This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I'm not sure I completely buy Jonathan Miller's account of the book, but his interpretation (as he explains it on the commentary track) is pretty wonderful on balance. It's funny, surprising, beautiful and mostly about the nature of dreams. The cast, for fans of British movies and TV of the period, may have never been equaled. There's one from "Help", there's one from "A Hard Day's Night", there's the midget from "The Prisoner!" Wonderful. The only real question is "Where's Dudley Moore?" At any rate, I just found out about this movie, it's only been out on DVD for a year or two but it's one I think I will always treasure.

Just the perfect thing for a warm, woozy, Sunday afternoon. This is Carroll's Alice done to perfection; and, from beginning to end, I was enthralled. Anne-Marie M.'s playing of Alice is spot on: She's a terrible beauty and Sphinx if ever there was one, but instead of posing riddles, she disdains answering them and explores Wonderland as if it was a cipher and she's another encrypting algorithm. Miller's approach to conveying Alice's experiences in Wonderland are refreshing, relieving, when compared to so many "kiddy" pantomime versions and effects-heavy versions. The camera magic is reminiscent of Rivette's nod to Carroll, CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING..., and the conclusion, Alice's waking, is startling and rupturing, a bit like the ending of Assayas' IRMA VEP to this viewer. I was reminded, too, of Peake's GORMENGHAST crossed with De Broca's KING OF HEARTS what with Alice exploring a Victorian estate gone barking mad, bad, and dangerous to know ascending to the heights of delirium with Peter Cook's Hatter entering a courtroom as of swinging on a clock's pendulum.This is a moving picture Alice to watch again and again.

I recently bought this DVD, and finally had a chance to sit down with it - and also with the director's commentary. You know you're in trouble when they get the film's director to do a commentary; they're more often than not extremely biased toward their 'baby' - and Mr. Miller is no exception. Okay, the 1972 version is not perfect, but I could watch it again and again - as opposed to this ambitious misfire. Miller defends his postmodern interpretation with something like, 'Well, Alice in Wonderland is basically melancholy, and that's why Alice is sullen, etc.'. That's a pretty general statement about this work of fiction, isn't it? It's a lot of things, Mr. Miller. It's absurd, humorous, ironic, ridiculous - not just melancholy. The scene at the Mad Hatter's tea party nearly put me to sleep. The scene from the 1972 version is far more dynamic and entertaining. The problem with champions of this film is that they mistake form and style as heightened content. Some filmmakers understand this relationship and make it work better, filmmakers like Antonioni. This director is just trying to be different for it's own sake. Sorry, I give this a 6 only because of the great talent he assembled.

As Alicja (1982) later did, this film opts not to have its actors in animal costumes. They do wear costumes, though, the queen dresses like one, the mad hatter and so on.The cinematography is very nice, a deep-focus black and white, like Citizen Kane.One of the odder things about it is how disengaged Alice seems. I would not blame this on the young actress (and whatever happened to her, by the way?), but rather her direction. She is usually expressionless. She is in scenes, but often set apart, either by her being shown in the foreground, and the rest well behind her. Sometimes she's in a scene, but the camera puts her in completely separate shots than everyone else. Sometimes, she is not only apart from others, but behind a window, and looking away from the window. And when she is in scenes with other characters, again she is often looking away from them. Most of her dialog is done in voice-over. Sometimes when she has a conversation, she is speaking in voice- over while the other character actually speaks.Also odd is how characters will be talking, then simply stop for a while and the camera lingers on them. Eventually they will start to talk again, but the silences feel uncomfortable, even though the characters don't seem to find them so.These odd factors do lend the movie a sort of dream quality, or perhaps an opium dream quality.