IMDb user comments for
The Wiz (1978) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

120 comments in total

---

38 out of 55 people found the following comment useful :-
The art of adaptation..., 29 January 1999
Author: Morlock from Orlando, FL

Normally, I feel that it is a travesty to remake an older, classic film (sequels excepted). Profits aside, what is the motive? What is there to add? "The Wiz," however, is one of the few exceptions to my belief. Whereas "The Wizard of Oz" is more of a child's film, the intended audience for "The Wiz" is a few steps above that. Like its predecessor, "The Wiz" is both visually stunning and musically engaging. It compliments the seriousness of its themes and situations--both of which it has in more abundance than its predecessor--with a copious amount of humor. Seldom have I witnessed a more creative work of adaptation than that which is presented by "The Wiz," which is, of course, adapted from L. Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." A few others that spring to mind are "Logan's Run" and "The War of the Worlds." I mention these not because they were simply a good translation of book to film, but because they maintained the book's overall story (plot, theme, characters, etc.) while retailoring the environment and/or situation. "The Wiz" focuses on the "black situation." It redresses all of the elements from its source material to meet the needs of its revamped, modern, social subject matter. From the Scarecrow, who represents a pitiable, underachieving product of his environment; to the poppies, which represent drug addiction; to the denizens of Oz, who are ready to follow the latest trend just to be "in;" the story presents its audience with a generalized glimpse at the breakdown of "black" culture and society. Though "The Wiz" does not convey the same childlike wonder, magic, and fantasy that both the original film and the novel do, it translates those elements into more of an industrialized, mechanical, inner city playground. Unfortunately, albeit appropriately, the Oz we witness is through an older Dorothy's eyes. Interestingly, due to her advanced age, the circumstances that befall her must be harsher in order to invoke the necessary change of heart. Unlike the setting in "The Wizard of Oz," which exists in our dreams, "somewhere over the rainbow," the setting in "The Wiz" occupies our nightmares. The contrast between Judy Garland's Oz and her native Kansas is many times greater than that between Diana Ross' Oz and her native New York. The incentive to return home is greater for Diana--even though the colorful lure of a fantasy land is not present--since her Oz may be merely a preview of things to come (back home), if she does not start to make a difference. One of the few things for which I did not care was all-too-recognizable, yet modified New York as Oz. Though the entire film's art direction was brilliant, I found New York to be too distracting and too contemporary to be an adequate Oz. Another subject of distaste for me was the "end of slavery" segment after Evillene's liquidation. The song and dance were nice and full of energy, but the symbolism was too literal and seemed out of place with regards to the rest of the film. I could have also enjoyed a bit more denouement and perhaps even an epilogue about Dorothy's reunion with her family. Three interesting notes: 1) The landscape of Oz in "The Wiz" actually does change after Dorothy intervenes to make a difference; this does not happen in "The Wizard of Oz." 2) While Judy's visit to Oz seems to be concussion-induced, Diana actually appears to visit that fabled land, which is closer to the book. 3) "The Wiz" contains all four witches presented in the book; "The Wizard of Oz" only contains three. Though it seems rather dated today, "The Wiz" is still a fun movie to view, and it contains a number of known (Motown) celebrities.

---

34 out of 49 people found the following comment useful :-
Sheer delight., 15 October 2004

Author: perylous (perilous@sithly.com) from Lost Angelpants

This movie is nothing short of wonderful.

It is not the best movie ever made. It is not technically perfect or flawlessly acted. There are things wrong with it, some more egregious than other movies, some less.

But here's the thing: The Wiz has taken an old, beloved classic of literature and rewritten it just enough to make it completely new. I was as absorbed...if not moreso...with these new characters, reborn into another world, so familiar and yet so unknown, as I was taken in by the original Judy Garland film.

Suspension of disbelief is a necessary ingredient for all storytelling, and the more fantastic the more imagination one requires to enjoy it. Diana Ross too old? So what? I thought she was marvelous, and I thought she perfectly portrayed Dorothy in this alternate universe. In fact, I thought all the actors were terrific.

The story of the Wizard Of Oz has been in my top five favourite stories of all time for as long as I have been alive. I include Diana Ross' The Wiz right up there in an unbreakable tie with Judy Garland's Wizard Of Oz. They are both charming and well told versions of a brilliant literary classic, and they both deserve their due at the top of the food chain as far as fantastic storytelling goes.

And I haven't even touched the stunning aspect that an all Black cast chose not only to make this film, but actually rewrite it enough to show the point of view of the lives of the folks who lived in the ghettos and inner cities.

Even today, Black actors must struggle to receive equal treatment in film. Back when this movie was released, accomplishing this film was nothing short of a mind-boggling achievement, and one to be lauded.

I suspect a lot of the bad reputation this film has gotten over the years, especially at the beginning, was because the inherent racism and sexism in the industry was offended that the folks who made this film had the temerity to do so with an all-Black cast. It's happened before, and I'm afraid it will continue to happen until we grow enough intelligence to finally put discrimination behind us at last, and move beyond into a brighter future.

This movie will remain one of my favourite films. I couldn't recommend it any more highly. If you are a child at heart, if you love good stories made new, if you live in the imagination, this film is for you.

Just beware of that subway scene. If your kids are young and/or easily frightened, preview the movie before you watch it with them. It still creeps me out when I see it, and I know a lot of people who still get nightmares from it. But it's one of the best scenes in the film, and a testament to how creative the folks who put the film together were.

---

35 out of 51 people found the following comment useful :-
I Love this Movie, 25 November 2005

Author: bibi-25 from United States

Okay...I never knew that other people did not love The Wiz until last year, 2004. I first saw this movie in the theater when it was released as a little girl. My mother, sister and I felt like we had been drawn into an urban fairy tale that we could relate to. As African-Americans, this was the first time we had witnessed a fantastical creation that had characters and images that we could relate too.

The singing, costumes, backdrop of New York city and choreography were magical. In fact, TV One just aired an all day marathon of The Wix on Thanksgiving and we watched the loop the entire day.

The Wiz provides the viewer with a sneak peek into the lives of Dorothy, The Scarecrow, The Tin Man, and The Lion--all with some "SOUL." The cast of lesser characters are even more of a jewel...the crows--well, most of us can relate to the "crabs in a barrel" attitude that has plagues the inner city; Miss One--well she was a glitter bedecked "numbers runner"; the citizens of Emerald City remind me of the urban fashionista crowd...and the dance scene reflect the attitude of the bourgeoisie that you can find in any community of color in the United States; the Poppies--what a hilarious nod to the fact that often times, you don't even see women of color in movies unless they are playing the role of prostitute or drug addict; and the workers in Evilene's Sweat Shop...well, they are like so many of us who suddenly discover that there is someone beautiful waiting to come out of us...we just have to be free enough to be comfortable in our own skin.

OK. You get the picture...I love this movie. And so many others that I know do too. I am thankful that I can now share The Wiz with my own children.

---

22 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
a favorite childhood movie of mine, 26 July 2005

Author: mejoza from Texas

...And favorites don't always have rhyme or reason. I can just say that this movie always struck a chord with me. I know that it is dark. I agree that Diana Ross's acting is overwrought with some unknown neurosis. But the music is soulful and the vocal performances make me cry every time. The urban setting (in contrast to the farm that never "clicked" with me) is almost comforting, though not in the parking garage. I agree with the more intellectual reviewers that Lumet's direction could have been better. I'm just a sucker for the gospel-style singing in "the feeling that we have", "believe", and "brand new day". I find this movie much more of an emotional release than the Wizard of Oz.

---

43 out of 73 people found the following comment useful :-
Sleaze on down the road..., 17 September 2004

Author: Merwyn Grote (majikstl@aol.com) from St. Louis, Missouri

THE WIZ is a bad movie. It is a very bad movie. It is an extremely very bad movie.

To watch it is to be infuriated by just how much potential it has and how far it falls from even vaguely achieving success. A black, urban version of "The Wizard of Oz" is an intriguing idea. The musical score is okay and at least three of the songs are better than average. The budget was obviously substantial and a lot of effort was put into transforming New York City into Munchkinland, the Emerald City and points in between. But rather than being in awe of the spectacle, one is more likely to stare in disbelief and ask "What were they thinking?"

Sidney Lumet, a fine director noted for making small, dark and often depressing dramas (12 ANGRY MEN, FAIL-SAFE, THE PAWNBROKER, etc.), seems ill-prepared to make a big budget musical based on a series of children's books -- and, unfortunately, he proves it. I don't think he makes a single intelligent directorial decision in this entire film: the lighting is gloomy, camera placement consistently ineffective and the editing clumsy. His choice of soft, grainy imagery over crisp, clear pictures makes the atmosphere oppressive. The set design, art direction and costuming, while impressive, still look numbingly cheap and tawdry. Scenes filmed on location at New York landmarks look like they take place on cramped soundstages. The film is just plain ugly to watch.

Worse, Lumet seems to have directed the actors to perform in a soap opera style that is embarrassingly overwrought: the prevailing mood is of whining self-pity. Michael Jackson, Nipsey Russell and Ted Ross get in a few good moments as The Scarecrow, The Tin Woodsman and The Cowardly Lion, but there is not a single honest moment to be found in the performance by Diana Ross. To accommodate Ross, six-year-old Dorothy from the book (played as 13 by 16-year-old Judy Garland in THE WIZARD OF OZ), now is a 24-year-old Harlem kindergarten teacher. At 34-years-old, Ross looks more like she is pushing 50, yet displays the emotional maturity of a three-year-old.

Ross' miscasting is legendary, but her inappropriateness for the role pales in comparison to her actual performance. In rewriting the story for Ross, Joel Schumacher's screenplay changes Dorothy from being a winsome, wide-eyed child to an emotionally unstable adult. In Ross' dubious hands the character seems both mentally and emotionally retarded, yet she somehow manages to avoid making the character in any way sympathetic. Strident, always on the verge of hysterics, it is, simply put, one of the all time worst screen performances.

Richard Pryor fares little better. Instead of the lovable charlatan played by Frank Morgan in the 1939 version of the story, the Wizard is now a cowering little fraud, devoid of wit or charm. Why hire Pryor, known for his bravado and cocky attitude, then make him play against type? The filmmakers decided that this Wizard did not just have to be exposed as an illusion, but had to be humiliated and degraded as well. The scenes where Dorothy confronts and belittles The Wiz illustrate the mean-spirited cruelty that permeates the entire film.

The most curious aspect of THE WIZ is trying to decipher just who it was intended for. Obviously, the material was meant to appeal to children, thus it's strangely inappropriate "G" rating; yet the mystical, magical land of good and evil from earlier versions is transformed into a foreboding world of terror and despair. Oz seems to be an extended slum, populated by the homeless, vandals, hookers, bookies, druggies, various street people and gangs; while the Emerald City is a superficial place for shallow, pretentious phonies. While the tone of the film is juvenile -- almost infantile -- it all takes place in a seedy adult world that is almost prurient.

THE WIZ doesn't just avoid childlike innocence, it seems to hold it in contempt. Garland's Oz was basically a beautiful place where evil could be conquered with intellect, compassion, courage and the security of family and friends. The Oz that Ross treks through is basically an evil place; the message she learns is that the world stinks, so stop your whining and get used to it. The "there's no place like home" moral remains intact, but that has little meaning if the alternative -- Oz -- is seen as corrupt and evil.

In THE WIZARD OF OZ, Dorothy's Oz is a dream world version of her own life; the Witch, the Wizard and her traveling companions all have human counterparts. This makes the 1939 film a personal story. In THE WIZ, there is no apparent correlation between Oz and Dorothy's seemingly isolated home life, the people of Oz and Dorothy's family have no counterparts. Garland's Dorothy escapes to Oz, but realizes the best part of Oz is already part of her. Ross' Dorothy fears Oz and ultimately escapes from it. The inner dream world of Oz becomes an alien world of media-generated stereotypes. THE WIZARD OF OZ is a fantasy; THE WIZ is a horror story.

Obviously reworking the basic story to accommodate an all-black cast wasn't done just to utilize a different style of music. As such, the film becomes a showcase for a panorama of African-American stereotypes, many of them negative. But rather than debunking racist clichés, the film embraces them. Sleep inducing poppy fields are replaced with opium dens, witches become sweatshop slave drivers, flying monkeys are gang members, Munchkins are graffiti vandals and so on and so forth. As adult satire, such imagery is understandable, if lame, but the film forgets this is still a story specifically aimed at children. Just as the film was rewritten from the play to accommodate the adult Ross, the material is altered from L. Frank Baum's books to make it adult, but not mature. It seems to be the film's conviction that to tell the story from a black perspective it must embrace a grim urban reality, basically saying that childlike innocence cannot exist because urban living, especially for a black audience, has destroyed such a concept. A sad commentary for a children's fantasy and an even sadder assumption about African-American life.

The irony of THE WIZ is that it is ill-conceived, cheaply melodramatic and relies on trite stereotypes; in other words, it has no brain, no heart and no courage. And ultimately it found no home, being a box office flop. And what could have been a breakthrough landmark in cinema ends up being a sad relic of political incorrectness.

---

46 out of 80 people found the following comment useful :-
A mess, 14 March 2005

Author: quentar from Astoria, NY

The biggest question I had watching this stunning mess of a movie was, who thought Sidney Lumet was the right person to direct it? Who watched such gritty classics as Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, and Network and said, "Hey, that's the guy we should get to make a campy, pastel-colored, black-themed, song-and-dance extravaganza!" I know, I know...the producers wanted to change the film from the original Broadway show, do something different, make it more gritty, more urban, and Lumet knew his way around that sort of thing. But making a musical was not his forte. For anyone questioning this, check out "The Wiz".

Forget the fact that the source material just isn't very good. (There's a reason "Ease on Down the Road" is played over and over again...it's the only decent song in the whole thing.) Forget the fact that Joel Schumacher, who years later decided the Batsuit needed nipples, wrote (or rather scrawled) an awful script. Forget the fact that the costumes look like they were found in a Dumpster outside Party Fair. All of these things could easily have been overlooked if only the direction hadn't been so ham-handed. Watching the musical numbers, you just want to reach into the screen, grab Lumet, and force him to move his camera a bit. Each number is shot in the most static fashion, with barely a zoom, a pan, or a dolly. It's like watching a filmed stage production with real NYC locations brought into the theater. I understand this was before the era of MTV, and I'm not asking for Michael Bay-type direction, but where Lumet's static direction worked with such dialogue-heavy dramas as Network and Dog Day (and later Prince of the City), the exact opposite approach was needed here.

I don't want to sound like I'm knocking Lumet for being a bad director. Nothing could be further from the truth. But some directors, even great ones, are not meant to make certain movies. I believe he took the job for the paycheck and while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, you can't feel any passion for the project coming through. I just wonder what would have happened if a filmmaker with a real passion for the job had taken on "The Wiz".

---

22 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :-
This movie is great!, 14 September 2005

Author: machera924 from United States

This is an excellent adaptation of the Wizard of Oz. It displays a cultural twist from the original that is colorful and fun. The characters are well cast; Each bringing a bit of their real personality to the characters portrayed. The sets are huge. They are decorated with the essence of NY only with a dramatic twist of unusual characters like the numbers running "munchkins," "Ms. One," "Evilene" and the colorful, magical and musical "City of Oz," where "The Wiz" lives atop of the by-gone Twin Towers. Quincy Jones arranged the music for this film and it is outstanding. He actually has a cameo in the film. Can you find Quincy Jones? I strongly recommend this film for anyone who enjoys films that afforded Black actors, performers, musical directors and the like with a platform of creativity and artistic interpretation.

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
*Possible Spoiler Warning* Absolutely timeless! Pure headcandy for the aesthetically minded!, 23 January 2001
Author: mervinjr from Austin, Texas

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"The Wiz" marks a hallmark in entertainment history. An African-American adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "The Wizard of Oz","The Wiz" differs from the 1939 "Wizard of Oz" in that it is a racial allegory. It is a known fact that the 1939 film was a political allegory. "The Wiz" could be seen as a commentary on the various components of the black experience. The thing that makes the Wiz a cutting edge film is its use of character to embody archetypes and/or ideas. This is perhaps even more significant than the plot itself. Gifted with an extraordinary cast, awesome choreography, and a stellar soundtrack penned by Quincy Jones, the Wiz rates as my FAVORITE childhood film.

The work that went into this film is far too underecognized. The most visibly striking element is the transformation of New York into Oz. I LOVE the Emerald City sequence.

* Possible Spoiler* The Wiz stars Diana Ross as Dorothy. In this version, Scarecrow is played by Michael Jackson, who true to the book is in search of brains. Symbolically, he represents the intelligent black male who is oppressed by his surroundings. Next, Dorothy encounters the Tin Man, played by Nipsey Russel. A dancing sideshow man whom Dorothy and the Scarecrow meet in an amusement park, he represents a dying breed of African-American showmen who introduced things such as jazz to a still closed America, and was eventually replaced by the largely white Big Band movement. Last, Dorothy and her new friends encounter the strong and campy Lion, played by Ted Ross. Ross' performance is perhaps the strongest in the film. Introduced outside of what looks like a library, the Lion represents one of the most enduring plights of African-American people. Strong in body, the lion is good enough to guard the assets of the white man, yet not trusted or welcome to partake in those self-same assets.

Of further significance is the late Mabel King's portrayal of Evillene, the Wicked Witch. Evillene represents the self-oppressive element of African-American life. Mean, yet still adorable, she presides over a sweatshop! And boy can this woman sing!!!

Lena Horne makes a splendid appearance as Glinda, the Good Witch of the South. Speaking in a New Orleanesque accent and surrounded by children, Glinda could be seen as a sort of maternal saving grace in the largely oppressive south. She could also be seen as the embodiment of that which Afican-Americans have always had to find comfort in during times of great hardship: family.

I love this film, and I recommend it to ALL. Though I am African-American, I recommend this film to ALL, as the themes it conveys are beneficial to ALL people.

---

17 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Just Like a Broadway Show--from the Cheap Seats, 28 August 2004
Author: IconsofFright

I just watched this for the first time, I've was expecting a true spectacle of "bad" cinema. I was surprised to find there is a decent movie here.

Some people have remarked Diana Ross was too old to play Dorothy, OK, well, so was Judy Garland. True. There's really nothing wrong with this musical--The songs are excellent, performed by some great talents. The production design is spectacular (maybe a little dated, but still something to look at). The sets are a little nightmarish looking, true, but I liked that. I reminded me of "Return of Oz", a favorite of mine too. The real problem with this movie is the damn direction and cinematography.

What were they thinking? The Munchkin scene is not only lit horribly (too dark!), but all the musical numbers seem like they're just comprised of master shots. Very few close ups of dancers, other singers, and even main characters. During the "Ease on Down the Road" number Lumet has us staring at Diana Ross and Michael Jackson's back from far away in the distance for two minutes. It felt like I was watching this movie from the cheap seats. Thus, I always felt distanced from the characters and situations, and just couldn't get into the movie.

I read Sidney Lumet's book "Making Movies" and I remember him writing in detail about shooting to get proper coverage. What happened here?

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Jawdroppingly bad...appalling is more like it!!!, 5 July 2006

Author: Neil Doyle from U.S.A.

What must have looked good on paper turned out to be a case of bad concept, bad design, bad acting, bad singing, and the worst choreography ever seen in a major musical!! THE WIZ is so appallingly bad in its execution, that it staggers the imagination to think that anyone would think this film could make money at the box-office.

Worst casting mistake: DIANA ROSS as Dorothy, a one-note impersonation of a frightened child (although she's supposed to be a young adult schoolteacher). It's hard to believe she won an Academy Award nomination for LADY SINGS THE BLUES, so bad is she in voice and manner to suggest the Dorothy image made famous in the Frank L. Baum original.

The others are so fully disguised as to be almost unrecognizable--yes, even MICHAEL JACKSON as The Scarecrow completely misses the mark. Whatever laughs are attempted, they barely conjure up a chuckle.

The big production numbers are a complete mess, either too intricately staged or filmed at such a distance ("Ease On Down The Road") that there's no intimacy with the characters.

Lumet was obviously the wrong director for this kind of material. And of course he had obstacles thrown in his way by the miscasting of all the major characters.

A friend of mine used to use the phrase "Looks like two-cents worth of God Help Us!" It's an apt description of this God-Awful mess of a movie.

---

---

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history