 'alice' saga told in it's entirety is, as far as I'm concerned, the only way to tell the story. Far more enjoyable and entertaining! The cast consisted of a veritable Whos-Who of 80's actors, including jeff and beau Bridges and Sammy Davis Jr. (!). As far as TV movies go, the production was very good. The ensemble cast, the costumes, the landscaping, everyone involved does an excellent job bringing to life EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER from Lewis Carrol's all time classic. IMO, the 80s version simply has more heart, more charm, whimsy, wit, and danger that the new-er version simply lacks. You could spend $15 for all the bloated CGI and 3D FX and over-the -top acting from Johnny Depp -OR- you can grab this from Netflix or Redbox (?) and introduce the young ones (and reacquaint yourself) to this superbly delightful, nostalgic treat! :-)

There were some standout performances here, but mostly it was a showcase for a lot of washed-up old stars to try to restart their careers. Jean Svankmajer's version has the proper sense of confusion, fear, and also fun. I know most people think of Alice in Wonderland as a totally cheery Disney thing, but the books are not necessarily so. Not that I wasn't afraid... seeing Carol Channing always creeps me out. I still can't figure out why some really fine performers were in this. Robert Morley? Imogene Coca? Sid Caesar? They must have been very broke, I guess.Anyway, I'd take many other versions over this one. I'm interested to see what the Tim Burton version will be like.