Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

First and foremost, let's get it out of the way - yes, the acting is cheesy, and yes the writing (both script and songs) are pretty simplistic and expository. I do not argue that whatsoever.Having said that, I was two when this came out, but I guess my parents thought it would be something I would enjoy as I got older so they recorded it on the VCR for me. I watched this so many times that I wore out the tape. I was sad when Through the Looking Glass was no longer watchable, I was devastated when the first part became unusable. I forgot about it as I grew up and in the last few years, as I approached 30, I started looking around for it and found it on YouTube, of all places! I re-watched it and while doing so, took another look at the cast list.I remember recognizing a few people when I was a kid, like Ringo and Sammy Davis Jr., but as an adult I was stunned when I realized that this movie is like a time capsule for not just some of the most famous actors and actresses over the prior fifty years, but also was a kind of introduction for many actors/actresses, as well! If you can put aside your need for a "good" adaptation (and come on, it's a kids story, kid's movie, and shouldn't be all glossed and glammed up with dialogue that is all but too clever and witty, settings overwhelmingly absurd and surreal like Tim Burton's newest adaptation (which I'm sorry, but I believe was an absolute mockery of Lewis Carroll's beautiful books).The point of this movie is to get across the lessons of Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass - growing up, facing one's fears, and having confidence! This does precisely that, and for that I give it a 9 out of 10.

As a two-part miniseries with a length of about three hours, this adaptation of Lewis Carroll's beloved classics doesn't need to rush the story, allowing us to see pretty much every scene and character from the stories, including rarely seen ones like Pat, the Fawn, the Man in the Paper Suit, the Goat, the Gnat, Humpty Dumpty, the Horse, the Sheep, and the Owl. (Two of these characters, for some reason, swap the acts they appear in: the Owl is a character from the first book, but appears in the second act, and the Fawn is a character from the second book, but appears in the first.) Indeed, the only scene missing that I can think of is the Giant Puppy scene, which is somewhat disappointing, but excusable.But with that being said, the rest of this movie really gets my nerves, especially the first act: for one thing, very few of Carroll's poems appear, and all the songs in this musical are "Americanized" and modern. This wouldn't be so bad if the film was meant to be a modern riff on the stories, like the Hanna-Barbera T.V. film, BUT IT ISN'T. It is very clear that this, like the original books, is meant to take place in Victorian Age England. But here's the thing: ALMOST NO ONE IN THIS FILM IS British! The songs are all obnoxious, as well as "Americanized," and have very little to do with Carroll's text, and, again, with the exception of "You Are Old, Father William," and "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Bat," none of the poems from the first book appear. The second act is just as guilty, but at least "The Walrus and the Carpenter" appears and is fairly enjoyable, and the ending tune is very sweet, and even a bit heartbreaking.The casting is all over the place: In the first act, the Mad Hatter is played by Anthony Newley, whose rude and grumpy performance hardly makes him laughable (especially odd since his song is titled "Laugh"), and he comes off rather unlikeable. Jayne Meadows as the Queen of Hearts, as well as Martha Raye's Duchess, aren't regal, or even stuck-up...they're just straight up sadists whose accents make them sound like the Marry Murderesses from "Chicago." Scott Baio as Pat especially bothers me: he speaks Carroll's text word for word, but doesn't bother at even attempting an accent, and his flat, highly-rehearsed tone almost makes it sound like he has a speech impediment. The second act isn't much better: Carol Channing as the White Queen is particularly atrocious, and Jonathan Winters is exceptionally dull as Humpty Dumpty.Now, there are some good performances: Robert Morley is my favorite King of Hearts, and Red Buttons and Roddy McDowall aren't half bad as the White Rabbit and the March Hare. Lloyd Bridges as the White Knight in the second act is bumbling and chivalrous at once, and there's a distinct lovability to him, and a twinkle in his eyes. Not bad at all. Ringo Starr's "storyteller" voice, which any fan of "Thomas the Tank Engine" is probably familiar with, works well in his performance as the Mock Turtle. And, of course, Natalie Gregory isn't terrible at all: she's very sweet, yet determined, and her age (nine years old) in this film makes her to closest actress, age wise, I believe, to play the coveted role of Alice.Even though the performances are sometimes okay, the costumes rarely are: most of the costumes worn in this film come off as cheap-looking and seem to have very little basis in Tenniel's praised illustrations. Bill the Lizard looks like something out of "Farscape," while the Jabberwock, played by Tom McLoughlin, is menacing, but somehow manages to look like a bad Godzilla costume at comic-con, with wings.With the mention of the Jabberwock, another problem comes to mind: the designs of the scenery, and the tone of the movie, which go hand in hand. The first act can't seem to make up its mind whether it's dark or light: the rabbit-hole is no longer the fanciful parachute ride from Carroll's story, masterfully captured in other stories, but a terrifying free fall, which ends in a dank tunnel that, for some reason, has lightning and thunder inside it. The Queen's sadism makes her especially horrific, Jayne Meadows' sick, twisted expressions of hate, rage, and insane glee making her moments particularly disturbing...the audience starts to wonder: is this a kid's film, or a prototype for "American McGee's Alice?" The second act seems to have made up its mind: it's a light take on "Alice," but with dark moments...namely, whenever the Jabberwocky appears. The film even involves death: even though the King still pardons people in the first act, as in the books, in the second act, Humpty Dumpty is pushed off the wall by the Jabberwock, and presumably never repaired, and the White Knight dies trying to defend Alice from the same frumnious beast. (Or seems to...he reappears at the very end of the movie, so I guess he was just knocked senseless.) My overall opinion: this miniseries is enjoyable for some, and one of the darkest takes on Carroll yet, despite occasional bouts of typical, childish whimsy, but it's not for me. Still, it does retain 99% of the characters/scenes from the books, so that's something, even if most of the songs and poems are omitted. A good try...but a bad execution.

Since the new beefed-up 3D Hollywood spectacle came out I had to go back and REMIND myself and others about this excellent made-for-TV version from 1985!This version was a charming yet extravagant 4-hour tale told in 2 parts, 2-hr prime-time slots. The 1980s 'Alice' featured the ENTIRE Alice storyline - 'Wonderland' and 'Through the Looking Glass'(with the Jabberwocky). I emphasize this point because the 'alice' saga told in it's entirety is, as far as I'm concerned, the only way to tell the story. Far more enjoyable and entertaining! The cast consisted of a veritable Whos-Who of 80's actors, including jeff and beau Bridges and Sammy Davis Jr. (!). As far as TV movies go, the production was very good. The ensemble cast, the costumes, the landscaping, everyone involved does an excellent job bringing to life EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER from Lewis Carrol's all time classic. IMO, the 80s version simply has more heart, more charm, whimsy, wit, and danger that the new-er version simply lacks. You could spend $15 for all the bloated CGI and 3D FX and over-the -top acting from Johnny Depp -OR- you can grab this from Netflix or Redbox (?) and introduce the young ones (and reacquaint yourself) to this superbly delightful, nostalgic treat! :-)

Its been beautiful to hear what seems to be the theme of my generation's experience with this film: "My mom/dad/grandma/grandpa taped this film when i was little/unborn and it glued me to the TV for all three hours of it." This was exactly how I experienced it and I feel nothing but gratitude to my parents for taping it and thus giving me the opportunity to watch it again and again and again...even though it TERRIFIED me! Somehow that didn't stop me from indulging in repeat viewings (my parents say I watched it incessantly). Of course, as I got older, I stopped watching it. But just recently I was shocked to find it in my hands as a DVD (my girlfriend heard me speak fondly of it and got it for me as an early x-mas present). Since then I've found myself wrapped in a myriad of awe, nostalgia, and even tears as childhood loves and fears have come flooding back to me because of this film. It's a riveting and beautiful story for children, but for adults who really listen its a treasure chest of wisdom. Buy this film for your kids and for yourself. It's enriched my life as both a child and an adult.