I just finished watching the 1966 version of Alice in Wonderland, and I have to say that, although I know the Disney version, as usual with Disney's movies adapted from books, is a gross misrepresentation of the original story, I definitely prefer it over this one. It was much more artsy, which could have been interesting if used effectively, but had the general impact of making the whole movie seem pretentious. According to online sources, the replacement of all animal roles with humans was supposed to be an attempt at showing the people these characters were intended to represent. Now, despite my general feeling that most people have no business trying to re-interpret classic literature, I'd like to point out that the Eaglet and the Lory were both played by men even though they are widely accepted as animal versions of Alice Liddell's two sisters, Edith and Lorina.

That, however, is a minor point when one considers the almost total re-construction of Wonderland as we know it. For example, one never has time to sit and stare into space at the Mad Hatter's. The inclusion of the Duchess does earn this version some points that Disney lost, but it's many other deviations from Lewis Carroll's classic story more than negate this. The human Mock Turtle present in this movie almost completely misses the point of this often-forgotten character: a compilation of usually unwanted pieces of animals that forms a creature which is not a true anything, and is therefore unwanted himself.

But what bothers me the most about this movie is not it's complete destruction of a classic tale, but Alice's lack of personality. I, as well as most others, percieved Alice to be a young girl full of curiosity and wonder, not a mobile statue whose facial expression never changes. This is not surprising however, when one considers that the actress was 13 when the film was made and never acted before or since. </badly>