उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

18-year-old Dorothy (Dorothy Dwan) lives on a Kansas farm, little knowing that she's actually the rightful Queen of the magical land of Oz, which is currently ruled by Prime Minister Kruel (Josef Swickard). After Kruel sends his minion Ambassador Wikked (Otto Lederer) to Kansas to try and steal the document that proves Dorothy is the queen, Dorothy and her friends are transported to Oz, where they meet the Wizard (Charles Murray) and the benevolent Prince Kynd (Bryant Washburn). Dorothy's friends are transformed into the Scarecrow (Larry Semon), the Tin Woodsman (Oliver Hardy), and the Cowardly Lion (Spencer Bell).

This was adapted, produced and directed by silent screen comedy star Larry Semon, a household name at the time, but almost entirely forgotten today. It's nearly half of the running time before Dorothy and her gang get to Oz, with much of the first half of the movie taken up by substandard comedy bits on the Kansas farm. It was strange seeing Hardy as the Tin Woodsman, and sad to see the Cowardly Lion, who spends most of the film as a stereotypical caricature named Snowball.

Semon was too extravagant with his budgets, and soon after declared bankruptcy. 2 years later he was playing supporting roles, like in von Sternberg's 1927 Underworld, before dying in 1928 at age 39 of lung disease.

This WIZARD OF OZ is merely a frantic slapstick showcase for LARRY SEMON, apparently a silent comedian who is unknown to today's audiences and who died at a young age (39). He had a hand in the production and even designed his own Scarecrow costume, but the film is a curio that starts with a toymaker (again, LARRY SEMON) who tells a little girl the story of Dorothy (DOROTHY DWAN) from Kansas who, it turns out, is heir to be ruler of The Land of Oz.

But the story he tells has nothing whatsoever to do with L. Frank Baum's story as we know it from the '39 version starring Judy Garland. And this Dorothy is a grown-up young lady of 18 who bats her eyelashes and puts a finger to her lips in a coy manner as though signifying youthful uncertainty.

The only connection to the Oz story Baum gave us is the tornado, the effects for which are very good for 1925, and the combination of the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and The Cowardly Lion. OLIVER HARDY is the Tin Man (before his screen partnership with Stan Laurel), SPENCER BELL, a black man, is the Cowardly Lion and LARRY SEMON hogs the whole show as The Scarecrow. The best I can say for Lemon is that his costume and make-up for the role is laudable.

But the fragments of story used here are all over the map, the key to everything being the chance to have all of the performers involved in slapstick stunts. Only MARY CARR as Aunt Em is spared this indignity.

There are a few well staged moments that one can appreciate but all in all it's a bit too much for any adult to watch and I have no idea what children thought of this bizarre exercise in slapstick comedy.

After its 1902 tryout in Chicago, the stage play with songs by Paul Tietjens and Baum opened on Broadway in January 1903, running 293 performances before hitting the road, and returning to Broadway for four or five months in 1904. It then toured until 1911, when Baum permitted a host of amateur companies all over America to stage the play. In many areas, it became an annual event.

As Mordaunt Hall noted in his rave review in The New York Times, this version is not based on Baum's 1900 novel but on his 1902 stage musical. Many of the strange changes and eliminations in both the story and the characters were made by Baum himself. In fact, aside from the obvious enlargement of Larry Semon's role with the addition of a goodly number of comic routines, this movie is a pretty faithful transcription of the play.

True, some of the best jokes (the business with packing cases, for example), are worked to exhaustion. The main problem I find, however, is not that the stage play and movie have been converted into slapstick, but that the movie without the songs is often rather dull, despite the best efforts of Oliver Hardy and Charlie Murray.

This is a pretty weird adaptation of the "Wizard of Oz", bearing only a passing resemblance either to the original book or to the beloved Judy Garland version. The story is much different, and the characters look and act much differently. Frankly, most of it isn't really very good, although for those who enjoy silent films there are some points of historical interest.

Instead of the more familiar story of young Dorothy's trip to Oz, the scenario here has a melodrama centering on a somewhat older Dorothy (Dorothy Dwan), combined with some slapstick involving the Oz characters. In itself, it's not necessarily a big problem to adapt the story (after all, the great 1939 version also made some significant changes from the book), but this one does not really fit together very well, and it certainly does not work as well as the more familiar story. It really looks as if Larry Semon just tried far too hard to put his own personal stamp on the story, instead of simply trying to make a good movie version of the Wizard. It's interesting to see Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodman, but he doesn't really get a lot to do, and a number of the other characters are ill-conceived, and do not work out well at all. It's also plagued with a lot of excruciating puns in the title cards, plus other similar problems.

Some of the finest movies ever made came from this era, when the silents were at their peak, and it should have been possible to make a first-rate adaptation of the Oz story, but unfortunately this isn't it. With its overdone attempts at humor and melodrama, it looks more like the stereotyped images of silent movies that are held by so many ill-informed modern moviegoers. For silent movie fans, there are still a couple of points of interest that might make it worth watching in order to satisfy one's curiosity, but otherwise there's really no particular reason to see it.

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!!!

Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" is a movie that needs to be re-evaluated.

It also may be one of those films that just needs all the help it can get, which it does get in a pristine print with a brilliant soundtrack by Robert Israel, via WarnerVideo.

So far as I can find, there is only ONE source for this version: The Wizard of Oz (Four-Disc Emerald Edition) (2006) "70th Anniversary", selling on Amazon for a mere $13.58.

Being interested in early cinema fantasy, I bought this set specifically for its inclusion of the 1910 Oz movie (pretty good, by the way). I wanted to compare that to what Melies was doing around then.

After watching the 1910 and all the 1914 versions (also on this set), I then put on the Semon film, intending to watch just a few minutes and then go to bed. Immediately, I was captivated by the engaging full-orchestra title music. Then the film proper came on and I was amazed at the beauty of the image. Sparkling clear and clean! Comparable to the most recent Kino release of Keaton's "The General". Semon's big production values are finally fully visible. Further, imaginative and gorgeous tintings with no loss of detail give the effect of a full-color movie. It was stunning. I couldn't take my eyes off the film!

Add to all this, Robert Israel's beautiful music, comedically but sensitively set to the action in perfect synchronization. It may be Israel's best work (and may prove how utterly critical it is to have a superior musictrack to a "silent" film). And with Semon's imaginative cinematography, the movie was playing out like a classic. There was no way to stop watching…

Now, forget about the title. Frank Baum himself re-wrote the basic Oz story many times. In his own movies he sets up the same characters and just revises the same story over and over. So if you're unhappy with the "fidelity" of this film to the book (or the 1939 movie (c'mon, get over it)), just call it "Semon in Oz" (oops... heh... I mean, y'know, like "Abbott and Costello in Hollywood"). What's wrong with that? Do NOT think about this as THE Wizard of Oz.

I realize that slick appearance does not make up for poor content, but as Pauline Kael once said about a W.C. Fields movie, So what if everything is "all gummed up"? Story-logic doesn't always matter; sometimes I'm more interested in the comic riffing…

So I watched the whole movie, and was continuously delighted, even laughing out loud. Then I was surprised to note that it had been 72 minutes long. I thought it had only been about 45 minutes!

Well, there is a whole lot more I could write, and anyone can point out the weaknesses of this movie. But suffice it to say that I was thoroughly engaged and entertained from start to finish, and I am one who has a BIG problem sitting through movies over 20 minutes long. I can barely sit still long enough to slog through the labored stories of silent drama ("A Child of Paris", "Sunrise", D.W. Griffith melodramas), or comedies of Coleen Moore, Mary Pickford, and D. Fairbanks, which have me itching for the fast-forward button; even Keaton and Lloyd occasionally dawdle too much for me. (On the other hand, Melies is never too long, nor is Chaplin or Langdon; or, once front-and-center, Laurel & Hardy.)

Now I am curious to show this version of this movie to others to see if they enjoy it. Or conclude that I've just finally lost my mind from watching "Ridolini" too many times.

Oh did I want this one to work. I am sure a lot of you, including me, had high hopes for this silent version of the W of O in the hopes that you could compare the two. Well, better make a short (or long) list, because the 1941 version is NOTHING like this one. This silent version is a very very long winded and boring rendition of the tale. Gone are the witches, tornadoes, munchkins and the yellow brick road. From what I understand, Dorothy is the long lost queen of Oz (by way of being dropped far far away from Oz as a baby), and she quite by accident arrives in Oz by way of flying house (well, at least they got THAT part right. Soon, some of the companions in the house become the lion, the tin man and a scarecrow (don't ask), while Dorothy rather likes the position she is given and starts ignoring all that were dear and true to her. What will happen next? WHO CARES? Just pretend that the Judy Garland edition was the first one to come along and spare yourself the time and agony.

Oh, and if you rent the Reel Media video version, be prepared for an oddball soundtrack and some not-needed audio transcription of the titles in the movie.

I found this on DVD, and loving old movies, even silents, I thought it would be interesting. Indeed, it is nothing like the Judy Garland version, and it is changed from the original story. Dorothea, as her name is spelled, isn't a young child as in the books, but 18, and the rightful ruler of Oz.

The Oz characters have queer names that actually befit their personalities, like Prince Kynd. The musical score sounded weird at first, but I got used to it (I rarely find a distracting musical score on a silent film). It is almost pure caricature. My one thing I hate is that a narrator reads the subtitles as they are shown on the screen. It is totally unnecessary, unless it was done to promote the film for children. In many cases I wouldn't think a small child would even want to watch a film with no talking (I certainly didn't), even if it is the Wizard of Oz. A lot of the actors are funny. Dorothy Dwan was around 18, but her looks and mannerisms are totally exaggerated, making her look like a woman with the mannerisms of a child. She, along with much of the rest of the cast, exaggerates her acting, which I don't usually see in silent films. Without it, it probably wouldn't have been very interesting. There is plenty of pure slapstick, and overall it is a treat, and therefore worth a look at. It doesn't take itself seriously.

I have to say that this is an interesting adaptation of L. Frank Baum's famous story "The Wizard Of Oz" - the most interesting thing about it being that it seems to have little to do with either L. Frank Baum or The Wizard Of Oz.

The story, as it's told here, is really about the attempt of a wicked tyrant named "Kruel" to continue to oppress the inhabitants of a land called "Oz." In this version of the story, there is no wicked witch - nor is there a good witch for that matter. In fact, for the most part, Oz isn't really much different from - well - anywhere else. But the people of Oz are looking for their long lost princess. Into the picture bursts Dorothy (played by a actress named Dorothy Dwan) who gets blown into Oz by a Kansas tornado (OK, something familiar from Baum's story) and discovers her true identity.

The story doesn't really revolve around Dorothy, though. Nor does "The Wizard" (played by Charles Murray) have a particularly important role. He's a charlatan of no great significance. The movie revolves around the characters played by Larry Semon, a successful veteran of silent films, who also directed and produced this, along with helping to adapt the book. He's the "scarecrow" character - although not a real scarecrow, just dressed up as a scarecrow, and most of the movie is about his unrequited love for Dorothy.

I found this really quite bizarre. The most interesting thing about it might be that it features Oliver Hardy (of Laurel & Hardy fame) as the Woodsman, among other characters. It's not bad technically and has some decent enough effects for the day. The story is quite disjointed, although it does have some humorous moments. I'd have to believe that the reason a lot of people think it's so bad is because it just isn't "The Wizard Of Oz." It was a very expensive movie for its day, and basically was responsible for bankrupting Chadwick Pictures. Semon's career also seemed to go downhill pretty quickly afterward. Still, one shouldn't dismiss it so quickly. It may not be a very good movie and the story may not make a lot of sense, but you can't deny that it's a true historical curiosity. (6/10)

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.

THE WIZARD OF OZ (Chadwick Studios, 1925), directed and starring Larry Semon, is a curious silent screen adaptation labeled in the opening credits to be adapted from the book by L. Frank Baum. In actuality, this version is more Semon than Baum. Though the weasel-faced comedian was one of the more popular entertainers of his time, with more comedy shorts than feature length films to his name, Larry Semon is hardly a memory today. It's through this edition of THE WIZARD OF OZ that keeps the Semon name alive. By this statement, this may seem strange, considering the fact that Semon's WIZARD OF OZ was a commercial flop upon release and regarded to be one of the worst movies ever made. As much as this could have become a lost movie forever, it's still available for viewing regardless of its past and current reputation.

Semon opens the movie with his signed dedication reading: "In the lexicon of life there is no sweeter word than Childhood, its books and its memories to bring back memories, and to bring back those memories and odd mayhap, a smile or two in purely entertainment is my desire." The story introduces a middle-aged toymaker (Larry Semon) with doll replicas of three major characters from "The WIzard of Oz" book. Moments later his little granddaughter is seen coming down the stairs to sit on his lap and have him read the L. Frank Baum story of "The Wizard of Oz." Starting with the opening passage of "Once upon a time," the present day story shifts to a mythical kingdom revolving around such characters as Prince Kynd (Bryant Washburn), Ambassador Wikket (Otto Lederer), Prime Minister Kruel (Josef Swickard), the Princess Vishuss (Virginia Pearson), and The Wizard of Oz (Charles Murray), labeled as "a medicine show hokum hustler." The town folk of Oz discover their baby princess, Dorothea, is gone. The next scene shifts to a Kansas farm where a girl named Dorothy (Dorothy Dwan) is seen living under the care of her Aunt Em (Mary Carr) and Uncle Henry (Frank Alexander). She is also befriended by likable farmhands (Larry Semon, Oliver N. Hardy and Spencer Bell, credited as G. Howe Black). Dorothy later learns she's not related to her aunt and uncle but a founding, and that Uncle Henry holds a sealed letter found on her years ago that's not to be opened until her 18th birthday. Before the letter can be read, a cyclone occurs where the farm hands and Dorothy, taking shelter in the tool shed, find themselves being blown away through the clouds and crashing into the mythical kingdom of Oz. The Prime Minister attempts in keeping his new visitors ignorant of the fact that Dorothy is the long lost princess, followed by a series of incidents nobody in Oz could ever imagine. Also in the cast are Frederick Kovert (The Phantom in Basket), with Chester Conklin and Allan "Farina" Hoskins in smaller roles.

While THE WIZARD OF OZ may have been an attempt on becoming something magical as Douglas Fairbanks overlong fantasy as THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924), the character names of Kynd, Wikket and Kruel used in THE WIZARD OF OZ plays more like a spoof than fantasy. In satire fashion, this should have been retitled LARRY SEMON'S BURLESQUE ON OZ. For many who has seen the much better known and admired 1939 sound edition to THE WIZARD OF OZ starring Judy Garland (Dorothy) and Frank Morgan (The Wizard), would be disappointed by this one. First off, this edition does not have Dorothy's dog, Toto, nor the Wicked Witch of the West, which would have been expected. Larry Semon only disguises himself as a Scarecrow to hide from his captures, a disguise he uses throughout the storybook narration. Oliver Hardy (later of the Laurel and Hardy comedy team) briefly dresses as The Tin Man, while G. Howe Black playing the black farmhand by the name of Snowball, reminiscent to Willie Best in the sound era, disguises himself in a lion costume to be mistaken for a real lion. With more misses than hits, much of the humor, cruel or otherwise, falls short on Snowball, namely when flying through the air during the cyclone with strike of lightning rods making him move faster. Dorothy Dwan (then Mrs. Larry Semon) makes due as Dorothy, but is overshadowed most by Semon's comedy antics and cartoonish chasing scenes.

Formerly available on video cassette in the 1990s with inferior underscoring and offscreen narration to its title cards, other than an earlier television broadcast on "When Silents Were Golden" on the Nostalgic Channel (shown Saturdays in 1994-95 season), Semon's WIZARD OF OZ began surfacing more frequently on Turner Classic Movies cable channel where it premiered July 3, 2005, restored with new orchestral scoring similar to the Harold Lloyd silent comedies conducted by Robert Israel, the same print found on DVD. While scoring in various shorter prints (some as little as 65 minutes) differ, the fine orchestration by Israel makes this 85 minute edition of THE WIZARD OF OZ worth viewing at least once. (**)

The 1925 silent "Wizard of Oz' Is, in many ways, a vanity project for Larry Semon, his brand of mugging to the camera comedy is a bit hard to take now, that said this is still pretty interesting and good for a silent.

Rather different from the book and later MGM Movie, this version, the print I saw is the restored 100 minute print with added narration by Jaqueline Lovell, bookends the story with a grandfather reading Baum's book to his granddaughter. The early parts of Dorothy, played by the lovely Dorothy Dwan, are funny and strange. There is an odd air of sensuality throughout the film, odd since its intended for Children, I presume? SEmon does a very touching and funny bit with a lollipop, he wants to give it to Dorothy, but can't summon up his courage, Finally it end up eaten by a duck!

Oliver Hardy plays another farmhand and he's very good, you can see why he became a star, his facial expressions and manners are just much better on screen than the other players, who are either too stiff or too hammy. The twister is here along with surprisingly good lightning effects. The land of OZ is basically a big soundstage, but it moves pretty well for a silent.

Some things are bad though, the character of Snowball is listed as being played by G. Howe Black, a seemingly racist play on words. If its any consolation the actor is good and the character ends up the Lion and something of a hero, he rescues the scarecrow, Semon, in a bi-plane, near the end of the pic.

For a silent this isn't bad, thought its terribly dated as one might expect. Worth a look for Oz devotees.

We all know "The Wizard of Oz", right? Well, we know Victor Fleming's 1939 musical adaptation. But then there's Larry Semon's 1925 version, which has to be one of the single weirdest movies ever made. Part of this is because there's little similarity to the version that everyone knows: no Toto, no witches, no Munchkins and no Yellow Brick Road. Instead, there's a bunch of slapstick humor (complete with a clean-shaven Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodsman). And unfortunately, there's a black man named Snowball.

While watching the movie I made a bunch of MST3K-style comments at it - most of them unrepeatable here - just because of how over-the-top it was. For example, people jump from high altitudes and survive. It's one of those what-were-they-smoking-when-they-came-up-with-this movies. You have to see it to believe it. The only analogy is the Soviet version of "Mary Poppins" (yes, there was one).

I've never read Frank Baum's novel. I hope to eventually. I understand that the more famous movie adaptation is closer to the novel. Whatever the case, you can't say that you've truly seen "The Wizard of Oz" until you've seen this version!

I love silent movies, and watch them all the time. Man, I just cannot think of enough bad things to say about this piece of tripe. If it were not for the 1939 version, this film would be completely and utterly forgotten about. The humor is just bad, the plotting is stupid, and the racial stereotype is relentless. If you're a fan of the 1939 version, watch it again, not this. If you're a silent movie fan, well...watch some Melies for some magic. Seriously, do NOT waste your time. Life is too short, and there are way too many good silents our there.

I didn't read the book by L. Frank Baum so I can't say if this adaptation is faithful but it was adapted by his son for a screenplay. In this silent film version, everything is minimal but still it is entertaining at times. The cast stars Dorothy Dwan as Dorothy. The supporting cast has Oliver Hard from Laurel and Hardy as the Tin woodsman. The film has retained Dorothy, the scarecrow, the tin man, and the lion in it's cast. There are no special effects but there are large crowd scenes. The story is about Dorothy who is the rightful heir to the kingdom of Oz but the Wizard of Oz is doing everything he can to keep her from gaining the throne. There is no tornado or wicked witches but the wicked wizard. This film would be good for die-hard Wizard of Oz fans as well as silent film-buffs but for not much else.

The film, which was originally silent, was ruined by a narrator who couldn't even read the part. The music sounded like a cross between "Parrotsville" (island music) and porno (all the obscene popping sounds). However, for a dollar (which is what I paid for it), it was great to get to see the original film version. I just wish it had remained "silent" (with the original musical score, which may have been lost). I saw it the same evening the 1939 version was shown on network television and of course, there was very little resemblance. It was good to see Oliver Hardy in an early starring role (I assume it was an early one). The film is definitely a product of it's time, with the black man being the whipping boy and Dorothy playing a demure female.