Alice In Wonderland

Alice In Wonderland

Alice, an unpretentious and individual 19-year-old, is betrothed to a dunce of an English nobleman. At her engagement party, she escapes the crowd to consider whether to go through with the marriage and falls down a hole in the garden after spotting an unusual rabbit. Arriving in a strange and surreal place called 'Underland,' she finds herself in a world that resembles the nightmares she had as a child, filled with talking animals, villainous queens and knights, and frumious bandersnatches. Alice realizes that she is there for a reason – to conquer the horrific Jabberwocky and restore the rightful queen to her throne.

After 10 years straying into the wonderland, Alice now is a 19-year-old beautiful girl. At a party, she is suddenly asked her hand in marriage, she runs away and strays into the wonderland again. The wonderland now is destroyed by a wicked woman. Will Alice find a way to save it? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


You may also like

Alice In Wonderland torrent reviews

Peter W (ag) wrote: This film's simplicity and awkwardness reminded me of being a foreigner in South Korea. It's not easy living abroad, especially for the women portrayed in these situations, and it's not easy for locals either. This film does a good job of making light of these scenarios without rebuking the profundity of them.

Walter M (ag) wrote: In "Silent Souls," Aist(Igor Sergeev) is the son of a famous poet. Having failed to write anything of his own, Aist works in a paper factory. While making time with a female security guard, he is called to the office of Miron(Yuriy Tsurilo), his boss. It's not about that, however. See, Miron's younger wife Tanya(Yuliya Aug) has just died and he needs help in attending to the appropriate funeral rites. Since this might take a few days, Aist, takes along the birds, buntings, that he just bought. "Silent Souls" is a rather beguiling movie. If it is oddly so, it is perhaps the way an outsider, or the viewer, sees the customs shown which are fading away in this modern world.(The scene in the box store exemplifies this clash of worlds.) In any case, the narration is definitely necessary, as else we might come to a thoroughly different conclusion as to what is really happening.(Like for instance, that Miron murdered the unhappy Tanya which I am not entirely ruling out.) We see all of this mostly over the characters' shoulders which does make it kind of hard to focus on them at times while the movie's deliberate pace does wonders in establishing a keen sense of loneliness. Even with the funereal mood, I am wondering how seriously to take the movie at times, considering the awful poetry, not as bad as Vogon poetry, mind you, but still bad, which is pretty ridiculous.

Armando B (us) wrote: By the first half of the movie I get lost, I did not know what was happening, too much dialogue and it did not got nowhere sometimes. I was expecting action like we saw on the trailer, but it did not happen, Rachel Weiz was good, but it was sometimes annoying in seeing her in those situations. Even so it was based on true events I thought it needed more to it. So for this being a let down from the trailer and being that good, I give "The Whistleblower" a D.

Dax S (gb) wrote: Another great Tarantino movie.

deleting d (kr) wrote: ahah loove all SRK's films !

Delia B (ca) wrote: This movie wasn't half bad. It was full of dry humor, very dry, yet funny. And lucky for Jason he barely had to act in this movie, so he did fabulous!

Jen H (mx) wrote: It's like eating chocolate cake made into a film: Rich and well acted, many shades of right and wrong--baked to perfection.

Brian S (kr) wrote: Adapting the life of one of Hollywood's first onscreen stars, the Silent-Era king of slapstick comedy Charlie Chaplin, into a big studio production makes a whole ton of sense with 1992s (Oscar Bait) biopic Chaplin. The production is grand, the cast impressively large, spearheaded with fine (if predictable) directing and all tied together via a classic story structure trope that will pull at the heart strings-an old Chaplin reminiscing about his life and speaking aloud for it to visualize in flashback-leaves nothing in the film feeling necessarily new, but it is executed well. Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of the charismatic Charlie (both young and old) is consistent across the lifetime he portrays him. Although Downey Jr. has the "look" of Chaplin-eerily channeling the former Vaudevillian when dressed in the classic "Tramp" costume to perfection-he unfortunately lacks the bodily flexibility that made the original Chaplin so enduring and funny. It wouldn't be as apparent if it weren't for scenes of Chaplin's actual films being shown. The contrast between the "real" Chaplin and Downey Jr. "acting" as Chaplin sticks out and one wonders why they didn't just re-create many of the scenes they show. This aside, part of the attraction of the film is to see Chaplin's thinking process and how it manifested on screen, showing that he was a visionary and a pioneer in the (literal) Wild West of moviemaking. Many of the things he went through in life become the catalyst of his inspirations-immigration being one of them, women another-but the way it is executed is problematic. The film merely teases what the real Chaplin struggled with; gifting him resolutions without much conflict. A problem is gone and replaced with a solution as often as Charlie has a new love interest beside him. As we see these glimpses of inspiration and drama, it is quickly shined over by some Hollywoodland glitz and glamour, resulting in Chaplin feeling like a Tinseltown fairytale. Although the film doesn't present the gravitas of consequence (like being banned from the United States for example), it is still an effective journey through the eyes of someone who just wanted to make people laugh and dream. When the lights turn on and the audience begin to leave the theater, Chaplin won't live up to its namesake's legacy, but for a peek into one of Hollywood's most esteemed individuals, you wouldn't expect it to be any less glamorous than Hollywood itself-a place where dreams are made of.

Private U (es) wrote: nostalgia on its best..

Andrey B (nl) wrote: Forceful and impressive movie, brilliantly executed and acted, with pretty descent philosophical content and mysterious charm about it.

Brian S (au) wrote: hilarious musical comedy in all its dated, campy 60s glory. not only is the writing sharp, but the actors' sense of timing and physical comedy enhances the film so much more. the songs aren't THAT outstanding, but the story is fun and the characters are entertaining. along with Guys and Dolls, a true high point for Frank Loesser.

Grami Tami N (au) wrote: I admit I'm a sucker for Doris Day and Rock Hudson...

Devon Danger D (de) wrote: i think its the one i like

Jens S (fr) wrote: I did not know that Lovelace's story, especially her involvement with the classic porn film Deep Throat, was such a tragic story of naivety and abuse. Seyfriend entirely disappears behind her wig and make up here, giving a pretty damn convincing performance. The writing and direction could have been a little more stringent, though, making it a somewhat uneven movie. People hoping for big sex scenes will not get much out of it either.