El mago

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

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

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

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

This film bombed on its official release for one reason, and for one reason only--it was rated G. During the seventies, hardly anyone DARED to go see a G-rated film because it was considered the epitome of uncool. Fortunately, this film finally went on to gain an impressive audience later on when it was rediscovered in the wake of Jackson mania and has finally been selling its worth. Many these days go berserk trying to dissect it due to these modern "politically correct" times: is it meant to be a spoof, or maybe a "blaxploitation" film? Hey, forget all that nonsense! Gather your childen, kick back and enjoy THE WIZ for what it is--the most daringly imaginative adaptation of the classic children's story ever committed to film.

Roger Ebert, not one of my favorite film critics, surprised me by giving a wonderful (and dead-on accurate) positive review of the film. Some out there think of it as a dated 70s pop/disco/funk/soul feature, but these days that "retro" feel adds to its charm in my opinion--it reminds me of an innocent time from my youth.

I saw this in the theaters as it was first released when I was a child and I've loved it dearly ever since. It has Diana Ross playing Dorothy as a 24-year-old Kindergarten schoolteacher (which I always thought was a charming idea!) with a wide-eyed innocence that is truly touching. Michael Jackson gives a delightfully whimsical performance as the scarecrow, Quincy Jones uses his musical production genius to create a really fantastic and drop-dead gorgeous soundtrack... and in case you're still not convinced, this film is the most expensive movie musical ever made, and WOW, does it ever show! The visuals are imaginative and brilliant, and you'll never forget them.

And best of all, it's been re-released on DVD and the soundtrack on CD! Deservedly so! Now let's all get out there and whoop it up for THE WIZ!

Let me establish a few things at the start: 1) I love disco, soul, and R&B, 2) I love the '70s, 3) I love bad movies, 4) I have a healthy admiration for Diana Ross and Michael Jackson, as well as many of the other luminaries in this film. All that said, this film is APPALLING IN EVERY RESPECT!

I knew this movie was poorly regarded, and I expected to like it anyway (I'm certainly not sorry I've seen it) but the ratio of potential to realization is like 100:1. I'm really surprised it has so many defenders on this site. Let's discuss:

Yes, many people have said that Diana Ross is too old. What's not mentioned is that she looks TERRIBLE! She looks like a refugee! Also, she just has the wrong voice for this part. Stephanie Mills had a strange, nasal voice, but she was a BELTER, and you need a belter for these songs. Poor Diana and her thin voice just couldn't cut it, and she had no physical charm to fall back on. Oh dear.

I was really surprised how lame the musical renditions and sound quality were. I have surround sound, and I just couldn't believe how muffled and distant the sound was. And, in my opinion, ALL of the musical performances were misfires. You could see how many of the songs could have been good in a good performance, but those just weren't to be found here.

Many people single out Lena Horne's performance as fantastic, but to me, like the rest of the movie, she was BADLY misused. Lena Horne is a nuanced jazz singer, so to hear her try to go all low-down gospel was rather painful, especially with her impeccably-enunciated "Woo! Yeah!"'s. She also looks utterly ridiculous.

I didn't get much of a sense of the old Michael Jackson we all used to love between the layers of makeup and the lack of focus of the movie and scenes.

I love how Dorothy alternates between being worried that Toto is out of her sight for even a moment because he is so precious to her, and completely forgetting about his existence for long periods of time.

Also, apparently the scarecrow's owner shredded the works of the great philosophers (or at least his copy of Bartlett's Famous Quotations) to stuff his scarecrow with?

And WHAT is happening in the sequence where the subway comes to life and attacks our heroes? WHAT is that? Also, the cowardly lion doesn't get much of a character arc, does he? One scene he's going on about how he doesn't have any courage, the next he's ferociously defending Michael against the saber-toothed garbage cans.

Now think about that: saber-toothed garbage cans. Hmmm.

I understand that during this movie our quartet go through tableaux of the issues affecting blacks in the 70's, fine... so then what's with the emerald city scene where the Wiz dictates fashion to the people below? Am I to understand that one of the major cultural issues African-Americans faced in the 70's was the tyranny of imperious fashion designers?

I was surprised that of all the things they kept from the original Wizard of Oz film, they jettisoned the device that Dorothy is just dreaming about all the people she knows, and at the end there's no "And you were there, and you were there, and you were there" scene.

I was kind of stupefied by how HUGE some of the sets were. Many looked like actual NYC locations that they has just laid a yellow-brick floor on. I would love to know if they actually did that, or just built these enormous sets.

Well, that's it! This film is not a total waste of 2 hours, but it is... quite an oddity.

--- Check out my website devoted to bad and cheesy movies at: www.cinemademerde.com

I'm sure the idea for "The Wiz" looked good on paper: a modern, all-black musical retelling of "The Wizard of Oz," with the boroughs of New York subbing in for the Emerald City and environs. Indeed, nothing is wrong with the concept--revisions and re-imaginings can work, and have been part of music theater for almost as long as the genre has existed. But for every "West Side Story," we get something like...well, like this.

Dorothy (Diana Ross) here is a 24-year-old Harlem schoolteacher, and as the story opens we are treated to scenes of her Aunt Em telling her to switch her kindergarten students for high schoolers, move out of the house, and basically get on with her life. But Dorothy doesn't want to, because--well, she's scared, I guess. Certainly not because she finds her current job enjoyable or fulfilling, or is better working with younger kids than with teenagers, or doesn't make enough money to afford the rents in New York City. So it's off to Oz, where she metaphorically sorts out her problems by killing witches and associating with strange men. (One of those strange men, the Scarecrow, is played by Michael Jackson--and you can write your own joke from here.)

It's always irritating when the directors of movie musicals hire actors who can't sing (as in "Paint Your Wagon"), but "The Wiz" proves that hiring singers who can't act is just as bad. Ross makes Dorothy so whiny, ineffective, and unappealing that you simply want to slap her. Jackson's not much better, delivering all his lines in the same breathy monotone--although it is nice to watch him back when he was at the threshold of a productive and memorable music career, instead of the disturbing self-caricature he has become. Everyone else hams it up accordingly, especially Richard Pryor as the title character.

Of course, neither director Sidney Lumet nor writers William F. Brown and Joel Schumacher made things any easier for the cast to begin with. Between the three of them, they leave no point unhit with a sledgehammer, and no stereotype unexploited (the worst: the crows who harass the Scarecrow, who bear a resemblance to the ones in "Dumbo" and who, I'm guessing, are all named Jim). With the exception of a celebratory dance after the Wicked Witch's demise, the choreography is rather bland and photographed in an uninvolving manner. The action frequently drags too long, leaving us looking at the time clock on the DVD player when we should be watching the characters.

There is a great book out there by Gregory Maguire called "Wicked" (which itself is now a Broadway musical). It reimagines Oz in a thoughtful and interesting manner. Read it instead.

I thought that this movie was incredible when I first saw (about 8 years ago), and I still do! Even if it is almost nothing like the Broadway show, that doesn't matter. The film version of "The Sound of Music" wasn't like the play, either. Or what about "Mame"? See what I mean? Not one movie musical is ever like the live show. It shouldn't matter anyway. It's great for what it is, a fun, rock 'n' rollin' good time! Also, the songs in this musical (especially "No Bad News", "Everybody, Rejoice", and "Ease On Down The Road") have to be some of the best I've ever heard! SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!