रिटर्न टू ऑज़

I don't see why people got into such a hubbub about Return to Oz when it came out... actually, that's not correct for a couple of reasons. For one, sadly, it didn't do well at the box office, so presumably a lot of children didn't see it who might have. But for those that reviewed it, the consensus was it was "too dark" for kids. Hogwash. Kids can actually take much more dramatic and terrifying things than we think - maybe some may be more sensitive than others, but so are adults - and a response to feats of imagination are always eye-catching to them. If it was about the story and characters, that's another matter.

On an artistic, sensory-visual level Return to Oz is mostly spectacular work, with a plethora of eye-catching and inspired practical effects (one of which I have to imagine the character of Jack Skellington was the inspiration for), matte paintings, marionettes and puppets, claymation, the works, with an Emerald city that looks like a Russian communist block from that time period (and I mean that in a complimentary way - it's exquisitely run-down) . And I liked how dark and weird it got, that was fine.

If I didn't care for something it was most of the supporting characters who become Dorothy's companions. They didn't have the strong-memorable personalities or sense of enchantment (or even just good acting) of the three that accompanied Dorothy in 'Wizard' - or, hell, even the companions in Oz: The Great and Powerful, which I'd argue is maybe a more inspired film than this, albeit with CGI. And the villain - aho is appropriately bad-*ss and deranged, is only most effective by the third act, with a one-dimensional shrieking witch (albeit with wonderful multiple heads to choose from) in the rest of the film.

So, Return to Oz is a really good movie. If it's a lost classic? Depends who you ask, I suppose. Nevertheless, Balk is fun to watch in a role where she's constantly thinking and reacting well in her acting - a sophisticated acting job young or otherwise.

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.

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.

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.

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