Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Eric Stevenson I wouldn't recommend this version, but I wouldn't say I hate it either. I guess it was just mediocre. I guess the good technically outweighed the bad. The reason I saw this was because it was the longest film version of "Alice In Wonderland". It was weird, because I was expecting this big epic movie. Of course, the Tim Burton movie version and its sequel didn't do it very well. I think this is probably better than those. It seems to capture the spirit of the book more. I really should get around to reading the book.I believe I've seen every movie version of it now and I can easily say the Disney version is the best one. One fault with this movie was how it was, well, too long. It's not a complicated story and it just seems to go on too long. I guess that might be justified in adapting a book, but other versions have done it better. The puppets are pretty good. I am really freaked out by Whoopi Goldberg as the Cheshire cat. She looks really scary looking and that's actually probably the worst thing about the movie! Still, it's great to see such a cast of talented actors. I found out this was Gene Wilder's last movie and may he rest in peace. **1/2

gcd70 Enormous cast (including Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Lloyd and George Wendt) conspire to waste their collective talent on this dreary homage to Lewis Carroll's famous children's fable. Goldberg grins like an idiot throughout, while the rest of the cast behave similarly. Tina Majorino is at odds as to what she should be doing with her lost Alice. Gene Wilder does his usual comic turn as the mock-turtle, while Martin Short is the only shining light as none other than the mad hatter.Whatever fun the cast had making the film does not appear evident on screen. Perhaps they had no fun at all.Saturday, July 31, 1999 - T.V.

Princess_Nuala23 .......after watching this. OMFG it was horrible. I felt like watching a cross between Rocko's modern life and teletubbies. The effects were HORRIBLE the Acting was HORRIBLE and every thing about the movie was just HORRIBLE!!!!!! As we all know the plot is about a stupid god-ugly girl who sees someone who looks a WHOLE LOT like a teletubbie in a rabbit suit. There was the worst effects ever, like a rat turning into a man, a stupid ugly queen who kept saying "off with there heads" every other breath. I couldn't stand the movie, and worst of all, noticed that I OWN it. I found it in my video collection, and this very second as I'm writing this I'm lighting a fire to burn it. Please, do me a great big favor and stick with Disney's masterpiece. STAY AWAY FROM THIS PIECE OF CRAP!!

lual I love the two Alice books and quite often I find myself looking through the pages, reading some of my favorite parts.I think for a TV_version, this film works quite well, it is a treat to watch all those celebrities becoming some of the most famous characters in literature. Strangely though, my favorite sequence is the one with Peter Ustinov and Pete Postlethwaite as the Walrus and the Carpenter, probably the only scene in the movie that does not contain CGI.So, why only six stars? As in most versions, the makers of the movie have mixed all kinds of elements from "Alice in Wonderland" with "Through the looking glass" (Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, The Walrus and the Carpenter, The White Knight). It may work, if you really look at the books just as a collection of episodes, but whenever this is done, the makers miss the point of the books. Alice in "Through the looking glass" is quite different from Alice in "Alice in wonderland" and also, there is a completely different composition to the latter book which is explained in the preface and which finds no acknowledgment whatsoever here. I think the makers of this movie again don't understand the books at all and though I enjoy watching these scenes independently from each other, the whole leaves me unsatisfied.I have gotten used to mixing the Alice stories, Walt Disney has done the same thing and others as well. But what bothers me most about this film it that it turns the whole thing into a story of initiation. Come on.... Alice does not dare to perform a song in front of her parent's guest but after walking through Wonderland she finally does? This is just plain wrong and completely in contrast to the meaning of the books. Why would you want do make sense out of nonsense? The books are meant to portray Victorian stereotypes, make fun of language etc, but not to enrich a child to become more independent and self-assured. Moreover, it does not make sense at all, why Alice should finally be able to sing in front of the others.All in all, this movie has fine performances and puppets and decent (considering the time it was made and it being made for TV) CGI, is nice to look at but in the end only mediocre TV-entertainment.