This is a review of the close to 3 hour miniseries and not the considerably shorter theatrical release. The Witches of Oz is written and directed by Leigh Scott, a man who cut his teeth working at The Asylum, and if you're familiar with their work then alarm bells should already be ringing. It sees an older Dorothy realising that the stories she writes of Oz are actually all true, and now the wicked witch is in our world to try and take over. AAAHHHH! This film is both ambitious and terrible for the most part. The first episode deals with painfully unfunny slapstick and cartoon caricatures. The second episode turned into an all out battle and tried to be a lot darker. The film has its ups and downs. The likes of Lloyd and Henriksen give great performances as they usually do, especially Hendrcksen who has a lot of experience in no budget territory. But we also have two Lord Of The Rings alumni trying hard not to die of embarrassment on screen. It's hard to tell with Astin and Boyd whether they are simply giving bad performances on purpose or if Jackson was just a much better director when dealing with actors. No doubt these two looked around the set and couldn't believe what their (I'm guessing by now, former) agents had gotten them into. Still, it's hard not to admire Scott's ambition and vision. He uses practical and computer effects well, and some of the designs are pretty cool, especially the Tin-Man. It obviously has designs on being a big epic fantasy, but it's impossible to take it seriously. I hear the hour shorter director's cut has better effects and is better concerning the pacing. There's certainly enough to make a child friendly kids TV special, maybe at the 70-80 minute mark, but I wouldn't sit through the whole thing again.
41 Reviews
Didn't do anything for me
TheLittleSongbird6 July 2011
To start things off, I was not expecting any kind of adaptation or even a re-imagining. Just something decent. I was also dubious though, considering The Witches of Oz was airing on the SyFy Channel, save a few exceptions, a lot of stuff on there is not bothering with in my view.
Thanks to costume and set design that is a notch above to most projects on the SyFy Channel and the appearance of Lance Henrikssen, The Witches of Oz could have been much worse. But in all honesty, is that saying much? Not for me.
Apparently there were over 1,400 visual effects. Okay, that is a sort of impressive number though I don't think The Witches of Oz needed that many. It wasn't the quantity of the effects I was looking to, it was the quality of them. While not as crude as some effects I seen compared to some of the other output that airs on the channel, the quality of the effects I don't think are that good, they are often lacking in clarity and sharpness.
The lighting doesn't help much either. Some scenes are dimly lit and make some of the production values seem flat. As for the story, I liked the idea and I admit I was kind of looking forward to what they were going to do with it, however it didn't engage me, I found The Witches of Oz rather sluggishly paced and also that some scenes dragged on for too long. The characters are not written very well at all, and I cared for very few of them, even Toto.
The writing is also stilted, often in a horrendous sense, the direction is perhaps too relaxed that it becomes rather dull and the acting ranges from overplayed to wooden. The worst offenders in both these categories in my opinion are Sean Astin, trying to give his material and bad material some life but ending up overdoing it quite wildly, and the girl who plays Dorothy, who is incredibly unanimated and wooden. Christopher Lloyd is also criminally underused.
Overall, didn't entirely hate it but it didn't do anything for me, sorry. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Thanks to costume and set design that is a notch above to most projects on the SyFy Channel and the appearance of Lance Henrikssen, The Witches of Oz could have been much worse. But in all honesty, is that saying much? Not for me.
Apparently there were over 1,400 visual effects. Okay, that is a sort of impressive number though I don't think The Witches of Oz needed that many. It wasn't the quantity of the effects I was looking to, it was the quality of them. While not as crude as some effects I seen compared to some of the other output that airs on the channel, the quality of the effects I don't think are that good, they are often lacking in clarity and sharpness.
The lighting doesn't help much either. Some scenes are dimly lit and make some of the production values seem flat. As for the story, I liked the idea and I admit I was kind of looking forward to what they were going to do with it, however it didn't engage me, I found The Witches of Oz rather sluggishly paced and also that some scenes dragged on for too long. The characters are not written very well at all, and I cared for very few of them, even Toto.
The writing is also stilted, often in a horrendous sense, the direction is perhaps too relaxed that it becomes rather dull and the acting ranges from overplayed to wooden. The worst offenders in both these categories in my opinion are Sean Astin, trying to give his material and bad material some life but ending up overdoing it quite wildly, and the girl who plays Dorothy, who is incredibly unanimated and wooden. Christopher Lloyd is also criminally underused.
Overall, didn't entirely hate it but it didn't do anything for me, sorry. 3/10 Bethany Cox
The Witches of Oz
Prismark1024 January 2019
The Witches of Oz should had been an interesting and quirky reimagining of The Wizard of Oz story.
It is let down by some muddled storytelling, campy acting and not very good special effects.
Dorothy Gale is a children's author from Kansas. She gets an opportunity from an agent to travel to New York to develop her Oz stories for a movie.
However Dorothy finds out that the stories are based on truth. The events had happened and she and some of her companions had forgotten about their origins when they ended up in the real world.
So one of her friend is the strawman, the other is a lion and even a man of metal later turns up.
A wizard hid a magical word in a book. The word that unleashes huge powers. The book is locked and can only be opened with a very special key.
The wicked witch and Princess Langwidere are after a key that only Dorothy may know about.
This should had been an enjoyable reworking of the Oz books. Two actors from the Lord of the Rings films turn up to add to its fantasy credentials. However it was too long and too uneven. The bad outweighs the good.
It is let down by some muddled storytelling, campy acting and not very good special effects.
Dorothy Gale is a children's author from Kansas. She gets an opportunity from an agent to travel to New York to develop her Oz stories for a movie.
However Dorothy finds out that the stories are based on truth. The events had happened and she and some of her companions had forgotten about their origins when they ended up in the real world.
So one of her friend is the strawman, the other is a lion and even a man of metal later turns up.
A wizard hid a magical word in a book. The word that unleashes huge powers. The book is locked and can only be opened with a very special key.
The wicked witch and Princess Langwidere are after a key that only Dorothy may know about.
This should had been an enjoyable reworking of the Oz books. Two actors from the Lord of the Rings films turn up to add to its fantasy credentials. However it was too long and too uneven. The bad outweighs the good.
An insult to the material
carey-941-7556929 June 2011
Apparently, a review has to be a minimum of ten lines. This precludes the fully descriptive, yet terse, review I had in mind. For this TV limited series, a full review would be, "Garbage!"
Personally, I enjoy the re-imagining of classic stories. In fact, I give a very wide artistic license. In this case, there were some specific problems which I could not overcome. These included:
1. Horrible, stilted, inexcusable writing! Someone took the seed of an idea, crushed it under their heel and then applied Agent Orange to assure its death.
2. Wooden acting! I am usually not that hard to please but in this case, I was truly unsure at many points whether the actress who played Dorothy was being replaced by a wax figure.
3. Cruelty to a dog's career! As I watched, I noted that the dog playing Toto was immobile throughout the series. Perhaps this was done on purpose, to act as a foil to the face frozen lead actress. Still, this is a low point in the career of what may be a talented dog.
4. Horrid effects! This is 2011. The effects in this movie could easily be exceeded by an 8 year old playing on their parents' computer.
I rarely write reviews of television or movies. But this show inspired me to warn you, the potential viewer to avoid it. Do not waste any precious moments of your life on this steaming pile of munchkin excrement.
Personally, I enjoy the re-imagining of classic stories. In fact, I give a very wide artistic license. In this case, there were some specific problems which I could not overcome. These included:
1. Horrible, stilted, inexcusable writing! Someone took the seed of an idea, crushed it under their heel and then applied Agent Orange to assure its death.
2. Wooden acting! I am usually not that hard to please but in this case, I was truly unsure at many points whether the actress who played Dorothy was being replaced by a wax figure.
3. Cruelty to a dog's career! As I watched, I noted that the dog playing Toto was immobile throughout the series. Perhaps this was done on purpose, to act as a foil to the face frozen lead actress. Still, this is a low point in the career of what may be a talented dog.
4. Horrid effects! This is 2011. The effects in this movie could easily be exceeded by an 8 year old playing on their parents' computer.
I rarely write reviews of television or movies. But this show inspired me to warn you, the potential viewer to avoid it. Do not waste any precious moments of your life on this steaming pile of munchkin excrement.
What a waste of time & money.
Mikelane19874 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I can honestly say I watched this with an open mind both parts 1 & 2.
It was horrifically acted save for Christopher Llyod as the wizard.
The characters fail to make you feel anything for them, the wicked witch of the easts death was rubbish (she sees the house about to drop on her & looks up & says "Oh dear" in a certificate 12 DVD she could have said "oh $**t!").
Toto must be immortal as he was a young dog at the start & continues to look young the entire movie.
The guy playing the scarecrow should have been left to burn, all he did was produce crocodile tears when he was threatened.
3 odd hours of my life I'll never get back.
If you want to see a good version of OZ I suggest you see WICKED at Londons Apollo Victoria theatre.
Not worth wasting £10 on the DVD. Should have just set lite to the tenner.
If you have not watched this movie & are a fan of OZ for the love of God avoid it.
It was horrifically acted save for Christopher Llyod as the wizard.
The characters fail to make you feel anything for them, the wicked witch of the easts death was rubbish (she sees the house about to drop on her & looks up & says "Oh dear" in a certificate 12 DVD she could have said "oh $**t!").
Toto must be immortal as he was a young dog at the start & continues to look young the entire movie.
The guy playing the scarecrow should have been left to burn, all he did was produce crocodile tears when he was threatened.
3 odd hours of my life I'll never get back.
If you want to see a good version of OZ I suggest you see WICKED at Londons Apollo Victoria theatre.
Not worth wasting £10 on the DVD. Should have just set lite to the tenner.
If you have not watched this movie & are a fan of OZ for the love of God avoid it.
How to ruin a classic
swedish_chef_dave11 July 2011
Once upon a time there was a movie with witches and wizards who didn't walk on their knees and pretend to be a ugly and terrible actors, this was in the days of large movie studios who knew how to draft a plot, unfortunately the studio who made this had neither talent or money and was probably a Saturday drunken barbecue idea and just got together some leftover makeup, a couple of cameras and some funny hats from the fancy dress shop.
It had no consistent theme kept drifting about and throwing out ideas as to why things would happen, it was as bad as any east European drama from the deep dark days of the old communist regimes. I have tried to be constructive about this but it was so appalling as to be beyond all recovery. it is a waste of everyones time to have made it and anyone who would be as unfortunate as me to watch it, nothing to really discuss at all.
It had no consistent theme kept drifting about and throwing out ideas as to why things would happen, it was as bad as any east European drama from the deep dark days of the old communist regimes. I have tried to be constructive about this but it was so appalling as to be beyond all recovery. it is a waste of everyones time to have made it and anyone who would be as unfortunate as me to watch it, nothing to really discuss at all.
Worst Oz Adaptation of all time
ice_sarah19 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is just so awful I can't even begin to describe it. This is BY FAR worse than Return to Oz, The Tinman, The Wiz and all the other horrendous Oz adaptations I've seen outside the 1939 film. If you are an Oz purist - I suggest staying clear.
Cheap budget (I think someone just took some Mortal Kombat arcade animations and shoved them in here), wooden acting, atrocious dialogue and a story that defecates all over the Oz universe.
What began as a promising story (picking up where Return to Oz attempted) with Dorothy going about her life in the "real world" thinking that Oz was only a fantasy, turned into a complete farce with Dorothy becoming Uncle Henry's Aunt in one of many ridiculous plot twists.
If you want to see your original favourites turn into your worst nightmares, a scarecrow who resembles a man with a paper bag on his head with a crayon face, Dorothy hitting on one of the Hobbits from Lord of The Rings in a Manhattan bar, and the death of Uncle Henry, go ahead... otherwise, AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
L. Frank Baum is turning in his grave.
Cheap budget (I think someone just took some Mortal Kombat arcade animations and shoved them in here), wooden acting, atrocious dialogue and a story that defecates all over the Oz universe.
What began as a promising story (picking up where Return to Oz attempted) with Dorothy going about her life in the "real world" thinking that Oz was only a fantasy, turned into a complete farce with Dorothy becoming Uncle Henry's Aunt in one of many ridiculous plot twists.
If you want to see your original favourites turn into your worst nightmares, a scarecrow who resembles a man with a paper bag on his head with a crayon face, Dorothy hitting on one of the Hobbits from Lord of The Rings in a Manhattan bar, and the death of Uncle Henry, go ahead... otherwise, AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
L. Frank Baum is turning in his grave.
Utter rubbish.
callaghan-sophie14 August 2012
When I finished watching this, I said aloud, "That was, like, the worst thing I have ever watched in my life." There wasn't even anyone in the room to hear my words, I just needed to audibly vent my disappointment. The script! The acting! The one liners!
All awful. I only bought this on a whim (yes, I spent my hard earned money on it) because I trust Christopher Lloyd. Never again, Lloyd, never again. Back To The Future will not give you immunity forever.
My least favourite element, and there are plenty to chose from, are the exchanges made between Dorothy and Uncle Henry. Geez, could she look any more meek and demure! Even in the parts when Dorothy was attempting to convey bravery, I still felt the burning urge to punch her in her stupid, pathetic face.
Don't watch this drivel. It is a trap.
Especially if you love The Wizard Of Oz.
All awful. I only bought this on a whim (yes, I spent my hard earned money on it) because I trust Christopher Lloyd. Never again, Lloyd, never again. Back To The Future will not give you immunity forever.
My least favourite element, and there are plenty to chose from, are the exchanges made between Dorothy and Uncle Henry. Geez, could she look any more meek and demure! Even in the parts when Dorothy was attempting to convey bravery, I still felt the burning urge to punch her in her stupid, pathetic face.
Don't watch this drivel. It is a trap.
Especially if you love The Wizard Of Oz.
Man, this was bad.
westsideschl15 April 2012
I was surprised at how bad this movie was. Choose your criteria and they will all come up bad. Really poor acting consistent with the junky TV series, shorts and D-level movies that fill out the actors other film credits. Disjointed, jump around editing and directing producing a story that seemed like a bunch of half hour TV series patched together. Writing and script of a modern day Dorothy showing up at a farm house with a magical key to save Oz from the bad witches was a boring and too frequently copied plot line found in many fantasy movies. Dialogue was written by the students in a high school drama class. A couple of cheap CGI effects of swirling air to represent Dorothy escaping Oz and of a tornado and some '60s era zapping effect from the witch's wand - that's it.
Well Done!!
bearkrug20 September 2012
Unlike most of the reviews, I actually enjoyed the series. I do think it could be cut to two hours and be more enjoyable - three was a tad too long. My main complaint was the acting. Christopher Lloyd was excellent and you expect that from him, but the big surprise for me was Glinda, the good witch. I had not seen her before and was very impressed with her work. I think Glinda (Noel Thurman) should have played Dorothy and vice versa. Hope to see more of Noel in the future. The other actors were sub-par at best. On the whole, I think the film is good for all ages. The visual effects could have been better as well as the directing.
Missed the mark - Huge disappointed! (No spoilers).
tagning12 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I remember the director of The Witches of Oz, Leigh Scott, saying that he was stepping up from the low-budget trash he was used to be making and was going to to surprise everyone with some real quality work. Me and everyone with a brain, are still waiting for it.
Because what I just saw was nothing close to what I had expected. The acting was not acceptable. I cannot think of a single actor or actress that didn't overact or underact in this movie.
But it's not the bad acting that disappointed me, because I can stand terrible acting so long as I am entertained by the visuals or the story.
First lets talk about the visuals, or the lack of them. I am aware that this isn't a high budget summer blockbuster, but I know that if the small amount of money they had was spent on actual talent, the final product would have been much, much better. The special effects here are just terrible. Leigh, if you happen to read this, please look up the movie "Monsters" from 2010. That movie barely had a budget but the effects are still light years from what I just saw in The Witchez of Oz. So director, take note.
Now, the script. I know, for a fact, that I can write a better script than this and this is coming from a teenager who has no experience in writing movie scripts what so ever. The dialog between the characters are awkward to say the least and it does not help that the actors and actress does a terrible job already.
I'm trying super hard to find stuff about the movie that I liked, mostly because I think that Leigh Scott seems to be a cool guy and I know he checks these boards from time to time, but I am sorry, I cannot find a single thing that I enjoyed. But I can say this; the girl who played Dorthy, Paulie Rojas, was very cute and I sorta liked her.
Leigh Scott, you can, and hopefully will, do better than this. I am very disappointed with this movie and I didn't enjoy the experience I had while watching it.
Overall rating: two out of ten popcorns.
Because what I just saw was nothing close to what I had expected. The acting was not acceptable. I cannot think of a single actor or actress that didn't overact or underact in this movie.
But it's not the bad acting that disappointed me, because I can stand terrible acting so long as I am entertained by the visuals or the story.
First lets talk about the visuals, or the lack of them. I am aware that this isn't a high budget summer blockbuster, but I know that if the small amount of money they had was spent on actual talent, the final product would have been much, much better. The special effects here are just terrible. Leigh, if you happen to read this, please look up the movie "Monsters" from 2010. That movie barely had a budget but the effects are still light years from what I just saw in The Witchez of Oz. So director, take note.
Now, the script. I know, for a fact, that I can write a better script than this and this is coming from a teenager who has no experience in writing movie scripts what so ever. The dialog between the characters are awkward to say the least and it does not help that the actors and actress does a terrible job already.
I'm trying super hard to find stuff about the movie that I liked, mostly because I think that Leigh Scott seems to be a cool guy and I know he checks these boards from time to time, but I am sorry, I cannot find a single thing that I enjoyed. But I can say this; the girl who played Dorthy, Paulie Rojas, was very cute and I sorta liked her.
Leigh Scott, you can, and hopefully will, do better than this. I am very disappointed with this movie and I didn't enjoy the experience I had while watching it.
Overall rating: two out of ten popcorns.
Fantastic!!!!! I Loved It!!!!
wendybern19 July 2011
I am a huge fan of the "Wizard of Oz" movie, and this retelling with a twist, is an incredible film. I was just in London on vacation and riveted to the set for the entire film! First I have to apologize for my generation, I am 20 something, and I have been reading the top film reviews today, and almost all of them are negative. If you have never been a part of anything, worked hard to create entertainment, or to create anything that makes someone smile or laugh, or be transported to a magical place, you do not have the right to criticize the work, the talent, the passion and dedication it takes to create something wonderful. And this film is wonderful! The visuals are fun, the story is phenomenal, and the acting is top notch in every single character!!!! I truly know this movie will be a classic, and is exciting for everyone, my young brothers loved it, and the kids did too!!!! Dorothy is a great actress, with such a stunning face, range of emotion, and a unique innocence, portrayed perfectly. And omg, the Wicked Witch, in her evil and good forms, is sexy, (I have a girl crush) actually gorgeous, and truly the best actor in the film. Of course the names are great, but the characters are some of the best actors I have seen. Christopher, Billy, Sean, Ethan, all fantastic, but the scarecrow, and the lion, they rock, how do I get them for best friends? Actually I would like a stuffed Bryan the Lion to cuddle:), he is just cute, and a bad ass. Overall, this film is an A, and I can't wait for the theatrical in the states!!!!!! Word is on the net, it is a jazzed up different 2 hour version, I am soooo excited:) Thank you Leigh Scott!!!!
Not as Good as "Alice", But a Decent Re-Envisoned Film
gavin694215 April 2012
Dorothy Gale (Paulie Rojas) discovers that her best selling novels are actually based on suppressed childhood memories of her time in Oz, and that she may be in danger of experiencing it all over again.
This film follows in the footsteps of "Alice", the 2-episode miniseries on SyFy that put "Alice in Wonderland" in a modern setting. Despite my strong dislike of almost all Alice adaptations, I enjoyed that. I feel much less about this one.
There are some strong points here: a generally likable story, an excellent cast (with Christopher Lloyd, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd, Ethan Embry, his holiness Jeffrey Combs and more) and a nice blend of elements from the original stories (I appreciate making the slippers silver rather than ruby).
But the down side is its 1400 visual effects. The film was stronger when it was not using poor computer animation and had less makeup. The Wicked Witch could have looked human the whole time -- there was no purpose in having her transform. None. And it does not need to be three hours. Trimming this down to two would make it a much stronger film, especially in scenes with an excess of conversation.
There is rumored to be a director's cut with footage removed, the effects redone and more. I strongly suspect if this film exists that it is the better version.
This film follows in the footsteps of "Alice", the 2-episode miniseries on SyFy that put "Alice in Wonderland" in a modern setting. Despite my strong dislike of almost all Alice adaptations, I enjoyed that. I feel much less about this one.
There are some strong points here: a generally likable story, an excellent cast (with Christopher Lloyd, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd, Ethan Embry, his holiness Jeffrey Combs and more) and a nice blend of elements from the original stories (I appreciate making the slippers silver rather than ruby).
But the down side is its 1400 visual effects. The film was stronger when it was not using poor computer animation and had less makeup. The Wicked Witch could have looked human the whole time -- there was no purpose in having her transform. None. And it does not need to be three hours. Trimming this down to two would make it a much stronger film, especially in scenes with an excess of conversation.
There is rumored to be a director's cut with footage removed, the effects redone and more. I strongly suspect if this film exists that it is the better version.
DOROTHY IS SPECIAL
nogodnomasters22 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
One of the fun facts they used was that they changed the slippers back to the original sliver slippers in the book, while retaining the ruby slippers in the film. The movie is confused and disjointed. Eventually all the major plot holes are filled in, leaving just plot continuity problems common to most kid films. The part I enjoyed most of this kid's film was when Dorothy tries to pick up Billy Boyd at a bar and when Billie Westbrook (Eliza Swenson) gropes Dorothy (Paulie Rojas) in an attempt to give her more up top. Noel Thurman plays Glinda the good witch of the north who is dressed up like Brumhilda.
Dorothy writes books based on her suppressed memories. The whole plot centers around a magic book that contains a magic word that can only be opened by a magic key which Dorothy stole and hid but can't remember. The bad witches want it back. This we get in the opening of the film which tells a long drawn out story of good vs. evil similar to Lord of the Rings background. The character of Dorothy was a bit sickening as was the dorky Allen (Ari Zagaris) who appears to have been a poorly developed scarecrow.
The best characters were gnomes played by Sean Astin and Ethan Embry. The spoke in limericks. Christopher Lloyd attempted to bring life to the role of the Wizard with his Madhatter garb, but couldn't do so for the lack of decent lines. There is also a good amount of violence and some killing in this kid's film too. I am not sure who the target audience is supposed to be.
Dorothy writes books based on her suppressed memories. The whole plot centers around a magic book that contains a magic word that can only be opened by a magic key which Dorothy stole and hid but can't remember. The bad witches want it back. This we get in the opening of the film which tells a long drawn out story of good vs. evil similar to Lord of the Rings background. The character of Dorothy was a bit sickening as was the dorky Allen (Ari Zagaris) who appears to have been a poorly developed scarecrow.
The best characters were gnomes played by Sean Astin and Ethan Embry. The spoke in limericks. Christopher Lloyd attempted to bring life to the role of the Wizard with his Madhatter garb, but couldn't do so for the lack of decent lines. There is also a good amount of violence and some killing in this kid's film too. I am not sure who the target audience is supposed to be.
I had hopes for this...
prilja12 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
There's so much of Oz that no-one has touched on in TV and Film so I'll admit the idea of this TV Movie excited me - but then all things Oz do!
I hate to say it but there was so much that disappointed me! I should point out that a majority of the cast were actually excellent with the poor script they were given. Unfortunately the one person that had to carry it all simply couldn't. Dorothy was so pathetic and wooden I honestly didn't care whether she lived or died and that's a first for me. At times where she should have been visibly upset she had nothing. While Dorothy was spunky and strong-willed this Dorothy would have crumbled at the slightest push. Really disappointing. Glinda was underused but I doubt that was a bad thing... Christopher Lloyd can do no wrong with any part he is given and was criminally underused. Frick and Frack were entertaining and looked like they enjoyed themselves in spite of the whole production.
Effects were horrible and used mostly off screen, shots and camera work itself incredibly shoddy and, worst of all, when a scene could have been done in 10 seconds to keep a pace to the whole production it was drawn out to at least 30... and that's a long time when you're screaming at the TV to just get to the point!
It feels like this was pieced together with no forethought at all, a real shame when they could have had so much more, pulled strands together and made a wonderful piece of television. Recast Dorothy, add more back story and original Oz, fix the camera work and keep the pace. But then it's a little late now isn't it?
I hate to say it but there was so much that disappointed me! I should point out that a majority of the cast were actually excellent with the poor script they were given. Unfortunately the one person that had to carry it all simply couldn't. Dorothy was so pathetic and wooden I honestly didn't care whether she lived or died and that's a first for me. At times where she should have been visibly upset she had nothing. While Dorothy was spunky and strong-willed this Dorothy would have crumbled at the slightest push. Really disappointing. Glinda was underused but I doubt that was a bad thing... Christopher Lloyd can do no wrong with any part he is given and was criminally underused. Frick and Frack were entertaining and looked like they enjoyed themselves in spite of the whole production.
Effects were horrible and used mostly off screen, shots and camera work itself incredibly shoddy and, worst of all, when a scene could have been done in 10 seconds to keep a pace to the whole production it was drawn out to at least 30... and that's a long time when you're screaming at the TV to just get to the point!
It feels like this was pieced together with no forethought at all, a real shame when they could have had so much more, pulled strands together and made a wonderful piece of television. Recast Dorothy, add more back story and original Oz, fix the camera work and keep the pace. But then it's a little late now isn't it?
Could have been so much better... (based on Part 1 only)
cyriussnow26 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
First impressions: The visual effects won't blow you away. If you've seen the opening sequences of Dungeons & Dragons you know what I mean. Budget constraints, I suppose.
Welcome to the Land of Exposition: Once upon a time there was a world full of magic. The pure at heart (conveniently colour coded for easy identification) were guardians of the greatest magic. But bad humans harnessed magic and sought to oppress everyone and steal allll the magic. And that's why we can't have nice things.
Magical war ensues, and the world ended up looking like Mordor on a Thursday. The Munchkin wizard Bini Aru collected all the remaining magic and harnessed (more harnessing, yes) its power in a single spell, which he put in his spell-book. Then he created Oz, a sort of safari park for those hunted by humanity.
The book is handed over to the Good Witches (blonde hair, GHD curling tongs, Maybelline loyalty card), and Bini Aru turns into a CGI butterfly. You will be seeing this butterfly again. Meanwhile, the witches of the East and West (wearing black and red this season, predictably brunette), are corrupted by their lust for the magic book and decide to wage war on Oz to get hold of it.
The book, naturally, is the price to end the war, and the Wizard of Oz gives it to the witches, but the magical key that unlocks it is snatched by Dorothy, who... I have no idea. A solar flare kidnaps her, or something, and dumps her in Kansas.
Five minutes in, and I'm so entrenched in the Realm of Backstory that it's rather a shock to be thrust into Kansas.
Cue the actual story...
Pacing is an issue as is a sense of plot progression. Things just happen. Someone suggested that this might had done better as a series of shorter episodes, and maybe that might have helped, or some serious trimming might have made the whole thing more coherent. There doesn't seem to be much structure to the story - Dorothy has a series of encounters in New York, but there's no real storytelling or impact here. All the key revelations take place in the margins, starting with the Oz backstory and ending with the letter from Uncle Henry, and much of what falls between seems like padding. The story Dorothy describes in the most recent book she's writing sounds so much more interesting than the actual plot that it's hard to believe that it's ostensibly the story that's meant to be taking place in front of our own eyes.
The characters are another weak point. Clearly the writers did research the Oz stories. Bringing in Bini Aru, Princess Langwidere &c show that they looked beyond the usual protagonists, so credit where it's due. The problem here is that the characters aren't strong enough. Dorothy is sweet to the point of saccharine. She spends her first two minutes of screen time talking to the farm animals and reading Oz stories to little children before going to work at a sweet shop. I half expected to see animated bluebirds lighting on her shoulder all the while. Baum's Dorothy was always a little feisty, kind, but occasionally mutinous. This version seems the sort of person to whom things happen, when she should be happening to other people.
Our Scarecrow/Lion/Tin Man trio this side of the rainbow are Allen and Bryan and Nick, oh my, and it's a huge shame that these three weren't given the chance to bond early on, because a strong relationship between these three could have made all the difference. We get hints at who they're meant to be - Allen is tactless and scatterbrained, Nick (Chopper) works in the minerals and metals industry, so I suppose he's 'in' tin, in a way, and he does pick up a child's teddy bear for them, so clearly he's got a heart, and Bryan... eats doughnuts. They're all likable enough and perhaps they'll redeem themselves in Part Two, but that really seems too late.
The witches are... okay. I have a feeling that Eliza Swenson's character might come into her own later on, but in the first half she just doesn't have enough bite. There's no attempt to conceal her identity right from the start but she seems too measured. Nice, even. Given that Swenson also composed the score, edited, co-wrote and co-produced the film, I can only assume this is intentional. But, oh, for a more nefarious personality... Langwidere (yes, I know she's not a witch), doesn't help. None of her heads are exactly scene-stealers and that's a shame. For all the witches' dark deeds, someone who steals your HEAD and wears it for their own stands out as a really scary premise, but even when she's threatening to take Dorothy's there was no genuine sense of menace.
Speaking of underused characters, Toto does nothing in most of the scenes he's in. As with all my previous observations, I can only hold out hope that he does more in Part Two - Toto has always been an active participant in the stories, not just a prop.
This isn't something I'd buy on DVD, and I doubt I'll keep it on my Sky box after watching Part Two. Nor will I seek out the soundtrack, something I did immediately after watching Tin Man. The score isn't bad, but it's unmemorable, other than the overuse of sparkly chime bars lest we forgot there's MAGIC in this show.
To sum up: it won't kill you to watch this muddled, ambling production, but it's unlikely to leave you feeling moved or enthused. Instead, I'd recommend breaking out Return to Oz (fun times with Etc), or Tin Man (Alan Cumming kicking people in the face), or just play "Defying Gravity" repeatedly until you can hear the secret message.
I may be lying about the secret message.
Welcome to the Land of Exposition: Once upon a time there was a world full of magic. The pure at heart (conveniently colour coded for easy identification) were guardians of the greatest magic. But bad humans harnessed magic and sought to oppress everyone and steal allll the magic. And that's why we can't have nice things.
Magical war ensues, and the world ended up looking like Mordor on a Thursday. The Munchkin wizard Bini Aru collected all the remaining magic and harnessed (more harnessing, yes) its power in a single spell, which he put in his spell-book. Then he created Oz, a sort of safari park for those hunted by humanity.
The book is handed over to the Good Witches (blonde hair, GHD curling tongs, Maybelline loyalty card), and Bini Aru turns into a CGI butterfly. You will be seeing this butterfly again. Meanwhile, the witches of the East and West (wearing black and red this season, predictably brunette), are corrupted by their lust for the magic book and decide to wage war on Oz to get hold of it.
The book, naturally, is the price to end the war, and the Wizard of Oz gives it to the witches, but the magical key that unlocks it is snatched by Dorothy, who... I have no idea. A solar flare kidnaps her, or something, and dumps her in Kansas.
Five minutes in, and I'm so entrenched in the Realm of Backstory that it's rather a shock to be thrust into Kansas.
Cue the actual story...
Pacing is an issue as is a sense of plot progression. Things just happen. Someone suggested that this might had done better as a series of shorter episodes, and maybe that might have helped, or some serious trimming might have made the whole thing more coherent. There doesn't seem to be much structure to the story - Dorothy has a series of encounters in New York, but there's no real storytelling or impact here. All the key revelations take place in the margins, starting with the Oz backstory and ending with the letter from Uncle Henry, and much of what falls between seems like padding. The story Dorothy describes in the most recent book she's writing sounds so much more interesting than the actual plot that it's hard to believe that it's ostensibly the story that's meant to be taking place in front of our own eyes.
The characters are another weak point. Clearly the writers did research the Oz stories. Bringing in Bini Aru, Princess Langwidere &c show that they looked beyond the usual protagonists, so credit where it's due. The problem here is that the characters aren't strong enough. Dorothy is sweet to the point of saccharine. She spends her first two minutes of screen time talking to the farm animals and reading Oz stories to little children before going to work at a sweet shop. I half expected to see animated bluebirds lighting on her shoulder all the while. Baum's Dorothy was always a little feisty, kind, but occasionally mutinous. This version seems the sort of person to whom things happen, when she should be happening to other people.
Our Scarecrow/Lion/Tin Man trio this side of the rainbow are Allen and Bryan and Nick, oh my, and it's a huge shame that these three weren't given the chance to bond early on, because a strong relationship between these three could have made all the difference. We get hints at who they're meant to be - Allen is tactless and scatterbrained, Nick (Chopper) works in the minerals and metals industry, so I suppose he's 'in' tin, in a way, and he does pick up a child's teddy bear for them, so clearly he's got a heart, and Bryan... eats doughnuts. They're all likable enough and perhaps they'll redeem themselves in Part Two, but that really seems too late.
The witches are... okay. I have a feeling that Eliza Swenson's character might come into her own later on, but in the first half she just doesn't have enough bite. There's no attempt to conceal her identity right from the start but she seems too measured. Nice, even. Given that Swenson also composed the score, edited, co-wrote and co-produced the film, I can only assume this is intentional. But, oh, for a more nefarious personality... Langwidere (yes, I know she's not a witch), doesn't help. None of her heads are exactly scene-stealers and that's a shame. For all the witches' dark deeds, someone who steals your HEAD and wears it for their own stands out as a really scary premise, but even when she's threatening to take Dorothy's there was no genuine sense of menace.
Speaking of underused characters, Toto does nothing in most of the scenes he's in. As with all my previous observations, I can only hold out hope that he does more in Part Two - Toto has always been an active participant in the stories, not just a prop.
This isn't something I'd buy on DVD, and I doubt I'll keep it on my Sky box after watching Part Two. Nor will I seek out the soundtrack, something I did immediately after watching Tin Man. The score isn't bad, but it's unmemorable, other than the overuse of sparkly chime bars lest we forgot there's MAGIC in this show.
To sum up: it won't kill you to watch this muddled, ambling production, but it's unlikely to leave you feeling moved or enthused. Instead, I'd recommend breaking out Return to Oz (fun times with Etc), or Tin Man (Alan Cumming kicking people in the face), or just play "Defying Gravity" repeatedly until you can hear the secret message.
I may be lying about the secret message.
What were they thinking?
armisis-19 January 2019
Utter garbage, bad writers trashed the story of Oz. Bad actors made it even worse. This show might work with MST3K... It would be in the worse of the worse collection. Why would any actor agree to do this show? It's like a bad porn with out the porn!
the truth
habobhabob1217 September 2012
i believe this movie had some decent elements but overall i didn't feel it hit its potential peak ever in any scene in the movie. The acting was bad... Dorothy was god awful... they couldn't have picked a more experienced and better actress among the big names? Beside the big headliners i believe The two main witches Glinda and the wicked witch stole the show entirely, they had grace yet power in different ways. I hope to see them in more films. Noel is both beautiful and talented and i look forward to seeing her on the big screen in many more to come because as we all know that woman has a very bright and shining future ahead of her.
bland mess
SnoopyStyle28 January 2017
A grown-up Dorothy Gale is a successful children's book author from Kansas. She travels to New York to develop her Oz books and she soon discovers that Oz is a real place. She and several of the Oz characters have been deposited into the real world and forgotten their origins. The Witches and Princess Langwidere are after the key to the Book of Bini Aru which holds the Changing Word that created Oz.
This is almost three hours of a modern revision of the Wizard of Oz. The premise could be interesting but this is an utter mess. There is the confused exposition to lay down the groundwork at the beginning. The main actors are bland. There are a few bigger actors slumming it here. It's a grind of confusing characters, unnecessary turns, and second-rate CGI. The ambition simply outstrips the abilities.
This is almost three hours of a modern revision of the Wizard of Oz. The premise could be interesting but this is an utter mess. There is the confused exposition to lay down the groundwork at the beginning. The main actors are bland. There are a few bigger actors slumming it here. It's a grind of confusing characters, unnecessary turns, and second-rate CGI. The ambition simply outstrips the abilities.
Sigh
Queeneb5 July 2012
OK the plot line had excellent potential and started out very strong despite the horrible excuse for an actress who played dorthy ...I mean really I wanted the witch to win so she would just die. But really after part one I was really into the story line and wanted to see part two....I should have stopped at part one because the acting goes down hill and the effects lets face it my 12 year old sister does better with her YouTube videos on an allowance budget. You got to love the part when scarecrow was on fire and she looks like she is just bating him to death...no where near the flames I may add . ..the ending looked a little better but bad acting shitty effects and dialog that made me want to shoot my self in the face made sure that hope was squashed ...I had high hopes for this too there was a lot of really good actors in it to bad the lead actress never took any acting classes
The Witches of Oz
mayhem20806 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Possibility of Spoilers Altert but I hope not The Wicked Witches' plans to rule Oz are foiled. Dorothy returns to Kansas and now she's all grown up. Dorothy is an author to her own line of Oz books. Dorothy and her partner Allen are offered a publishing deal to the books and are whisked off to New York. Soon they will discover all is not what it seems. That the Wicked Witches still seek to obtain that which has eluded their grasp. Instilled with fear and doubt Dorothy must now find it within herself to face what's to come. She'll soon discover that she's not as alone as she thought. Dorothy will also have to face some hard realities of life and will learn some truths from her past long forgotten as she discovers whom she really is. Will Dorothy discover the Wicked Witches' evil intentions in time and be able to stand in their way and defeat them, or is this just the beginning to our world's demise? That is the key to things you'll see.
I'd say See It, it's not a rehashing of what came before, it's modernized brought into our world melding a whole whirlwind of ideas for a new take on the World of Oz and combining all these new but still familiar elements into a standalone new story. It's filled with so many intricate parts to the plot that make it an intelligently brilliant story. Does it deliver? Yes and No. I first saw it back in 2011 but didn't review it and wasn't all that awe struck by it, though still fond of it. I watched it again for the first time a few weeks ago and discovered a new found deep appreciation of what they had created and I saw it in a new light. There was just so much story to be included which they sculpted together brilliantly that I thoroughly enjoyed it. It wasn't made exactly for little kids new to the stories of Oz but for us who grew up watching The Wizard of Oz and Return to Oz and have been waiting so long for something more and up to date. That being said it is a 2 part mini-series of about nearly 3hrs combined. The special effects are stronger in some places than in others. Some are really beautifully rendered and there are some wonderful shots of New York while other effects just don't seem to be enough or on par with today's blockbuster standards. This movie hosts some of the best talent around today. If you're like me you may not fully appreciate it right away and it may take going back to. Return to Oz wasn't a huge success but it is a beloved cult classic. It was a lot shorter and in my opinion better than Syfy's Tin Man and reminded me of say something like the series Once Upon a Time or Stardust, the Golden Compass, Ink heart, Merlin or an older TV mini-series the 10th Kingdom. Movies along those lines, just as good as any of them, if not better.
Donald Huggins Jr.
I'd say See It, it's not a rehashing of what came before, it's modernized brought into our world melding a whole whirlwind of ideas for a new take on the World of Oz and combining all these new but still familiar elements into a standalone new story. It's filled with so many intricate parts to the plot that make it an intelligently brilliant story. Does it deliver? Yes and No. I first saw it back in 2011 but didn't review it and wasn't all that awe struck by it, though still fond of it. I watched it again for the first time a few weeks ago and discovered a new found deep appreciation of what they had created and I saw it in a new light. There was just so much story to be included which they sculpted together brilliantly that I thoroughly enjoyed it. It wasn't made exactly for little kids new to the stories of Oz but for us who grew up watching The Wizard of Oz and Return to Oz and have been waiting so long for something more and up to date. That being said it is a 2 part mini-series of about nearly 3hrs combined. The special effects are stronger in some places than in others. Some are really beautifully rendered and there are some wonderful shots of New York while other effects just don't seem to be enough or on par with today's blockbuster standards. This movie hosts some of the best talent around today. If you're like me you may not fully appreciate it right away and it may take going back to. Return to Oz wasn't a huge success but it is a beloved cult classic. It was a lot shorter and in my opinion better than Syfy's Tin Man and reminded me of say something like the series Once Upon a Time or Stardust, the Golden Compass, Ink heart, Merlin or an older TV mini-series the 10th Kingdom. Movies along those lines, just as good as any of them, if not better.
Donald Huggins Jr.
GawdAwfull
billywbrown14 July 2011
May well be the worst thing that has ever been on TV. Not a soul got the message that in this sort of fantasy everybody has to play it completely straight. They all pancake and smirk knowingly at the camera. They all overact like they were on some crappy Disney kids show. The effects are mostly non existent. When the witches are supposedly fighting the effects are mainly off screen while the actresses wave their arms about with no exertion or effort apparent. There is an awful moment where munchkins are sword fighting and three year olds in a playground would have been more convincing. Dorothy? Well she is so bad that you realise that the only thing that might save this is if she died a horrible death. Direction is appalling. And what dolt's idea was it to have the Lion and Scarecrow play their parts as a bad impression of the actors in the 1939 movie? And the pauses. You keep getting bits where some exposition that you spotted ten minutes ago has to be explained but instead of just getting to the point the scene drags on and on and on and.... You end up screaming at the TV 'Shut up, shut up. I was bored five minutes ago now I just want to die.' The only vaguely good idea is right at the end and they even manage to screw that up. I am only writing this review in the vain hope that it will have some sort of cathartic effect and wipe the memory of this dreadful waste of everyone's time from my mind. If you missed this then thank whatever God you have and take that as a sign that there truly is a merciful God. If not then avoid it like the plague.
Very entertaining...
skinnyfish2626 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Modern twist to a classic tale. Very cute.
Read all the books and love how they incorporated the head switching. Think that the other reviews were pretty harsh.
THis is a very cute twist... can't wait to watch part 2.
My daughter is a teen and she is enjoying it two... apparently I have to write ten line to be able to submit this review. This is my first review written but I'm very disappointed in all the critics.
It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, but if you like to story then this is a fun twist.
I also like how they are incorporating the characters in a simple manner that if you've read the books to your kids they'll understand who they are and be looking to identify the next one. Mind you Return to Oz is kind of a creepy book from what I remember not your average fairy tale.
Read all the books and love how they incorporated the head switching. Think that the other reviews were pretty harsh.
THis is a very cute twist... can't wait to watch part 2.
My daughter is a teen and she is enjoying it two... apparently I have to write ten line to be able to submit this review. This is my first review written but I'm very disappointed in all the critics.
It's not a Hollywood blockbuster, but if you like to story then this is a fun twist.
I also like how they are incorporating the characters in a simple manner that if you've read the books to your kids they'll understand who they are and be looking to identify the next one. Mind you Return to Oz is kind of a creepy book from what I remember not your average fairy tale.
Rubbish
RickmanChick19 July 2011
Rarely am I moved to write a review here, but this film is simply so execrable that I feel compelled to - especially as the star rating won't appear unless five more reviews are posted, and I feel a duty to my fellow film viewer to save them from this dross.
I am usually open to re-imaginings of classics, e.g. various versions of Alice In Wonderland and A Christmas Carol spring to mind, some more successful than others. I've even seen another re-imagining of Oz that was very different but still pretty good - Tin Man.
This? Awful. Acting either wooden or completely over the top, plot ludicrous and deathly dull. I am surprised and saddened that so many good actors agreed to stake part in this waste of celluloid. A couple of hours of my life that I'll never get back.
I am usually open to re-imaginings of classics, e.g. various versions of Alice In Wonderland and A Christmas Carol spring to mind, some more successful than others. I've even seen another re-imagining of Oz that was very different but still pretty good - Tin Man.
This? Awful. Acting either wooden or completely over the top, plot ludicrous and deathly dull. I am surprised and saddened that so many good actors agreed to stake part in this waste of celluloid. A couple of hours of my life that I'll never get back.
Good movie
blair-mathieson31 October 2011
Was very surprised with how great the movie turned out and there were a couple of promising actresses in the movie. Thought Noel Thurman (sp?) had a great role. She is obviously talented and imagine she'll be snatched up very soon by larger production companies.
I admire new retakes on older movies and thought it was refreshing and unique. I'd like to see more of these type of remakes by this director. He obviously can pick a great cast. I was a bit surprised by some of the poor reviews. This was an entertaining movie.
Does anyone have recommendations for other remakes like this? It will be interesting to see where this director goes from here and whether any of his cast develop. I think there's a lot of potential. Will be following this cast.
I admire new retakes on older movies and thought it was refreshing and unique. I'd like to see more of these type of remakes by this director. He obviously can pick a great cast. I was a bit surprised by some of the poor reviews. This was an entertaining movie.
Does anyone have recommendations for other remakes like this? It will be interesting to see where this director goes from here and whether any of his cast develop. I think there's a lot of potential. Will be following this cast.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
