This adaptation of the "Alice" stories is one of my favorites; for one thing, this Hallmark has simply beautiful music. The enchantment, and occasional unease, of Wonderland is masterfully captured in the score, and the transformation of several of Carroll's famous poems into songs is brilliantly done. For another thing, the sets, scenery, and costumes fairly glow (in some cases literally), and the special effects are simply dazzling, giving everything a sense of pure magic.
Tina Majorino is an exquisite Alice...the backstory, involving conquering ones fears, has been a subject of debate for many. The "Wizard of Oz"-esque opening/closing of the film are the same. While these are far off from what is in Carroll's work, I don't think they get in the way too much, and they give more of a purpose for Alice to search for the Beautiful Garden, aside from simple curiosity.
These things aside, there are a few major problems with this film: first of all, this is one of the most accurate versions of "Alice" made to date...and, at the same time, it isn't. "Moral" values aside, this film retains at least 90% of Carroll's dialogue, but omits several poems/songs, and adds things in...not all of which make sense. The Mad Tea Party and Tweedledee & Tweedledum scene are the biggest culprits of this adding-in and taking-out problem. That being said, all of the characters present in Carroll's original story are present here, including Pat the Gardener and the Giant Puppy...two characters/scenes that seem awfully rare in adaptations of the story. Not only this, but this film still manages to add in scenes/characters from "Through the Looking-Glass," which many films before and after have done, with varying results; the transitions between Wonderland and Looking-Glass Land aren't seamless, but aren't so abrupt and unexplained that it throws the audience off course, either.
Some of the actors – Robbie Coltrane and Norm Ferguson as the Tweedles, Peter Ustinov and Pete Postlethwaite as the Walrus and the Carpenter, Martin Short as the Mad Hatter, etc. – seem almost perfect for the roles they've been cast in. Jason Flymyng is remarkable as the Knave of Hearts, making my list as my favorite portrayal of the character yet, and Christopher Lloyd is one of my favorite White Knights, second only to Matt Frewer's portrayal in the SyFy miniseries. However, other roles aren't so well filled out: Whoopi Goldberg has the Cheshire Cat's grin...but that's all she has. The personality is all wrong, and I frankly get bored of her very fast. Simon Russell Beale isn't too bad as the King of Hearts...but the character comes across much too menacing, and, while still second fiddle to the Queen, this King seems far more cruel than I think the character should be played...but that's just me. The Duchess, by contrast, is much too friendly, acting "chummy" with Alice right from the beginning...although her Cook is fittingly raucous and mercurial, and the Frog Footman is, as Alice herself puts it, "perfectly idiotic," just as he should be.
The creatures created by Jim Henson's Creature Shop aren't badly done at all (although the March Hare looks more like the March Donkey), and make some of the best characters here. However, they cause a few problems, too: some of the characters that are animals are these "creatures," while still others are just people, dressed in normal clothes, whose outfits give the impression of the animal they play. (Bill the Lizard, for example, does not wear a lizard costume, but a green "scaly" gardener's suit.) Then there's Gene Wilder – who isn't bad as the Mock Turtle, but doesn't come across tearful enough, and has lines that come across sounding a little bit contrived – who is neither one nor the other: he wears a full-out Mock Turtle costume. So...what are these characters that aren't puppets? Animals? People? A bit of both? It seems so disparate that it's a tad hard to keep up.
The last problem, and probably the biggest, is, ironically, also one of this film's strong points: the special effects; when I said they were dazzling, I meant it. They ARE wonderful effects, but between glowing Caterpillars that explode into swarms of butterflies, cloud-beast Monstrous Crows, Hatters that can stretch their bodies like rubber, Duchesses that glide across the floor, Alice's growth (and shrink) spells, and Card Guards that turn, without warning, into normal playing cards, it gets hard to "get in the spirit of things" and not just sit back and enjoy the eye candy, so to speak.
All things told, this is a spellbinding take on "Alice," and if the sometimes odd portrayals of the characters don't scare you off, and the effects don't become too much, you should find a lot to enjoy in this film. I have now finished my rambling.
Tina Majorino is an exquisite Alice...the backstory, involving conquering ones fears, has been a subject of debate for many. The "Wizard of Oz"-esque opening/closing of the film are the same. While these are far off from what is in Carroll's work, I don't think they get in the way too much, and they give more of a purpose for Alice to search for the Beautiful Garden, aside from simple curiosity.
These things aside, there are a few major problems with this film: first of all, this is one of the most accurate versions of "Alice" made to date...and, at the same time, it isn't. "Moral" values aside, this film retains at least 90% of Carroll's dialogue, but omits several poems/songs, and adds things in...not all of which make sense. The Mad Tea Party and Tweedledee & Tweedledum scene are the biggest culprits of this adding-in and taking-out problem. That being said, all of the characters present in Carroll's original story are present here, including Pat the Gardener and the Giant Puppy...two characters/scenes that seem awfully rare in adaptations of the story. Not only this, but this film still manages to add in scenes/characters from "Through the Looking-Glass," which many films before and after have done, with varying results; the transitions between Wonderland and Looking-Glass Land aren't seamless, but aren't so abrupt and unexplained that it throws the audience off course, either.
Some of the actors – Robbie Coltrane and Norm Ferguson as the Tweedles, Peter Ustinov and Pete Postlethwaite as the Walrus and the Carpenter, Martin Short as the Mad Hatter, etc. – seem almost perfect for the roles they've been cast in. Jason Flymyng is remarkable as the Knave of Hearts, making my list as my favorite portrayal of the character yet, and Christopher Lloyd is one of my favorite White Knights, second only to Matt Frewer's portrayal in the SyFy miniseries. However, other roles aren't so well filled out: Whoopi Goldberg has the Cheshire Cat's grin...but that's all she has. The personality is all wrong, and I frankly get bored of her very fast. Simon Russell Beale isn't too bad as the King of Hearts...but the character comes across much too menacing, and, while still second fiddle to the Queen, this King seems far more cruel than I think the character should be played...but that's just me. The Duchess, by contrast, is much too friendly, acting "chummy" with Alice right from the beginning...although her Cook is fittingly raucous and mercurial, and the Frog Footman is, as Alice herself puts it, "perfectly idiotic," just as he should be.
The creatures created by Jim Henson's Creature Shop aren't badly done at all (although the March Hare looks more like the March Donkey), and make some of the best characters here. However, they cause a few problems, too: some of the characters that are animals are these "creatures," while still others are just people, dressed in normal clothes, whose outfits give the impression of the animal they play. (Bill the Lizard, for example, does not wear a lizard costume, but a green "scaly" gardener's suit.) Then there's Gene Wilder – who isn't bad as the Mock Turtle, but doesn't come across tearful enough, and has lines that come across sounding a little bit contrived – who is neither one nor the other: he wears a full-out Mock Turtle costume. So...what are these characters that aren't puppets? Animals? People? A bit of both? It seems so disparate that it's a tad hard to keep up.
The last problem, and probably the biggest, is, ironically, also one of this film's strong points: the special effects; when I said they were dazzling, I meant it. They ARE wonderful effects, but between glowing Caterpillars that explode into swarms of butterflies, cloud-beast Monstrous Crows, Hatters that can stretch their bodies like rubber, Duchesses that glide across the floor, Alice's growth (and shrink) spells, and Card Guards that turn, without warning, into normal playing cards, it gets hard to "get in the spirit of things" and not just sit back and enjoy the eye candy, so to speak.
All things told, this is a spellbinding take on "Alice," and if the sometimes odd portrayals of the characters don't scare you off, and the effects don't become too much, you should find a lot to enjoy in this film. I have now finished my rambling.