Tin Man

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.