C'era una volta nel Paese delle Meraviglie

I wasn't sure what to think when I saw that there was a spin off of "Once Upon a Time". I was initially skeptical of that show, but it grew on me. Maybe Disney just can't resist the tie-in to all those potential money-making cartoons of theirs already out there.

It's not bad, although the initial scenes of Alice in the asylum reminded me very strongly of the beginning of "Return to Oz". The brief scene in Storybrooke at the start was a bit useless, but I found the actors to all be quite likable, oh yay, more actors from Lost, and wow, doesn't that Red Queen have some lips! It will be interesting as time goes by (provided Disney/ABC doesn't cancel it after 3 episodes like they do most everything else) to see what characters may crossover between the shows.

I was really looking forward to hearing Paul Reubens take on the white rabbit, but maybe it will come out later.

I can't help but feel slightly disappointed with Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. I have only seen the first two episodes, and maybe there will be hope for the rest of the season, but right now I'm not too pleased.

The thing about this show is that it's actually pretty good as far as the actors go, and visually it's nice. I like the fact that everything in Wonderland looks pretty unreal, as if you've jumped into a hallucination. Sophie Lowe as Alice was a perfect choice, and her genie is very attractive. The writing is interesting, and I think it's awesome that they were able to weave in the parent show as well.

So if everything else is fabulous, what could be wrong with the show?

Well, in my opinion, it makes too much sense.

I know, that sounds weird, but think about it...Lewis Carrol's Wonderland is supposed to be a world occupied by insane, head-strong, eccentric, and often obnoxious characters. There is no madness in this story, and the characters are all quite logical and perfectly sane. It's just NOT Wonderland.

I don't think that movies/shows inspired by or based on books have to be carbon copies of the source material. That just wouldn't be realistic, of course, and I have no problem with a sequel/spin-off, just like I had no problem with Tim Burton's film. In fact, I loved his adaptation, because he captured the real essence of Wonderland, not the squeaky- clean Disney cartoon of the 1950s. And all the characters were a bit mad and rude.

But this version of Wonderland isn't really Wonderland. Again, I'm no stickler, but is it too much to ask that Wonderland is a world of madness? That's the most basic element of book, and the fact that this ABC version hasn't showcased that at all is a bit annoying.

Not only is this (admittedly) spin-off series cleverly written, plus a cast that doesn't look Hollywood mannequin-esque, but is wonderful to listen to and look at, and it manages, as few old-school networks do, to make more quality-driven T.V. as is now being delivered on cable channels! Thank goodness that a mainstream, non-cable network has the proverbial balls to air such an engaging new series!!!! The lead, Alice, is refreshingly cast and portrayed by a skilled actress who, physiologically, does NOT (thankfully) look like just another robotic or plastic model, This series has major promise in terms of quality, client writing and performance, which leads me to believe based on extensive experience with decades of mainline 3-network TV. that this series might not survive!

I've only watched half the first episode so far, but this features an Alice who really does things. A lot of the asylum scenes seem reminiscent of American McGee's Alice, and she's just the sort of dish -- erm, girl -- to spice up a story to perfection. Not like the weak Alice of Tim Burton's film, this is a girl who's willing to muck in and fight, to take charge of her own life, to be more than just a damsel in distress (or a damsel in dis dress, although she does wear some pretty ones).

CGI in anything relating to Wonderland is of course going to be critical. I've seen the full gamut - openly cheesy, nice try but the tech's just not there, fairly good but flawed - and this is far from terrible. I wouldn't expect perfection, partly because everyone's idea of perfect is different. It's easily adequate.

I heard of this show after watching Once Upon A Time (as I assume most people have). There is no comparison - Once Upon A Time has a much more intricate and better-developed storyline, as well as generally much better actors. I have a great respect for actors, but at the same time I feel it is equally important to offer an audience critique, especially for more popular shows.

I watched 8 episodes (over quite a long period of time) because it was a genre I enjoy, even though the story and actors were fairly mediocre. The actor rating is an average - I think Emma Rigby is excellent as the Queen, and Sophie Lowe does wonderfully too. Peter Gadiot is attractive but not quite sincere as Cyrus. There is something missing in his delivery - it feels less like he is delivering his loving speeches towards Alice than an audience.

Surprisingly enough, and unfortunately for the show, Episode 9 is where things really pick up. They introduce a brilliant actress for the Jabberwocky - I'd never heard of her before but seeing her in action, this unique villain had me captivated. She introduces a much more unpredictable aspect to the storyline which improves the show greatly.

Then all of a sudden the story actually starts to tie in with the show Once Upon A Time. This should have happened MUCH earlier in this series for people to keep watching.

As I have expressed before, this show is nowhere near the quality of Once Upon A Time, but it is certainly improving as of the end of Season 1 - worth a look at the very least. With the introduction of an actual tie between the series in late season 1, it may have a future.