Paul Mazursky co-wrote and directed this self-indulgent, though rarely boring, chronicle of an emerging movie director's quest to find a relevant, honest subject for his second picture. With reality and fantasy intermingling (often with a heavy hand), Mazursky is able to try out different filmmaking styles and techniques--some bold and some pretentious. This approach turns the picture into a series of vignettes, not all of which hold together, however there are wonderful individual moments amongst the dross. Donald Sutherland has a magical chance meeting with Jeanne Moreau in front of a book store, and there's an elaborate, surreal scene of war on Hollywood Boulevard (as seen through the jaundiced eye of a movie camera). A prickly bit of overstated authority on the U.S./Mexico border (with Sutherland singled out possibly because of his long hair and beard) is still topical today, however the circus folk and hippie longueurs probably looked embarrassing and dated only a year or so after the movie was released. An excursion to Rome seems included only to get a Federico Fellini cameo in the movie (Mazursky emulates Fellini's "8½" throughout, however the director's bit part is a gambit that fails to pay off). Everyday scenes of family life (house hunting, grocery shopping, etc.) are handled far too lackadaisically, although the depiction of Hollywood, California circa 1970 (wherein the Old Regime has been replaced with the avant garde New Wave) has a pointed preciseness which makes "Alex in Wonderland" an occasionally bracing document of its era. ** from ****
24 Reviews
American director Paul Mazursky allows Donald Sutherland to meet great Fellini and Jeanne Moreau for his film about his enigmatic alter-ego.
FilmCriticLalitRao31 March 2010
"Alex in Wonderland" is an absolutely different kind of film.It is one of those American films which talks about film making albeit in a very superficial manner.This is one of the few weak spots in the film as its narrative shifts quickly from one philosophical or ideological stance to another.This film can also be termed as Alex's adventures in wonderland as its eponymous protagonist film director Alex tries really hard to strike a fine balance between his professional and personal lives.Director Paul Mazursky is able to make his film appear a serious experience for a débutant film director by ensuring that there is absolutely no coherent link between two phases of a director's lives : personal life and professional life.Although Alex's journey in wonderland begins with a truly shocking scene which might be construed as somewhat scandalous by certain prudes,overall story gathers momentum once more pertinent characters are introduced.Paul Mazursky also plays a brief yet important role in this film to make us aware of the fact that not all filmmakers live in wonderland.His film suggests that most film directors live in ordinary surroundings where they try to deal with their strengths and weaknesses in equal measure in order to invigorate their artistic lives.It does not matter if not all viewers would be able to associate themselves with "Alex in Wonderland" and its hidden motives.One thing which can be said is that some serious fans will not be disappointed as they get to see great master of cinema Italian cinema maverick Fellini and French cinema diva Jeanne Moreau.
A noble failure
JasparLamarCrabb25 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Paul Mazursky's second feature is a not entirely successful patchwork of a film. A director (Donald Sutherland) struggles to come up with an idea for a second film. He has flights of fancy, daydreams, and some pretty interesting fantasies. It doesn't really come together, but it's never dull and Mazursky takes some pointed jabs at Hollywood (note the director's own cameo as a far too mellow studio head). Sutherland is fine and Ellen Burstyn plays his wife. Michael Lerner and Mazursky's own daughter Meg have supporting roles. There's a curious cameo by Federico Fellini and Jeanne Moreau appears, singing a song. Written by Mazursky and then writing partner Larry Tucker. The great cinematography is by László Kovács. A noble failure.
NOT the worst movie I ever saw....
Keetoo21 April 2007
.....because I have fond memories around it. Yes...it is so very dated. But I remember the tender relationship Sutherland's character had with his family, his wife and two daughters, in this movie. I also remember how entranced I was with Donald Sutherland - the actor. He was so charming. This was the first movie I ever saw with him and the first movie I ever saw in the theater without my parents. It was the first time I was able to go to the movies with friends only, and what a time we had. All five of us silly, giggly, girls....and we couldn't take our eyes off of "THE Donald". So when you watch this movie now on cable or DVD, see NOT a movie of no value, but of a wonderful fantasy vehicle that five little girls took one Saturday afternoon in 1970. What a memory!
Plodding with occasional inspired scenes
mobia-12 November 2015
I'm very fond of films made from the late 1960s through the mid 1970s for their experimental attempts to get beyond genre conventions. I had fully expected "Alex in Wonderland" to be an overlooked psychedelic gem. While the film does have some amazing hallucinatory set-pieces (the most elaborate, a violent war in Hollywood with soldiers firing into a crowd while 2 men in top hats and tails dance on a flaming station wagon to the tune "Hooray for Hollywood"), most of the action is plodding. Donald Sutherland as Alex, goes off on many travels and tangents to entertain ideas for his next directorial effort. None of the episodic scenes build on each other and aside for gloriously lensed shots (by Laszló Kovács) of Sutherland in full hippie regalia walking introspectively in a variety of locations, there is little cumulative insight.
Cannilabalizing clunker one abrasive bore
st-shot17 December 2013
Fresh off of his breakout success Bob, Ted, Carol, and Alice, writer/ director Alex Mazursky made this close to the bone story of a hot new director caught up in a similar predicament. We never find out what Alex Morrison ( Donald Sutherland) settles on but this is the path Maz took and he went straight off the cliff.
Sloppy, heavy handed and dull from the get go Alex in Wonderland embarrassingly stumbles along from its early tedious overlong scenes brazenly invoking Fellini along the way before actually hauling the maestro himself into a scene that is painful to watch. In between 8 1/2 references he also turns a chance meeting with Jeanne Moreau on Hollywood Boulevard into a crass Umbrellas of Cherbourg moment. Sutherland meanwhile with his liquid blue eyes reflecting in the California sun, his anti establishment hair blowing in the breeze looks dumbfounded in his tepid angst of struggling with confinement in a middle class gulag. As this unfolds Mazursky paints his backdrop with Alex's "wild" ideas, a heavy handed sloppy costume party complete with requisite dwarfs (one dressed like, you guessed it,Federico) as his nightmarish vision of Armegeddon.
Ironically the best thing about Alex is Masurzky's performance as a millionaire wanting in on the movie business. Better the camera had followed him than this mediocre artist and his delusions of "far out" grandeur. As the counter culture version of 81/2 I would say it was off by 9.
Sloppy, heavy handed and dull from the get go Alex in Wonderland embarrassingly stumbles along from its early tedious overlong scenes brazenly invoking Fellini along the way before actually hauling the maestro himself into a scene that is painful to watch. In between 8 1/2 references he also turns a chance meeting with Jeanne Moreau on Hollywood Boulevard into a crass Umbrellas of Cherbourg moment. Sutherland meanwhile with his liquid blue eyes reflecting in the California sun, his anti establishment hair blowing in the breeze looks dumbfounded in his tepid angst of struggling with confinement in a middle class gulag. As this unfolds Mazursky paints his backdrop with Alex's "wild" ideas, a heavy handed sloppy costume party complete with requisite dwarfs (one dressed like, you guessed it,Federico) as his nightmarish vision of Armegeddon.
Ironically the best thing about Alex is Masurzky's performance as a millionaire wanting in on the movie business. Better the camera had followed him than this mediocre artist and his delusions of "far out" grandeur. As the counter culture version of 81/2 I would say it was off by 9.
Weird and indulgent...this is sort of like a drug-infused hippie American version of "8 1/2".
planktonrules15 March 2011
This is a film that I guarantee that the average person would not enjoy. It's a time capsule of sort from a very, very different time. Back in 1970, I am pretty sure many people liked this movie and thought it was brilliant and insightful. When seen in a different time, it just seems indulgent, unstructured and, at times, silly and pretentious. I think if I had been born a bit earlier, I might have enjoyed the film. As is, watching it was a real chore.
When the film begins, the new film director (Donal Sutherland) is taking a bath with his daughter and talking a lot of philosophical nonsense. Now with today's sensibilities, such a scene might be misinterpreted as pedophilia--but this was not at all the intention. Do NOT read too much into this--it was just a freer style of parenting that was in vogue at that time. Now what I DID take offense at was soon after when Sutherland is talking with his friend--his friend who is about 30 and brags about sleeping with 16 year-olds! Now that IS creepy (not to mention probably illegal)!
The film is structured a lot like Federico Fellini's film "8 1/2"--but with a few American twists. The structure, the surreal moments and style is very, very reminiscent of this Italian film...but only superficially. The quality of "Alex in Wonderland" is not nearly as good as Fellini's film. As a result, it seems like a second-rate knockoff...and one that frequently does not work--although, ironically, Fellini himself makes a cameo in this movie. Most of the surrealistic scenes simply fall flat (as did the 'deeply philosophical' ones)--though I DID like the one with the French actress, Jeanne Moreau. You just have to see it to believe it! And, the scene with the idiotic studio exec wasn't bad. But as for the rest--the Vietnam War breaking out around the car, the nude black beach scene and the rest just seemed self-indulgent and fell flat.
If "8 1/2" never had been made, I might have enjoyed this film more. That, and if I used LSD!
When the film begins, the new film director (Donal Sutherland) is taking a bath with his daughter and talking a lot of philosophical nonsense. Now with today's sensibilities, such a scene might be misinterpreted as pedophilia--but this was not at all the intention. Do NOT read too much into this--it was just a freer style of parenting that was in vogue at that time. Now what I DID take offense at was soon after when Sutherland is talking with his friend--his friend who is about 30 and brags about sleeping with 16 year-olds! Now that IS creepy (not to mention probably illegal)!
The film is structured a lot like Federico Fellini's film "8 1/2"--but with a few American twists. The structure, the surreal moments and style is very, very reminiscent of this Italian film...but only superficially. The quality of "Alex in Wonderland" is not nearly as good as Fellini's film. As a result, it seems like a second-rate knockoff...and one that frequently does not work--although, ironically, Fellini himself makes a cameo in this movie. Most of the surrealistic scenes simply fall flat (as did the 'deeply philosophical' ones)--though I DID like the one with the French actress, Jeanne Moreau. You just have to see it to believe it! And, the scene with the idiotic studio exec wasn't bad. But as for the rest--the Vietnam War breaking out around the car, the nude black beach scene and the rest just seemed self-indulgent and fell flat.
If "8 1/2" never had been made, I might have enjoyed this film more. That, and if I used LSD!
Hollywood's answer to EIGHT IN-A-HALF.
DukeEman28 January 1999
A film director has trouble in finding a subject for his next film, therefore having a director's block that allows for family confrontation, surreal illusions and the descent into a creative breakdown. I found it interesting and my wife was frightened by it, believing I'm heading down the same road!
So many problems with this film...
iosu_vakerizzo22 July 2020
I wanted to like it but the film didn't let me.
I can see that this film was made by a fan the European cinema that I love, but there is a difference between trying to make something similar and making a bad copy.
The film opens with a scene from Godard's Pierrot Le Fou. In Godard's film Belmondo is in the bathtub, reading about Velazquez to his young daughter. In this film Sutherland talks philosophical nonsense in the same fashion. Trying to do a typical Godard dialogue, but failing. It feels flat and uninteresting. The scene goes on way too long too.
Then it cuts to a wonderful tracking shot of the palatial ceiling of a fancy cinema, while the credits run. This is the best thing in this movie. There are other moments perhaps, but none as good as this credit sequence.
As the film develops it quickly becomes apparent that this film wants to be 8 1/2, but does a lousy job it. It also does a lousy job at hiding it's intentions.
Fellini turns up in the film, looking rather embarrassed, as if he already knew how much of a cheap rip off this film was going to be. Honestly, I have never seen him looking like this. Meek. Mousy. Strange. But any footage of him is welcomed.
As the film goes on, every conversation seems dull, the character seem uninteresting, the film is pretentious and self indulgent, the dream sequences look forced, unlike the maestro's. A lot of the dialogue seems to be doing a lousy attempt at being Godard. Trying to sound profound without being so. The Jean Moreau scene too seems like a bad attempt at Godardian musical scenes as played by Ana Karina in Pierrot le Fou or A Woman Is A Woman.
Then to top it all up he goes and uses not one but two pieces of Nino Rota - Fellini music. Come on!!! Have some self respect!
I don't hate this film, but it's bad. It's really bad. I think a lot of the people defending it are probably not familiar enough with the works of the filmmakers he stole from, cause it's hard to see Mazursky's film without cringing at everything he lifted so shamelessly. If at least the dialogue was good... if the characters were interesting... The photography is very good, the acting is fine most of the time, but it just fails to be insightful, and it tries so very hard... and it fails to be profound, and it fails to be interesting. Sutherland's repeating question "desert island, what three foods..." is so inane and uninteresting. There are some questions that may reveal something about people's personality. But that one is not it!
Some people here have said that it's depiction of Hollywood at the time is great. I'd even disagree there. It is incredibly superficial. Someone said it was dated and that maybe it seemed better at the time. I'm sure the creepy friend was perceived as more normal in the culture of the 70s, but notice that i havent even mentioned him for that reason. Being dated has nothing to do with it. Plenty of movies are dated and are still great. Sorry to the fans of this film, it's a 3 star review from me. But hey, there are plenty of films out there i'd give zero stars to, so this aint that bad.
The film opens with a scene from Godard's Pierrot Le Fou. In Godard's film Belmondo is in the bathtub, reading about Velazquez to his young daughter. In this film Sutherland talks philosophical nonsense in the same fashion. Trying to do a typical Godard dialogue, but failing. It feels flat and uninteresting. The scene goes on way too long too.
Then it cuts to a wonderful tracking shot of the palatial ceiling of a fancy cinema, while the credits run. This is the best thing in this movie. There are other moments perhaps, but none as good as this credit sequence.
As the film develops it quickly becomes apparent that this film wants to be 8 1/2, but does a lousy job it. It also does a lousy job at hiding it's intentions.
Fellini turns up in the film, looking rather embarrassed, as if he already knew how much of a cheap rip off this film was going to be. Honestly, I have never seen him looking like this. Meek. Mousy. Strange. But any footage of him is welcomed.
As the film goes on, every conversation seems dull, the character seem uninteresting, the film is pretentious and self indulgent, the dream sequences look forced, unlike the maestro's. A lot of the dialogue seems to be doing a lousy attempt at being Godard. Trying to sound profound without being so. The Jean Moreau scene too seems like a bad attempt at Godardian musical scenes as played by Ana Karina in Pierrot le Fou or A Woman Is A Woman.
Then to top it all up he goes and uses not one but two pieces of Nino Rota - Fellini music. Come on!!! Have some self respect!
I don't hate this film, but it's bad. It's really bad. I think a lot of the people defending it are probably not familiar enough with the works of the filmmakers he stole from, cause it's hard to see Mazursky's film without cringing at everything he lifted so shamelessly. If at least the dialogue was good... if the characters were interesting... The photography is very good, the acting is fine most of the time, but it just fails to be insightful, and it tries so very hard... and it fails to be profound, and it fails to be interesting. Sutherland's repeating question "desert island, what three foods..." is so inane and uninteresting. There are some questions that may reveal something about people's personality. But that one is not it!
Some people here have said that it's depiction of Hollywood at the time is great. I'd even disagree there. It is incredibly superficial. Someone said it was dated and that maybe it seemed better at the time. I'm sure the creepy friend was perceived as more normal in the culture of the 70s, but notice that i havent even mentioned him for that reason. Being dated has nothing to do with it. Plenty of movies are dated and are still great. Sorry to the fans of this film, it's a 3 star review from me. But hey, there are plenty of films out there i'd give zero stars to, so this aint that bad.
Goodbye Mr. Morrison.
mark.waltz30 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It's ironic that when Donald Sutherland walks onto the MGM lot in this weird little arthouse film that there is a banner for the musical remake of MGM's "Goodbye Mr. Chips", and while he's having a conversation with one of his daughters, there is a Jean Harlow movie on in the background. It's a metaphor for the fall of glamour and rise of grunge as he meets with the head of the studio, a short little man with a Beatles haircut and wardrobe resembling something you'd see some beachcomber wearing, strange for the man in power of Louis B. Mayer's old empire.
Sutherland is a novice director who has one picture under his belt (not yet released) and he's struggling, like the hero of Fellini's "8 1/2", to come up with a new idea. Sutherland, talented but overexposed along with "Mash" costar Elliot Gould in the early 70's, tries to install charm into his avant garde character, but he's rather sick in the head with the types of conversations that he brings up, bothering director Fellini (seen in a cameo) and Jeanne Moreau (utilized in a sequence that seems to be more in his mind than really happening) by posing hypothetical questions to them. Sutherland is obviously emulating the film's director Paul Mazursky here, and it's not a favorable comparison.
Hollywood was trying too hard to come up with different ways of presenting ideas at this time, and this film takes on various social issues in its efforts to create something profound. What results is a confirmation that these new ideas weren't really working, instantly dated and and often ridiculously obscene. Ellen Burstyn is completely wasted as Sutherland's wife, and the supporting cast covering every bizarre archetype to come out of the hippy era. To see Sutherland driving down the glamorous streets of Beverly Hills (and even meeting with a real estate agent to hopefully buy a mansion) gives the ghosts of the film history to rise up and declare, "Uh oh. There goes the neighborhood."
Sutherland is a novice director who has one picture under his belt (not yet released) and he's struggling, like the hero of Fellini's "8 1/2", to come up with a new idea. Sutherland, talented but overexposed along with "Mash" costar Elliot Gould in the early 70's, tries to install charm into his avant garde character, but he's rather sick in the head with the types of conversations that he brings up, bothering director Fellini (seen in a cameo) and Jeanne Moreau (utilized in a sequence that seems to be more in his mind than really happening) by posing hypothetical questions to them. Sutherland is obviously emulating the film's director Paul Mazursky here, and it's not a favorable comparison.
Hollywood was trying too hard to come up with different ways of presenting ideas at this time, and this film takes on various social issues in its efforts to create something profound. What results is a confirmation that these new ideas weren't really working, instantly dated and and often ridiculously obscene. Ellen Burstyn is completely wasted as Sutherland's wife, and the supporting cast covering every bizarre archetype to come out of the hippy era. To see Sutherland driving down the glamorous streets of Beverly Hills (and even meeting with a real estate agent to hopefully buy a mansion) gives the ghosts of the film history to rise up and declare, "Uh oh. There goes the neighborhood."
A must-see commentary
jorgeppires14 August 2004
Made in the aftermath of the sixties - and not without a hint of LSD - this view on the life, times and troubles of a young movie director, is also a must-see commentary on the relations between art and industry, independent film-makers and big-time producers, American cinema and European cinema. Glorious appearances by Federico Fellini (a hard-working man, whom Alex disturbs in Cinecittá while he's editing a TV special) and Jeanne Moreau serve as extra features that will attract every real movie-buff. At the same time, the movie owes much of its intensity (and/or intimacy) to a close-knit cast, where even the director and his wife are listed. And for very good reasons. If you still think at cinema as an adventure in the making, you won't be disappointed by this one.
Hollywood
SnoopyStyle3 January 2023
Alex Morrison (Donald Sutherland) is the hot new director after finishing his first feature. It's in previews and it's a critical success. He, his wife Beth (Ellen Burstyn), and their kids move to Hollywood where he's making the rounds and working out his next project.
This movie meanders around with no particular destination. It's like his many imaginings. I don't see them adding to any understanding of Hollywood. At best, it's a movie about the artistic process. It's not that coherent, but that may be the process. His personal drama has no tension. It's just a bunch of different characters coming in and out of his day-to-day life. I don't really understand the root of his marital problem. I don't know the stakes for his career. He comes to Hollywood and gets a big house. It all feels rather random.
This movie meanders around with no particular destination. It's like his many imaginings. I don't see them adding to any understanding of Hollywood. At best, it's a movie about the artistic process. It's not that coherent, but that may be the process. His personal drama has no tension. It's just a bunch of different characters coming in and out of his day-to-day life. I don't really understand the root of his marital problem. I don't know the stakes for his career. He comes to Hollywood and gets a big house. It all feels rather random.
a strange one but a sweet little beauty!
KGB-Greece-Patras12 November 2002
This is definately not for everybody. I found this really interesting and since I started combining forces of cable TV with IMDB I discover really nice films. After all THERE ARE nice, different & interesting american films, even in the seventies!
Anyway, this movie is not for people who like one-dimentional films. This is both serious and funny, both tragic and amusing. Even if its not too slow, it won't appeal to those who like it fast.
Basicly it's about an intelligent director who is starting to lose it a bit. This is depicted in a most realistic way. I dont know what it has in common with Fellini's 8-IN-1, as I havent seen it. Anyway ALEX IN WONDERLAND implies a straight effect of 8-IN-1 on it.
The dialog is the strongest about this one and people on stupid action films or those who dont like a dialog based flick wont find anything in this one.
Anyway, this movie is not for people who like one-dimentional films. This is both serious and funny, both tragic and amusing. Even if its not too slow, it won't appeal to those who like it fast.
Basicly it's about an intelligent director who is starting to lose it a bit. This is depicted in a most realistic way. I dont know what it has in common with Fellini's 8-IN-1, as I havent seen it. Anyway ALEX IN WONDERLAND implies a straight effect of 8-IN-1 on it.
The dialog is the strongest about this one and people on stupid action films or those who dont like a dialog based flick wont find anything in this one.
Skip it
bsinc12 February 2003
Does anything at all happen in this movie. There are only the bizarre short scenes where I didn't know what the hell was going on so that doesn't count. This movie is sooo boring it hurts, and this is coming from a person who likes it when movies are about making movies. Confused?, well I was after watching this crap. What was Donald Sutherland on, because he missed it with this one completely. And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie. Can put anyone to sleep! 4/10
alex in wonderland
mossgrymk28 January 2023
As a general rule it is inadvisable for a merely good film maker to borrow too heavily from a film maker of genius. The result is apt to be what is on the screen here, namely a very, very pale imitation of "Eight And A Half" with small islands of interesting family conflict floating in an ocean of cliche Hollywood boredom, (although I suppose we should be thankful that it leaves out the biggest cliche of all, the self destructive beautiful actress). As for the fantasy sequences, they are so bad that for the climactic one I had to use the ol fast forward. Suffice it to say that Mazursky has done better work and leave it at that. Same with Ms. Burstyn and Mr. Sutherland. Solid C.
Horrible and not worth making
travelgoer7 January 2023
I found this movie disturbing. I probably should have stopped watching after the first scene with father and six year old daughter naked in the bathtub. Found it quite disturbing so fast forwarded through probably over half. Despite the big names at the time of Donald Sutherland, Ellen Burstyn, and Jeanne Moreau singing no less it was just a lot of schlock. Can see why it was a big bomb at box office. Even had to have relatives of director and stars to fill empty roles. Even the scenery stunk compared to what Los Angeles has to offer. Very droll and boring. Definitely pass this one by if you see it.
great slice of a life...
Vyth9 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I really liked this slice of California in the 70's (late 60's?) Donald Sutherland rules. plain and simple.. his charisma would carry a film even if it were not so well put together as this one... his character is likable but realistic, faults included.. whatever.. I just wanted to recommend the film.. I like a film to set a mood and take you there.. and this does just that, i feel like I know what it would be like to be a director on the verge of having it all in the early 70's, and for an hour and a half I lived it with the cast..
I felt like the mood was similar to that of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", at the beginning, just watching Richard Drefuss's character with his family.. just like a glimpse of what that life would be.. with the good times, and the arguments etc etc.. no explosions, no car chases, just a slice of life.
I felt like the mood was similar to that of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", at the beginning, just watching Richard Drefuss's character with his family.. just like a glimpse of what that life would be.. with the good times, and the arguments etc etc.. no explosions, no car chases, just a slice of life.
it's that simple: great movie
vigilante-scorpio6 May 2006
Alex in Wonderland is a great movie. As usual there are users on IMDb who are dissing this movie, telling: ooh, this is the worst D. Sutherland movie, it's so boring, this is not actually a movie (sic!)more short scenes bla bla bla...that's normal. They have a different taste, they've expected something else, who knows....some familiar people were dissing lot of other great directors, you know the ones which were categorized as unconventional, as if movies should been made conventional and well structured including dramaturgish suspense romance and being thrilling also and having "well written screenplayed executived characters"...or: they're knowledge in movies could fill a regular bean halfway....
Alex in Wonderland is a near to life movie. I've found myself in some scenes or better, my thoughts. D. Sutherland is bombing in his role playing really deep. He is a long-haired, bearded, free -soul director, who's trying to find a subject for his next movie...and then a lot of funny & strange things are taking place...(what a plot description)
It's a movie for your brain & eyes, it's colorful and chilling and warm and intimate and surreal and sad...and it also leaves room for your own thoughts.
For all you cine-dudes and D. Sutherland fans give this gem a try. (You can also catch it on TCM)
And don't give this dumb user any importance who was saying "And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie"...What a jerking doh-doh! In this particularly scene Alex Morrison takes a bath with his child. Which loving father or mother on this holy earth wouldn't take a bath with their own beloved child...If you call that a "pedofile" scene, then there is no hope for you fella, you're just sick & rotten....you're head is empty.
Alex in Wonderland is a near to life movie. I've found myself in some scenes or better, my thoughts. D. Sutherland is bombing in his role playing really deep. He is a long-haired, bearded, free -soul director, who's trying to find a subject for his next movie...and then a lot of funny & strange things are taking place...(what a plot description)
It's a movie for your brain & eyes, it's colorful and chilling and warm and intimate and surreal and sad...and it also leaves room for your own thoughts.
For all you cine-dudes and D. Sutherland fans give this gem a try. (You can also catch it on TCM)
And don't give this dumb user any importance who was saying "And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie"...What a jerking doh-doh! In this particularly scene Alex Morrison takes a bath with his child. Which loving father or mother on this holy earth wouldn't take a bath with their own beloved child...If you call that a "pedofile" scene, then there is no hope for you fella, you're just sick & rotten....you're head is empty.
re: the dude who got all pissy about the left wing hippie angle of the film
Pale-48 June 2007
It is so blatantly obvious that Mazursky is gently parodying the self righteousness of the hippie movement. When discussing the black uprising movie, it's the black dude who tells him it's a rotten idea. In a more stern observation, his wife is clearly upset and his family life is clearly hitting the skids and he goes on about an acid trip he and his friend took. His wife makes the incredibly accurate observation that he wants her to do what he wants her to do not what she wants to do.
Look I fly a little to the left of the left wing but to blather on about Hollywood being left wing when they want nothing more than to do movies where "things blow up real good" is kind of ridiculous.
The movie is good. It's not great. But it is a keen and well observed characterization of a creative man who is trying to keep his personal and creative life together and vibrant but falls prey to his own self doubts.
Look I fly a little to the left of the left wing but to blather on about Hollywood being left wing when they want nothing more than to do movies where "things blow up real good" is kind of ridiculous.
The movie is good. It's not great. But it is a keen and well observed characterization of a creative man who is trying to keep his personal and creative life together and vibrant but falls prey to his own self doubts.
Loved it.
Anscules8 January 2011
i saw this for the first time last night and thought it was fantastic - the best Mazursky movie i've seen (by far). i come here and find it has a 5.0 and most people hate it... strange. must have hit me at the right moment. i've been interested in seeing it for 20 years - glad i didn't until now.
yes, portions are derivative and pretentious, but Sutherland's incredibly likable and the film has a free and easy feel reminding me of a kind of urban easy rider. it's more of a long poem than a standard movie.
the sequence at Mazursky's office is amazing.
yes, portions are derivative and pretentious, but Sutherland's incredibly likable and the film has a free and easy feel reminding me of a kind of urban easy rider. it's more of a long poem than a standard movie.
the sequence at Mazursky's office is amazing.
A Film That Says A lot About Nothing
Michael_Elliott31 December 2013
Alex in Wonderland (1970)
** (out of 4)
Paul Mazursky's second feature has pretty much been forgotten about. It centers on a film director (Donald Sutherland) who scores a hit with his first film and is now struggling to make a follow-up. He has several people pitching him ideas but the director is wanting to do something personal and a film that has something to say. ALEX IN WONDERLAND is pretty much a hippie version of 8 1/2 and I guess it should come as no shock that the highlight of this picture is a cameo by Federico Fellini who plays himself. I think it's pretty obvious that Mazursky was basing this film around his own life since he had just scored his first hit the previous year and I guess this was his attempt to tell people that he wanted to say something important. Self indulgent is something that films get called whenever they try to be smart or pretend they have something to say. Well, sometimes films do have things to say and they come across as a piece of art. When film's say dumb things they become self indulgent, which is exactly what this film is. There are just so many problems with this thing but the biggest one is that we really don't care about the director, his films or his vision of what his films should be about. Nothing that he says is all that interesting and especially when he constantly asks people if they were on an island what three foods would they want. Is that really your great vision? Sutherland gives a good performance in the lead but he really doesn't have to do very much. He pretty much just hides behind his long hair and talks about race or various movie stars. Ellen Burstyn plays his wife and does a nice job but the role doesn't give her too much to do. Besides the Fellini cameo we get another one with Jeanne Moreau, which is strange to say the least. ALEX IN WONDERLAND starts off somewhat entertaining but the more it tries to say something the more boring it gets.
** (out of 4)
Paul Mazursky's second feature has pretty much been forgotten about. It centers on a film director (Donald Sutherland) who scores a hit with his first film and is now struggling to make a follow-up. He has several people pitching him ideas but the director is wanting to do something personal and a film that has something to say. ALEX IN WONDERLAND is pretty much a hippie version of 8 1/2 and I guess it should come as no shock that the highlight of this picture is a cameo by Federico Fellini who plays himself. I think it's pretty obvious that Mazursky was basing this film around his own life since he had just scored his first hit the previous year and I guess this was his attempt to tell people that he wanted to say something important. Self indulgent is something that films get called whenever they try to be smart or pretend they have something to say. Well, sometimes films do have things to say and they come across as a piece of art. When film's say dumb things they become self indulgent, which is exactly what this film is. There are just so many problems with this thing but the biggest one is that we really don't care about the director, his films or his vision of what his films should be about. Nothing that he says is all that interesting and especially when he constantly asks people if they were on an island what three foods would they want. Is that really your great vision? Sutherland gives a good performance in the lead but he really doesn't have to do very much. He pretty much just hides behind his long hair and talks about race or various movie stars. Ellen Burstyn plays his wife and does a nice job but the role doesn't give her too much to do. Besides the Fellini cameo we get another one with Jeanne Moreau, which is strange to say the least. ALEX IN WONDERLAND starts off somewhat entertaining but the more it tries to say something the more boring it gets.
The life of a hip(pie) Hollywood director.
fedor82 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".
There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.
There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.
Can it get any worse ?
Herman_Willems14 August 2004
The worst movie with Donald Sutherland,one of my favorite actors, I ever saw. What in the world possessed Sutherland to take part in that movie. "Kelly's Heroes" was made in the same year and there he put down one of his best performances as "Oddball". There is no story in this movie. I even convinced myself to watch it twice on Turner Classic Movie channel, to find anything meaningful in this movie but I had to conclude that it is the worst I ever saw. Not even Donald Sutherland could pull this movie a little over the edge of disaster. He was,by the way, the only reason I watched the movie to the end twice.So this film will be erased from my memory as soon as possible and I stick to the rest of Donald's memorable fine performances.
Mazursky meets Fellini - in more ways than one
gortx11 April 2023
After the major success of his debut film, BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE, Director Paul Mazursky found himself struggling as to what subject to do next. More or less, that's what his lead character, Alex Morrison (Donald Sutherland), is going through here. A transplanted New Yorker, Alex is surrounded by hippies, free spirits and studio execs who are trying to figure out their way in the "New Hollywood".
So who does Alex/Mazursky turn to for inspiration? Federico Fellini. His 8 1/2 to be specific. Less than 7 years after Fellini's masterpiece, Mazursky's ALEX IN WONDERLAND is perhaps the first major film to be directly inspired by it (and far from the last, as 2022's spate of autobiographical movies clearly showed). Give Mazursky credit, he not only name-checks 8 1/2, but has the guts/gall to include a scene where Alex meets the maestro! Call it Mazursky's 1 1/2. Jeanne Moreau also shows up as herself in a strange sequence which may infer that she is something akin to Claudia Cardinale's role in 8 1/2.
Unfortunately, that homage trivia aside, the screenplay which Mazursky and Phil Tucker co-wrote, never stands its own ground. Alex is an egotistical and largely unsympathetic character who spouts platitudes, hassles his wife (Ellen Burstyn; saddled with a drippy role) and mother (Viola Spolin) and isn't the finest father to his two daughters (including Mazursky's own child, Meg). His search for truth and meaning are as meaty as a dish of "alfalfa sprouts and mashed yeast"* at the Sunset Strip's The Source restaurant where Alex dines.
The best scene is between Alex and a hotshot studio bigwig, Hal Stern (played by Mazursky himself). Stern is so gung ho about getting the new auteur to make a film with him that he offers him a trip to Europe just to read a book he has the rights to! Sutherland does what he can with the thin screenplay, but far too much of the screen-time is taken up by the most mundane of observations (one hesitates to actually deem them "insights').
ALEX IN WONDERLAND is more dull than its negative reputation would have it. It's only truly "bad" the more it tries to ape Fellini (the airport scene, the Hollywood Boulevard fantasia and a truly cringe-worthy black power dance at the beach). Creating one's own phantasmagoria isn't as easy as it looks -- although Laszlo Kovac's cinematography is quite good . Conversely, these "bad" scenes are also the film's most lively and perversely entertaining!
Mazursky should have "paid homage" to Fellini one more time and lifted something from his oeuvre for an ending. ALEX IN WONDERLAND really doesn't have one. It just stops**.
Mazursky rebounded well from this disappointment with BLUME IN LOVE and HARRY AND TONTO immediately afterwards, and had a fine career of his own.
* Alex eats there in the film. That menu item is from Woody Allen's ANNIE HALL, of course (also filmed at The Source).
** Angelenos will find it amusing that a classic house in a good L. A. neighborhood could be had for $89K dollars -- and, that's DOWN from the original asking price of $200K!
So who does Alex/Mazursky turn to for inspiration? Federico Fellini. His 8 1/2 to be specific. Less than 7 years after Fellini's masterpiece, Mazursky's ALEX IN WONDERLAND is perhaps the first major film to be directly inspired by it (and far from the last, as 2022's spate of autobiographical movies clearly showed). Give Mazursky credit, he not only name-checks 8 1/2, but has the guts/gall to include a scene where Alex meets the maestro! Call it Mazursky's 1 1/2. Jeanne Moreau also shows up as herself in a strange sequence which may infer that she is something akin to Claudia Cardinale's role in 8 1/2.
Unfortunately, that homage trivia aside, the screenplay which Mazursky and Phil Tucker co-wrote, never stands its own ground. Alex is an egotistical and largely unsympathetic character who spouts platitudes, hassles his wife (Ellen Burstyn; saddled with a drippy role) and mother (Viola Spolin) and isn't the finest father to his two daughters (including Mazursky's own child, Meg). His search for truth and meaning are as meaty as a dish of "alfalfa sprouts and mashed yeast"* at the Sunset Strip's The Source restaurant where Alex dines.
The best scene is between Alex and a hotshot studio bigwig, Hal Stern (played by Mazursky himself). Stern is so gung ho about getting the new auteur to make a film with him that he offers him a trip to Europe just to read a book he has the rights to! Sutherland does what he can with the thin screenplay, but far too much of the screen-time is taken up by the most mundane of observations (one hesitates to actually deem them "insights').
ALEX IN WONDERLAND is more dull than its negative reputation would have it. It's only truly "bad" the more it tries to ape Fellini (the airport scene, the Hollywood Boulevard fantasia and a truly cringe-worthy black power dance at the beach). Creating one's own phantasmagoria isn't as easy as it looks -- although Laszlo Kovac's cinematography is quite good . Conversely, these "bad" scenes are also the film's most lively and perversely entertaining!
Mazursky should have "paid homage" to Fellini one more time and lifted something from his oeuvre for an ending. ALEX IN WONDERLAND really doesn't have one. It just stops**.
Mazursky rebounded well from this disappointment with BLUME IN LOVE and HARRY AND TONTO immediately afterwards, and had a fine career of his own.
* Alex eats there in the film. That menu item is from Woody Allen's ANNIE HALL, of course (also filmed at The Source).
** Angelenos will find it amusing that a classic house in a good L. A. neighborhood could be had for $89K dollars -- and, that's DOWN from the original asking price of $200K!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
