I'm not sure I completely buy Jonathan Miller's account of the book, but his interpretation (as he explains it on the commentary track) is pretty wonderful on balance. It's funny, surprising, beautiful and mostly about the nature of dreams. The cast, for fans of British movies and TV of the period, may have never been equaled. There's one from "Help", there's one from "A Hard Day's Night", there's the midget from "The Prisoner!" Wonderful. The only real question is "Where's Dudley Moore?" At any rate, I just found out about this movie, it's only been out on DVD for a year or two but it's one I think I will always treasure.

First time I saw this was on December 28th 1966 which was its first broadcast on BBC1, the next time was exactly 42 years later on a pristine BFI DVD. I was worried my childhood memories might be shattered by discovering it was simply a trippy '60's cop-out, but I needn't have been. Sure, it's a product of its time same as everything is, but it was and remains a unique filming of the classic tale by Lewis Carroll and imho the best version made so far.Young Alice is transported by dream one sunny summer day to Wonderland where many adventures befall her. Whether Carroll was attracted or not to little girls ("I like all children, except boys") and whether that explains why his diaries had some ripped out pages at key moments is something we'll never know for sure now - I think he was merely a repressed idealist – but he created a timeless story for children of all ages. His 90 page painstakingly hand written original edition which he gave to Alice in 1864 as "a Christmas gift to a dear child in memory of a summer day" is currently online from the British Museum and well worth a read.Jonathan Miller's erudite sharp focus black and white production assumed that it was really meant for satirical adults, however it still managed to impress this particular 7 year old and especially his 5 year old wife to be and their counterparts 42 years later. Favourite bits: Michael Redgrave as the Caterpillar and John Geilgud as the Mock Turtle; Alice's walk with Duchess Leo McKern down the path through the woods followed by the camera crew weaving in and out of the trees and forward and backward; almost every scene has something of note though. Maybe I could have done with a bit more of Ravi Shankar's exceptional tunes but no worries. It's a pity John Bird's and Peter Sellers' post Goon Show improvisations were left in - it's no good Miller saying it was in the spirit of Carroll when their obvious inspiration was Spike Milligan, just one eg from 1954's Dreaded Batter Pudding Hurler Of Bexhill On Sea: "Suddenly! Nothing happened! But it happened suddenly mark you!" And I still wonder how much the production influenced the Beatles with their image for 1967? Apparently the finished film was considered too long by the BBC and 30 minutes were chopped off. Off with their heads - all those potential Pinteresque moments lost!This is something to treasure: an arty BBC film that was genuinely arty, entertaining and still eminently watchable generations later. It almost managed to capture the illusive illusionary qualities of dreams and those seemingly beautifully languid sunny days of the '60's – both 19th and 20th century.

I study Victorian literature and though I have not read Lewis Carroll's book I would like viewers of this movie to understand the time period in which it is set. It was written in 1865 and during this time period England was in the midst of colonizing India--thus the Indian music. If one thinks this is a "hippy" movie because it was filmed in the mid-1960's and appears to be very dreamlike, then I suggest that he/she read up on the story and the time period a little more. During the 19th century in England, children were expected to be seen and not heard--they were not expected to be creative and/or imaginative. Victorians were to be very proper and know their place in the world. The dreamlike surrealist feel of the movie fits very well for something that is suppose to be a dream (i know this sounds obvious, but some forget to remember it's a dream). Enjoy and remember the time in which it is set.

I recently bought this DVD, and finally had a chance to sit down with it - and also with the director's commentary. You know you're in trouble when they get the film's director to do a commentary; they're more often than not extremely biased toward their 'baby' - and Mr. Miller is no exception. Okay, the 1972 version is not perfect, but I could watch it again and again - as opposed to this ambitious misfire. Miller defends his postmodern interpretation with something like, 'Well, Alice in Wonderland is basically melancholy, and that's why Alice is sullen, etc.'. That's a pretty general statement about this work of fiction, isn't it? It's a lot of things, Mr. Miller. It's absurd, humorous, ironic, ridiculous - not just melancholy. The scene at the Mad Hatter's tea party nearly put me to sleep. The scene from the 1972 version is far more dynamic and entertaining. The problem with champions of this film is that they mistake form and style as heightened content. Some filmmakers understand this relationship and make it work better, filmmakers like Antonioni. This director is just trying to be different for it's own sake. Sorry, I give this a 6 only because of the great talent he assembled.