User reviews

To truly understand and appreciate "Return to OZ", you've got to know two things.

First off, this is NOT a follow-up to the classic MGM movie. This can't be emphasized enough. It is actually a synthesis of the first five or so sequels to the BOOK. (This isn't a dig at the movie, mind you. If you don't like it on some level or other, you can't be human. It's just that the movie was based on the book in the respect that the characters in the movie had the same names as the characters in the book.)

Secondly, L. Frank Baum's original, printed-page OZ is, quite possibly, the most messed up imaginary universe ever created. There's a land of beings who throw their own heads at you as weapons. There's a land of sentient vegetables who raise *people* in their gardens (think "Motel Hell" and you've got the idea). To top it all off, it turns out that Dorothy's buddies are really good at killing things; in particular the dear, heartless Tin Man who bloodies up his hatchet with unsettling apathy.

What I'm trying to get at here is that "Return to OZ" is an OZ movie that is much more faithful to the books. Much more "THIS is how long you have to be alive!" than "We represent the Lullaby League". I think it goes without saying that you'd be legally insane to show it to little kids, but fantasy fans, OZ enthusiasts, and fans of cult movies should hunt it down as soon as possible.

By the way, please note that the old-school herky-jerky puppets and claymation monsters in this movie are scary as all get out. Compare this to the awful remake of "the Haunting" with it's stupid cartoonish CGI creatures (and this isn't a dig at computer animation, but since the technique is inheritely realist, it's not scary). There is a lesson here.

Cherubic Dorothy Gale is catapulted back to the magical world of Oz in this enchanting, but very atypical Disney Production that got released 46 years after Victor Fleming's original (none of the original cast-members lived long enough to ever see this sequel!). In the story, however, only six months have passed since Dorothy was brought to Oz by a tornado. During some medical tests, performed because she keeps talking about her unbelievable journey, a mysterious girl helps Dorothy escape from the hospital and back to Oz for a new adventure! The screenplay, based on two L. Frank Baum novels at once, introduces a large amount of imaginative new characters that are either Dorothy's loyal friends…or malicious new enemies. It soon becomes clear that she was called back to Oz for a reason, as the evil Nome King has turned everyone to stone and the mad Princess Mombi is after more human heads for her collection. Despite the presence of a talking chicken, this is a frighteningly grim and obscure fantasy tale, perhaps not even suitable for the typical Disney-target groups. The events and characters in "Return to Oz" are often quite macabre (decapitation for a hobby, eerie guys on wheels…) and the tone of the film is heavier since there isn't any singing and dancing going on. Perhaps a little too scary for the smallest children but "Return to Oz" nonetheless is a compelling and spontaneous adventure, highly recommended to those who like their fairy-tales sinister. The special effects are really terrific, with stunning stop-motion animations and some very engaging mechanical machinery (Tic-Tok!). The young Fairuza Balk is an unbelievably convincing follow-up to Judy Garland! The talented Piper Laurie ("Carrie") is regretfully underused, though. This film, along with "The Dark Crystal" and "The Neverending Story", was a huge favorite of mine when I was young and they seemly only got better with years. Good stuff.

As a young kid, The Wizard Of Oz was one of my favourite-est movies in the world. The movie was bright, colourful, cheerful, happy and undoubtedly saccharine. And while it was a Box-Office smash and collected millions of Oz fans worldwide, it displayed nearly none of the points that made the book series so successful. So when after viewing Return To Oz, I was extremely happy.

While thousands blasted the film calling it 'dark' and even 'scary', I thoroughly enjoyed it. New characters, magic powders, creepier witches, talking chickens and flying couches - what more could an imaginative youngster want?!

Faruiza Balk portayed Dorothy Gale exceptionally well, and at times, takes on Judy Garland's version so similair, it's scary! Return To Oz was, I mean, is, better than the original, because it was more based on the books, whereas The Wizard Of Oz was a cross between the original book, bittersweet sets and a symphony orchestra.

While some disagree, I believe that 'Return' was not all a weak sequel, but more of a non-sequel sequel, which had little to do with the original, and had an exciting, haunting, script, which worked really well.

Well it's been about 10 years since I first saw Return To Oz, and I still think that it's one of the best children's movies ever made (however scary) and it's in everyone's best interests to rent it out - even if you hated it's predacessor.

RETURN TO OZ, the sequel to the 1930s classic, was a massive flop when it was put out by Disney in 1985, which is why I doubt many people today know of its existence. Having just watched an excellent quality, high definition copy of it, I was surprised at how entertaining it is; it's no masterpiece for sure, but it has the edge on the recent OZ: THE GREAT AND THE POWERFUL put out by Sam Raimi.

Yes there are disparities when compared to the original film but this was intended to be more in line with the L. Frank Baum novels than the MGM classic. Fairuza Balk is an effective choice as a younger, wide-eyed Dorothy, carted off to a mental asylum and then transported back to Oz where she discovers a terrible tragedy has befallen the Emerald City. Soon she's hooked up with a new group of allies to go on a brand new adventure.

In my opinion, the 1980s was the pinnacle of the special effects film. Animatronics and prosthetics were the best they were going to get, and computer graphics were in but had not yet overwhelmed cinema. RETURN TO OZ is a great film for effects fans: all practical, all great looking, particularly Nicol Williamson's Nome King. I got a chuckle out of seeing Jack Pumpkinhead, a character that storyboard animator Henry Selick would later 'borrow' for THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE Christmas. Tik-Tok is another good creation, full of character, but my favourite is Billina.

RETURN TO OZ isn't a perfect film, as it does feel a bit uneven in terms of pacing and the opening sequences are perhaps a little too dark for kids. Jean Marsh is overwrought and ineffective in her role too, and should have toned things down a bit. However, the sheer effort that has gone into the world building, and the genuinely suspenseful extended climax, make this a fun movie. And it's impossible not to love the painstaking effects work - including Claymation - that's gone into the production.

After reading about 40 of the other comments here, all of whom say RETURN TO OZ is dark and disturbing, I will make a different comment. In the early 80s Disney certainly were off the cash trail with a range of films, each expertly produced, that were box office disasters. One may recall SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, TRON, THE BLACK CAULDRON, ONE MAGIC Christmas and a few others that had much to offer any thinking crowd,and each had special effects that were quite astonishing. Disney were in a very bleak period and the films, attempting to reflect perhaps a more mature or even grown up perspective chose, oh dear I have to say it: a dark and disturbing theme. At the time of release every critic bleated at the grim and melancholy tone of RETURN TO OZ, and sadly themselves neglected to celebrate the original book look, a choice Disney execs applauded themselves for. One Exec infamously said to us theatre owners: "We're going for the Frank L Baum book illustrations and nothing like that 1939 vaudeville thing". Oh dear, I thought at the time. You mean the world's most popular kids film? Well. $27 million dollars later in production costs returned maybe a quarter in theatre film rentals and RETURN TO OZ for all its merit and lavish production care and superb scary special effects....was consigned to the Disney dud bin. At the time I was irritated by the fixed goony expressions on Jack Pumpkinhead and the Scarecrow (loved Tik-tok, though, a fascinating and completely compelling design and movement piece) This time around I didn't mind it and actually appreciated the fact that they were 'book' expressions. Viewed 20 years later on a Disney DVD of dubious quality, I have to say it is a film more suited to these dark and disturbing times and if released today would certainly get a better reception and better crits...and possibly make a lot of money. I think the world is tuned into this type of family film more now than in the Flashdance 80s. The production values of RETURN TO OZ are simply breathtaking. Scene after scene perfectly realised: the green walled horror of the psychiatric asylum in reel one, the amazing claymation of the Gnome King, and especially the glittering halls of Mombi's castle. One genuinely screamworthy scene in the hall of Heads with a headless Queen rushing about in a nightmarish vision is almost only for adults, so intense is it's genuine horror. The glittering climax of a restored Emerald City is a triumph of green and silver/gold set design, I defy any viewer not to rewind it several times just to see each and every part. Yes nominated for 5 Oscars, it won none and vanished for 20 years. The no-marquee name Fairuza Balk didn't help the public embrace, no matter how exquisite she is. At least she wasn't named Soleil Moon Fry. In the same class as The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth, RETURN TO OZ now deserves its place there as part of a trilogy of superbly crafted fantasy for smart kids and astonished adults. That 'vaudeville thing' it certainly isn't. But not a failure either. The DVD is lacking trailers and production material that should and could be included. Bad Disney! Good film! I also defy any viewer not to shriek with laughter at the Gnome King revealing he is wearing the ruby slippers, a sly joke well presented.

I don't see why people got into such a hubbub about Return to Oz when it came out... actually, that's not correct for a couple of reasons. For one, sadly, it didn't do well at the box office, so presumably a lot of children didn't see it who might have. But for those that reviewed it, the consensus was it was "too dark" for kids. Hogwash. Kids can actually take much more dramatic and terrifying things than we think - maybe some may be more sensitive than others, but so are adults - and a response to feats of imagination are always eye-catching to them. If it was about the story and characters, that's another matter.

On an artistic, sensory-visual level Return to Oz is mostly spectacular work, with a plethora of eye-catching and inspired practical effects (one of which I have to imagine the character of Jack Skellington was the inspiration for), matte paintings, marionettes and puppets, claymation, the works, with an Emerald city that looks like a Russian communist block from that time period (and I mean that in a complimentary way - it's exquisitely run-down) . And I liked how dark and weird it got, that was fine.

If I didn't care for something it was most of the supporting characters who become Dorothy's companions. They didn't have the strong-memorable personalities or sense of enchantment (or even just good acting) of the three that accompanied Dorothy in 'Wizard' - or, hell, even the companions in Oz: The Great and Powerful, which I'd argue is maybe a more inspired film than this, albeit with CGI. And the villain - aho is appropriately bad-*ss and deranged, is only most effective by the third act, with a one-dimensional shrieking witch (albeit with wonderful multiple heads to choose from) in the rest of the film.

So, Return to Oz is a really good movie. If it's a lost classic? Depends who you ask, I suppose. Nevertheless, Balk is fun to watch in a role where she's constantly thinking and reacting well in her acting - a sophisticated acting job young or otherwise.

The first time I saw this movie I was about 6 or 7. It really scared me, I remember having nightmares of Mombie for weeks... I also remember rewatching it week after week. Now 10 years later I've rediscovered it and it's still chilling. Not because it was meant to be a horror, but because the imagery and plot is so vivid and captivating I can't help but feel like I'm really drawn into another world. Very few movies have done that for me... this is right up there with movies like Willow, Labrynth, and The Neverending Story. If you like musicals, bright colors and munchkin's dancing around, then stay away from this one, but if you want to go on a journey of pure imagination that will leave you breathless on the edge of your seat, rediscover Oz for yourself!

For some reason my younger sister loved this movie when we were kids so we watched it more times than anyone really should.

I'm not even sure how to describe this movie beyond it being a bad trip for kids.

It starts grim, then becomes bleak, then becomes magically farcical, all whilst maintaining a general feeling of eeriness and unease.

Would recommend watching for the experience.

Most of the comments on this film seem to be from people who saw this when they were little, and haven't been able to forget it. The imagery of this film lingers long after first view, and its marked stylistic and thematic differences to Wizard Of Oz have a hypnotic effect on a certain type of viewer.

In Return, the central theme is one of deep unhappiness with reality and a wish to return to fantasy, where as Wizard focuses more on the concept of "there's no place like home". I admire and am still deeply effected by this film because, in some ways, it is braver than Wizard. It isn't afraid to deal with the conflict - that the misery of a grey Kansas is very real.

It expresses a rippling dissatisfaction that seems more in keeping with Baum's original works, and is all the more satisfying for it. In particular, I enjoyed the parrallels between the real world and Oz- for what it suggests about our world- and the Nome King's conversation with Dorothy. For a children's film, there is great depth in both, and most of the film can be interpreted on several different levels. The implications of the corridor of heads alone is enough to send any first year pysch/lit student into a whole mess of garbage.

But don't be fooled. This also an excellent children's film, that deserves more attention than it got.

The main reason that "Return to Oz" did so badly is simple enough.

People went in expecting another light-hearted, toe-tapping, bright and cheery trip down the yellow brick road. Instead, they got a dark, creepy and sometimes scary trip akin to an "Indiana Jones" movie.

All that was missing was Dorothy (Balk) wearing one of Indy's fedoras.

This is clearly not a children's film, and any parent who lets an impressionable young child watch this film should have his head examined! This is more of a special FX maker's film, with great and loving detail to all the effects paramount in the story, secondary to any consideration towards the actual plot.

There are ingenious characters here, more familiar to those familiar with Baum's books. But even for 1985, they're impressive. And the final showdown with the Nome King was extremely well done.

All in all, it depends on how you go into this one as to whether you'll appreciate it. Don't go in expecting Judy Garland, dancing scarecrows and dazzling Technicolor and you may just be entertained. If you still believe in rainbows, though....

Five stars, for the FX. But if it only had a heart.

There have been many people since this film came out who have tried to compare it to The Wizard of Oz. I don't think you can compare the two films and neither film is better than the other. They're both fantastic.

This is an enjoyable movie which can be enjoyed time and time again. Dorothy returns to Oz and teams up with Tik-Tok (a robot), Jack Pumpkinhead (a pumpkin man obviously) and the Gump (don't ask)to battle the evil Nome King and Princess Mombi. There's plenty of fun throughout as Dorothy and friends battle the likes of the wheelies and all manner of creatures.

The finale is perhaps one of the best ever for a fantasy film. Yes, it really is that good as Dorothy and friends meet up with the Scarecrow and battle the evil Nome King and Princess Mombi.

The original Wizard Of Oz was a timeless classic still talked about today. It is no exaggeration to call Return To Oz a classic movie either.

This could have been a great film if it had not tried to associate itself with The Wizard of Oz. The 1939 film departs in many ways from the book that this movie tried to change. Oz is not a dream world inhabited by people who look like Dorothy's friends and enemies. It's supposed to be a real place which she visits after getting caught in various natural disasters. The Judy Garland version was loosely based on the story and was meant to be a stand-alone musical and should have been left that way. Return to Oz tried way to hard to be a sequel to The Wizard of Oz despite dozens of plot holes which make it impossible for it to be one. The film should have been preceded by a retelling of the original story straight from the book. Other than the half book/half movie sequel mess, this is a good film. It has great effects and sets as well as a decent enough story. The Wizard of Oz is one of the best and most loved classics of all time. Trying to make a sequel to something like that will almost always result in disaster, especially if that sequel has such an entirely different feel to it.

I first saw this film back when I was a kid and I was not all that wild about it. I guess my mind could not grasp the idea of an Oz movie that was faithful to the book and was confusing because it did not seem like it was part of the original film's world. Now that I am an adult, I really dig this one more than the original 1939 film as it is darker to the point of being almost a horror/fantasy film and there are not a bunch of chirpy songs coming from nowhere. Honestly, the original was essentially a Broadway stage play that was filmed. This one, however, was more like the Oz portrayed in the books.

The story has poor Dorthy suffering from sleepless nights due to her adventures in Oz. Her aunt's solution? Why, take her to a doctor that using electroshock therapy of course! Well, Dorthy ends up in a creepy asylum and is about to be zapped when the power goes off, another girl frees Dorthy and both she and the other girl end up falling into a river just outside the asylum during a very violent storm. The other girl seemingly drowns as the river somehow transports Dorthy back to Oz; however, it is now run down and full of strange beings known as Wheelers who promptly give chase. Dorthy manages to find her way into a room and enlists the aid of Tic-toc, a wind up soldier. She will also find help from Jack Pumpkinhead and meet her old friend Scarecrow too. However, a strange demented Princess named Mombi and the Nome King will do everything in their power to stop Dorthy from returning Oz to its former glory!

Watching this film, one gets more of a sense of what Oz is all about, it is a mirror world where there are people from our world living within it. I get the feeling Stephen King and Peter Straub used the Oz series as inspiration for their collaboration, The Talisman as it too features a parallel world. While I found this one good as an adult I also found at times the outside world of Oz too mundane, though the interiors do look fantastical. It is a shame this bombed at the box office, because this Oz is so much more delightful and frightful than the 1939 version.

So, in the eyes of an adult, this movie actually improved for me. Usually, you watch stuff as a kid and later as an adult and like the film less, but not here. It is a strange world that is put together by Disney, who were going through bit of a dark phase during this time. They were also going through a rather rough time as there just were not too many hits during this era in their history. Not that the films were not good, just not what people expected from a Disney film at the time. This one is one such case, really good, but people expected lighter fare and something more in the line with the 1939 film.

I've read L. Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," as well as a bit of some of the rest of the series years ago, and, for the most part, it's bland kiddie junk. (I come to this conclusion despite the best efforts of Michael Patrick Hearn's notes in "The Annotated Wizard of Oz" pretending it to be great literature.) In a sense, Baum was right in promoting the abandonment of a moral in writing modern fairy tales, but not entirely regarding the "blood-curdling incidents" from the likes of Grimm and Andersen, let alone his distaste for the complexities of Lewis Carroll's Alice books. "Return to Oz," however, returns somewhat to the more frightening aspects characteristic of fairy tales of yore--not the listless sentiment and stupid humor comprising much of today's children's movies. Indeed, the works of Baum, too, are less bowdlerized than that which has followed. Finally, for instance, "Return to Oz" is the first film to faithfully render the author's curious fondness for decapitations (seriously, go read the books; it's there).

I don't care to get too far into the territory of writing a parents' guide, but I do suspect that if one is raised on bland entertainment, they tend to grow up bland. Some protection of children from serious adult issues of the world is one thing, but extending that ignorance to stories where the witches or stone men are scarier than the usual Disney fare is another matter. For instance, IMDb's top reviewer, Martin Hafer, goes so far as to hyperbolically state that showing "Return to Oz" to younger kids "would be like abuse." As promising as that line and other reviews have made it out to be, "Return to Oz" isn't nearly that shocking. Yet, Dorothy does almost receive electroshock treatment after Aunt Em drops her off at the loony bin--because the poor little girl can't sleep or shut up about her recent cyclone-induced trip to the land of Oz.

Appreciably, Oz, this time, is more shocking, as well. Since her last visit, Oz has become a dystopian wasteland where all her friends have been turned to stone and where, in the spirit of Baum's aforementioned obsession with head removals, a witch changes hers like they were hats. Of course, there's the Jack-o'-lantern guy, too. Hey, if the film being set during the Halloween season didn't tip you off that you're not in MGM's Kansas and Oz anymore, then it's your own fault. Nevertheless, a standard fantasy quest occupies most of the proceedings, and after Dorothy's visit to Mombi, it's quite tame. Oddly enough, too, eventually the Nome King has Dorothy and company enact a first draft of the finale of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (1989).

Beside the Halloween-themed horror and dystopian elements, as well as some naturalistic writing for and acting by Fairuza Balk as a young Dorothy (closer to the age of Baum's character as opposed to Judy Garland and other, older variations), the other thing I appreciate about this reinterpretation of Oz is the introduction of a mirror motif. Mombi's castle is covered in them. Moreover, they take on a similar function to that in Carroll's Alice sequel, "Through the Looking Glass," as a gateway, with one character being trapped in them, and suggesting Oz as being a sort of reverse-image of Kansas. Tellingly, this Dorothy doesn't just want to go home; she wishes she could be in both places at the same time.

This film shows more of what OZ really was, or is, if you believe an alternate universes. It's a mirror of our own world. And we can exist there and here at the same time, all we need is a pair of ruby slippers and a counterpart who lives in a mirror.

I rented this on a beta tape and watched it with my mom after it had finished its original theatrical run. We both liked it, but without the widescreen format and a theatrical sound system, it lost some of its ability to overwhelm us. But we still enjoyed it, quite a bit.

I wish my mother were here now that I have a 50" HDTV and a halfway decent DVD copy, and a Kenwood surround sound system. I can sit in the middle and it is just as if I am sitting in a seat in a theater because that's where this needs to be watched. Because when I watched it last night, I was completely overwhelmed by this amazing movie.

The "Kansas" scenes are very dismal, not sure where they were filmed actually although I know some of this was filmed in London. But the landscapes looked very much like a dismal Kansas late fall prior to the turn of the 20th century.

Nicol Williamson represents a type of "doctor"/quack that dangerously fiddled around with electronic devices before people really understood how electricity worked, and his Oz mirror alternate is none other but the Gnome King himself . Joan Marsh was his nasty looking nurse (and Mombi). Piper Laurie is Auntie M and Matt Clark is Uncle Henry. But the breakaway performance in this film is Fairuza Balk who really captures the spirit of Dorothy as laid down by Judy Garland. The DVD which I found has a very good interview with Fairuza where she talks about being one of 1000 girls that they interviewed for this part, of all the kids that they looked at she was the most perfect for this.

Although this film does not have musical numbers, it does have animatronics by Brian Henson and I didn't know it at the time but claymation by none other than Will Vinton, who put life into the Gnome King in such a frightening way.

Some other reviewer said this, but this is actually a horror movie, the last we saw Oz before Dorothy went home it was not like this Oz. This is apparently six months after that and something very bad has happened and it is up to Dorothy, her chicken, and the Royal army of Oz "Tic Toc" to find out what is going on. And there is also a mysterious girl who shows up in mirrors, that gives Dorothy a helping hand now and then: Who is this?

This movie could have and should have been made long ago, shortly after the original had been made. But if it had been, there's a high probability it could not have been done as well as this.

And somebody else also said this is not a sequel to the original, but it is a continuation of that same story. Most importantly, it reveals characters that were part of the Oz stories that were not mentioned in the first film. Bellini, Tic-Toc, Ozma, Mombi.

Maybe in another 20 years they can continue the story. It could happen, and it should happen.

Most of it feels really rushed and messy, but it's still a very visually creative movie with great effects and some really good moments of horror.

If you really like dark children's fantasy films (like Labyrith, Dark Crystal or The Neverending Story), then I highly recommend it. Just don't expect to be entirely satisfied if you really love the original Wizard of Oz.

Seriously, couldn't they have made Scarecrow look a bit less horrifying?

Return To Oz is very much like a retread of The Wizard Of Oz, with most of the major events of one film repeated in the latter. About the only significant difference is that Return To Oz, while wearing its origins as a Disney production on its sleeve, is a little less saccharine, or sugar-coated, compared to its predecessor. Not so much that it could score ten out of ten from an older audience, but enough so that you could show it to audiences who have more than one digit in their age, and not draw protests. Unfortunately, this does not necessarily make it a good film.

Whereas the cast of heroes in The Wizard Of Oz were very distinct from one another, the heroes of Return To Oz are fairly generic. The plot, such as it is, concerns itself with a Troll-like King who comes out of the stone of one mountain. Somehow, he has acquired the ruby slippers from the previous film, and used them to sack the city of Oz. The populace is found turned to stone, and the streets patrolled by Wheelers, a bunch of ugly human types who look a lot like Johnny Rotten at a roller-disco. The Wheelers are controlled by an evil princess who collects heads to wear, while she is in turn controlled by the Nome King, who I've already spoken about. The plot is very simple and by the numbers, as opposed to how every new location seemed natural or spontaneous in the original. In fact, there are only three or four major locations in Return To Oz, and most of them are passed through in the blink of an eye.

Children who have yet to see The Wizard Of Oz will not notice the most major problem with this sequel. In a nutshell, it is continuity. The Dorothy shown in The Wizard Of Oz was played by Judy Garland, who was about seventeen years old at the time. Disney, in their endless attempt to pander to a child audience, decided to make Dorothy ten years old, in spite of the number of references made to six months passing since the tornado hit the Gale farm. These not-so-subtle continuity faults aside, the story is competently told, and Fairuza Balk makes a decent fist of playing the young Dorothy.

Another plus in Return To Oz is that the support cast is considerably less annoying in its perpetual perkiness. Tik-Tok has more personality than the entire cast of The Wizard Of Oz put together, while Pumpkinhead manages to be dopey without seeming insulting. Something that was utterly beyond the cast of... well, you get the idea. Another plus is that we are spared the agony of the cast breaking into song every ten minutes. The only point where the film falls down is when the weight of the Disney desire to claim that they are making films suitable for everyone when in reality they are only suitable for four-year-olds becomes too much for the screenplay and actors to deal with. Quite obviously, this sequel was churned out in order to make a quick buck, as the minor flood of spin-offs of the time showed. Still, it gets a little closer to the tone of L. Frank Baum's novel, and that can only be a good thing.

All in all, I gave Return To Oz a five out of five. Unlike the "everyone loves it, we say so" advertising that is prevalent in trying to sell The Wizard Of Oz, Disney seem to have adopted a "here it is, take it or leave it" attitude to Return To Oz. Which is the biggest improvement I can think of.

I dug this movie out because I've just met someone who has a child and I thought my step son may like to watch it as I did when I was a child and had my milk snatched from me. I never got to watch it with my step Son but I am sat watching it at home, on my own, with the lights out. This film immerses you in a world of dark emotion control and dare I say it, insanity. So real it's like looking out the window, so fantastic it's like reading strewlpeter for the first time. Do not be expecting this to be a continuation of the song and dance that was the wizard of oz, this is much closer to the books and far away from the rose tinted world of Judy Garland.

If you don't like heads this film may be for you.

Em...no. If you weren't alive in the 80's you will take one look at this and dismiss it as 'dated'. A problem that the original - YES!the original never had. And it was made in the 30's!Fairuza Balk is theonly saving grace. She looks desperately lost in the strange land andgives a great performance for a young actress. But like 'Never EndingStory' and 'Labyrinth', its just a mix of fancy puppetry and 'cut andpaste' dialogue. And it doesn't have any songs! Henson (whosprevious work is not in question) does a number on this, and it's lost.Anadventure borne out of the 'make it up as we go along' schoolof film-making. Wasn't good then, ain't much better now.