Well, this is the oldest movie I've ever reviewed and probably the oldest one I ever WILL review. As the first version of "Alice In Wonderland" (at least in terms of a feature length film, well by most standards) it's still nice to see where it all started out. I admit that the costumes in this are quite impressive. Even looking at movies made in the 1920's, you can tell that their special effects got better as it went on. We make a lot of progress quickly! Anyway, I feel bad for not being more familiar with the original book. I can't tell if this version is more faithful or not.The Mock Turtle looks probably the best. There were some really creepy masks the people wore, but luckily, they only appeared for a few scenes. I'm still confused as to why Alice said she never saw a grin without a cat. The Cheshire Cat still had his head in that shot! I'm not sure if it was all meant to be a dream. It's always nice to see a lot of classic elements show up. I wouldn't quite recommend this, because it doesn't really have anything that noteworthy. It's still pretty significant. It can certainly be hard to tell a lot of story in such a short running time. **1/2 out of ****.

This very early cinematic version of the Alice in Wonderland story is well worth tracking down if you are a fan of the silent era. I don't really know the Lewis Carroll story very well so I don't know how faithful this adaption is but, like a lot of other very old movies, this one is seemingly not entirely intact and 20 minutes or so of footage has been lost. This sort of explains the fact that the story doesn't always seem to entirely make sense and it isn't always easy to follow. One of the most famous characters in the story, the Mad Hatter, only appears in the last five minutes for a very brief and seemingly irrelevant scene. He, like other characters, featured more in the original cut and his short cameo is all that's left. While it is a shame that the movie is missing a lot of material, it actually doesn't really matter that much in this case. The story is so dream-like and bizarre in the first place meaning that this truncated version just seems even weirder than it originally would. So it doesn't really harm the film too much.Probably the best thing about this one is the effort that has been put into the costuming and creature design. They are consistently very well done and it is this more than anything that gives the fantasy world its character. The direction otherwise is a bit static, although this was quite common in these very early years of cinema. However, when you consider the sheer invention of the films of the even earlier cinema pioneer Georges Méliès, you do have to think that a little more imagination could have been brought to bear in some of the scenes. But, really, it's a little churlish to criticise this one as these ancient films have a charm that will never die. Definitely worth catching.

i enjoyed this. but i usually enjoy most approaches on this subject since i find Lewis Carroll irresistible and fascinating history. i also really find silent cinema a lot of fun history too.this was a really cute old silent. i don't think it was great cinema or D.W. Griffith or anything like that. it was actually pretty typical for the time period. aside from the goofy monsters and elaborate costumes. even the silent version of 'Peter Pan' was better cinema than this, and 'Pan' itself is a little pedestrian and unoriginal at times. but like the silent 'Pan' film, this is mostly for laughs and cuteness.this was also not half bad as a adaptation. pretty much all the 'Alice' films only briefly mention the 'Father William' poem, where this film silent presents it in entirety. somewhat ironic that a non talking silent would do that. it also presents a startling image of the Tenniel illustration of Father William doing his somersault.even some young children might find this amusing if they are familiar with the story. but most of today's high tekkie, younger generation, will probably find most of this to be a rickety old monster creep show. i thought it cute, but there were moments that repulsed me and gave me the creepy crawlies. a lot of silent movies can do that.at least it wasn't all dark and scary like the silent version of 'The Bluebird'.this film is a definite must see for 'Alice' fans and silent movie buffs.

Finding a recorded copy may be hard to do, but not impossible. There are at least two versions that have survived from the original, both lasting approximately forty minutes. The original was a six-reeler, or about an hour long, which may also have included scenes from the "Through the Looking Glass" story. Minimally, what has survived is missing the defining scene early in the story where Alice grows very big and than small, then later the Mad Hatter scene. We know that these scenes were originally included because Grosset & Dunlap published a book version in 1916, illustrated with pictures from this film. This shows that in addition there was also an Oyster, Humpty Dumpty, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, chess room, and a Queen Alice Banquet scene, but whether as part of this film or another is not clear.Viola Savoy was fifteen years old at the time, and a well known child actress for having toured the nation for several years in the road-show version of "The Littlest Rebel." Whether she was the first to perform the role of Virgie in that play, or not, clearly she was the most popular, which fact contributed to her being cast as Alice in this film. As interviewed in 1912 she had been acting since infancy in over one hundred and twenty different productions. After the "Alice" film, however, she appeared in no more than one or two more films before disappearing from the pages of history.Attempting to evaluate the quality of a circa 1915 "photoplay" rather assumes too much. The industry was yet very young. The notion of "close-up" photography was only beginning to be experimented with and hence, more often, the camera just cranked away from a fixed position, rather like someone sitting in the audience of a typical stage play. While plenty of creativity went into the costuming and set design for this film, the camera remains conspicuous for its lack of imagination. Everything is shot from a distance, and as a result, often there is too much going on to keep track of, and the more subtle features cannot be seen. The nuances of facial expression, therefore, have a forced and exaggerated quality which does nothing to flatter the actress. Additionally, the restricted camera position forces her to be upstaged in all too many scenes. Even so, it is a hauntingly captivating film, delightful to see.