Avis des utilisateurs

This show was fairly imaginative. Everything seemed ripe for a great story but it never became very engaging. The characters and some of the visuals were imaginatively conceived, but I never felt compelled to keep watching.

Basically, this a loosely re-conceived version of the Wizard of Oz. It's modern day and each main character different, yet has something in common with their original Oz counterpart. It's sufficiently different that it's hard to predict what's going to happen next.

The characters are visually appealing to watch, but dialog is a bit lacking and the story even more so. In the three parts of the movie, only twice did it pick up in interest level - near the end of part 1 and near the end of part 3. The rest of the show was just kind of flat.

I can't really recommend watching the show - but some of the previews and snapshots that focus on the visuals may make it hard to resist.

An interesting take on one of the oldest classics. If you love the science fiction genre and the wizard of oz, you should love this imaginative display of the original ideas of The Wizard of OZ. It has the main characters of the Wizard of OZ still searching for the same things. I found it extremely entertaining, so much so that I actually decided to watch the second part. (And I can only remember to watch shows if they REALLY capture my attention. Few do.) So far i've not found it lacking. It looks exactly like the commercials portrayed it It is extremely well acted and the scenery is amazing.

All in all, i've found it to be a good show so far. It's twenty minutes into the second episode and i'm already planning on watching the third part. (Show's on commercial right now.)

So far what I have have seen of Tin man is AMAZING, from the cinematography to the story line. It is an interesting perspective on a very classic story. While nothing can replace Judy Garland as the original Dorthy, Zooey's take on her is much more real and less "hollywood." She thinks much like any of us would in her given situation, and that alone makes her an endearing character. Yes the special effects are lovely, but that alone does not make this movie. What does is the way you are able to connect to the characters. You are part of the story, not just watching it on a silver screen. After having grown up on the old school version, this is something I could see my kids relating to. As much as I love The Wizard of Oz, it is very dated and you have a hard time NOW dealing with out candy coated the script is. The original wizard of OZ book was actually quite SCARY for it's time, so to see someone embrace that dark thread I feel breathes more life into the picture. Unlike Willy Wonka's remake, this one can actually stand BESIDE it's predecessor and hold its own. It is not trying to be like the classic which is nice. Orginality is much more intriguing.

I was rather surprised that I enjoyed this. The story was obviously dragged out a bit thin to reach 6 hours in length. The stretching causes the pace to seem a bit too slow. Possibly better editing could have alleviated that. The characters are well thought out and thankfully not exact copies of the originals. From what I gathered after seeing all three episodes is that this story takes place 500 years after the original Dorothy came to Oz. The story is much darker, which is refreshing.

The leads do admirable jobs in their roles. I found only the lion to be somewhat boring, probably due to his inability to vocalize very much. He just didn't emote very well, although he did have some decent screen time, I just didn't connect with him at all. Toto was another character that confused a bit. His motivation was questionable considering the devotion he professed to have. I also wish the Wizard was a more prominent fixture, but all in all, I was OK with that branch of the story.

To sum up. Good acting, and I think a good choice on the lead for Zooey. I found her quirkiness and general kind of cute gutsiness refreshing. The special effects are better than average and certainly better than the typical home-made sci-fi look you may be used to. The scenery was also very nice in the movie (albeit with a darker twist). If you enjoyed the original, and you aren't a die hard fan hoping for a rehash of the same old story, then check this one out. It may be worth your time ;)

If you watch this simply because you love the old OZ, whether the book or the movie, you wont find what you expect when watching this one.

Sci-fi Channel's Tin Man is a work of art on its own, though it uses some of the original characters and locations, it is its very own unique tale, completely rewritten and turned into a fantasy adventure for the MODERN age.

It's not the old adventure, instead of just trying to get home, they have to try and save the O.Z.

Keeps you on the edge of your seat, waiting to see what happens next. Each new episode adds a new twist making you rethink your original ideas of OZ.

It's definitely worth watching if you like to see old stories retold in completely different ways. Not what you'd expect.

if the old Oz was Kansas, this version would definitely be WAY over the rainbow.

Tin Man is an interesting update of the old Wizard of Oz story, with special effects and acting well above the Sci-Fi Channel's usual low standards. It is more akin to Battlestar Galactica (although not quite as good) than to their creature features. Zooey Deschanel, Kathleen Robertson, and Alan Cumming all turn in good performances, although Richard Dreyfuss fans should be warned that his role is smaller than advertised.

The plot overall is well written, although at times rather predictable, especially in the third episode. There are some issues with the dialogue though, with some genuinely flat lines scattered throughout the series.

In terms of younger fans of Baum, the plot might be a bit dark for the under ten set, but should be enjoyable for older kids, particularly teenagers with a taste for the bizarre.

What I like about Tin Man is that it isn't a remake, but a different take on an old, classic storyline. With new characters & a different storyline. Another thing I thought was cool was all the small references to the original Wizard of Oz. A small phrase here, a quiet mention there, you had to be paying attention to catch most of it. I would say my favorite character would have to be the Tin Man. He was the most tortured one out of the small group & yet he found himself again after helping D.G., Glitch & Raw. It was an inner struggle that some of us could relate to. Glitch, definitely an interesting character you can't help but like. Raw, an intriguing take on the Cowardly Lion. And of course, D.G., focused on getting to her family, but not entirely about getting home. The Evil Queen, The Wizard, Toto & all the other characters add their own splash into the Wizard of Oz pond. There are very few TV mini-series that I care to own, & the Tin Man is definitely one of them. I have recommended this mini-series to all my friends & co-workers & they have all agreed that it is a very good & touching story.

I was really looking forward to a darker reimagining of the Wizard of Oz.

The premise was interesting and on the whole the look was good. I kept an open mind and was willing to forgive a lot since it was just a miniseries & presumably doesn't have a large budget. However, overall, I was disappointed.

It started off OK, introducing the characters. I thought the casting was fine. Unlike apparently everyone else I had no problem with the lead actress and liked her non-hysterical approach to everything going on. I enjoyed the way they tried to modernize the story and yet keep basic elements (the Tin Man being heartless, scarecrow literally missing a brain). Small homages to the original were inserted (the blue gingham apron at the beginning, the brick road, the storm at the farmhouse, the Munchkins (who looked like turkeys to me) etc.) Monkey bat tattoos were an interesting twist and the monkey bat effects were done very well.

Unfortunately, the 'movie' just wasn't good enough. -I assume they didn't have a huge budget, so I tried to forgive the bad CGI and the film coloring "tricks" they used that looked like my amateur attempts in photoshop (look! we can do B&W w/ one color focus, look we can darken it to look creepy). -And some of the modernization attempts just didn't work for me. I couldn't figure out if O.Z. was supposed to evoke parallels like I'm a cutsey beach girl "dee-gee from the O.C." or if it was supposed to sound more hard & urban like "I'm D.G. from the O.Z, dog. word." -Why was it called "The Tin Man" if he was more of a supporting character to the DG/AZ storyline? -And maybe I've seen too many goth/Tim Burton things but "Az" was an incredibly boring, nonthreatening witch. Her attempts to be sexy bad witch was both uninteresting and trite. -However, the biggest problem was that the writing wasn't very good and it was too drawn out. -To top it off, the ending was painfully predictable and Disney-esquire in it's corny-ness and its literal embrace of the happy nuclear family.

This should have been condensed to a tighter 2-2.5 hour long movie and it would have been much better than an inferior drawn out 5-6 hour series (w/ all the commercials probably 4-5).

So I'll give them points for trying on a probably small budget, but next time it'd be nice to see a better effort.

I'll admit, I may be giving this a higher rating than it deserves due to my VERY low expectations of it and the fact that I never liked The Wizard of Oz to begin with...

It really is more of a re-imagining of the story than a modernization. It takes the theme and the characters and takes them in broader directions than the typical, "I wish I had a heart," said the broken-hearted Tin Man.

It's also nice to see that the movie is actually utilizing real sets other than relying on a green screen 100% of the time- Are you listening George Lucas? Honestly, I'm quite liking it. Good pacing. I love Zooey Deschanel. The best thing I can compare it to is The 10th Kingdom, but it's actually much better than that movie too.

Give it a chance. Keep your expectations very low, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

More than one generation has grown up on The Wizard of Oz and its variations, from the original book to the modern musical, Wicked. Tin Man is a different take than any I've seen before, but by no means does that make it bad. Fans of Joss Whedon's Firefly will probably enjoy this, but so will anyone looking for a new way to imagine Oz. The characters are really not the same as the original story line, but we still see several similarities. The quest for belonging, as DG searches for where she belongs and encounters people who will help her. Glitch, the Scarecrow variation, seeks half a brain that was taken from him because he was previously a top adviser. "Tin Man" Cain, meanwhile, was tortured by soldiers for years, and now feels heartless and seeks only revenge. And Raw, who even resembles the Cowardly Lion, is essentially a psychic whose kind the villain uses to read the minds of others. There is still the idea of good versus evil, and, frankly, I'm glad to see a Dorothy who doesn't spend her time complaining and searching for a way out. I love the old movie, but this is a wonderful new version. I wait for the DVD with bated breath.

1st off this is not a remake of the wizard of oz...so please do not compare it that way. Secondly it is not a "film" so don't refer to it as that either, it is a miniseries. My Fiancé is an immensely huge Wizard Of Oz fan, and i enjoy it as well. We were both interested in this series, and went into it with an open mind and zero expectations. Especially after reading "wicked", we had no expectations at all. Surprisingly my fiancé really enjoys this series, we are happy it isn't a "remake" or a "film". It is what it is a miniseries on the scifi channel, and honestly its pretty damn interesting.It's really wild to see someones idea's come to life, ideas they created from watching such an amazing movie like the wizard of oz (one of the most timeless classics ever!). It's not trying to remake or be the wizard of oz..it's trying to be "Tin Man" it's own entity aside from the Wizard OF Oz. It's obvious that the movie is drawn from the original classic, that someone loved the original and thought the question we always all think what if....? Honestly so far (1 of 3 episodes have been aired) i'am really into the plot, and the characters and i love how it touches so much of The Wizard OF Oz but yet doesn't defile the movie, it's more like an homage...the person(s) who wrote this miniseries respect and adore The Wizard OF Oz and you can tell so by the way they handle the characters and the script.So please at least watch all 3 episodes before you say its awful.

Pretty entertaining, although the wooden style of the lead actress who plays DG is annoying. She doesn't seem to sync with the rest of the ensemble at all, and can't seem to manage any emotion other than wide-eyed amazement. Also, the plot line seems redundant and contrived at times - I was expecting something a little bit more original, while still incorporating stuff from the Wizard of Oz movie we're all familiar with. I was surprised to see a bit of Time Bandits and Star Wars at the beginning (the swinging cage and the Ewok-like situation). It's as if the writers couldn't make up their minds which fantasy stories to "sample." Overall, worth watching once, maybe twice.

Parts of this oz interpretation are hard to swallow but none the less the show has held my interest. The way they've incorporated elements of the story into the movie is sometimes clever and sometimes not so much. The acting can be irritating and forced-Glitch is very Jar Jar Binks at times... At first I wasn't a fan of the Tin Man but as the show goes on he is starting to grow on me. I love Zooey Deschanel however in this movie there are times when it feels like shes just reciting lines from the script or seems bored. If you have an open mind and can get past the bad parts over all its pretty good. Visually it excels for a movie mini.

First the negatives. TV suffers from a style of script writing and directing that is optimized for the "series". Real movies are initially drafted for size, depth and complexity to complete a story. Real movies have to be cut and edited to fit the 90 to 180 minute length tolerable for a feature film. This is why many great movies end up having a "directors cut".

TV movies are based on the contract with the network and the longer the series, the more advertising can be sold. Tin Man only had about 180 minutes of story material but they needed to fill 360. Some of this additional length is "padding" and not cutting useless scenes.

The other major negative is that Zooey Deschanel's acting was very weak. I'm reminded that the initial films of John Wayne and Jack Nicholson was some of the absolute worst acting caught on film. Jack improved much more than John and perhaps Zooey will improve with age.

As for the positives. I give this a fairly high rating because of the admirable approach of giving all the principle characters a deep multi-dimensional role in the story. As much as I love the 1939 classic, it was a children's story, and a musical at that. The tin man, scarecrow and lion were symbolic vehicles of the lack of heart, intelligence and courage respectively in both films, but here they have a history. And that history is an important part of a deeper story. It is that deeper story that kept me coming back to watch parts 2 and 3.

Some of the better aforementioned "padding" are the scenes that presented more character development of all the principles.

I hated "The Wizard of Oz" because it was such a chick-flick as far as I could tell. The only cool thing about it was the flying monkeys. My sister loved that stupid movie when I was growing up and she had to watch it every time it came on.

I decided to take a chance on "Tinman" last night simply because it was on one of my favorite channels, Sci-Fi. So far I've actually enjoyed it...and the flying monkeys are still cool. Zooey's not bad either, sort of the girl-next-door type you develop a crush on. Neal McDonough's acting is always good too, the same believability he put into his character on "Band of Brothers" a few years ago.

I'd say most of the people who don't like "Tinman" are probably "Wizard" purists or just not big fans of Sci-fi fantasy.

I won't give it a 10 either-I don't give anything a 10, but I liked it much more than the first reviewer. I feel every character was perfect for their roles (who can determine what before production? And, if you decide you made a mistake, whaddya film the whole thing over?). That would be just plain dumb. And I disagree that there wasn't enough of the Richard Dreyfus character. Why? Because his small role is meant to heighten the mystery of the work to be done by the group. The story was so far removed from what was made in 1938 ('39?), that it was tons of fun finding all of parallels to the original, when they pop up. And there are plenty. Enough that you have to see the movie more than once, and at 6 hrs. that's a lot of watching. One feels many different emotions along the way, just like the original, This "interpretation" detracts in no way from the original. And by "original" I don't mean either of the silent features that came with the 3-CD set released a few years back. I mean the "classic." There is not one disappointing or uninteresting moment in the 6 hrs. of this joy. And, now get this: I am not one of those nuts who goes to conventions and I ain't gay (Judy Garland reference). I am just a guy who liked the original enough to check this out, and it is absolutely worth the purchase.

This well-made TV mini-series Directed by Nick Willing will hold your attention from the beginning. All the actors were well chosen and Zooey Deschanel as DG will enchant you. At first, it seems like any other contemporary contrived script that was just using a snappy title. Then you think this is Smallville and where is Clark? Then slowly the story unfolds and before you realize what has happened you are caught up in the intrigue of a complex story with all of the elements found in Frank Baum's original story but better designed. The film, even though being promoted as the darker side of OZ, in reality, is just a little more down-to-earth or up in the sky fairy tale.

DG grows up in a rural town with elderly loving parents. There she is a waitress that is contemplating going out into the wide world. She has strange dreams of another world. Before her parents can tell her, the other world becomes a reality and DG becomes the target or key to an insidious plot to destroy the O. Z.

We go along through her trials and tribulations.

I was pleasantly surprised at this movie. so far so good. I've seen 2/3rds of it, and I like it. More of a homage to the 1939 movie. As compared to a remake.

This Show stands on it's own as some kind of Sci-fi fantasy. With new and old technology mixed. And a completely different story from the original. Very good special effects for TV.

I recommend it for any SCi-fi fantasy fan. The look of the movie reminds me of the guy that directed Brazil, and 12 monkeys. You know the guy,the Monti Python guy. The name Slips my mind. Terry Gilliam. That's who I was thinking of. Anyway, if you like any of his movies, give this a try.

I'm looking forward to part three. I'm surprised at some of the criticism of this movie. But the rating is quite high, and for good reason. Hopefully part three will be as strong.