Le Prince qu'on sort

I'm probably gonna get bashed by all you other Oz fans out there for writing this review, but who cares! I grew up watching the 1939 version and didn't know about this one until about 16 months ago. About 3 months ago, I got the DVD, I sat down, watched it, and laughed my fool head off. Okay! Okay! It doesn't follow the version we're all "used to watching". Anybody ever heard of a little variety? Well here it is.

There are a few downsides though. First off, there's no Toto, no "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore" line, no good witch/bad witch. Secondly, the DVD version has TERRIBLE music. But Jacqueline Lovell certainly adds something with her narration. If they were to at least add even a piano score, or organ score even, it would have sounded much better.

Otherwise, altogether, this version of the classic tale by L. Frank Baum is good. Drawn out very much at times, but NOT THAT BAD!!! See it at least once, but don't expect anything, because if you do, you're gonna ruin it for yourself. Also it's in heavy need of restoration, any takers?? Please! For the good of Oz?!

While disappointing (to say the least), there are at least two interesting things about this version. One is to see someone who is not Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin (but is in fact Larry Semon, one of their contemporaries) trying to imitate them in what was clearly designed to be a star vehicle for him. It makes the work of the other two men seem that much more remarkable when you watch some of their competition.

The most interesting thing about this production, though, is perhaps the fact that the MGM version was made only 14 short years later. The world moves very fast sometimes.

This movie was reportedly the one that sunk Larry Semon's career. Instead of the usual short films he was known for, Semon decided to do something "important" and made this (for the time) long film adaptation of THE WIZARD OF OZ,....or at least that's what the title indicates it should be. The story, it seems, bears little similarity to either the 1939 movie or the books. In fact, apart from a few names here and there, it is pretty much unrecognizable as the story about Dorothy and Oz. Instead, it was just an excuse to string along a lot of familiar and not especially funny gags--like I have seen in several other Larry Semon films, the big stunt is his swinging from tower to tower. A neat stunt the first time you see it, but not when it's old material and has nothing to do with the plot.

Overall, I consider this movie a wasted effort. I know that Semon COULD be funny--like he was in his short films. But here, it's just a confusing and dreary mess. Likewise, having Oliver Hardy in the film SHOULD have been an asset, but he was pretty much wasted as well. While not exactly a classic, the 1910 short silent version was much better and stuck closer to the original story and the 1939 version is a classic. This one is better off staying forgotten or seen by the morbidly curious as the project that may have ultimately destroyed Semon's career.

PS--In addition to being a terrible movie, there is a Black man named "Snowflake" that likes to eat watermelon! Ugghh!!!

I approached this film with great interest. Being a fan of Oz in general and silent film in particular, this seemed like a sure fit. Well, it's hard to put all prejudices aside, having (like most people) been bombarded with various adaptations of L. Frank Baum's book that one naturally has preconceptions.

Now, I won't bother to comment on the liberties taken in this film, the 1939 film bears, in all truth, barely a passing resemblance to Baum's dark and bizarre novel. The problem is, the changes made for this film just don't work. It's really just a standard silent slapstick film, but not a very funny one.

It's hard to sit through 90 minutes of lame jokes and vulgar stereotypes. But, as a historical curiosity, the film merits a once-over. I cannot, however, endorse the release pictured on the IMDb page, with it's "Digital Soundtrack" and "Narration." The music is inappropriate and the narration is silly...I mean, I CAN read for myself thank you! It was like sitting in the theatre with some rude patron talking to the screen! I expect this was added for children watching the films, but I really don't think many young children today would sit through this, sadly.

See it at least once, but don't expect too much from it.

Even in it's day, I think that this movie would have been looked on as rather average. It just isn't a patch on the classic 1939 version. The scarecrow, the tin man and the cowardly lion are not characters, but rather disguises that three of the characters "put on". And there is no witch at all. [Margaret Hamilton, we miss you.] Although the plot is good, the way it's done would confuse younger children, and it somehow just doesn't hold up. It is interesting to see, only for its historic aspect.