This movie is dark, the book is not.

Seeing all of the dissenting responses here, I think it's safe to
say that some of us, at least, find the books to contain at least
some "scary and dark" material.
I've read both Wonderland and Looking Glass, original format and many
others. I'm a huge fan. While they are not horror stories, or
even overall very frightening, to speak as if they contain nothing
dark is rather unperceptive.
Many of us were no doubt indoctrined in the Disney version, which
is a very bright and rosey view of Wonderland. Yet even there, we see
Alice as a lost, crying little girl, alone in a strange land where normal
rules do not apply; one can lose their head at the Queen's whim,
babies tossed and turned into pigs, constant danger and few friends.
I often feel the caterpiller is the only character to give her any real help
(advice) at all.
What about The Jabberwocky from Looking Glass? It does not support this
movie, but it does give us a further view on Alice and Carrols
mindset.
This film was one directors personal vision, a "retelling", and compared
to many versions relatively faithful to many story points. As a fan of
both the books and surreal cinema, I enjoyed it very much.

I will have to agree with the OP. I love different versions of Alice in Wonderland, however; the books were anything but dark. They were just plain old quirky.


I also like hobos, riding dinosours with my best friend Jesus and eating glitter.

I'll chime in on the side of agreeing with the OP generally, in that the books did not seem overtly dark to me. I read them when I was 12 or so when they seemed fairytale-like, and again later, after a logic professor explained to the class that they were "wonderful excercises in logic". At that time, I did indeed see that aspect of them that suggested that Carroll may have been using the narrative to illustrate common errors in logic and the deceptiveness of language (for example, to mean what you say =/= to say what you mean). Neither reading came across as "dark", although some of it was weird and disturbing (i.e. the baby/pig).

Since we can all interpret this text any way we want, I'd say this film is a pretty fascinating interpretation which I enjoyed. What annoys me however, are reviews like "Andy(film critic)" which states more than once that the books were intended to be dark. That may be Andy's view, but if Lewis Carroll didn't state that himself, then he has no business proclaiming it as if it were an established fact. Unless, of course, Andy has necromancer powers to communicate directly with the deceased-- that would be so cool!

Say Andy(film critic), wherever you are, could you ask Joseph Smith where he put those golden plates?




_________________________________
"I'm sorry, but.." is a self-contained lie.

[deleted]

I'm watching one of the director's films at the moment which is why I looked this film up, which I saw many years ago and was the stuff of nightmares.

I have read the books as an adult and found them to be works of genius. What some here interpret as darkness I just feel are disturbing i.e. to make you uncomfortable rather than scared almost in the way Roald Dahl's books for children do (in which horrible people have nasty deaths but that's OK because they're nasty).

What comes across more to me in the books is the foundations of surrealist humour you are most likely to find with the Pythons. The book is full of logical arguments during which Alice, who is an exceptional girl, more than holds her own. This is all happening in Alice's mind anyway and while she gets frustrated and annoyed with her world, is she really ever terrified?

Not to say this film is not a tremendous work of imagination but the books really are not anything like as scary, as you will see in some of the non- Disney interpretations, so I have a large about of sympathy with the OP's viewpoint.

People just perceive things differently. What's funny to some may be sad to others.