jarobledo3 This semi-biographical film is one of my most prized possessions in my "Alice" collection. This movie has its ups and its down, but, at the end of the day, it's one of the best I've seen. It does have its flaws, however: first of all, the historical accuracy in this is dreadful. While the periods - Victorian Age England and Depression Era America - seem to have had a good deal of research done into them, as has the published book of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," the history of said book and events seems to have been ignored, or only slightly researched. Perhaps ironically, it is the "present day" scenes that give the low points of the film. Coral Browne as the aged Alice Hargreaves, nee Liddell, is marvelous; she puts so much soul into it, I begin to wonder if we are really seeing Browne as Browne, or Browne as Mrs. Hargreaves. However, the fictional character of Lucy, the nursemaid, bores me, and the love story between her and the reporter Jack Dolan (could his name be a possible reference to the Knave of Hearts?), is dull, unnecessary, and historically insulting.That being said, the flashbacks and hallucination(?) scenes are brilliant. In the latter, Jim Henson's team gives us the world of Wonderland, seen through the eyes of an older Alice. Naturally, if "Alice" has grown older, and "darker" in her thoughts, then so, too, must Wonderland. Expect no hysterical Muppets or cuddly Sesame Street critters here: this Wonderland and its denizens ties with the "American McGee's Alice" games and the Czech film, by Jan Svankmajer, for sheer creepiness. Think "Dark Crystal," not "Muppets Take Manhattan." Henson's team takes Tenniel's illustrations, and twists them, ever so slightly, making them more nightmarish than ever before: The Mock Turtle's eyes are red and sore, his mouth twisted in a perpetual sneer, face stained with copious amounts of tears. The Gryphon, meanwhile, appears to be molting (at least on his upper half). The Dormouse is mangy, while the March Hare's teeth are crooked and bloodstained, his eyes bugged out of his skull, creating a close-up visage that could give Chuck Norris nightmares. The Mad Hatter may be the scariest of the bunch: his hair is wild and red, his eyes bloodshot, his body ravaged and gnarled, his voice gravelly, his body and mind unbalanced, and his temperament expertly mercurial, going from a perfect gentleman to a savage, murderous beast within a matter of seconds. The Caterpillar's blue coloring seems to be due to breathing problems, his bright orange legs giving him a poisonous look. Add two gangly, humanoid arms and a decidedly human face, and he is all the more freakish.These characters and scenes, despite being historically inaccurate, also seem to have a good deal of research done for them: at the Mad Tea Party, for example, the Mad Hatter strokes the Dormouse like a pet several times, as well as, like in the books, trying to stuff him in a teapot. This is because Dormice, in Victorian times, were often kept as pets, and were sometimes housed in teapots. As well as being why the Hare and Hatter try to put him inside the pot in the books, it also explains the Hatter's actions toward the little rodent during this scene.These, along with the 1972 musical film, are the definitive versions of the characters, despite, or perhaps because of, their surliness. The flashbacks of Alice's childhood with Charles Dodgson, alias Lewis Carroll, are of equal excellence. Ian Holm is about ten years too old for the part, but, otherwise, is perfectly cast; he captures the spirit of the author so well, that it makes it hard for the viewer to figure out whether we are seeing a realization or an idealization of the shy, eccentric, enigmatic man whose imagination knew no bounds. The debate as to whether Carroll was pedophilic in his intentions around the young Ms. Liddell is never really decided upon, but I, like the movie, believe it really doesn't matter: for better or worse, Carroll's relationship with Alice Liddell gave us the "Alice" stories, and I cannot bear the thought of living without them.Amelia Shankley makes the list as my favorite Alice: she not only portrays the younger self of "the real Alice," but is also given the job of playing the storybook character we all know and love in the hallucination/dream sequences. While her appearance barely changes between the two, her personality does shift: the "real" Alice is obviously meant to be real, while the fictional Alice captures all the same aspects shown in Ms. Liddell – mischief, naivety, and a dash of impertinence, all still given a lovable, almost sensual, coating – and manages them differently, so that we never get the "real" Alice and the "false" Alice confused. (A possible plot device, or just my silly imagination? You be the judge.)Despite its historical inaccuracies, which run amok, this film should be REQUIRED as something all lovers of Lewis Carroll and the "Alice" tales should view at least once in their lifetime.

LCShackley What a strange movie this is. Is it supposed to be a cute fantasy (with clever Jim Henson puppets)? Or an expose/biography? The latter doesn't seem to be true, since there is a disclaimer at the end of the credits denying that any of the characters are real. Does anyone know whether ANY of the events of "old Alice's" life have any basis in fact? What I have read about Dodgson does indicate that he may have had an unhealthy obsession with young girls, but no evidence that he was an actual pedophile. I was afraid that Dennis Potter, who has shown in films like BRIMSTONE & TREACLE that he can wallow in the worst forms of human behavior, would turn Dodgson into a Victorian Michael Jackson (Wonderland/Neverland?). But Dodgson is a very sympathetic character, and the movie never descends into the dark side of his relationship to his young students. Portions of the film are charming.In one respect, Ian Holm was a good choice for Carroll/Dodgson, because he can project charm and innocence. But he's also the movie's biggest flaw. Holm was in his 50s when he acted the part. According to the movie's own chronology, Dodgson was only TWENTY years older than Alice, not FORTY. That extra 20 years makes the relationship with Alice seem even stranger than it already was. A suitable 30-ish actor would have reduced the "dirty old man" factor considerably.

aimless-46 Let me start by simply saying that the reaction I had viewing this film was unlike any other viewing experience I can recall. Although I found it well written and produced, I was so disappointed by the 2/3's point that I almost stopped watching. Yet by the end I was absolutely embracing the whole thing. So if you are a Lewis Carroll fan keep an open mind and watch the whole thing, you may find the whole much greater than the sum of its parts. And you may even find yourself willing to accept the historical fiction as necessary to better tell the story.I suppose a large part of my initial negative reaction was due to the film's puzzling failure to capture a fundamental aspect of Alice Liddell's childhood personality. Alice spent much of her time in "Wonderland" being p….d off; at the illogic, the rudeness, and the selfishness of the characters she met there. Both Alice's were proper and confident little Victorian girls who took themselves very seriously. I am sure that this was one of many "Real Alice" personality traits that Carroll transplanted to his "Wonderland" Alice. Often amused by her reactions of irritation and frustration, he constructed many of the story elements with the intention of getting indigent reactions from Alice and her sisters. I had hoped that this connection would be made by the film and was disappointed that it was not explored, although in retrospect you could argue that the older Alice's reactions to the characters she meets in America are identical to Alice's reactions to the characters in Wonderland. That the film does not explore my pet topic was disappointing but ultimately not fatal.In all other respects the portrayal of young Alice Liddell was excellent. Amelia Shankley turned in a fine performance. She is clearly the best film Alice so far and it is a shame that they did not star her in an actual Alice film right after "Dreamchild" was completed. And Coral Browne was equally excellent as the older Alice.This film is about how Alice's mother (who felt her daughter could find much better candidates for marriage as she moved into her teens) essentially poisoned her memories of Dodgson, leading her to believe that there was something wrong about his feelings for her (when in fact he was just a childlike personality who loved her more than his other child friends, but always with a shy innocence). It is also about the guilt the older Alice still feels over abandoning him just as she entered her teens, especially after all the innocent kindness he had shown. She is in denial about her affection for Dodgson and irritated because all the attention of his centennial is forcing her to recall those long-suppressed years of her life. And finally she feels that since she was not actually the little heroine who exhibited so much courage in "Wonderland", she does not deserve her sudden celebrity status. In her view she was catapulted into fame "by simply doing nothing". Remember that Wonderland Alice is arguably the bravest literary heroine of all time.What ultimately redeems the film is the climatic scene in the hall of Columbia University. Alice Liddell flashes back to a scene late in her relationship with Dodgson, a symbolic scene meant to represent the end of their relationship. She had outgrown him at this point in her life and she laughs and humiliates him as he attempts to sing his Lobster Quadrille song to the three Liddell sisters and their male suitors. When her mind returns to the present she hears the Columbia University orchestra and glee club performing the same song. She realizes that the story which she once rejected was in fact his personal tribute to her and that even after all these years each little detail of his creation is admired throughout the world. At this point she finally gets it. She goes back to the symbolic scene as her older sister Lorina reads the final paragraph from the Wonderland book, the one in which Dodgson reveals the reason he made up the story. Then the child Alice walks over, kisses Dodgson in apology, and places her head on his chest (an omission for which she has long felt guilty). Then we are back in the hall and find that in place of her prepared speech she has read this same passage to the now applauding crowd.The point is that she finally understood that the story was a gift to her and to future generations of children, that she had inspired the story and had been the model for his heroine. With this realization came the final gift of knowing that the virtues Mr. Dodgson gave his heroine: innocence, courage, curiosity, wonder, kindness, intelligence, courtesy, humor, dignity, and a sense of justice; were virtues he credited to the real Alice.It is hard to imagine a better scene (or sequence of scenes) than the climatic one detailed above. Film and video cannot hope to compete with books in communicating thoughts. But with the right players film can visually communicate moments of character realization and transformation to a degree much more subtle and personal than what any author can write. This is the real magic of film and acting for the camera. In the end these climatic moments say everything that needs be said about the relationship between Dodgson and his "dreamchild". A truly great cinematic moment and my all-time favorite.

suttca I will be short. This is unquestionably one of the finest films ever made and certainly a love story to rival Antony and Cleopatra. The movement between Alice in old age, youth and fantasy is seemless. The acting superb. The writing, needless to say, genius. Miss this film and you miss the most touching and true story ever. This film was never meant to be an "Alice in Wonderland", it is about the glorius Lewis Carroll and Alice Liddell. Enjoy!