NOTE IMDb
6,8/10
33 k
MA NOTE
Dorothy, sauvée d'une expérience psychiatrique menée par une mystérieuse fille, est en quelque sorte rappelée à Oz lorsqu'une sorcière vaniteuse et le roi Nome détruisent tout ce qui rend ma... Tout lireDorothy, sauvée d'une expérience psychiatrique menée par une mystérieuse fille, est en quelque sorte rappelée à Oz lorsqu'une sorcière vaniteuse et le roi Nome détruisent tout ce qui rend magnifique la terre magique.Dorothy, sauvée d'une expérience psychiatrique menée par une mystérieuse fille, est en quelque sorte rappelée à Oz lorsqu'une sorcière vaniteuse et le roi Nome détruisent tout ce qui rend magnifique la terre magique.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 1 Oscar
- 6 nominations au total
Sean Barrett
- Tik-Tok
- (voix)
Denise Bryer
- Billina
- (voix)
Stewart Harvey-Wilson
- Jack Pumpkinhead
- (as Stewart Larange)
Lyle Conway
- Gump
- (voix)
Stephen Norrington
- Gump
- (as Steve Norrington)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
Be warned: this film may be found a little too frightening for the young ones. It's a shattered vision of the Land of Oz with the jovial munchkins conspicuously absent, and it opens with Dorothy in an insane asylum (!). What's surprising to me is I rented this film with the mindset that it was going to be complete trash, that a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" was blashphemy. I stand corrected. This adaption is an effectively satisfying interpretation of the popular children's story. Child actress Fairuza Balk (now in such crap like "The Waterboy") is a very convincing Dorothy Gail, more so than Academy Award winner Judy Garland in the original. But it's the little things that keep you entertained: a severed trophy head, brought to life, quips, "If I had a stomach, I know I'd be sick!" when free-falling through the air; the evil Princess Mambi has an interesting collection on display in her palace; and the realization that the cause of Oz's decline into this dismal state may be directly attributed to Dorothy's departure in the prequel. One disappointment: Toto is left behind in favor of a talking chicken. I know, I know . . .
Grade: B
Grade: B
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.
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.
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 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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe movie is based on the second and third of L. Frank Baum's Oz books: "The Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz". Elements from the former include the introduction of Jack Pumpkinhead, the witch Mombi and her powder of life, the conquest of the Emerald City, the escape by flying sofa, and the search for Princess Ozma. From the latter comes the return of Dorothy, the talking chicken Billina, the Wheelers, the discovery of Tik-Tok, a princess with interchangeable heads, the introduction of the Nome King, and the ornament room.
- GaffesTik-Tok's thinking mechanism is activated by winding the key under his left arm, and his talking is activated by winding the one under his right arm. However, when he asks Dorothy to wind his thinking key before entering the ornament room, she winds the one under his right arm.
- Citations
Jack Pumpkinhead: If his brain's ran down, how can he talk?
Dorothy: It happens to people all the time, Jack.
- Versions alternativesWhen it was aired on the Disney channel, the following were cut: When "Ozma" unties Dorothy from the bed in the doctor's room, the line where she tells Dorothy that the screaming patients are locked in the cellar is cut. When Dorothy first visits Mombi, much is cut. A lot of shots of the heads behind the glass are cut, and so is a lot of footage when Mombi puts on her head. Because of this, a line is cut where she asks Dorothy how she looks, and Dorothy tells her she looks beautiful. In the TV version, it cuts straight to the line, "And just who might you be?" When Mombi wakes up, many shots of the screaming heads and EVERY shot of the headless Mombi trying to get Dorothy is cut. A few seconds of footage of the Nome King's death are cut, including when his eye turns to stone, and some of the "poison" shots.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Oz... un mundo fantástico
- Lieux de tournage
- Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(Kansas scenes)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 25 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 11 137 801 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 2 844 895 $US
- 23 juin 1985
- Montant brut mondial
- 11 140 134 $US
- Durée1 heure 53 minutes
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant