Oz: Un monde extraordinaire

To truly understand and appreciate "Return to OZ", you've got to know two things.

First off, this is NOT a follow-up to the classic MGM movie. This can't be emphasized enough. It is actually a synthesis of the first five or so sequels to the BOOK. (This isn't a dig at the movie, mind you. If you don't like it on some level or other, you can't be human. It's just that the movie was based on the book in the respect that the characters in the movie had the same names as the characters in the book.)

Secondly, L. Frank Baum's original, printed-page OZ is, quite possibly, the most messed up imaginary universe ever created. There's a land of beings who throw their own heads at you as weapons. There's a land of sentient vegetables who raise *people* in their gardens (think "Motel Hell" and you've got the idea). To top it all off, it turns out that Dorothy's buddies are really good at killing things; in particular the dear, heartless Tin Man who bloodies up his hatchet with unsettling apathy.

What I'm trying to get at here is that "Return to OZ" is an OZ movie that is much more faithful to the books. Much more "THIS is how long you have to be alive!" than "We represent the Lullaby League". I think it goes without saying that you'd be legally insane to show it to little kids, but fantasy fans, OZ enthusiasts, and fans of cult movies should hunt it down as soon as possible.

By the way, please note that the old-school herky-jerky puppets and claymation monsters in this movie are scary as all get out. Compare this to the awful remake of "the Haunting" with it's stupid cartoonish CGI creatures (and this isn't a dig at computer animation, but since the technique is inheritely realist, it's not scary). There is a lesson here.

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

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.

Most of the comments on this film seem to be from people who saw this when they were little, and haven't been able to forget it. The imagery of this film lingers long after first view, and its marked stylistic and thematic differences to Wizard Of Oz have a hypnotic effect on a certain type of viewer.

In Return, the central theme is one of deep unhappiness with reality and a wish to return to fantasy, where as Wizard focuses more on the concept of "there's no place like home". I admire and am still deeply effected by this film because, in some ways, it is braver than Wizard. It isn't afraid to deal with the conflict - that the misery of a grey Kansas is very real.

It expresses a rippling dissatisfaction that seems more in keeping with Baum's original works, and is all the more satisfying for it. In particular, I enjoyed the parrallels between the real world and Oz- for what it suggests about our world- and the Nome King's conversation with Dorothy. For a children's film, there is great depth in both, and most of the film can be interpreted on several different levels. The implications of the corridor of heads alone is enough to send any first year pysch/lit student into a whole mess of garbage.

But don't be fooled. This also an excellent children's film, that deserves more attention than it got.

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.