I agree with the earlier comments that this is a very flawed effort, and that the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts. If a viewer knows the book it is conceivable that they could actually follow the storyline most of the time, but they will still be put off by the wooden performances and the title character's lack of engagement (note that this is the only television or film project she is credited with on the database). In the book Alice was not just engaged, she was usually angry about what was happening to her.
In the book the mushroom changes her size-here everything she eats and drinks seems to sedate her. The absolutely awful editing makes most of the film painful to watch, as cuts from line after line of the book's clever dialogue fail to capture anyone's reactions (were the lack of reaction shots a cost savings thing or was the director/editor simply clueless).
The sound and camera work are generally excellent and obviously some work and imagination went into the production. But I was left with the question: if you can't make an Alice adaptation significantly better than this, then why make one? I got the impression from the commentary that the director was embarrassed by how this turned out but maybe that was because I was embarrassed for him.
While his ideas (no special effects or animals) might have actually worked as an "original" screenplay, this is supposed to be an adaptation so these omissions come across as cheap (duh!) .
Unfortunately the viewer soon becomes as disengaged as the actress and spends the majority of the movie pondering why this mess was not terminated in its pre-production phase. If Wonderland was this boring Alice would have fallen asleep and dreamed she was doing something more interesting, like sitting in a field watching her sister read a book.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
In the book the mushroom changes her size-here everything she eats and drinks seems to sedate her. The absolutely awful editing makes most of the film painful to watch, as cuts from line after line of the book's clever dialogue fail to capture anyone's reactions (were the lack of reaction shots a cost savings thing or was the director/editor simply clueless).
The sound and camera work are generally excellent and obviously some work and imagination went into the production. But I was left with the question: if you can't make an Alice adaptation significantly better than this, then why make one? I got the impression from the commentary that the director was embarrassed by how this turned out but maybe that was because I was embarrassed for him.
While his ideas (no special effects or animals) might have actually worked as an "original" screenplay, this is supposed to be an adaptation so these omissions come across as cheap (duh!) .
Unfortunately the viewer soon becomes as disengaged as the actress and spends the majority of the movie pondering why this mess was not terminated in its pre-production phase. If Wonderland was this boring Alice would have fallen asleep and dreamed she was doing something more interesting, like sitting in a field watching her sister read a book.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.