Who payed the critics

good back-story, and good acting

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

This is the first film adaptation of Lewis Carroll's classic book "Alice in Wonderland" and it was released more than 100 years ago (I'm not joking, just do the math!). It is a impressive film, with a strange sense of narration (conidering that even back in 1903, to watch this movie you really had to know Alice's story because it is very confusing, I got lost in some parts, trying to understand what was going on) and interesting editing effects, wonderful transition moments, one scene cuts and dissolves into another, brilliant effects.You can find this short film on the net, YouTube but unfortunately the remaining copies are too grainy, sometimes it's almost impossible to watch it. But everything is there: Alice, the rabbit (that guy dressed as rabbit scared me for some awkward reason), the Mad Hatter, the cards and many others. It was a very ambitious movie during its time, and now might look a home made movie from the early days of films. It's good anyway. 6/10

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.

Much in the same way as 'The Blacksmith Scene' from 1893, the first filmed version of 'Alice in Wonderland' from 1903 plays out more as a curious look into the history of film making at that time and the importance of film preservation for today, than a credible film adaptation of the book. However, in its initial release to the public, the film was popular, and at a staggering eight minutes in length, it was the longest movie to date. There are some nifty special effects of Alice shrinking and growing in the doll house, and there's an excellent commentary track on the DVD that talks about the people involved in the production of the film. However, through years of neglect and the natural decline of the nitrate on the film, there are more gaps, breaks and white scratches on the film that make its viewing somewhat difficult. No copies of the film have survived through time, the one used for the DVD is the original and it's in terrible shape.You can find this movie, warts and all, on the DVD of 'Alice In Wonderland' from 1966 directed by Jonathan Miller, who's version while clean, starring a stellar cast, and looking beautiful, could also be described as viewing that is 'somewhat difficult'.I'm giving the movie a 9/10. It was a 3, but I took this pill and it grew to a 9.Clark Richards

The remnants of this silent movie was added to Jonathan Miller's Alice DVD as a Bonus.It has to be viewed as an historical document and hardly for entertainment value. But May Clarke deserved a better fate than being called "ugly".I have a photo of her on one of my Alice sites and she's at least attractive enough. This was the final film of the 3 she made,all before 1904 so there's no evidence of what her speaking voice was like. In answer to that rather ignorant remark I don't think any movie studios at this time employed children but the age of Alice should not be brought into question when you realize many older actreses played her.The child star was yet to be invented and all actors came from the stage When you think of it this Alice silent is now over 100 years old