|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Oct 9, 2020 5:01:42 GMT
So this has gotta be the scariest movie ever ostensibly aimed at a young audience right? I remember being more scared from this as a kid than by Night of the Living Dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Oct 9, 2020 5:45:03 GMT
Not sure what to make of this one. The Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Cowardly Lion are largely absent. Even Toto is replaced by a talking chicken. We do get a robot, named Tik-Tok, based on the physical characteristics of Wilford Brimley. Those Wheelers are scary, though. Despite some visual imagination, it’s an understatement to say it lacks the wonder and joy of the 1939 film.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwightmachinehead on Oct 9, 2020 6:43:19 GMT
It's more faithful to the books apparently.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Oct 9, 2020 8:02:36 GMT
It's creepy all right. I loved it as a kid. Actually, I favoured over the original. I've always responded well to darker films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 9, 2020 8:11:37 GMT
"She has a...chicken with her."
"A chicken!!?!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 9, 2020 12:50:09 GMT
Not sure what to make of this one. The Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Cowardly Lion are largely absent. Even Toto is replaced by a talking chicken. We do get a robot, named Tik-Tok, based on the physical characteristics of Wilford Brimley. Those Wheelers are scary, though. Despite some visual imagination, it’s an understatement to say it lacks the wonder and joy of the 1939 film. Same issue I have. There could be some demented whimsical fun with a darker edge than the first movie. But it simply doesn’t have that. Joyless is an apt description. |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Oct 9, 2020 14:46:08 GMT
This is one of those movies I can never decide if I liked or hated. I could be wrong, but wasn’t this advertised as a sequel to the Garland movie? I think this should have been a stand alone movie. I remember it constantly trying to remind me of the Garland movie. I remembered they even had a scene of where she walked past her old house in OZ at least that’s how I remember.
If this movie had NO CONNECTION to the Garland movie I could have accepted this as a movie on its own. If I look at it as a movie by itself it’s nothing special. The movie feels like a kids horror movie in places and I don’t know if that was intentional, but if it was it worked because I found this movie disturbing. Acting is alright I guess. Never cared for Balk as Dorothy. I don’t feel like she had the innocence of Dorothy. Don’t know if her Dorothy was closer to the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Oct 10, 2020 0:49:58 GMT
To be sure, the house crash was in the original book. The 1939 version didn't create it.
RtO seems to be a gestalt of the OZ Books and the 1939 film. From the MGM film, it uses the 'Kansas people/objects having counterparts in OZ' plot-point as well as the Ruby Slippers (they were Silver Shoes in the book). It appears to have followed the plotline, so I don't know if RtO Dorothy encountered Kalidahs, Field Mice, Living China dolls, Hammerheads, etc. Then again, the film acknowledges the Tin Woodman's gruesome origin, and the Magical Home flight that lost Dorothy her magic shoes in the Deadly Desert. On the other hand, its time period is more turn-of-the-century than the MGM film. Dorothy is younger and more accurate to the original book (although the sequels changed her hair from brown to blond). It establishes that OZ is a real place and not Dorothy's imagination.
|
|
|
|
Post by marth on Oct 10, 2020 0:52:18 GMT
Acting is alright I guess. Never cared for Balk as Dorothy. I don’t feel like she had the innocence of Dorothy. Don’t know if her Dorothy was closer to the book. Wow, I loved her and found her very sweet.   
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 10, 2020 1:01:16 GMT
I only just watched it a couple years ago for the first time and it is such a strange movie. Not in a good way though.
I really like the art direction, but the movie is just completely off-putting to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by loofapotato on Oct 10, 2020 1:03:08 GMT
So this has gotta be the scariest movie ever ostensibly aimed at a young audience right? I remember being more scared from this as a kid than by Night of the Living Dead. Nah, The Dark Crystal was scarier than this. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 10, 2020 2:57:46 GMT
Well made, creative and surreal kids nightmare movie with some excellent 80's optical and stop-motion visual effects. Much better than Raimi's Oz The Great And Powerful - 13'. Mila Kunis just wasn't right for her part. No real depth or genuine layers to her performance as the wicked witch.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Oct 10, 2020 14:06:56 GMT
I watched it when it was new, and I couldn't make up my mind who it was aimed at, considering it was a Disney movie. Though an interesting experience.
Since the Judy Wizard was nearly always available on some TV channel at the time, it must have felt like a serious nightmare to some, but as one writer here on the board mentioned, it's closer to the books.
Haven't seen it in ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2020 19:18:43 GMT
Definitely an example of "not giving what the people want."
If they wanted to make money, they would have been truer to the MGM film.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Oct 10, 2020 21:51:40 GMT
People will laugh, but parts of 'The Wizard of Oz' (1939) scared the crap out of me as a child. I think a proper Oz movie should be scary, at least in parts, as 'Return to Oz' was. I think it was a bold choice to give Dorothy a new set of companions, even though none of them have the loveable personalities of the '39 bunch. And yeah, the warmth of the '39 movie was absent, but again I think it was a bold choice to throw Dorothy into an unfamiliar, partly ruined version of Oz rather than parade her through the familiar sites and characters. Also, Dorothy is a young girl, not the plucky teen we see in the '39 movie, which makes the juxtaposition with the weird monsters she encounters that much more compelling to me.
|
|
