Return to Oz
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.84 You Save: $9.15 (61%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Return to Oz
Movie Review: Return to Oz is the real deal!
Summary: 5 Stars
This movie is the real deal! Check out "Ozma of Oz" and "The Land of Oz," which take place after the events in the "Wizard of Oz" to see how L. Frank Baum envisioned Oz and then compare them to this movie. Walter Murch, not only got the look and feel of Oz right, but he also got the personalities of these new characters correct. Watch this movie to learn what Oz was really like. Jack Pumpkinhead deserves our love as much as the Scarecrow! Bettina the chicken is more Dorothy's pet than Toto. Enjoy the diversity of L. Frank Baum's imagination! You won't be disappointed. This is a GREAT film!!!
I, too, had been brainwashed by the MGM-version of OZ, so much so that I wouldn't even read the OZ book series. It was in my 20's, while recovering from surgery that I started to read the L. Frank Baum books. I found them to be much richer, interesting, darker and with deeper personal relationships than the MGM Wizard OZ-lite version. I was hooked.
When this movie came out, I was enthralled and amazed. There were other people who loved the original stories as much as me! Fairuza Balk is an age-appropriate Dorothy; Dorothy did have a pet chicken named Bettina that is featured in many of the "Oz" books who talked and eventually decided to remain in Oz; the importance of Jack Pumpkinhead cannot be overstated for the rest of the "Oz" books and is an interesting statement on certain stereotypes (which I won't mention because it would be a spoiler); the storyline of how Oz had changed while Dorothy was gone can be seen as commentary of how Kansas had changed after the twister and on how much Dorothy had changed as a result of her visiting Oz; etc. While many people have commented on how scary the movie is, there are also girl-positive, funny and very magical parts to this movie. While it is not appropriate for the very young (and neither is the "Wizard of Oz" for that matter), it is perfect for ages around ten and older. They read, see and hear of more frightening events daily. My suggestion to you is: Go ahead! Give it a try! :) I don't think you'll be sorry!
FOOTNOTE: Prior to Return to Oz's opening, Disney released a "Making Of" documentary that showed how they filmed the claymation of the Gnome King (this was a very novel technique then), how the witch transferred the different heads, how the heads had different expressions while in the closet, the workings of Tic-Toc (who I fell in love with), the animation of the Gump (another lovable creature), how the costumes of the Wheelies were made and the how the actors moved in the costumes and more details. The documentary also presented some amazing-but-true urban myths about the two Oz movies, such as: Fairuza Balk, Walter Murch and Ray Bolger believed that the land of Oz truly existed. Another story was that the coat worn by Frank Morgan, when he played the traveling salesman in "The Wizard of Oz," was bought as a thrift store so that it had that look of wear and dirt. In order to fit Frank Morgan, a seamstress inverted a sleeve and found the name "L. Frank Baum" embroidered inside! This had the effect of totally freaking out the set of the MGM studio, while others felt like they now had L. Frank's blessing. I remember that Frank Morgan himself relayed this story in the documentary. Ray Bolger was very old and possibly, one of the last main characters to be alive at the time of this documentary. He was propped up by pillows and it looked like it took some effort for him to talk. However, he told the story of how, when he auditioned, he pleaded to be considered for the role of the Scarecrow. When asked why, Ray answered something like, to have more time with Do-ro-thy, of course. (You remember the way he said the name "Dorothy," right?) There were other very cool remembrances that I'm sure I've forgotten. But this documentary really helped bridge the MGM-Oz with the Disney-Oz. If anyone knows where to get this documentary, please, please contact me.
Movie Review: Wonderful film, FAR better than the Wizard of Oz.
Summary: 5 Stars
I was so happy when this film was finally released on DVD a few years back. I have such strong and fond memories of it from when I was a kid. Like most of us, I grew up with 1939 version of Oz, which frankly annoyed me. I liked the fantasy of it but I was not so much into the musical numbers. After awhile, it seemed too kiddie-like. I remember reading the book expecting it be a novelization of the movie but being blown away by how different it was. It was a bit more trippy in parts and it was slightly darker. There was so much that not in the movie.
Then Return to Oz came out and it was exactly as I imagined the land of Oz. Even though it keeps one or two of the aspects from the MGM version (the silver slippers are again instead ruby slippers, "There's no place like home", dual casting), it is really its own film and should not really be considered a sequel to the classic movie. It is less like vaudeville and more like a docu-drama that follows Dorothy on her journey. The actors are superb, especially Fairuza Balk. It is very easy (and common) for movies to collapse under the weight of an irritating child star (Jake Lloyd, anyone?). But Balk is never too precocious or saccharine. She's a little girl who has had an extraordinary thing happen to her that no one believes, and she feels isloated from the only real friends she's ever had. It's not a deep, psychological character exploration, it's just all there in her face and eyes and voice.
Yes, it's darker and maybe a little more scary than little kids are used to, but it's not violent or bloody or anything, just kind of bizarre. We're so used to sanitized versions of fairy tales that Disney specializes in that we've forgotten that most in their original forms are often much more disturbing and macabre than we think.
The design of the film is more like what is described in the books. I love the look of the Tin Woodsman in particular and I wish he had more of a part. But everything is faithful to the books, even though it's actually a combining of two different Oz books. There was such potential for a great series of films, it's too bad Disney sabotaged it. (Walt had bought the rights to the remaining books soon after the success of the MGM version, but nothing materialized until the 80's, just before the rights expired. The word is that Michael Eisner wanted the film to fail so that it would reflect badly on the leadership he was just replacing.)
The effects are remarkable for their time and are still pretty realistic today. I wish there was a special edition with cleaned up optical printing, you can really see the dusty layers of film in the scene in which Princess Mombi is changing heads. A proper Making of documentary would be great to see! The music is beautiful too. One can only wonder how much more convincing Oz can be with all the technology developed since 1984. The possible scope is certainly hinted at in Return to Oz; the end celebration scene includes many other characters from the other books like The Shaggy Man, Polychrome, the Patchwork Girl and the Frog Man.
The only real negative thing I have to say is that it does lack a certain emotional center. The main emotions are fear and excitement, but I don't feel as invested in Dorothy's motivation. She is simply having another adventure, and I think the theme of friendship and the fear of losing friends could have been a little more explored. Maybe because Walter Murch is more an editor than a director, the focus is more on story and action. But as a fantasy-adventure film, it's much more than most in the genre achieve. And as an adaptation, it is nearly flawless, despite the liberties taken.
All in all, a classic that should be in your collection!
Movie Review: Chillingly Beautiful
Summary: 5 Stars
I just watched this movie tonight for the first time in almost ten years. When I was little, The Wizard Of Oz was my life. I had the movie, I had toys, posters, I even watched the cartoon that aired on Saturday mornings. I saw this movie in a video store and I had to see it. Whoever said that this movie wasn't for kids was wrong. I loved it. It was a little creepy at times, but it made it all the more fascinating. Unfortunately (or perhaps FORTUNATELY) BetaMax has fallen out of style, so I could never watch it because that's the format we had it on.
Fast forward to the present day. I was reading about the famous box office flops in history and they talked about this movie. I remembered loving it and I was shocked to discover that the film had been a box office DISASTER. Critics trashed it. I can understand. Wizard Of Oz is one of the most important legacies in film history. Anything that suggests that the land of Oz is darker than a glittering mass of in-the-closet homosexuality would be thrown in the mud. After reading up a bit about the film, I knew that it was high time for a reunion.
I bought it today. I put it in my DVD player, hoping that the magic I remembered when I was little was still there. When I finished the movie, I was disappointed. I was upset because it was over and I too, had to leave Oz. Everything about this movie was incredible. Being a huge fan of The Craft, I already love Fairuza Balk, but her turn as Dorothy earned my greatest respect. I'd bow to anyone who had the courage to stand up and try to reach the pedestal Judy Garland set so high. And Fairuza does it. She sets it even higher, because she portrays Dorothy as more troubled, and the role is more difficult because the film is darker than it's ostentatious predecessor.
That's another thing: The 1939 movie, while great to watch at any age, was so drunk on happiness, that we didn't really get to understand Oz itself. Sure, there were the flying monkeys and the witch was and still is a force to be reckoned with in the villain hall of fame, but this Oz was different. The yellow-brick road was in ruins, so was the Emerald City. The Wheelers send shivers down my spine. Mombi is a formidable terror, and the king is great. The special effects are nothing compared to the way they are now, but they're very good nonetheless.
The film takes on surrealism and wonder so well that I would call it a piece of art. The sets, including the Emerald City and the Ornament Chamber are fantastic. The film is also more psychological in that it ties Kansas to Oz in very subtle ways, and some not-so-subtle ways. The hospital was a little creepy (okay, it was VERY creepy) but it just made sense. I like that Dorothy's memories were seen as a sign of mental illness because that probably would've happened in real life. The mirror with Ozma is great as well, because it ties into the whole parallel universe concept.
All psychological and analytical arguments aside, I'm going to come right out and say it: This movie EXCEEDS the original. I'm glad to say this online because no one reading this can throw anything at me. The first one is a masterpiece. The music is timeless and the characters are pop culture icons. Whoever hasn't seen that movie AT LEAST ONCE is either not alive yet or died before it came into existence. Return To Oz is darker, surreal, and ultimately, it allows us to see Oz, understand it better, and give us a better appreciation for the entire Oz universe. This movie deserved so much more than it got, and I think the time is right for this movie to get proper credit.
Movie Review: Response to euroman498's review below
Summary: 5 Stars
I think that reviewer "euroman498" completely missed the point of this movie. The producers were NOT trying to remake The Wizard of Oz. You cannot even begin to call this film a remake--it was not based on the same book as the 1939 Judy Garland film. I would be hard pressed to even call this a sequel, because although RETURN TO OZ is based off subsequent books in the Oz series ("Ozma of Oz" and "The Land of Oz"), there are too many differences from the 1939 film that prevent this from being a legitimate sequel. RETURN TO OZ is better taken as a completely different Oz film in its own right. You must realize since this and the 1939 film were based on entirely different books, that differences will exist. You need to get over that. I don't believe that Disney was just out to make a couple bucks off the Oz franchise, as they lavished quite a bit of money on this film. As we all know, RETURN TO OZ very unjustly bombed at the box office, because all too many closed-minded, over-zealous fans of the MGM film cannot accept an Oz film with anyone besides Judy Garland as Dorothy. Simply because the word "Oz" is in the title, people expect it to be a carbon copy of the 1939 film, complete with talking trees, flying monkeys, munchkins, 3 farm hands, Judy Garland, and lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!), along with dopey musical interludes dispersed throughout the picture. That Judy Garland is not present in this film seems to be reason enough for many people to hate it and go about bashing it right and left--though few of them have actually seen it.
I must say that I had only seen RETURN TO OZ when it would occasionally air on television, and I never really paid much attention to it beyond that. Then I rented the DVD one night after not having seen the film for awhile, and fell in love with it right away. I ran out and bought a copy of the DVD the first chance I got. Overkill, you might ask? Maybe, but to this day RETURN TO OZ remains a favorite of mine. And this coming from someone who does not particularly care for fantasy or sci-fi films.
The producers of RETURN TO OZ must be commended for the wonderful film they put together. It is far more faithful to Baum than the MGM film ever was. The characterizations seem to have come straight out of the books, and 10 year old Fairuza Balk is much closer in age to Baum's Dorothy--8 to 10 years old--than MGM's 16 year old Judy Garland. And the score by David Shire is one of the underacclaimed glories of motion picture music. While I enjoy the 1939 film, it is nothing more than a sugar-coated Judy Garland feature; an excuse for MGM to show off it technical opulence at the time, if you will. I am ever so grateful that Disney did not stoop to that level with RETURN TO OZ, and instead made a film that L. Frank Baum would be proud of.
Don't get me wrong... I have always loved the 1939 film dearly, and will continue to do so. It is rightfully a classic among the classics, and will remain a favorite of young and old forever. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, euroman498, but it seems to me that you are too biased toward Judy Garland to even give RETURN TO OZ the time of day--this evidenced by the fact that you spend your entire review talking about Judy Garland. You say that you have not seen RETURN TO OZ. Then what business do you have posting biased reviews against it? I strongly recommend you DO see it, euroman498; you might even find it to be one of the best films you have ever seen.
And any true fan of Judy Garland would know how to spell her name correctly.
Movie Review: A Fantastic "Return"
Summary: 5 Stars
"Return to Oz" is a sequel of sorts of the "Wizard of Oz" book and film, based around the second and third books of L. Frank Baum's Oz series. Reading the reviews from amazon, I'm surprised to find that this film wasn't very popular when it first came out. Though I'd never read the books, as a kid I enjoyed all the "Oz" I could get my hands on (the movies and the cartoon series, pretty much). Though I liked the first film, the colourful Judy Garland musical, I always was just a little bit more thrilled watching this one. Thanks to locations rather than all sets, world of Oz feels bigger, there are more characters, interesting special effects. It felt more real, yet more fantastic at the same time.
Dorothy (this time played by Fairuza Balk) has returned home to Kansas, but her insomnia and her constant talk of the wonderful land of Oz is worrying poor Aunty Em. She takes Dorothy to a doctor of sorts, who interprets her memories and electrical imbalances. He says to Aunty Em that a bit of electric shock therapy is what's needed to set Dorothy straight, so his hospital takes her in. On the night Dorothy is strapped to the horrific machine, something strange happens, and a mysterious blonde girl takes her away from the hospital. There are caught in a flood, and Dorothy is swept away to the outskirts of the Land of Oz. Things have changed a lot since she was last there. The yellow-brick road is faded and overgrown, the Emerald city has been stripped of its jewels, it's inhabitants turned to stone, (including Tinman and the Lion). Some people have even been decapitated. Horrid clown-like creatures known as Wheelers roll through the town, under the command of Princess Mombi (Jean Marsh), a woman several heads and shoulders above the rest. As Dorothy discovers what has happened to the land that she loves, she will meet Tik-Tok the clockwork man, the simple-minded Jack Pumpkin Head and help create a strange half couch-half moose known as a Gump. Their adventures will lead them across the deadly desert to the terrifying Nome king, who has a trick or two left for them up his stony sleeve...
It is a fair bit darker than the first film, yeah, and there are no munchkins or singing, but having read the first Oz book just recently, I think this film is fairly true to L. Frank Baum's vision. I recognize his sense of humour and his way with dialogue in it, the Disney team did a really good job preserving/recreating that. I love 1980s special effects, I think they suit fantasy films really well, and "Return to Oz" has some fantastic ones. Check out the flowing movement of the animated stone Nomes, for instance. The colour scheme, though not saturated with all the colours of the rainbow, is pretty fitting for a fantasy world I thought. I also liked Fairuza Balk's interpretation of Dorothy. She's a very caring girl. I really believe it when she hugs Tik-Tok that they're good friends, and that when she tells the citizens of the Emerald City that she loves them. I also like Jean Marsh as Mombi. She's a great actress, and she always plays these villain roles with relish, I reckon. If you liked her performance here, check her out as the evil sorceress in "Willow", and as the Arthurian Morgana in the Doctor Who serial "Battlefield".
It's a great adventure, beautifully filmed fantasy, and a wonderful watch for any Oz fan. Could be a little scary for really young viewers, but I know when I was 8 or so, I didn't find it too bad. Worth a look.