The Wonderful Land of Oz

I have seen better high school productions. No artistic value. Do not watch this. Ever.

OK, so this has its moments of "so bad, it's good", but they are much too few and far between. Try sitting through even the short version without fast-forwarding only if you are in need of sleep or seriously enjoy self-inflicted pain. Otherwise, fans of even the worst cinematic dreck should simply watch the 1st five or six minutes of this to capture the flavor of the fiasco, and then scan forward to scenes where new characters are introduced. Or better yet, look for the sampler reel currently available on youtube. "Highlights" of the film include the unbelievably horrible line readings of the lead child actor (the son of director Barry Mahon), the first poorly-timed "moo" of the paper-mache cow (actually just the head of a cow), the "why am I even here" lethargy of poorly-recorded "The Pumpkinhead", and - I suppose - the flying, talking reindeer and the "The Wogglebug". And, oh yes, the mini-skirted army of Gen. Jinjur, actresses that were likely borrowed from the cast of the two adult features Mahon was making (FANNY HILL MEETS THE RED BARON and FANNY HILL MEETS DR. EROTICO) around the very same time that this film was in production.

Yep, this is about as bad as it gets..... let me state right from the start that there is absolutely NOTHING remotely wonderful about "The Wonderful Land of Oz", except for when it's over.

As you've undoubtedly already guessed this dismal, low-budget, amateur production is based upon the universally popular literary creations of author L. Frank Baum and at the same time The Wonderful Land of Oz is also one of the worst movies ever made, as it possesses absolutely none of the legendary charm or appeal that the Wizard of Oz brought to the screen 30 years earlier. But why is that? Well having seen it only once (once was more then enough!) I can sight several reasons, such as...

The star of the film is Channy Mahon, the director's 11 year-old son (nepotism?), in his one and only acting role, who obviously had no talent for acting and he looks and sounds completely disinterested throughout the movie and every single one of his lines sounds flat and completely lifeless - his character is a total bore. Next up and perhaps even more atrocious is the film's dismal sense of art direction and ultra low-budget production values, which is undoubtedly best exemplified by the films terrible looking sets and that is where the film scores most dismally - it's woeful set designs. To be blunt about it - some high school plays have probably had better looking sets then what's seen here, as every single set that's featured in The Wonderful Land of Oz is a cringe-worthy eye-sore; all of which are painfully cheap looking, ridiculously small in scale and look as if they were constructed out of paper mache or sagging cardboard. It's a real toss-up as to which is worse: the acting or the set work. But to be fair they did do a bit better of a job in the costume department - with the exception of the Tin Man (cheap thin-gauge steel and a silver leotard). The overall sound of this film (or at least the segments what weren't overdubbed in post-production) tends to sound thin and "barren", as if the soundstage's walls where paper-thin or more likely it can be blamed on inadequacies in the sound department. All this visual and audible splendor is topped off with some music that sounds vaguely Wizard of Oz-ish.

What of it's plot? Well when the acting is as terrible (from all involved) as it is in this movie, the plot doesn't really seem to matter too much, but essentially their "following the yellow brick road" (or at least this movies pathetic equivalent of it) they're en route to Emerald City - if that's what you want to call it. Whew! What a LAME set! What I noticed is that because so little happens due to the characters actions (or inaction) in any given scene, that the films characters essentially give in and simply tell you what's going on with endless lines of lame, half-wit dialog, again lifelessly delivered in one tediously pointless scene after another "Glinda The Good" being the worst offender of them all. What's sad is that they actually think they're being funny..... however, if you have more then three brain cells it should register as nothing other then tedious, pointless, sub-amateurish drivel. And if you make it to the end you'll notice that the entire Land of Oz seems to inhabited by no more then 20 to 25 people (yep, this movies a real sparse fantasy) and most of those 20 to 25 people form the ranks of an all-female "army" who appear to be wearing drum majorette costumes. Whose leader they encounter wandering around out in the woods, carrying baskets full of sandwiches and with this encounter yet another terrible song comes to life - and if that doesn't sound lame enough to you relax, because just moments later you'll bare witness to her "arming" her loyal and fearsome fem-army with knitting needles! Seriously.

Like the majority of low-budget films The Wonderful Land of Oz is a short film, clocking in at mere 72 minutes, however, do to it's bad acting, extremely lame plot, awful song sequences, vapid dialog, cringe-worthy visual presence and an overall pointlessly meandering nature it seems much longer then it really is. Here's some trivia for you, Barry Mahon, the director of this wretched little movie (who was mostly known for soft-core smut), also directed "Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny" three years later in 1972, yet evidently he found that film to be too bad even for his standards, because he went under the alias of "R. Winer" for that one. Names aside, all I can say is that, if you've seen both of those incredibly awful movies, I think you'll also agree that they BOTH look and sound as if they were created by the same director - who indeed, was gifted with the same "masterful touch".

!>>Cringe<<!

Mr. Mahon you are now on my ever-growing list of talentless and terrible directors. Congratulations!

Viewing this film left me utterly dumbfounded. I was truly shocked that anybody, at any strata of the movie business, could have produced it and managed to have it released. The plot is described hilariously in meticulous detail in the "External Reviews" section here, so I won't recount it all. Suffice it to say that I've never seen so brazen a display of non-talented "talent" as that on display in this alleged entertainment. It was a joy! Definitely bad in the good way, if you're inclined to watch cinematic dreck for its camp appeal.

The juvenile hero of the piece was Channy Mahon, the son of its producer/director, Barry Mahon. On hearing his first line delivery, my jaw dropped in disbelief. Imagine the sort of monotonous, comatose recitation any average schoolchild will deliver when forced to read aloud in class. Now administer half a bottle of Nyquil to that same child, wait an hour, demand another reading, and you'll get some idea of what young Channy Mahon's line delivery was like. Priceless. He did look cute in that Eddie Munster outfit, though.

The adult cast ranged from merely competent to embarrassingly awful. The sets were apparently made of painted cardboard and plywood. The costumes were, on the whole, surprisingly decent. The songs – oh the songs! You'll want to travel back in time, in "Back to the Future" fashion, just to prevent their conception – and Channy's as well (sorry Channy, I know it wasn't really your fault).

This is an epicurean treat for afficionados of bad cinema. To those looking for actual entertainment in the conventional sense, steer well clear!

This film looks like someone filmed a bad amateur theater production put on in the '60s. There are about three sets in the entire film, all look like theatrical sets and are dreadfully ugly. Everything is harshly lit with heavy shadows. The acting and singing is awful. How this could ever be taken as a serious film is beyond me.