User reviews

There have been many adaptations of Lewis carol's work. However, I believe this version is the most enjoyable of all. Both children and adults will find this film entertaining. This version has a unique opening/closing envelope. With the ending showing that her dream had actually changed Alice's persona: "from now on I'll be the me I never knew." Unlike Irwin Allen's 1985 version (which amalgamated "Wonderland" and "Looking Glass" together) or the special-effects over-ridden 1999 version, this film takes the best of the Wonderland story and displays it with a richness that is pleasant and memorable. The addition of John Barry's (better known for his score's to the early James Bond films) music only adds to the sense of wonder that we share with Alice in her adventure. The music indeed elevates this version to the status of art in the truest sense rather than just another movie. Heck, it was better than the one Disney came out with -- that should say a lot.

Interesting fact, this film features Micheal Crawford as the WHITE RABBIT. Better known for his roles, Frank Spencer in "Some Mothers do Ave Em" and the Phantom in the stage production of Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera." A curious footnote on his carrier.

For those who love the Lewis Carroll book, this film version is one to see. Of the many film adaptations of this classic, this 1972 production stays the most faithful to the book. Events happen in the same way, in the same order, and much of the dialog is taken from the book, verbatim. And this really works, as writer Lewis Carroll had a unique way of playing with, and twisting the English language in delightful ways. Fiona Fullerton portrays well, a different kind of Alice here. This Alice is well into her teens, a fact which I thought would sabotage the production; The Alice from Carroll's book was a young child, around 7 or 8 years old. But the gorgeous Fiona Fullerton plays the part with a perfect measure of wonder and innocence, instead of just being an older person foolishly trying to act like a small child. The film has a haunting, dreamlike quality, a certain surreal atmosphere aided by composer John Barry's pretty background score, which is sad and wistful, and dramatic. There are musical sequences in this film, some work better than others to be sure, as this is far from a perfect film. But the songs seem to get better as the film goes along. The thing that really impressed me is the art design, and costume design. The film makers brilliantly designed much of the costumes and landscapes based on those wonderful lithographs that have always accompanied the book. As children, we tend to look to the illustrations to help us get a better idea of how things and people look as we read along. It is quite amazing to see such images come to life, after existing in the imagination for so long. Not all costumes work, as again, this is an uneven production. However certain characters, the King and Queen of hearts, and the Duchess, the cook, the Frog Footman, and of course, Alice herself, dressed in the gorgeous blue dress with white apron;amazing. For instance, watch the scenes with the living cards in the rose garden, and tell me that wasn't how you pictured it while reading the book all those years ago. It is apparent here that the film makers cared a great deal about the material. Perhaps a few scenes fall a little flat, but the good outweighs the bad here, most definitely. Standout scenes, besides the croquet game in the garden, the crazy dance with Alice and the Griffith and the Tortoise, and Peter Seller's funny turn as the March Hare, whose face was mostly covered by his costume, forcing him to utilize his bulging eyes in a sometime s hilarious fashion. Dudley Moore appeared to be drunk as the sleepy dormouse, which I found hilarious as well. The scene where Alice wanders through the dark forest and comes across the bizarre Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum is strange, even a bit scary, especially when the raven comes and the forest turns still darker. Even though Tweedle Dee And Tweedle Dumm are actually from "Through the Looking Glass", this scene fits well into this tale, and is one of the most effective sequences of them all. But my favorite scene has to be where Alice enters the house of the Duchess, where she is bouncing a baby savagely on her knee while the furious cook makes her pepper soup, stopping only to hurl dishes at everyone around her. Absolutely hysterical! Also worthy of mention is the special effects found here. Alice must continually change size, and this looks amazingly real, especially considering that this was made in 1972, long before CGI effects. The unfortunate thing with this title is that there has yet to be an official DVD release. The only available editions on DVD are of extremely bad quality. I am grateful to have any version of this film, but the DVD features colors that are so washed out that at times, the film seems to be black & white. This is a shame, as color is so important here, with sets that are real eye candy. For an idea of what the film looks like, imagine the "Wizard of Oz". The look of "Alice" is very similar to that one. I imagine a restored version with the vibrant colors brought back would be absolutely eye popping to behold. This must have a cult following, and I believe a proper DVD release would be appreciated by many. Recommended for fans of strange cinema!

I am one of those who loves the book, it is timeless and nostalgic. Out of all the film versions, the Disney film is my personal favourite of them all, because it is colourful and I loved watching it as a child. This 1972 film is an interesting if not quite as magical musical take on the classic, while uneven in pace and a little too short, and having one or two tacky costumes(ie. Doormouse) it is well worth seeing. It is also a shame that when it is shown on television, the adverts make the film lose its narrative flow and there are times when the quality of the picture is somewhat grainy. There is much to enjoy though. The sets are wondrous and very colourful, the cinematography is lovely and the film is fairly faithful to the book. The script has its amusing moments, and the songs and score are sweet and memorable. As Alice, Fiona Fullerton does a credible job making a character who could have easily been bland quite innocent and sings tunefully. Though I do think she is overshadowed by her co-stars, Michael Horden's melancholic Mock Turtle, Peter Sellers's hilarious March Hare, Robert Helpmann's(who was absolutely terrifying in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) eccentric Mad Hatter, Ralph Richardson's knowing Caterpillar, Spike Milligan's fun Gryphon, Flora Robson's shrill Queen of Hearts and Michael Crawford's interesting White Rabbit are the definite highlights. In terms of favourite scenes, definitely the tea party sequence, it was fun. Overall, flawed yet interesting. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This is perhaps the most faithful version of Alice in Wonderland. The dialogue is practically verbatim and the visuals are made to resemble the original illustrations drawn by John Tenniel. Composer John Barry provides the story with a collection of beautifully enchanting songs, many of which are straight out of the book.

The cast is more like a convention of every popular British performer known at that time, including a pre-Phantom Michael Crawford as the White Rabbit, Peter Sellers as a hilariously insane March Hare, Dudley Moore as the Dormouse, Robert Helpmann as the Mad Hatter (aka the Child Catcher for moviegoers, aka Royal Ballet for ballet-goers), and humorist Spike Milligan as the Gryphon. Fiona Fullerton plays a delightfully impressionable Alice, despite the fact that she is much older than the Alice of the book.

This movie is perfect for children and adults who want to see a literal translation of the book, made back in the days when moviemakers truly cared about entertaining audiences (and it's fun to wonder how they made Alice grow and shrink when they didn't have the aid of computer effects)!

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!

While this adaptation has a plethora of talent in front of and behind the camera, including impressive sets, costumes, make-up and dazzling special effects, it has two main flaws.

First is William Sterling's hesitant direction, not knowing when to pick up the pace or cut a number that's not working; overall, there's a sense of lag and lethargy. His credits show that this was his last theatrical release (though this fate should have befallen any number of directors over the years).

Second, is the fact that this is a musical. Now, you might expect that with John (Dances With Wolves, Body Heat, James Bond) Barry handling the tunes, that there would be some outstanding music and you'd be right (the arrangement of "The Me I Never Knew" alone is powerful enough to demand that this music be re-released on CD!). The "musical" works best when Barry is allowed to put Carroll's words to music. It falters, however, as does too many minutes of the film, when he's forced to put music to long-time collaborator, Don Black's lyrics. Black is no novice, having won an Oscar for his lyrics to Barry's Born Free, but these songs are tack-ons, fillers; they don't work and Barry/Black have a thankless task trying to make them do so (it would be like writing a musical to Shakespeare and throwing out The Bard's lyrics).

Fiona Fullerton is a handsome Alice, and while her singing isn't professional, it has an endearing warmth. Her voice improved as she became a pretty and capable British stage actress, excelling in, yes, musicals.

Barry/Black went to better success with the UK stage hit, Billy.

This is indeed an old retelling of a classic story and I have to admit, it pretty well captures Lewis Carroll's "vision" of Wonderland and the deranged characters within it. The results though, were anything, but enjoyable.

I watched the DVD of this flick tonight for nostalgia's sake, remembering how it came on sometimes during the Christmas Season when I was a little kid. I recall getting engrossed in the visually stunning angle of it back then, but at the same time, was scared of those furry Wonderland characters featured in it.

I definitely felt those old uncomfortable vibes tonight while watching it as an adult. There's never been anything very appealing about this Wonderland and it clearly shows in this film. It always seemed like a warped and deranged place to me.

Those characters seem like they're either high on LSD or 'magic mushrooms'. They also don't make any sense most of the time. It does indeed play out like a dream though with different places appearing and disappearing, sizes growing from small to large and nonsensical things happening, like that Mad Hatter's tea party. Dreams can indeed bring up the most deranged visuals imaginable and this story perfectly captures that.

The girl who played Alice is perfectly cast and gives a great performance. She's a great singer too and brings a sugary sweetness to it all, but the eerie atmosphere of Wonderland overshadows all that, like she was an angel in an insane asylum.

This is indeed a well made movie with stunning special effects for it's time and it moves at such a rapid rate, that there's no time to be bored. The imaginative sets and vast array of costumes are also an added bonus. It can be a visual feast to the eyes at times.

I admit I would've enjoyed this classic flick a lot more as a child and later as an adult if only the characters in Wonderland weren't so unappealing and seemingly in need of psychiatric help. It's always seemed that way to me, they were also really scary at times, like they came from "The Island of Dr. Moreau".

This "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" has a lighter treatment than others, including the 1951 Disney cartoon. The aim seems to have been whimsy, including adding a bit of visual nonsense to the verbal sort of Lewis Carroll's Alice books (this one mostly follows selections from the first one, but borrows Tweedledee and Tweedledum from the sequel). Thus, there's some added dancing and frolicking about, and Alice seems to be enjoying herself more than she usually does on screen. Time-lapse still photography is employed at one point for the mad tea party. Unfortunately, songs are added, too, as they are in other film adaptations, including Disney's, with the expected discontinuity between Carroll's wit and the filmmakers' lack thereof. At best, the singing adheres closely to the written word and, at worst, brings the plot to a halt.

Ever since Cary Grant covered himself entirely in the costume of the Mock Turtle in 1933, Alice films have often been interesting for spotting movie stars in odd roles. This one has Peter Sellers, who was also in the 1966 BBC version, as the mad March Hare. Dudley Moore joins him as the sleepy Dormouse. This version also frames the main adventure as told by Charles Dodgson to Alice Liddell and her sisters. It's a shortened variation comparable to the framing narrative in the 1949 adaptation. Likewise, it's also doubly framed as Alice's dream, as per the books. Overall, this is hardly anything remarkable in the line of Alice films, is sometimes stagy and stodgy, but adheres relatively well to the source text and makes a few amusing adjustments.

Back in 1972, special effects were far less sophisticated than we've come to expect today. Many of the latex appliances and makeup we take for granted today weren't developed yet and computer technology, like CGI, simply wasn't possible. So, this older version had to rely on older techniques...such as forced perspective, huge sets and animal costumes which today look rather quaint. My feeling is that older viewers might enjoy this more because of this and young folks might just laugh at the effects.

The story is pretty close to the source material...a big plus for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". So, purists who want Lewis Carroll's story brought to life should be happy...even if it is a musical and includes a few songs. I wasn't thrilled with the songs, but they weren't bad...I just prefer no songs. Overall, a pretty good version of the classic tale and worth seeing so you can catch glimpses of the likes of Ralph Richardson and Peter Sellers underneath all that makeup.

Was this movie really planned out in advance? Or did they just put some of the biggest names of British cinema in front of a movie camera and tell them they had a fortnight to come up with something to amuse the kids?

"Alice's Adventures In Wonderland" is a slapdash mishmosh based on one of the most popular children's classics. The result is something Lewis Carroll may have found curiouser and curiouser, a musical without tunes, a dancing show without apparent choreography, a comedy without laughs, and a high-blown fantasy where sets and costumes seem plucked from a community-theater pantomime.

Two of the biggest stars involved were working behind the camera, and apparently with different scripts. Legendary cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth won a British Oscar for this, though his gauzy lenswork fails to disguise the gimcrack artificiality of some remarkably cheap sets. John Barry was a great movie composer here composing his only movie musical, so why are his songs so non-distinctive and at odds in their fussy seriousness with everything else this film is about?

Everything about this film is tonally off, beginning with a sequence showing young Alice (Fiona Fullerton) being rowed by a leering Carroll and his effete friend (Hywel Bennett is the first-billed cast member despite just being on screen for less than two minutes and never saying a line). Freudian, sexual undertones seem in play, but then suddenly Alice is chasing Michael Crawford in a giant bunny costume while offering dainty narration for the slower viewers.

"Goodness, I'm falling! Wh- What's going to happen to me now?"

Like it or not, Fullerton carries on like this for the rest of the picture, cueing her audience for their expected reactions. When greeted by a bunch of actors bouncing around in giant costumes, which happens every five minutes or so, she covers her mouth and giggles. When she objects to having her head ordered cut off by the Queen of Hearts (Flora Robson), she folds her arms and looks mad. All this childishness seems rather odd given Fullerton's old enough to practically bust out of her crinolines, which at least gives the Daddies in the audience something to root for.

My main reason for watching this film was to see Peter Sellers working through the middle of his early-1970s dry period. The film makes decent use of him as the March Hare, mingling with Alice, the Mad Hatter (Robert Helpmann), and the Dormouse (Dudley Moore) in the film's one well-sustained sequence. Sellers seems to have fun playing his part with eye-rolling excess.

"Where was the Magna Carta signed?" he asks Alice.

I don't know, she answers.

"At the bottom!"

Logic is kind of by-the-by with the Alice books by design, but you need some of it to make a movie, even one set in Wonderland. Sequences come and go too quickly, with no apparent stopping point. The movie seems to have been edited with garden shears.

Writer-director William Sterling only directed for cinema this one time, and the production seems to have gotten away from him somewhere close to its inception. How does one cast a film with so many names (Ralph Richardson, Michael Hordern, Peter Bull, and Dennis Price are also on hand), then cover their faces and/or have them romp around in dance productions so strenuous they require doubles?

To make a film of this material, you need a strong hand somewhere near the center of things, not just talent around the edges. "Alice's Adventures" is not even that interesting as a flop.

A book which details the strange adventures of a young girl in a surreal dreamworld is perhaps not a natural subject for a film, but Lewis Carroll's classic has been filmed many times. Few if any, however, of those filmed versions have themselves achieved classic status. The one exception is possibly Disney's cartoon version; this live-action British version from the early 1970s is less well known but is, I think, superior.

Unlike the Disney version, this film stays faithful to Lewis Carroll's original text, except in one respect. Carroll probably envisaged Alice as a little girl (although her exact age is not given in the book, and Tenniel's famous illustrations show a strange child-woman with a twenty-year-old head on ten-year-old shoulders). In this film, however, Alice is not a child but a beautiful teenager on the verge of womanhood. Although purists may not approve of this change, in my view it actually strengthens the film, in two ways. The first is that Fiona Fullerton makes an enchanting Alice and brings a wonderful sense of freshness and innocence to the role. Paradoxically, she seems more child-like than would many child-actors, whose stock-in-trade is often a brash knowingness and the ability to seem old beyond their years.

The second reason why the film works better with an older Alice is that it attempts to explore the psychological sub-texts of the original novel in a way that the Disney version, for example, did not. The story has a deeper significance than that of merely an entertaining children's story. Alice's bizarre adventures are symbolic of the process of discovery of oneself and of the wider world which constitutes growing up. No doubt amateur Freudians could have great fun interpreting the various incidents, but it is not my purpose here to comment on these interpretations. It is enough to say that Alice must, as must we all, try to make sense of a world which often seems strange and bewildering. Her world is simply a bit stranger than everyone else's is. Given that adolescence is for many of us a difficult, disorientating period, an Alice who is on the border between childhood and adulthood seems entirely appropriate. The title of the film's best-known song, `The Me I Never Knew', strengthens the idea that the book is about the attainment of self-knowledge.

Miss Fullerton is ably assisted by a splendid supporting cast, including some of the best-known British comedians of the period (Peter Sellers, Dudley Moore, Michael Crawford, Spike Milligan, Roy Kinnear) and some actors better known for more serious roles (Ralph Richardson, Michael Hordern). Perhaps the cost of employing so many well-known names emptied the budget, as the sets look rather cheap and crudely made. That, however, is not a serious criticism; indeed, one could even say that the unreal-looking sets contribute to the strange, dreamlike feel of this film. In a surrealist film, realism is not a virtue. 8/10.

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.

When I saw this film back in '72 I was impressed with the high production values, cast, characterizations, and special effects. Imagine my excitement and disappointment when several companies (notably one calling itself the Platinum Disc Corporation) put out editions which were simply a dupes from an old 3/4 inch tape: A battered broadcast print version which used to circulate among the independent television market many years back.

The icing on the cake is a missing segment during the tea party sequence (approximately 20+ frames were snipped, most likely because of a tear in a badly handled print). In addition the film was originally shot in widescreen (2.35:1 ratio), but the tape, and subsequently the DVD, is pan-and-scan. These factors are coupled with a grainy image and scratchy sound track makes watching this otherwise fine children's film a real chore.

The upside is that another company, Force Video, has recently released a remastered widescreen version of this family favorite. Regrettably, at the time of this writing, I could only find a region free version in Australia, but hopefully a world wide reissue will not be long in the offing. But, as with every upside there's always a downside. And regrettably Force Video's version is no different, because where the image and soundtrack of have been restored to their original glory, the video transfer is little lacking. Not much, but it's there. And even though the disk itself is region free, the information is formatted for PAL-CAM video. Which means you'll be able to watch it outside of Australia (and the U.K.), but only on a high end multimedia display or computer monitor, both of which'll show some of the transfers shortcomings (the image is somewhat jagged around the edges, and the sound fades in and out on the left channel). But even with those limitations, it is by far the absolute best release of this film to date.

Versions to avoid;

1) Platinum Disc Corporation; this fly by night firm cranks out discount DVDs for the sole purpose of grabbing the dollars of the uninformed. Before seeing any DVD at a price that looks too good to be true it's because it's either a pirate or a Platinum Disc issue. And true to form their edition of Shaftel's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" is no different. It's merely a dupe to DVD from the old broadcast print. Avoid this one at all costs.

2) Screen Media Films; it's pretty much the same print as Platinum's, but there's a little more footage prior to the film's proper beginning, showing Republic Picture's "Eagle" footage and Gold Key intro. Truth be told this film is about 1% cleaner than Platinum's. It's barely noticeable, but if you're familiar with how films are made, and give both versions a careful screening, you can see where some frames are slightly cleaner than the poor release. In the end it's a wash as both versions are just as bad as the other, though the DVD transfer is marginally better (I guess the company felt that gave them license to say their version was "remastere"; even though it isn't). Avoid this one also.

Screen Media seems to have gone to some effort to get a better authoring of this film (verse it competition), but the film itself still isn't as sharp as it should be. In addition, even though the sound track has been cleaned some, the score still wavers, meaning the track itself has suffered damage (probably during the initial telecine transfer some 30 years ago). Though, for what it's worth, you don't really notice it when the actors are speaking, just when John Barry's hauntingly beautiful score is playing. On the other hand Force Video's version has crisp audio, even though there's still the left channel anomaly I mentioned earlier.

The film itself, staring the then very young and very pretty Fiona Fullerton, tells Lewis Carroll's story, and does so in a very compelling way by immersing the viewer in a surreal world. Showing the audience a world full of wonder from a child's perspective. Fullerton herself, as talented as she is, strikes me as being a bit old for the part. Checking her data shows that she was 16 years old at the time of release, which means she was either 14 or 15 during principle photography. For myself that still seems a bit old for an actress attempting to portray a little girl, but Fullerton's acting ability sells the role to the audience. Combined with a very talented supporting cast the characters are brought to life in a delightful rendition of Carroll's tales. Shot in Todd-AO 35 the film image has a kind of rustic feel to it that adds to the mystery of the world Fullerton's character must discover.

In short, the film itself is very much worth viewing, but if you come across a version that's priced under ten dollars American, then do yourself a favor and check the back of the DVD case. If it isn't presented in widescreen don't waste your time. Wait to find a better version so you can enjoy it with your family :-)

This version follows the classic story faithfully, if a bit unimaginatively. As the original is itself somewhat loose structurally, it makes any film version inevitably seem rambling. I know of no cinematic version of Alice in Wonderland that completely successfully overcomes this. This 1972 is usual in that respect. The set design is perhaps too closely modelled on the original Alice drawings, and as such, it is colourful and lavish although it looks rather dated and stagy by modern standards. One major drawback (which seems consistent with all the other Alice films) is that the songs are completely forgettable. A very youthful Fiona Fullerton is convincing as Alice, and a fun aspect of the film is to guess the identities of the heavily made-up cast of well-known actors, some of whom are more easily guessable than others.

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?

The trouble with adapting Alice's Adventures in Wonderland for the screen is, it's difficult to capture what people like about the book in a film. Even if you virtually use the book as your script, use the dialogue verbatim, you still are likely to miss the fun of it. What is great on the printed page may just be tedious, confusing, or too sensory overloadish in a movie. Look at the Disney version, which was fun but overwhelming, and lacked fidelity to the source material, or the Tim Burton version, which had to create an action-packed climax to make the material work. Look at this version, which is true to the book, but lacks much of its amusing qualities.

Of the adaptations I've seen, this one is probably closest to the books-the script is anyway. But as I said, it somewhat soured in execution because the filmmaker was apparently trying so hard to remain true to the book that they forgot to add the necessary spontaneity to make the movie more interesting to watch. The songs are also somewhat forgettable, for the most part.

That said, the actors look like they're having a good time, and Fullerton perfectly captures the Alice of the stories. Peter Sellers and Dudley Moore in particular look like they're having the time of their lives as the March Hare and Dormouse, respectively, and this is perhaps what the film has going for it the most. Stuntcasting of this variety works best when the famous actors are enjoying themselves, and they are clearly doing so here, which makes more interesting an otherwise bland interpretation.

Fans of the famous actors should see this, and it's good for fans of the book who want to see the story treated faithfully. But it isn't the version I'd show people completely new to the story.

1st watched 2/10/2010 - 4 out of 10(Dir-William Sterling): Fair musical adaptation of Lewis Carroll's book about the young girl mentioned in the title and her adventures. This version is a British live production with a few notable British comedians covered in makeup and costumes so you hardly recognize them(especially Dudley Moore but also including Peter Sellers). There a few songs mostly sung by the lead played by Fiona Fullerton and done well for the most part. The downfall of this version, in my opinion, is the amateurish sets and the costumes are similar to a Saturday morning kids show. The songs are fine but nothing very memorable and we really don't get a feeling that Alice has learned anything when it's all over(I guess I'm not sure if this was the author's intention but we see this in the Disney version). Anyway, the movie just doesn't keep us that interested and it's just OK viewing. It would be interesting to read the book now that I've seen a couple versions filmed to see what was included or dumped in each one. This version is viewable but not much else as I've already said, but I was glad I watched it.

First of all, there IS least 1 widescreen DVD of this film available from Region 1. It's from MoviesUnlimited.com, which as of Xmas 2013 had it on sale for less than $10, and if you log on to the website at the right time, you may get a $5 coupon. The film doesn't look great because it is public domain, but the image is still better than the appalling Pan and Scan versions I've seen. As for the film itself, there are far worse versions of Alice. Some of the FX still impress (Alice shrinking) and Robert Helpmann and Flora Robson look exactly like Tenniel's Mad Hatter and Queen of Hearts. Overall, a mixed bag, but worth seeing for Alice buffs.

This is produced in a good scale.However the musical numbers are mediocre and there are far too many of them.There is also the constant irritation of trying to work out who is behind the makeup.What is the point of employing star names and making them unrecognisable.

i first saw this version of carroll's tale as a child on thanksgiving day, and i did not forget how much i enjoyed it. i caught it years later as a teenager on cable, taped it, and did not grow tired of watching it repeatedly. i think that this movie adaption is the best and most faithful to the book that i have seen. the pace is brisk, the songs are lively, the overall musical score is very nice (especially "the me i never knew"), the acting is acceptable, the costume design and sets work well (with the exception of using a painting of the palace that was supposed to be a shot of the real thing in one scene), and it is quite funny in some parts. overall, it was nicely done, and remains a film i can continue to watch repeatedly as an adult.