Alice in Wonderland

This first sound film strip of Lewis Carroll's literary classic can be seen as a B-movie attempt even by the standards of the time, but the film was definitely shot on a very low budget. The unknown actors, the still inexperienced director and the incomplete craftsmanship behind the scenes are undermined in their effect by the madness of the visual design, because: The costumes and scenery are, also due to the often taken frontal shots and the interspersed songs, today probably the Stuff little devils were made of. Creepy masks, grotesque and not just cheap-looking backdrops, as well as the facial expressions of the leading actress Ruth Gilbert, consistently take the viewer on a historical-cinematic journey through time in images that could be recycled in places into nightmare sequences of modern films today. It's a pity, of course, above all, the severely slimmed down version of the original novel, which hardly gives the actors and those working in the background air to breathe original air. In principle, one has to state that hardly a book page was left unturned to squeeze this story into just over 50 minutes of film. This film is above all interesting, due to its historical side effects, it - and above all its promo pictures - triggered a real Alice hype in the then cosmos of theater and cinematic acting. However, Bud Pollard's version of the story itself could not benefit from this long-term effect and in cinematic fashion this picture finds its long-term effect above all through the nature of the shots and the crazy and terrifying costumes. If you plan to write a book about the history of the Carroll film adaptations, you should take a look at this film, because the strip has its place in this series. But looking in for fun would not do justice to this period photograph and such a project would only be very promising if you use historical glasses with lenses cast from a love of cinema. All in all a piece of contemporary history, but paradoxically not a big hit for the cinema itself.

Pretty much everything about Metropolitcan Studios' "Alice in Wonderland" is terrible. The camerawork is often cheap and the picture out of focus, the costumes terrible and disturbing, the acting is just awful as the leading lady often stares off into space like she's stoned, and the overall effect looks like an amateur community theater production...no better. I can see why the 1933 and 1951 versions are almost infinitely more famous. In fact, it's a chore just to finish the film....even though it is less than an hour in length.

While it might sound like I am exaggerating, but among the over 22,000 films I have so far reviewed on IMDB, it's clearly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Tedious and awful....and I'd rather eat my own foot than see it again. Don't say I didn't warn you.

This is pretty bad all the way around. Even with the limited resources and technology available, it could have been decent. To start with, Alice looks like she's about 35. I guess the actress was 18 but she looked much older. The costumes are like the ones you could buy in the Halloween rack at Walmart. Everything is stilted and posed. I was really hoping to enjoy it for its historical significance, but the script is dull and the characters don't seem to be doing much. Sometimes it might be a good idea to get away from those illustrations from the original books. That was the curse of the 1933 version. Here, the characters are even more costume than substance. Of course, there's no star power here either.

This quickie version of the children's classic shot in New York doesn't actually compare that badly with the mess Paramount made of it a couple of years later, and achieves a fair degree of the book's wit and certainly its strangeness; which the cheap stylised sets if anything enhance. Director Bud Pollard does his best to embellish things with occasional optical and editing effects; although for most of the rest of the time his blocking of the action leaves something to be desired.

Against this ramshackle backdrop nineteen year-old Ruth Gilbert's good-humoured, gurgling-voiced Alice carries the film rather well; although looking nearly as bizarre to modern eyes as the rest of the cast in her obvious platinum-blonde wig and vampish Lily Munster makeup.

I had no idea this curio even existed--I found it while looking for the 1933 version. It's not bad for an independent production of its era. The performances and costumes are fair enough, on the level of a decent stage production for children, even if most of the actors don't address their dialogue to each other--they stare straight forward while speaking, as if reading their lines off cue cards. The sets reveal the limited budgetary means, which of course counts in a fantasy like this--Wonderland feels no more surreal or magical than any random assortment of recycled theatrical backdrops and props.

Things start shockingly with an original Irving Berlin song (the film was shot in New York, and must have exploited some Broadway ties), but that opening-credits tune is the first and last we hear. Tonally, it does have more of Carroll's tart absurdism than many subsequent screen interpretations. However, the pedestrian execution makes it less than persuasive as entertainment either for kids or for adults.

As others have said, this Alice looks too old, but otherwise she's perfectly all right. She went onto a long career mostly on stage (including several premiere Eugene O'Neill productions) and in early television. This movie doesn't really work, but as a whimsical misfire it's not really any worse than Paramount's big-budget, starry "Alice" a couple years later. And it's short enough to satisfy your curiosity without turning into a real slog. Yes, it's "stagy," but no more so than most movies that came out in 1931.