C. M P.'s Reviews

This does not have much to do with Alice at all. Rather it is a series of short tales such as The Princess and the Moon and of Madeline linked together by the narrative of a Parisian mouse and Alice.
Review Date: 11/15/2014

This version of Alice is often described as dark or surreal. I do not think that of it, but it was strange that they made no effort at all to dress up as the animal characters---they were all just portrayed as people. So it did seem as if Alice had been dropped into an insane asylum, rather than chasing the rabbit down the rabbit-hole to a magical place (in this case the rabbit-hole was actually a tunnel that changed into a corridor in an abandoned house, to a museum type setting where she came across the "Dodo". And in most scenes she is talking to herself asking questions (as in the book), but she answers all her own questions! I was annoyed that the main scene with the Cheshire Cat was left out, not to mention that it was just a regular cat/no grin!
But I really liked the extras on this DVD, which made up for what was lacking in the movie: including the 1903 version (unfortunately commentary could not be turned off, but luckily I have on a different DVD without the commentary), the 1965 episode of Alice for the television series"The Wednesday Play" which explored Dobson's obsession of Alice, and behind-the-scenes of the making of the soundtrack by Ravi Shankar.
Review Date: 1/12/2016

This version of Alice is often described as dark or surreal. I do not think that of it, but it was strange that they made no effort at all to dress up as the animal characters---they were all just portrayed as people. So it did seem as if Alice had been dropped into an insane asylum, rather than chasing the rabbit down the rabbit-hole to a magical place (in this case the rabbit-hole was actually a tunnel that changed into a corridor in an abandoned house, to a museum type setting where she came across the "Dodo". And in most scenes she is talking to herself asking questions (as in the book), but she answers all her own questions! I was annoyed that the main scene with the Cheshire Cat was left out, not to mention that it was just a regular cat/no grin!

This DVD should be linked to UPC 883929099542 (which is the same 1966 movie with extra's ---refer to that UPC review for additional information/rating) and not UPC 617742220599 (which is the Alice in Wonderland Classic Film Collection: Alice in Wonderland/1915; Walt Disney's Alice's Adventures in Cartoonland/1925; Alice in Wonderland in Paris/1966; & Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/1972).
Review Date: 1/12/2016

This does not have much to do with Alice at all. Rather it is a series of short tales such as The Princess and the Moon and of Madeline linked together by the narrative of a Parisian mouse and Alice.





































.
Review Date: 11/15/2014

This does not have much to do with Alice at all. Rather it is a series of short tales such as The Princess and the Moon and of Madeline linked together by the narrative of a Parisian mouse and Alice.
Review Date: 11/15/2014

I was really disappointed with this movie. I always liked Though the Looking Glass better than Alice's Adventures Underground/Alice in Wonderland, and was hoping that this followed the story-line for it, but it did not. It had Wonderland elements ("Drink me",pink flamingos, etc...) and added unneeded characters such as witches and a jester that ruined the story. It is also done in a variety show format with what sounded like canned studio laughter which made it even worse.
Review Date: 1/21/2016

Considering the time-frame this made it is a pretty good adaptation. Too many versions mix the Wonderland story with through the looking glass, but this one did not. Since it was made at the beginning of the use of green backdrop it is extremely obvious in some scenes that the foreground and ground were filmed separately and put together later, but this is the only version I have seen where it was used for the garden scene with the talking flowers in which to film the flower faces with only stems below, which I liked, and do not understand why the following versions did not do that scene the same way.
Review Date: 3/8/2016

The movie is all right. But I prefer the book. The movie was not able to portray the effects of starvation, or capture the struggle within themselves to do what they did to survive.
Review Date: 12/13/2007

I was afraid this being not only an updated version of Pride and Prejudice, but also being placed in a totally different setting and a musical, that it would be really lame (like Andrew Black's Pride & Prejudice)---but it was actually a really good & super cute movie!
I loved it! If you ever need to watch something to put you in a good mood, this movie is it!
Review Date: 8/3/2015

I love the book & had wanted to see the movie of it but I could not think how Cybill Shepherd could pull off the part of Daisy Miller.
Amazingly enough, she did---& very well I might add.

A really good movie with beatiful costumes & setting. If you liked Tess, you will like this, too.
Review Date: 11/18/2008

EXTREMELY violent---but with a good message at the end: Be careful not to become that which you despise.
Review Date: 2/5/2009

A thought-provoking movie, though it can be a bit disturbing to one if they have had eating disorders. The sex scene could have been a bit less graphic, too.
Review Date: 9/14/2011

Very disappointing---I cannot believe this is considered a classic. I am only glad that I had borrowed it from the library before I wasted a point on it.
The scenes are so disjointed that one cannot make sense of what happened in between. Sharif does not come off as likable character to feel any sympathy. And the other actors read their parts too deadpan unless they are are shouting (in which they are even less convincing in their parts).
Review Date: 1/29/2012

"Incredible...You will not believe what you are watching! It makes Roots look like an episode of The Jeffersons! is the review on the cover by Shock Cinema.
I do not know what to say about this film. The best way to describe it is an accurate depiction in the most inaccurate setting. Is it more disturbing because of the cheesy carnival or seventies music playing during the atrocities portrayed and the romantic music playing during the rape scenes? Or is it that if there had been dramatically appropriate music playing would it have been so depressing and made one so disgusted by the film that they would have walked out on it?
At the time this was filmed, it could only be done in another country---no film country in the States could have, or would have. I am not so sure it could be done now in the States.
Review Date: 8/17/2015

Worst adaptation ever! The only part they took from the book were the names of the characters!
Forget the fact that it is greatly condensed (that was the least of the issues with this movie): Throughout this movie Jane is described as beautiful (they : even made Blanche Ingram jealous of her from the first) & Mr Rochester did not fit the description at all in the book of being moody as well as not handsome.
I guess everyone is better off that this being a short movie, because it was just awful would have been unbearable to sit through had it were any longer.

(I was VERY reluctant to list it as a classic in my tags, & only did so because the story is a classic, although this movie is anything but!)
Review Date: 12/30/2015

I have always preferred the old black-and-white version starring Orson Welles & Joan Fontaine even though it was greatly condensed. But watching this, I finally found its equal.

I had not thought that Timothy Dalton could be able to play the part of Rochester convincingly, but he did. Zelah Clarke played a superb Jane Eyre, & it is a pity she did not do more acting. But I guess there are really not too many roles for such a petite woman. (One cannot help wondering throughout the movie exactly how tall she might be).

The movie follows the book pretty closely. The only drawback to the film is that since it was a made-for-television movie, it is divided up into each episode rather than running smoothly without interruption.
Yes, it is long. But as it is such a good adaptation it is well worth watching. Perfect for sitting in & watching during a rainy weekend.
Review Date: 3/22/2009

Having see the VHS version first, I liked it somewhat better than the version that had been released on DVD (the VHS runs 100 minutes, whereas the DVD is 146 minutes). I am sure if I were to watch the DVD more I would probably come to prefer it, however.
Having known most of the dialogue on the VHS by heart, I was rather thrown off when I saw the DVD and was thinking to myself "What? Where did that come from?" A lot of the dialogue that had been cut from the VHS version was from the very beginning of the film, too.

In the meantime, I think I will be keeping the VHS as well until that version is released on DVD.
Review Date: 12/30/2015

Having see the VHS] version first, I liked it somewhat better than the version that had been released on DVD (the VHS runs 100 minutes, whereas the DVD is 146 minutes). I am sure if I were to watch the DVD more I would probably come to prefer it, however.
Having known most of the dialogue on the VHS by heart, I was rather thrown off when I saw the DVD and was thinking to myself "What? Where did that come from?" A lot of the dialogue that had been cut from the VHS version was from the very beginning of the film, too.

In the meantime, I think I will be keeping the VHS as well until that version is released on DVD.
Review Date: 12/30/2015

I do not need high tech special effects---it could just be my longing for nostalgia, but I believe hands down that this beats either of the remakes.
An RKO classic!
Review Date: 2/13/2016

The PBS documentary "Kinsey" was much more interesting than this movie---I would recommend watching it instead.
Review Date: 9/23/2015

Yes, it is a cheesy B-rated horror film. But the corny jokes and puns make it a good film to watch when you are not in the mood for anything serious. And it does not bombard one with all the nudity that went into a lot of the horror films at that time.
Review Date: 12/31/2015

Too condensed, too much Russian spoken without translation/subtitles, and too little acting. No emotion was shown in the performance until toward the end; before that the actors are pretty much just speaking their lines. And the actor playing Count Bronsky was too old for the part. Overall, a huge disappointment.
Review Date: 1/23/2016

This is okay if you have not seen other productions of it. But those that have seen the 10th Anniversary A Royal Albert Hall production are very likely to be
disappointed.
Review Date: 11/26/2017

Most people probably will not like this movie, but I do recommend that it be seen at least once. If I have to compare it to another movie which will leave you feeling the same way/has the same vibe it would be along the lines "Things Behind the Sun". Neither one is going to be a 'feel-good-movie', but will leave a lasting impression on the viewer.

I had seen bits and pieces of this movie on television years ago, but ordered it because I like Nastassja Kinsk's performance in "Tess" and was curious about her other work.

Review Date: 12/31/2015

I was pleasantly surprised at how good this film was since most of the historical depictions from this era are far from accurate, or even have a bit of corn to them.
Although there were chronological discrepancies, the situations were portrayed accurately
Norma Shearer convincingly plays all aspects of Marie Antoinette's character, from the young eager-to-please Austrian princess, to the rather shallow early years of being queen of France, to the older considerate wife of the king and mother to her children, and her country.

Review Date: 8/4/2015

1 to 25 of 31 - Page: 1 2