Alice in Wonderland

THE STORY & GENRE -- The Lewis Carroll classic, genre. Ruth Gilbert stars.

THE VERDICT -- It has guts, but no brains. Calling the Wizard of Oz! You should watch this only for curiosity interest.

FREE ONLINE -- Yes, commonly at 51 minutes, but sometimes 53 minutes, although IMDB says 55 minutes, and Wiki 58 minutes.

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.

Apparently, this is the first talkie transmutation of Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" to screen. Most others seem to rate this version relatively low, but it does surprisingly well in one important aspect of adaptation: retaining and cinematically translating the nonsense. Of only two years later, Paramount's 1933 iteration is good example of how stilted Alice movies can be. Sure, this low-budget 1931 film is a creaky early synchronized-sound film, has poor production values (the Mock Turtle part looks especially lousy), isn't particularly faithful to the source (e.g. a love affair between the White Rabbit and the Duchess), and the acting is atrocious, but it moves at a brisk pace and without the hindrance of ever appearing to take itself seriously. Indeed, for the first time in film history, the spectator heard some of Carroll's nonsensical wordplay to go along with the picture's visual imagination.

Setting the pace and tone from the start is a jazzy tune by Irving Berlin during the credits and opening shots, which is recycled from "Puttin' on the Ritz" (1930). Relatively rare for an early talkie, another early scene features a score as Alice's image is stretched and shrunk while staggering beside giant mushrooms--the film's only reference to the character's growing taller and smaller from the book. The picture jumps right into Wonderland, too, without the preamble of it being framed as a dream--although, of course, it still ends that way--or of her following the White Rabbit. Alice even seems to be breaking the fourth wall without a direct address to the audience with the first words spoken in the picture. The primitive special effects have a charm to them, as well; these include spinning images, use of distorting lenses, blurred images, superimpositions, iris masking, stop-substitutions and dissolves. Also somewhat unusual for a film from 1931, the camera movement has zing to it, including beginning shots with quick adjustments to focus on a character. There are many of these during the Mad Hatter's tea party, with some seemingly employed to disguise the editing, as though the camera is flowing between characters in a continuous tracking shot of their conversation. The only thing I think needlessly slows down the proceedings are the fade outs between episodes. Regardless, thanks to its pace of shot succession and scene dissection, the average shot length here of 9.75 seconds (my count) is good for a 1931 talkie.

Moreover, while the acting is generally poor, including actors looking off in strange directions (the Duchess and Alice not looking at each other while talking in one scene stands out), the Cheshire Cat stumbling through his lines, and some awful singing, everyone appropriately plays it light. Alice adaptations after the Disney cartoon tend to focus on the frightening aspects of the story, and some are decidedly more for adults than children, so it's refreshing to see this brisk early talkie have fun with the nonsense. Ruth Gilbert does a good Alice, too, in the respect that she plays the wide-eyed, slack-jawed and excitable dumb blonde part well. That Alice seems to be having fun makes all the difference.

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.

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.