Watch Alice in Wonderland For Free
Alice in Wonderland
This is the first movie version of the famous story. Alice dozes in a garden, awakened by a dithering white rabbit in waistcoat with pocket watch. She follows him down a hole and finds herself in a hall of many doors.
Release : | 1903 |
Rating : | 6.2 |
Studio : | Hepworth, |
Crew : | Director of Photography, Director, |
Cast : | Cecil M. Hepworth |
Genre : | Fantasy Family |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
![](https://static.madeinlink.com/ImagesFile/movie_banners/20170613184729685.png)
![](https://static.madeinlink.com/ImagesFile/movie_banners/20170613184729685.png)
![](https://static.madeinlink.com/ImagesFile/movie_banners/20170613184729685.png)
Related Movies
Reviews
Perfect cast and a good story
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
Nowadays, over-reliance on special effects is such a source of contention in the film industry, that it's refreshing to revisit early cinema, where, over a century ago, cinematic effects were akin to magic, and considered the greatest boon in the unparalleled potential of the medium. In this respect, 1903's Alice in Wonderland, the earliest cinematic adaptation of the beloved Lewis Carroll novel, is a treat to watch, if only for the thought of Carroll (who had only recently passed away) tickled pink at the notion that the magic and wonder of his novel could be realized in live action in a fashion impossible on the stage. Ultimately, the eight minute film (reportedly, some cuts ran as long as 16 - an epic for 1903) is an 'adaptation' of Carroll's novel in only the crudest sense, its disconnected succession of scenes likely nonsensical for those unfamiliar with the story. As narrative in cinema was only a recent concept, this was hardly the point. Where the film excels, as is the case for its innumerable remakes, Disney or otherwise, is in its visuals. Again, for contemporary audiences, being wowed will take some suspension of disbelief, but the real joy lies in imagining 1903 audiences gasping in awe at the shrinking and growing Alice (amusingly done by having the actor simply stand closer or farther away from the camera, with varying background sets), or the magically appearing Cheshire Cat (superimposed through double-exposure photography, and sans trademark Disney grin, to boot). The film gets a fair amount of mileage out of its costumes, with the White Rabbit suit and marching playing card army of the Queen of Hearts establishing a proudly storybook aesthetic, demonstrating whiffs of inspiration for the tale's iconic animated and less-admired Tim Burton adaptations alike. Most interesting is the fact that the opening title card declares the ensuing whimsy to simply be Alice's dream, while later adaptations are more calculatedly ambiguous about the fantasy realm of Wonderland. It's a curious paradox that the first take on Carroll's classic is at once its most magical in terms of perceived effect on viewers, and yet the least willing to buy into its own magic. It's no wonder generations of children and adults alike continued to revisit Wonderland, for proper closure of a fantasy, surrealist realm they were allowed to believe to be real. -7/10
Five years after Lewis Carroll's death, his most famous work entered the world of motion picture for the first time. And this 8-minute version has pretty much all the famous scenes: the white rabbit, Alice shrinking and growing, the meal with the mad hatter, the "card people" etc. Unfortunately, the physical quality of the film is so low that it really hurts the viewing experience. Occasionally, it's even absolutely necessary to know the story in order to understand what is actually going on, despite the intertitles. Anyway, it's still a good effort by directors Hepworth and Stow. The former also stars in the film as a frog. Sadly, these two have almost sunken into oblivion until today. Many of their films have gone lost, but looking at their prolific body of work, it's easy to see that they belong to Britain's most influential pioneers from the early days of cinema. Looking at how the most recent version of the tale starring Mia Wasikowska was a dominant force at the box office for months not too long ago, it's nice to see the story so relevant until this day and Hepworth and Stow here and there getting the recognition as well.
I don't know if this film exists in another form other than the public domain one that is available on the internet. My review is based solely on this public domain print. If there is a restored print available, please, please, please see that one instead, as the public domain one is severely degraded--much more so than usual. This is because older films were made on nitrate stock that would begin degrading (turning to powder, liquifying or even exploding over time) almost immediately. Many early sound and silent films simply no longer exist due to this decomposition. ALICE is so badly degraded that many portions of the film are almost unwatchable.As for the film apart from that, like many of the films of these early years of cinema, they've taken a literary classic and replicated scenes from it--not the entire film. As most films were five minutes or less (often much less), the fact that this is about eight is actually unusual--making this "full-length" at least for the time. In many ways, it was like a highlights clip. The costumes and sets, for 1903, were very good but when compared to films of the middle and late silent era, it would appear very crude and incomplete. If I were comparing it to other 1903 era films, I'd give it a 7 or 8, but given the severe decomposition, it's probably not worth seeing for the average person and more of interest to film historians and devoted fans.
Spoilers herein.I suppose we should be amazed at seeing any film that is 100 years old. But this has no appeal or interest either as a film, or as an Alice. Don't bother the search it out unless you are a collector.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.