I'm magic

I thought that this movie was incredible when I first saw (about 8 years ago), and I still do! Even if it is almost nothing like the Broadway show, that doesn't matter. The film version of "The Sound of Music" wasn't like the play, either. Or what about "Mame"? See what I mean? Not one movie musical is ever like the live show. It shouldn't matter anyway. It's great for what it is, a fun, rock 'n' rollin' good time! Also, the songs in this musical (especially "No Bad News", "Everybody, Rejoice", and "Ease On Down The Road") have to be some of the best I've ever heard! SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!

Really hard to understand the low rating. I really appreciated this take on a classic tale, and the clever adaptation from rural Kansas to urban NYC. Slow in some spots, but charming and almost haunting (the amusement park, the desolate streets, the street vendor with the scary puppets, etc) with some memorable songs.

look closely at the clever production values as well, especially the Scarecrow who is composed of very distinctly different pieces of garbage (peanut butter cup wrapper nose, mop hair, chicken bucket hat, garbage bag pants, etc.

I give it a 8/10.

I liked the movie overall. But I think that it would have been MUCH better if Stephanie Mills had done the lead of Dorothy in the movie. Don't get me wrong, Diana Ross is a accomplished singer and has done a great job in Lady sings the Blues and Mahogany but in all honesty she was just too old to play Dorothy in the Wiz considering Stephanie Mills is the one who actually put that play on the map. If it wasn't for her I probably wouldn't have heard of it much less seen it 3 times. Twice with her (Stephanie Mills).I just feel that Diana Ross just pushed her way into the lead when she wasn't capable of giving 100 percent in the vocals. If anyone has heard Stephanie Mills rendition of Home you would FEEL what I was talking about. Stephanie put her heart and soul into that song where as Diana just whined through it (which drives me insane every time I hear it coming from her). I'm just giving an opinion I know what I like and what I don't like and Diana Ross's performance in this movie to me was just average not outstanding like Lady Sings The Blues or Mahogany.

Let me establish a few things at the start: 1) I love disco, soul, and R&B, 2) I love the '70s, 3) I love bad movies, 4) I have a healthy admiration for Diana Ross and Michael Jackson, as well as many of the other luminaries in this film. All that said, this film is APPALLING IN EVERY RESPECT!

I knew this movie was poorly regarded, and I expected to like it anyway (I'm certainly not sorry I've seen it) but the ratio of potential to realization is like 100:1. I'm really surprised it has so many defenders on this site. Let's discuss:

Yes, many people have said that Diana Ross is too old. What's not mentioned is that she looks TERRIBLE! She looks like a refugee! Also, she just has the wrong voice for this part. Stephanie Mills had a strange, nasal voice, but she was a BELTER, and you need a belter for these songs. Poor Diana and her thin voice just couldn't cut it, and she had no physical charm to fall back on. Oh dear.

I was really surprised how lame the musical renditions and sound quality were. I have surround sound, and I just couldn't believe how muffled and distant the sound was. And, in my opinion, ALL of the musical performances were misfires. You could see how many of the songs could have been good in a good performance, but those just weren't to be found here.

Many people single out Lena Horne's performance as fantastic, but to me, like the rest of the movie, she was BADLY misused. Lena Horne is a nuanced jazz singer, so to hear her try to go all low-down gospel was rather painful, especially with her impeccably-enunciated "Woo! Yeah!"'s. She also looks utterly ridiculous.

I didn't get much of a sense of the old Michael Jackson we all used to love between the layers of makeup and the lack of focus of the movie and scenes.

I love how Dorothy alternates between being worried that Toto is out of her sight for even a moment because he is so precious to her, and completely forgetting about his existence for long periods of time.

Also, apparently the scarecrow's owner shredded the works of the great philosophers (or at least his copy of Bartlett's Famous Quotations) to stuff his scarecrow with?

And WHAT is happening in the sequence where the subway comes to life and attacks our heroes? WHAT is that? Also, the cowardly lion doesn't get much of a character arc, does he? One scene he's going on about how he doesn't have any courage, the next he's ferociously defending Michael against the saber-toothed garbage cans.

Now think about that: saber-toothed garbage cans. Hmmm.

I understand that during this movie our quartet go through tableaux of the issues affecting blacks in the 70's, fine... so then what's with the emerald city scene where the Wiz dictates fashion to the people below? Am I to understand that one of the major cultural issues African-Americans faced in the 70's was the tyranny of imperious fashion designers?

I was surprised that of all the things they kept from the original Wizard of Oz film, they jettisoned the device that Dorothy is just dreaming about all the people she knows, and at the end there's no "And you were there, and you were there, and you were there" scene.

I was kind of stupefied by how HUGE some of the sets were. Many looked like actual NYC locations that they has just laid a yellow-brick floor on. I would love to know if they actually did that, or just built these enormous sets.

Well, that's it! This film is not a total waste of 2 hours, but it is... quite an oddity.

--- Check out my website devoted to bad and cheesy movies at: www.cinemademerde.com

I just watched this for the first time, I've was expecting a true spectacle of "bad" cinema. I was surprised to find there is a decent movie here.

Some people have remarked Diana Ross was too old to play Dorothy, OK, well, so was Judy Garland. True. There's really nothing wrong with this musical--The songs are excellent, performed by some great talents. The production design is spectacular (maybe a little dated, but still something to look at). The sets are a little nightmarish looking, true, but I liked that. I reminded me of "Return of Oz", a favorite of mine too. The real problem with this movie is the damn direction and cinematography.

What were they thinking? The Munchkin scene is not only lit horribly (too dark!), but all the musical numbers seem like they're just comprised of master shots. Very few close ups of dancers, other singers, and even main characters. During the "Ease on Down the Road" number Lumet has us staring at Diana Ross and Michael Jackson's back from far away in the distance for two minutes. It felt like I was watching this movie from the cheap seats. Thus, I always felt distanced from the characters and situations, and just couldn't get into the movie.

I read Sidney Lumet's book "Making Movies" and I remember him writing in detail about shooting to get proper coverage. What happened here?