Oz: Un monde extraordinaire

Cherubic Dorothy Gale is catapulted back to the magical world of Oz in this enchanting, but very atypical Disney Production that got released 46 years after Victor Fleming's original (none of the original cast-members lived long enough to ever see this sequel!). In the story, however, only six months have passed since Dorothy was brought to Oz by a tornado. During some medical tests, performed because she keeps talking about her unbelievable journey, a mysterious girl helps Dorothy escape from the hospital and back to Oz for a new adventure! The screenplay, based on two L. Frank Baum novels at once, introduces a large amount of imaginative new characters that are either Dorothy's loyal friends…or malicious new enemies. It soon becomes clear that she was called back to Oz for a reason, as the evil Nome King has turned everyone to stone and the mad Princess Mombi is after more human heads for her collection. Despite the presence of a talking chicken, this is a frighteningly grim and obscure fantasy tale, perhaps not even suitable for the typical Disney-target groups. The events and characters in "Return to Oz" are often quite macabre (decapitation for a hobby, eerie guys on wheels…) and the tone of the film is heavier since there isn't any singing and dancing going on. Perhaps a little too scary for the smallest children but "Return to Oz" nonetheless is a compelling and spontaneous adventure, highly recommended to those who like their fairy-tales sinister. The special effects are really terrific, with stunning stop-motion animations and some very engaging mechanical machinery (Tic-Tok!). The young Fairuza Balk is an unbelievably convincing follow-up to Judy Garland! The talented Piper Laurie ("Carrie") is regretfully underused, though. This film, along with "The Dark Crystal" and "The Neverending Story", was a huge favorite of mine when I was young and they seemly only got better with years. Good stuff.

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.

Return To Oz was the first horror film i ever saw, and i love it today just as much as i did when i was 5. yes, i do believe Return To Oz is a horror, but one that children should see. it is horror just as the brothers Grim are horror. it is horror because everything in the eyes of a child can be very frightening. and yes, i do believe this horror is better than The Wizard of Oz, despite what all my contempories might believe. as a kid, i could not get over the fact the Judy Garland was too old, that they would not stop singing and dancing. come on, this was my childhood, i needed a good rush, not a bunch of eye-candy and disturbing munchkin voices. little dorothy walking down a corridor of decapitated head in ornate display cases, afraid that she might wake them, that the decapitated body would come in search of her in her terrifying gothic splendor-this moment has stayed with me, has always frightened me, but i'm glad that i experienced it, it is healthy for a child to be afraid, humility is something everyone needs to embrace, and this film with its lush terror and build up to a phenomenal climax as apocolyptic as anything today still inspires me toward something the silly set pieces and hammy emotion of Wizard of Oz, cannot do. Return to Oz is a lost masterpiece, terrifying, energetic, creative, and wonderful.

After reading about 40 of the other comments here, all of whom say RETURN TO OZ is dark and disturbing, I will make a different comment. In the early 80s Disney certainly were off the cash trail with a range of films, each expertly produced, that were box office disasters. One may recall SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, TRON, THE BLACK CAULDRON, ONE MAGIC Christmas and a few others that had much to offer any thinking crowd,and each had special effects that were quite astonishing. Disney were in a very bleak period and the films, attempting to reflect perhaps a more mature or even grown up perspective chose, oh dear I have to say it: a dark and disturbing theme. At the time of release every critic bleated at the grim and melancholy tone of RETURN TO OZ, and sadly themselves neglected to celebrate the original book look, a choice Disney execs applauded themselves for. One Exec infamously said to us theatre owners: "We're going for the Frank L Baum book illustrations and nothing like that 1939 vaudeville thing". Oh dear, I thought at the time. You mean the world's most popular kids film? Well. $27 million dollars later in production costs returned maybe a quarter in theatre film rentals and RETURN TO OZ for all its merit and lavish production care and superb scary special effects....was consigned to the Disney dud bin. At the time I was irritated by the fixed goony expressions on Jack Pumpkinhead and the Scarecrow (loved Tik-tok, though, a fascinating and completely compelling design and movement piece) This time around I didn't mind it and actually appreciated the fact that they were 'book' expressions. Viewed 20 years later on a Disney DVD of dubious quality, I have to say it is a film more suited to these dark and disturbing times and if released today would certainly get a better reception and better crits...and possibly make a lot of money. I think the world is tuned into this type of family film more now than in the Flashdance 80s. The production values of RETURN TO OZ are simply breathtaking. Scene after scene perfectly realised: the green walled horror of the psychiatric asylum in reel one, the amazing claymation of the Gnome King, and especially the glittering halls of Mombi's castle. One genuinely screamworthy scene in the hall of Heads with a headless Queen rushing about in a nightmarish vision is almost only for adults, so intense is it's genuine horror. The glittering climax of a restored Emerald City is a triumph of green and silver/gold set design, I defy any viewer not to rewind it several times just to see each and every part. Yes nominated for 5 Oscars, it won none and vanished for 20 years. The no-marquee name Fairuza Balk didn't help the public embrace, no matter how exquisite she is. At least she wasn't named Soleil Moon Fry. In the same class as The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth, RETURN TO OZ now deserves its place there as part of a trilogy of superbly crafted fantasy for smart kids and astonished adults. That 'vaudeville thing' it certainly isn't. But not a failure either. The DVD is lacking trailers and production material that should and could be included. Bad Disney! Good film! I also defy any viewer not to shriek with laughter at the Gnome King revealing he is wearing the ruby slippers, a sly joke well presented.

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.