Notes on the DVD release


I've noticed that there are a number of internet postings complaining that Universal Home Video released a cut re-issue print of the film on DVD. However, one review on Amazon.com (reproduced below) should set this record straight.

I know Mr. Curtis. He is an excellent writer and researcher so I trust his opinion.

**** out of *****
A Correction to Previous Reviews, July 28, 2010
By James Curtis (Los Angeles)


While I'm no fan of Universal Studios Home Entertainment and the indifferent way USHE generally treats its older releases, in this case I have to say they've gotten a bum rap and something needs to be said.

Other customer reviews note a rumored 90 minute version of ALICE and berate USHE for only releasing the supposedly shortened version of the film on DVD. I'm here to tell you that the myth of the 90 minute version is just that--a myth.

I've had occasion to look into the making of this movie twice. Once, fleetingly, for my 2003 biography of W.C. Fields, and more deeply for a book I'm currently preparing on William Cameron Menzies. I've read the MPPDA file on the film, seen many of the reviews, noted contemporary articles on its making, and examined various drafts of Menzies' illustrated screenplay. At no time was the film any longer than 76 minutes. The Variety review, published December 26, 1933, gives its length as 76 minutes, and the 1935-36 Motion Picture Almanac (the earliest I have at hand) gives it as 75 minutes. (Close enough.) There are no major scenes in the shooting script, dated September, 1933, that are not in the film, and the Hays Office file shows that no eliminations were required at any time. In fact, Dr. James Wingate, in approving the film on December 9, 1933, commended the studio on an excellent job. "We trust that, in addition to the satisfaction of having produced one of the most notable pictures of the year, Paramount will also find that the picture will measure up at the box office to its outstanding production quality."

In terms of the DVD itself, the picture quality seems just fine to me. No attempt has been made to restore the film in any way, and there are zero extras, but the source materials seem to have been in fine shape, and the transfer appears to confim this. And whatever you may think of the film itself, it is, for 1933, a fascinating example of state-of-the-art visual effects, produced the same year as that other groundbreaking show, KING KONG. In conception, it may have been a mistake to combine both ALICE books into one scenaio, but if you've never seen this film, forget everything else you've heard about it and just allow it to take you in. In scope, ambition, and technical expertise, there are few more interesting movies of the period.

reply

don't get me wrong I like Alice but the effects for Kong were WAY ahead of the effects of the time while Alice has state of the art practical effect avalable at the time
"In scope, ambition, and technical expertise, there are few more interesting movies of the period."
I have seen many 1933 films unfortunately(at least that I remember) But I do agree with this, very ambitious and succeeds most of the time. The only bad effect for me was the bald cap for Gary Cooper

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

reply