OzLand

First I must thank Director, writer, producer, editor, special effects, designer, etc.: Michael Williams, for this 'thinking persons' film! OZLAND is loaded with so much allegorical symbolism, and cryptic messages that true cinema buffs can discuss this plot line all night and for days afterwords.

The plot shows two men, Emri and Leif, walking westward in an unidentified setting at an undefined time. There are no other humans to be seen as they travel through the decaying remains of small towns, villages, and farms. Something devastating has occurred and Emri & Leif seem to be the only two humans around. We find out through their conversation that they were born into this post apocalyptic world and have no memory of civilization outside of what their parents have told them. How they met is also not explained.

The story opens with them walking and searching for water as the environment is very dry. Along their way Leif happens upon a copy of the famous Frank L. Baum's book 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'. Leif can read, Emri has trouble reading. As they travel west Leif reads aloud and to himself. Leif, being the quixotic one, is very taken with this story and decides it must be true. Emri, being the realist, has serious doubts there is anything real about the story. During their journey they come upon items and imagery that could possibly attest to the reality of the very characters in the book! With each discovery Leif becomes more certain that 'OZLAND' exist while Emri holds on to his intuitive notion that its all a coincidence and OZLAND does not exist. Emri's doubting and questioning and Leif's belief in the existence of OZLAND eventually causes a fracture in their friendship.

What I find so symbolic and allegorical in this story is the believer and the non-believer! Leif takes the book, which here symbolizes the sacred text of every religion (here Christianity due to the crosses they come upon), and grasp upon it as fact and then finds items and images that he believes make the characters in OZ true therefore the story is true. Emri on the other hand has serious doubts there is any fact to the book but lacks the evidence to prove he's right. Leif has 'the book' and the imagery they have found to prove OZ is real but the items and imagery are only real proof because he believes they are proof. And isn't this the story of ourselves in todays world? The believers verses the nonbelievers.

There is a pivotal scene in the movie that deserves close attention. As they are walking down a road they notice something out in a field. They walk over to it and discover it is a cross with a crucified corpse still attached, now dried out and mummified. Attached to the cross, just above the head of the corpse, is the word 'TERRORIST' scratched into a wooden board. Lief ask Emri "what is terrorist"? Emri tells him terror is like being scared. Leif takes it as someone who scares others! To him this corpse must be the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Just what is the message here? To me it means that Jesus actually brought fear into the lives of others. He preached through faith you will be saved. We spend our lives seeking faith yet we cannot prove our faith will save us, there is no proof. Each and every person comes to the same end - death. Is there heaven? We will never know but we assume faith in Christian text makes heaven true. This is the dilemma Leif finds himself in. He so believes the OZ story this dried crucified corpse is proof enough that the scarecrow was real. Emri takes it for what it is - a dried out crucified corpse - nothing else.

There is a serious flaw in the story that relates directly to the cross in the field scene. Later in their journey they head for a place in which they are certain there will be other people. Upon reaching this destination they find three graves, each with a Christian cross. Leif and Emri have no knowledge of Christian belief as it is never referred to throughout the film. I am wondering just what is the message Michael Williams is relating here? For both Leif and Emri's only reference to a cross is to someone that brought fear into the lives of others.

At movies end Leif is given the opportunity to find his OZLAND. Emri begs him not to do what he wants to do. Leif convinces Emri he must for surely OZLAND is his home. Emri seeks shelter down into the darkness of the ground. Leif stays above ground. Eventually Emri emerges from the safety he sought to discover Leif has gone. Here again the symbolism is overwhelming. Emri rises from below, think grave, into the light to discover his only companion gone. We know he's dead and I believe Emri also knows this. But what does this say about Leif?

I have viewed this film a few times now and continue to be amazed at the locations that were used for this film. It gives it such an apocalyptic feel through the entire movie. It enhances the believability that the wayfaring strangers, Leif and Emri, find each other among the solitude and choose to travel as partners. The characters are alone and searching. Zack and Glenn's very well done performances allow the viewer to feel for their internal struggles as well as external. Michael Williams, the director and writer of the film is so talented. After watching the film with others it was extremely interesting to hear what thought provoking dialogue it brought up as a discussion among the viewers. Not only were we critiquing the film, but discussing beliefs and feelings that the film generated.

This should have been made into a short film. It's an interesting theory; two people alone in the world find a book, and one follows it blindly, while the other one believes in survival. The acting is not very good. Maybe they didn't have a lot to work with. I'm not sure what was going on with Leif. Is he supposed to be a boy, or is he a full grown naive man? Is this what people would be like when they've never interacted with others? Unless you have two hours to kill and nothing better to watch, save yourself the agony.

Side note, this in NOT an Australian film. Oz refers to the Land of Oz, as in The Wizard of Oz. If you're reviewing this, and you think it's an Australian film, then you're about as smart as Leif....

I bought this and watched it. I was not expecting much from a $10,000 film. Wow, was I wrong. The cinematography is brilliant. Simply beautiful to experience. The locations used are simply...delicious to look at. Yes, I know that is an odd description but it is true. Even the settings with want, rot or decay are stunningly realistic and incredibly interesting. A Hollywood movie would build a FAKE set and hire people to make it look decayed. And then they would add such FAKE lighting that it would look so unconvincing. I would bet that a lot of the locations used in OZLAND were places of actual neglect or decay...and they are brilliantly used.

The camera angles are very professional, the movie contains lots of nice wide shots. The colors chosen are rich and immediately give the movie huge bang for the visual buck.

The movie focuses on two characters and luckily the acting is legit.

I WILL say that the screenplay, because it focuses on two characters had its work cut out for it because a movie is NOT a stage play. I can honestly say that although OZLAND packs its movie thick with words that it does give moments of pause and silence to help with chewing, swallowing and digesting the movie.

I do wish (being honest) that there was a subplot. The settings used and cinematography were so strong that it deserved a subplot.

The movie felt like THE ROAD. And I kept thinking that as I watched. This is a compliment. I wanted the characters to face exterior threats instead of just hints from a story. But, that is because the potential of what was presented was so strong. Had there been a subplot it might be wise to make those scenes completely without dialogue. This way the weight of the dialogue of the two speaking characters' scenes would feel less heavily worded.

I am also wondering if it would have been better to have started off the two characters as separated. In the Wizard of Oz Dorothy discovers the other characters one by one as she journeys. I think having the younger character walking about for a while all alone would have made the arrival of the other main character a little more effective. He could have provided the younger one (as he did) with water to aid him.

All in all this film is a MUST SEE for anyone looking to create Indie Films. Well set, well filmed, well written, well acted.

I recommend it! I expect MUCH success from the brilliant minds behind this movie. They have super great potential!

I got this on the strength of the IMDb rating and then realised that it was simply yet another Australian film with paid reviewers slamming in the tens for it. I'm actually not sure any of the other reviewers who rated it so highly have actually even seen it.

But there you are. You make an independent film in Australia and part of the budget has to go to pay reviewers so that other unsuspecting people will watch it. That money would have been so much better used if it had actually been put into the production.

A tip: the more the reviewer mentions who directed it, starred in it, did the effects in it, or any other name in it, the more you know it's a put-up job. Tired of these people and will make sure not to watch anything else from Australia that doesn't appear in my local cinema.