Truer words. So true. Those of us who love Oz have always known this. It's such a shame an Oz series can't be filmed today, within this "serious" nonCGI format. It could easily be the new Potter.
Never saw it sadly. That's one thing I don't understand, humans both "enjoy" being scared and it's necessary to experience it and it's unnatural to try to shelter children from fear. I think that's one of the biggest failings of the parenting of the past generation.
@@chriswww My little cousin was scared tby the Wheelers, and had to leave the theater. I was old enough not to be scared, but I couldn't have even watched it when I was like, six.
Saw this as a kid. Criminally underrated, though it should be taken separately from the original film. Both are doing very different things in very competent ways.
@Frizzurd They do if that's the one they mean, or if they want to be accurate. The simple fact remains that the 1939 movie is the seventh Oz film, and the second one made in the sound era. Of the silent films, L. Frank Baum himself made three of them.
Man, Siskel & Ebert really were sooo full of themself again… (and what's the deal with them pronouncing Oz as AAAhhhz? >_>) Yes., this film scared the heck out of me as a kid and i LOVED IT. Every single second of it. The whole atmosphere was so intense and you never knew what could happen next. I miss that feeling when watching movies today... The Claymation was AMAZING and absolutely perfect. And Fairuza Balk really showed how incredibly talented a young actress her age can be. I could bond with her portrayal of Dorothy so much with the whole melancholia and the fact that nobody believed her / feeling misunderstood
@@shuttittuppitt9355 Judy was 16, and known for playing prepubescents well into her teens; it helped that she was 4'11" and able to convincingly act under her age. People who met her after seeing _Wizard_ were often shocked to find, not a little girl, but a sophisticated teenager. Besides, Dorothy's age had been all over the map already; in the 1902 stage extravaganza co-created by L. Frank Baum and Paul Tietjens, Dorothy was 19 (played initially by a 15 year-old), while in Baum's multimedia presentation _The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays,_ Dorothy was played by an 8 year-old. In the first movie version of Oz in 1910, the lead actress was 9, while in the 1925 version, Dorothy was 18. In Baum's 1914 film _His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz,_ Dorothy was played by 27 year-old Violet MacMillan, who was a skilled actress who, like Judy, could convincingly portray an adolescent girl.
Agree, even now I still love the movie considering it's mostly based off of the Oz books by L. Frank Baum and Dorothy was actually played by a child other known as the great Fairuza Balk and the age was actually right considering she resembles Dorothy from the books nunlike Judy Garland and this one is a lot better than the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz because it had a little more heart, suspense, emotion, great actors, and better effects.
Dorothy experienced what many children have to face alone: loss, heartbreak, fear, being controlled & having power stripped away, to name a few. This movie was incredibly relatable and validating as a child. I’ve seen it so many times I can recite most of the lines by heart. In the face of fear, power & uncertainty, Dorothy is courageous & prevails. What an incredibly brave & inspirational little girl. This story & movie holds a big place in my heart ❤️
I absolutely LOVE everything about this movie. Faruza Balk was amazing as was every actor in it. The effects and puppetry were so great. I would be proud to make a film half this good.
Fairuza was brilliant; the best thing about her was how she related to the non-human characters as if they were just people; that's Dorothy through and through! I was especially impressed by how she wiped away Tik-Tok's oily tears and stroked his face, just as if she were comforting someone of flesh and blood. Beautiful moment, that.
My middle school homeroom teacher played this movie in class. I didn't even know a sequel existed. I loved it so much, way more than the first one. I actually love it because it was much darker. I thought it was a great movie on many levels.
Absolutely criminally underrated - I remember loving this as a kid; along with Gremlins, Labyrinth and Little Shop of Horrors my sister & I wore out the VHS player constantly re-watching it.
Those Siskel & Ebert review clips were upsetting and knowing they probably played a role in this film not being successful. This film did scare me as a kid, but's also part of what made it interesting. It's something that's always stuck with me because of that and makes what it teaches more pronounced. It's nice to see it's gaining somewhat of a resurgence.
I loved this movie as a kid. Honestly, I don't remember it scaring me as a child, instead I remember sadness and longing, which is what really makes me want to watch it again. Same feeling I got with "The Never Ending Story" movies.
I see all these comments about being scared and terrified but watching this movie in spite of that. That's not what I remember this movie as at all, and it's not the reason I watch it at least once a year. That sad and melancholy feeling, and the dreamscape-like visuals and a soundtrack that's far more evocative than it has any business to be, combined with that feeling of 'these characters aren't very strong, capable characters, but they're on my side and that's all I need', are what I love it for.
I love how Ebert is going on about which book the film should be based on when his comparison is based on the original 1939 film version of Wizard of OZ showing his ignorance of the source material. The original Wizard of OZ book was WAY darker than that film (and better than the film IMO). Return to OZ was so much more accurate to the original books which is a big part of why I feel this film destroys Wizard of OZ. I'm not taking away the historical significance of the 1939 film as it is still a fine film but in terms of the original tone/feel of the books, Return to OZ is the clear winner and its always saddened me that they never got to continue the series with this style. I feel like the 1939 film has been put on such a pedestal that it hangs like a cloud over the series and prevents other adaptations from ever gaining traction with audiences.
Besides which Wizard of Oz was also denigrated for it's witch that the reviewers said children were leaving crying and in the depths of horror that needed medical care to save them from near death. I'm so glad they didn't follow the MGM Oz movie it's different for some good reasons. It will last and be entertainment for as long as were around to enjoy them.
I like the 1939 film, but I totally agree. Does anyone remember how many creatures the Tin Man has to kill with his ax? Or hell, what about the Tin Man's origin story? It's pure horror.
But Siskel & Ebert are just 2 elitist critics that were authorities before the Lehman was able to commune with his fellow peer to form the counter-culture review: Audience Score.
Jack T Besides, as much as I disagree with Gene here, he's still a lot better than Richard. He claimed people were on drugs for liking the spongebob movie and the show in general.
Jack T I wouldn't say they were jerks, it just didn't appeal to them. It was harsh of one of them to say that they were glad of Return to Oz's box office failure, but I think time has definitely turned Return of Oz into a cult childhood classic. Before I discovered Doctor Who, Return to Oz was definitely the movie that had me hiding behind the sofa!
harrietamidala1691 You're correct and I renigue my former opinion on that. Return to Oz really is a cult classic now. I'm especially fond of Tik Tok and the whole imagery of the film in general. The problem with films today is that while computer generated graphics and images are awesome (like Transformers) the film lacks all the imagination we had with real life characters on set, whether actual actors in costume or puppet. The mastery of puppetry is diminishing and the only real use of it now is Indie film makers. I watched one last night titled "Wolf Cop" (2014) - LOVED IT!! They essentially brought back the old school makeup werewolf and all its splendor. Great comedy - well made.
This is the best Oz movie. Anyone who read the Oz books will love this movie miles over the other ones. I can't believe critics slammed this movie because it was too "dark" Blegh!
It's sad that kids moves shouldn't be dark, why!? As a kid I loved "dark" films like this and I think kids need this kind of movies to grow and develop their imagination. These movies made me imaginative and opened the love for movies for me.. Its a huge underestimating that kids shouldn't see any "scary" things!? That's what kinds and grown ups love! We need some suspense and adventure to our lives. As I grown up now, I want to make this kind of movies as now I have been studying filmmaking 2 years. "childrends fantasy horror" is a genre that I grew up with and still love it and keep it close to my heart. I think we need this kind of (not CGI) fantasy horror in the 2020s!
I like this version over the original, to be honest I would have preferred to have seen them redoing at the time the Wizard of Oz with this darker tone. The books were generally quite dark in nature, and the 1939 film, was very light in comparison to the books.
Absolutely love this movie. So much heart and imagination behind it, unlike most of recent cgi heavy nonsense that's been pumped out over recent years. You just can't beat practical effects, nothing against cgi but it's been way too over used now days.
@Frizzurd What are you talking about? All I was saying is that there are good and bad examples of all manner of special effects, including bad stop motion and good CGI. You seem to be spoiling for a fight.
@@linkeragon7885 Right. Because if you think the new ones stink, like so many of the horror remakes have, you appreciate teh originals all the more. And if it's good, you've got a new classic to add to the collection.
This film didn't really frighten me as a child. I thought, and still this this is a wonderful film. And if I have kids of my own, I would show it to them.
This is a brilliant and under-appreciated movie, much better than almost anything else that has ever come from Baum's source material. For the era of its release, the visual fx were extraordinary; Jack, Tik-Tok, The Gump and the rest of the Ozites are incredibly lifelike and brilliantly realized. It's also a very serious and mature film with elements of real danger and a plot that moves quickly (unlike most bloated, lengthy movies nowadays). I've read that the influence of older horror genre films (particularly British horror movies) influenced the Director's portrayal of the gnomes and the gnome king's mountain. The soundtrack is also unforgettable with beautiful themes bringing unique life to each character (in particular the strings for Ozma/Dorothy and the brass for Tik-Tok). Although the script takes the second and third books (as well as some elements of the sixth and seventh books... and others for those who want to be technical about it) in the series and mashes them together, I believe that it actually improves on the experience and expedites the plot in some ways. All-in-all, it was a brave departure from the MGM musical that so many of us know and love (a movie that mined very little from the source material itself). Also of great significance is the fact that this film does perpetuate the brilliant traditions of parallelism and ambiguity set in motion when the decision was made to cast the same actors who played the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion as the farm hands leaving the audience wondering if the whole movie was a dream or if it really happened - with a HUGE potential wink or acknowledgement (that could also been interpreted either way) coming toward the very end of the movie which I won't spoil for anyone who has not seen it.
I remember being scared throughout this movie... but I kept watching it because I was interested in the story and I liked the characters. :D I actually like this more than the first movie. :)
This film terrified me so much as a child, those stilt creatures and the pervasive dark atmosphere were truly disturbing. I'm very glad i watched it in my youth though, kids today don't get deep films nowadays, just streamlined predictable plots endlessly recycled into mediocrity
I thought the electro therapy scene was very realistic. Dorothy would’ve stuck to her convictions and would’ve been scene as a troubled youth. They also could’ve done the ice pick lobotomy and it would’ve made sense also.
The complains of Siskel and Ebert reminds me of guys complaining about sequels and remakes because is not the same movie they watched as kids. I watched this movie as a kid and loooooooooooooooooooooooooved, its scary for adults not for kids, After this movie I became obsesses with the other Frank L. Baum Oz novels, and after reading all the original oz novels I need to say that this movie is the version most close to the books until now.
LOVE Return to Oz! I first saw it at the age of 7 or 8 and not only was I not scared of it, I checked it out of the video rental store at least 10 or 12 times before finally getting it on VHS myself. I'd read the books earlier and thought it was a much more faithful adaptation than the MGM version (although it could have used more of Baum's trademark humor) Granted the MGM version had some fun songs -- but Return to Oz got to show me Oz (just wish we could have stayed at the Emerald City a little longer at the end). I don't care what anyone says -- to me Fairuza Balk IS Dorothy, not Judy Garland!
351cleavland That scene where Dolph kills a flying monkey with the heel of his ruby slipper made me appreciate the subtleties of his performance. Oz: Battle of the Damned is an underrated action classic.
@@MaskedMan66 Depends on the colorization. Some people who've touched up Denslow's illustrations have made Dorothy's hair brown to coincide with the film adaptations of her character & had her outfit match the color scheme of Judy's depiction, but retained the Silver Shoes over the Ruby Slippers, as per the original narrative.
This movie is now a cult classic and is still extremely hard to find on DVD or Blu-ray. It’s a gem if you find it. Much sought after by a lot of fans. Disney and at the time had no idea how well and beloved it became much later in time.
I love the original because it's a timeless classic. And I love "return" because it's such a thought provoking movie. Very different films but both great in their own way.
The Grimms had nothing to do with Oz; Oz is the creation of L. Frank Baum. And don't forget that Dorothy's friends are mostly adults, if non-human ones.
I saw this in theaters when I was about 10 or 11, and I liked it quite a bit. I wasn't familiar with the "darkness" that was taken out of original fairy tales or children's stories at that age, but have since read the unedited versions. Things made more sense with their darkness included. And it was appropriate to put it in, it was a more adult version of it. Still, if one was familiar with the series of books it was closer to the actual books. People are so married to the classics that it's too difficult to take a more creative approach.
A quote from Tim Burton's Big Eyes: "Why does someone have to be a critic? Because they can't create" I loved this movie, Tick Tock is my favourite, the scene where he cries always make me want to cry.
I grew up watching this movie as a kid and it was seriously one of my favorites. Sure it's an aesthetic departure from the original but it was made several decades later. I had no idea it was such a flop when it came out.
@@MaskedMan66 Tin Woodman cuts up his own body with his own axe which has been enchanted, then he chops down a tree and chops it again to kill beasts called Kalidahs who are trying to eat them, kills a wildcat to save a mouse, kills a battle while walking on the road, kills wolves, the scarecrow kills 40 crows, the lion is tied up by the flying monkeys and taken to the castle, they geet attacked by trees and he cuts their limbs off to save them, the lion fights a giant ass spider, there may not be the kind of blood like is written and seen today, but killing and fighting, and such is still a dark violent story, and there is no getting around that. Toto almost dies during the tornado to Oz, by falling through the open cellar door, and Dorothy has to call over to reach out to get him, Baum wrote it for children, but he did tell dark story's which get darker and more political at every story.
@@wwozanewmusical The Oz stories are neither dark nor overtly political. He tells all the events you mentioned with a light, matter-of-fact prose which makes them seem not all that horrific; plus, he was a master of puns and sheer whimsy. There are always lots of laughs to be had in the Oz books. You also didn't bother to mention intent; the Tin Woodman was not some murderer. Just because there's violence in a story, that doesn't mean it's a "violent story," especially since there are so many other facets to it. Baum's stories are far less horrific than some of the classic fairy tales to which he objected, like those of the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen. And yet, children have loved those for centuries. One more nit-picky detail: it's the Winged Monkeys, not "flying monkeys."
Saw this in the cinema as a child and yes, between Mumby and the Wheelers, it scared me shirtless but I loved it. Bonus points for mentioning Somewhere In Time.
Notice how Siskel and Ebert criticize the makers of Return to Oz for its strong and frightening scenes, but never have the balls to criticize L. Frank Baum who was responsible for the story in the first place. Yet another example of their middle-of-the-road hackery. I'm soooo glad Oliver Harper doesn't use these guys anymore. He's a much better critic and doesn't need to look up to these hacks.
I agree. I may have not have read the books or saw Return to Oz but that review was a total research fail. Ever since I was growing up and learning about film criticism, I had a long time to understand the importance of not always agreeing with the critics I enjoy listening to. You know what's weird? When they did some of their specials like Star Wars or the MPAA rating system, they did their research fine but with Return to Oz, they didn't do any. Don't get me wrong, I love the 1939 MGM musical but that doesn't mean that I think that every Oz film should be for children, which is what they're insinuating.
The best way for me to rid all memory of the review is to watch either James Rolfe's book to film comparison to the Oz series or read Roger Ebert's review of The Wizard of Oz in his Great Movies series as he actually acknowledged the troubled shoot though he still ignored the books. For you, you're better off with James Rolfe's.
Bad news Jim, they're not the only critics who failed at their research on the source material. Here's Leonard Maltin's review from Entertainment Tonight: czcams.com/video/NGHg_0WzcJo/video.html
Jim Slav Now that I have read the books, now I noticed that. But I'm here to cover what I think is the real issue of the review that nobody else seems to cover. Many people watch the show back in the day, and sometimes take their opinions as "the truth" without having an open mind and/or doing their own research. Because of this mindset, people back in 1985 are really gonna believe that much of the dark material and characters were made up by the filmmakers, when really they are taken from the source material. It's one thing if people prefer the 1939 MGM classic over Return to Oz, it's another to base their opinions on a steaming pile of monkey fuck (James Rolfe taught me that one). BTW, I'm almost done with North Carolina and will be home tomorrow. So that's good news. But I feel I have get this out of my chest and that's why I felt that their review is still a problem.
Hi Jim. I know you're having time and money to buy new equipment, but I'm writing this because I'm having a very busy life in the summer and early fall. I'm thinking about taking some online courses, water aerobics, bowling, and softball. So my blogging might be a bit limited. 3 ambitious projects I've been think about doing in the future is my coverage on the troubled history of Star Wars, a Christmas in July special devoted to my pans on the Adam Sandler animated comedy Eight Crazy Nights, and my debunk on Siskel and Ebert's infamous 1980 special devoted to the slasher genre because there's so much wrong with the episode. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I can't watch all the movies they discussed on the episode and I apologize if I ignored something big. Very busy life I'm about to have.
I can't count how many times I watched this as a kid. The scene where Dorothy steals Mombi's powder of life, Chilling. One of my Top favorite movies. The effects are better than most modern day films.
Nicely done! I love Return to Oz and have seen it many times, and this makes me want to watch it again. There's a rumor that Walter Murch oversaw a HD restoration, so we might be getting a Blu-Ray soon!
As a note about S&E missing that kids were scared of the original, I'm living proof. I saw a reissue of it in a theater in the early 50s when I was very young, and every time Margaret Hamilton showed up as the Wicked Witch, I ducked down so that I couldn't see the screen!
@Ryan Stewart It was a Disney Movie Club exclusive release. But you can also find it on Amazon. Albeit, it is quite expensive (it costs about twice the price of a new-release movie), but as a huge fan, I thought it was worth it.
Jack had a huge impact on me when I was a kid. I was obsessed with how tall he was. Ironically I ended up being 6'8. I also saw this at my grandparents house and my grandfathers name is Jack.
"Return to Oz" One of the best movies ever in my opinion. Yes it's scary for kids, it scared my when I was five, but who said kids of that age would have to see it?
The movie shoots itself in the foot by using the name Return to Oz. The Judy Garland Oz movie is so ubiquitous that people thought ‘Return’ in the title meant Return to Judy Garland’s Oz movie. Instead, they should have directly used Baum’s Oz book sequel titles the movie references. This would have also laid the groundwork for two or three movie sequels with the screenplay properly adapted.
Seen both oz movies...can't stand the first one but really like this one....love this fantasy movies that simply look so good...the same level as the never ending story, labyrinth, The Dark Christal, Legend, Krull, Excalibur and time bandits and also as Dark...and that's what is so awesome with this films...those 2 critics failed to see that beauty of the movie and focus only in kids and if they would like it...saw it as a kid and it rocks.
Matthew Bennett that may be the case according to your taste...but still that doesn't mean that this 2 critics fail to see beyond some little children from that era....saw that back to oz as a child and it rock.....maybe it was ahead of its time.
louiethepitt Return to Oz was ahead of its time and very groundbreaking its an impressive version of Oz that I quite enjoy just not as much as the 1939 version which also was ahead of its time and one of the most groundbreaking films of its era.
"Don't remake classic films! Don't even get near the classics!" Hmm, what a relevant comment for summer 2016 films. Too bad modern studios don't feel the same way; very little originality in Hollywood these days.
There was more than one silent Oz movie, one was so loosely based on characters it was funny at the time but then the deeper idea I find interesting.Aunt Em and Uncle Henry were evil people trying to make Dorothy think she was from Kansas whereas she wasn't. She was from Oz. There was a lot of running around with arms flaying and clasping of hands in fear or whatever emotion that was in the silent years. Too many wide shots that were done no doubt because of the amount of light needed to film any movie of that time. The silent one they are referring to was maybe the one that L. Frank Baum was a director for. That at least had a tins woodsman and a scarecrow and something in a outfit to be a lion I spose. It's ok for it's time. I could imagine people in the dust bowl areas watching the sandstorm with tornado wanting to check outside to see if it was really blowing out there.
This wasn't a remake of anything. Nor would a new version of "Wizard" be a remake; it would be a new version based on the same material, but having nothing to do with MGM at all.
@@joedigger9919 The first Oz movie was made in 1910, and two years before that, Baum filmed selected scenes from his first three books for a multimedia presentation he toured with.
@Reepacheirp firewalker In Larry Semon's 1925 movie, Henry and Em weren't evil, they were keeping her secret until the appointed time, and Henry became one of Dorothy's courtiers in Oz. Baum's silent movies are enormous fun.
I’m an 80’s baby and I absolutely adore this movie. Princess Momby and her Hallway of Heads is one of my favorite scenes as is when Dorthy steals the Key to get into Momby’s original case, my other favorite is when she finds Tic Toc and last but not least when the Gnome King offers Dorthy to eat with him… I listen to the soundtrack and I’m pleased to have found that there is behind the scenes footage avail on CZcams. Thank you for covering this 80’s cult film !!! 💚🙏🏻
You ever noticed that the climax looks like that they're in Hell? You have fire and demons everywhere. There was a 30th Anniversary Edition Blu Ray that was released a couple of months ago and there is no special features on it! Some 30th Anniversary Edition!
My dad bought this for my children in the 90's. We all loved it. The kids watched it many times. The scary Ness was one of the things we enjoyed about it.
Thank you Oliver, another classic film that visually stimulated my imagination when I was younger. You gave it the review it deserved that Siskel and Ebert were terribly wrong at. This film did stay closer to the original source material more than the 1939 one did. And I definitely agree it should not be forgotten> :)
There is two versions 720p and 1080p BrRip x264 - YIFY usually they are the full ripped version no loss in quality... uploaded sometime this year in April.
+Phillip Parr The one uploaded is in MP4, at just under 2GB, but usually what they do is convert it from the Blu-ray folders into a single file... Generally the quality tends to be identical, to the disc size version in picture and quality. But you tend to lose, multi tracks or special features, and generally left with the film intact.
"Dont remake classic films " So they shouldn't have made the 39 movie as it was a remake of the silent film from the 20s, and the numerous films from the early 1900s?
I’m coming back to watch this review because I just watched Return To Oz after not seeing it for years. I think it’s an absolutely fantastic film. Superb acting, characters, special effects, emotion, beautiful music etc. Soooo much charisma and it’s very thought provoking. My 3 year old loves it. Scariest scene by far is Maumbi’s head in that cabinet!!! 😱. It’s an absolute masterpiece, so thank you for this review Oliver!
While I like Siskel and Ebert and respect them as critics, I can't deny they made some errors. They were too quick to judge some very good adult horror films like the Nightmare on Elm Street films (well, 1, and 3). They were also too quick to judge films like The Dark Crystal and the first Ninja Turtles (the 1990 version) and assumed that just because children's films are aimed at kids, they should remain light-hearted.
You're absolutely right, they constantly flip flop in their reviews. They praise family films with dark content yet criticized this film for being dark. They didn't seem to do research on the books like I did. And there are actually dark moments in the 1939 movie. That is the most ignorant review I've ever seen from them. Other than that and their occasional snobbery, I enjoy their reviews too. (I only saw the 1939 movie but I kinda knew something was wrong with their Return to Oz review)
Connor Brennan Elm Street's films are all sorta good. 1 obviously, 2 is alright (Freddy in the film is terrifying), 3 obviously, 4 is a really fun movie but yeah its not scary, 5 has good sets story and atmosphere but yeah its sorta cheesy and Freddy's Dead well...
This movie was on every other day in my house back in the 80's and early 90's when my sisters and I were children. Return to Oz, Labyrinth, and Never Ending Story. My mother's cousin owned a video store and he copied a VHS for us because it was unavailable to purchase anywhere for a time. We all loved it. I liked the serious take, the darker story of an apocalyptic land of Oz. I actually wish we saw more of the restored Oz at the end. I know they put a lot of money and effort into the costuming of all the Oz inhabitants when I got to see some close-up photos. We had a book with a red cover all about OZ films from the silent era to this film, I loved it! It was called "The World of Oz: A Fantastic Expedition over the Rainbow" by Allen Eyles. Copies are on eBay. I'll need to buy it again. We couldn't find the soundtrack until 2000's when the fansites came out. Please with Siskel and Egbert, I don't remember the OZ books being 'Musicals.' That's such a lame reason for it not to be in the same league as the 1939 film. Fairuza Balk's performance totally went over their heads too.
I grew up on this film, as well as many others you have reviewed, and this was a favorite. I enjoyed it far more than the Judy Garland version and always recommend people watch it. Amazing review and you captured my feelings on it all too well.
Siskel and Ebert are horrible critics who have no clue what they are talking about. First of all they are too old to be critiquing children's films and should not compare the sequel to the original. I for one like the sequel way better just because it was more edgy and not too sugary sweet. Critics usually have bad tastes in movies
I am aware that they are deceased as of this present time............however I was referring to the time they were alive, and this film they were reviewing
LiquidThunder2121 Okay, you clearly haven't seen or read many of there reviews, they have claimed moves that people loved and were hits were crap. That's not going with the majority. Especially with Ebert, he even prasied movies that people hated a lot.
This film and Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981) are the only films that have brought me to tears. I wept hard one night watching this, suffering a bad flu, shedding tears of sadness and joy. I almost avoid it now because I don't know how to reconcile such emotions.
The original wizard of oz REALLY deviated from the books. If these two bodies would read a book every once in a while instead of only watching films they would know that...
to the counter defense of the 39 film, the reason for this is because when they made it they took elements from all forms of Oz-The original book, The stage plays, and the other films released in the 10s and 20s. Even L. Frank Baum's own films deviated from the books in most ways. the only problem is that all modern Oz films seem to be guilt tripped into thinking they MUST take elements from the 39 film rather then try and be it's own thing(which is why the film succeeded in the first place.)
fawfulmark2 True -- Baum probably would have enjoyed the 1939 film (since he loved vaudeville and had produced some stage plays that were more similar to the MGM film than his own books) That said, the later Oz books Baum wrote were written for his fans -- which I think is why Return to Oz (which is much more faithful to his books) struck such a strong chord in the fans of the books. No other Oz film has come so close in bringing the land of Oz -- as depicted by Baum and John R Neill -- to life as Return to Oz. (Oz the Great and Powerful is a good attempt though)
I LOOOVED this movie as a young child. This was my childhood. I remember always wanting to watch it. I don’t remember it scaring me, I think if it did I would remember. It’s a very good film
This Dorothy is the most beautiful girl I've ever seen. And I'm not surprised that the Japanese loved this movie - what with all their 'perverted Japanese salarymen'. "Return To Oz" is way better than most fantasy films and much more true to the original material, I'm sure. Siskel and Ebert make idiots of themselves, as usual. Are these two guys so stupid that they can't imagine that this is based on the books and not the previous film? I always thought these guys were basic...but since watching them on CZcams in more depth, I gotta say, these reviewers were absolute buffoons.
The film critics were excessively harsh with this film. The audience too wasn't ready for a darker adaptation of a children's book(with horror undertones in the first act and with the witch segment). I watched It on Disney+ yesterday and I'm blown away by some the special effects used, the mate paintings, set designs, costumes, Fairuza Balk's acting, score...It's sad the film didn't do good in the box office because It's a very competent one and could have become a classic If It were appreciated for what It was, instead of being in the shadow of the 1939 version. A real gem!
This is what's called fixing a horrible musical that totally twisted the actual books in a way worse than Percy Jackson. The original writer would have been so pleased Disney fixed the disaster that was The Wizard of Oz musical.
I was about ten when I saw this in the theater and loved it. It was both creepy and wholesome with awesome practical effects and stop motion. I remember how amazed I was at Billina. She looked so real. The puppeteers were so creative and expressive with their work.
The problem w/ this movie was it was way ahead of it's time.
Also, it was horribly mis-advertised.
I watched this when I was 5, still one of my favorites
Schush Agreed!
Truer words. So true. Those of us who love Oz have always known this. It's such a shame an Oz series can't be filmed today, within this "serious" nonCGI format. It could easily be the new Potter.
that's because they didn't predict that most of today's movies would be so halfhearted and crappy.
Yes this film scared the shit outta me as a kid but god I loved it.
Same, the wheelers game me and my sisters nightmares and the damn stop motion rock face....
Never saw it sadly. That's one thing I don't understand, humans both "enjoy" being scared and it's necessary to experience it and it's unnatural to try to shelter children from fear. I think that's one of the biggest failings of the parenting of the past generation.
Return to oz, the never ending story, dark crystal, maybe willow. All scary.
@@chriswww My little cousin was scared tby the Wheelers, and had to leave the theater. I was old enough not to be scared, but I couldn't have even watched it when I was like, six.
Wheelers were useless Jokers. They couldn't harm anyone even if they tried, how would they? They have no functioning limbs
Saw this as a kid. Criminally underrated, though it should be taken separately from the original film. Both are doing very different things in very competent ways.
The 1939 MGM "Wizard" isn't the original Oz movie; it's the seventh.
@Frizzurd They do if that's the one they mean, or if they want to be accurate. The simple fact remains that the 1939 movie is the seventh Oz film, and the second one made in the sound era. Of the silent films, L. Frank Baum himself made three of them.
Return to Oz isn't even the official sequel though. It's literally a seperate movie why would you compare it to a musical film from decades ago.
@@TheShadowPerson. because it literally has Oz in its name!
@@co-null5599 How could it figuratively have Oz in its title?
Man, Siskel & Ebert really were sooo full of themself again… (and what's the deal with them pronouncing Oz as AAAhhhz? >_>) Yes., this film scared the heck out of me as a kid and i LOVED IT. Every single second of it. The whole atmosphere was so intense and you never knew what could happen next. I miss that feeling when watching movies today... The Claymation was AMAZING and absolutely perfect. And Fairuza Balk really showed how incredibly talented a young actress her age can be. I could bond with her portrayal of Dorothy so much with the whole melancholia and the fact that nobody believed her / feeling misunderstood
Yeah those two reviewers really have some sticks up their asses
Thats Chicago pronunciation for ya
The critics didn’t like The Thing either and it found it’s audience
A beautiful film with lavish effects and absolutely splendid music- tragically unappreciated by a jaded world.
It helped a LOT that Dorothy was played by somebody who was almost the CORRECT age, instead of a near adult like Judy Garland.
@@shuttittuppitt9355 Judy was 16, and known for playing prepubescents well into her teens; it helped that she was 4'11" and able to convincingly act under her age. People who met her after seeing _Wizard_ were often shocked to find, not a little girl, but a sophisticated teenager.
Besides, Dorothy's age had been all over the map already; in the 1902 stage extravaganza co-created by L. Frank Baum and Paul Tietjens, Dorothy was 19 (played initially by a 15 year-old), while in Baum's multimedia presentation _The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays,_ Dorothy was played by an 8 year-old. In the first movie version of Oz in 1910, the lead actress was 9, while in the 1925 version, Dorothy was 18. In Baum's 1914 film _His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz,_ Dorothy was played by 27 year-old Violet MacMillan, who was a skilled actress who, like Judy, could convincingly portray an adolescent girl.
Agree, even now I still love the movie considering it's mostly based off of the Oz books by L. Frank Baum
and Dorothy was actually played by a child other known as the great Fairuza Balk and the age was actually
right considering she resembles Dorothy from the books nunlike Judy Garland and this one is a lot better than the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz because it had a little more heart, suspense, emotion, great actors, and better effects.
@@shuttittuppitt9355 And that GREAT somebody is Fairuza Balk!
Dorothy experienced what many children have to face alone: loss, heartbreak, fear, being controlled & having power stripped away, to name a few. This movie was incredibly relatable and validating as a child. I’ve seen it so many times I can recite most of the lines by heart. In the face of fear, power & uncertainty, Dorothy is courageous & prevails. What an incredibly brave & inspirational little girl. This story & movie holds a big place in my heart ❤️
This movie delighted and terrified me as a child and it remains one of the most memorable films I have had the pleasure of seeing.
I absolutely LOVE everything about this movie. Faruza Balk was amazing as was every actor in it. The effects and puppetry were so great. I would be proud to make a film half this good.
Fairuza was brilliant; the best thing about her was how she related to the non-human characters as if they were just people; that's Dorothy through and through! I was especially impressed by how she wiped away Tik-Tok's oily tears and stroked his face, just as if she were comforting someone of flesh and blood. Beautiful moment, that.
I was born in 82' and this is still my #1 childhood movie. Forget the haters!
Born 82 and dug it since 4
Me, toooooo!!! And SAME!!!👏👏👏
My middle school homeroom teacher played this movie in class. I didn't even know a sequel existed. I loved it so much, way more than the first one. I actually love it because it was much darker. I thought it was a great movie on many levels.
This isn't a sequel, and the MGM musical is the seventh Oz movie.
This one's got movie magic.
Absolutely criminally underrated - I remember loving this as a kid; along with Gremlins, Labyrinth and Little Shop of Horrors my sister & I wore out the VHS player constantly re-watching it.
Those Siskel & Ebert review clips were upsetting and knowing they probably played a role in this film not being successful. This film did scare me as a kid, but's also part of what made it interesting. It's something that's always stuck with me because of that and makes what it teaches more pronounced. It's nice to see it's gaining somewhat of a resurgence.
I loved this movie as a kid. Honestly, I don't remember it scaring me as a child, instead I remember sadness and longing, which is what really makes me want to watch it again. Same feeling I got with "The Never Ending Story" movies.
I see all these comments about being scared and terrified but watching this movie in spite of that. That's not what I remember this movie as at all, and it's not the reason I watch it at least once a year. That sad and melancholy feeling, and the dreamscape-like visuals and a soundtrack that's far more evocative than it has any business to be, combined with that feeling of 'these characters aren't very strong, capable characters, but they're on my side and that's all I need', are what I love it for.
It was and still is an amazing movie. I saw it today after 30 years and I still think it was very well directed and produced.
I love how Ebert is going on about which book the film should be based on when his comparison is based on the original 1939 film version of Wizard of OZ showing his ignorance of the source material. The original Wizard of OZ book was WAY darker than that film (and better than the film IMO). Return to OZ was so much more accurate to the original books which is a big part of why I feel this film destroys Wizard of OZ. I'm not taking away the historical significance of the 1939 film as it is still a fine film but in terms of the original tone/feel of the books, Return to OZ is the clear winner and its always saddened me that they never got to continue the series with this style. I feel like the 1939 film has been put on such a pedestal that it hangs like a cloud over the series and prevents other adaptations from ever gaining traction with audiences.
Besides which Wizard of Oz was also denigrated for it's witch that the reviewers said children were leaving crying and in the depths of horror that needed medical care to save them from near death. I'm so glad they didn't follow the MGM Oz movie it's different for some good reasons. It will last and be entertainment for as long as were around to enjoy them.
I would have liked to see their reactions to the Dark Crystal or Labyrinth lol
I like the 1939 film, but I totally agree. Does anyone remember how many creatures the Tin Man has to kill with his ax? Or hell, what about the Tin Man's origin story? It's pure horror.
But Siskel & Ebert are just 2 elitist critics that were authorities before the Lehman was able to commune with his fellow peer to form the counter-culture review: Audience Score.
This film isn't anywhere as good as WoZ.
However, it's for sure underrated.
Gosh, the music for this movie is just so nostalgic and eerily beautiful
Siskel and Ebert were jerks anyway. 'Return to Oz" was just ahead of its time, imho. Steampunk enthusiasts salivate when they see this film.
Jerks? No. Wrong? At times.
Billy Barnett You are correct, I renege on that comment, I actually liked listening to them in the day, and they both gave an equal side to a film.
Jack T Besides, as much as I disagree with Gene here, he's still a lot better than Richard. He claimed people were on drugs for liking the spongebob movie and the show in general.
Jack T I wouldn't say they were jerks, it just didn't appeal to them. It was harsh of one of them to say that they were glad of Return to Oz's box office failure, but I think time has definitely turned Return of Oz into a cult childhood classic. Before I discovered Doctor Who, Return to Oz was definitely the movie that had me hiding behind the sofa!
harrietamidala1691 You're correct and I renigue my former opinion on that. Return to Oz really is a cult classic now. I'm especially fond of Tik Tok and the whole imagery of the film in general.
The problem with films today is that while computer generated graphics and images are awesome (like Transformers) the film lacks all the imagination we had with real life characters on set, whether actual actors in costume or puppet. The mastery of puppetry is diminishing and the only real use of it now is Indie film makers. I watched one last night titled "Wolf Cop" (2014) - LOVED IT!! They essentially brought back the old school makeup werewolf and all its splendor. Great comedy - well made.
This is the best Oz movie. Anyone who read the Oz books will love this movie miles over the other ones. I can't believe critics slammed this movie because it was too "dark" Blegh!
I'm with u, I love this one more then the original
@@x-menlol1613 The original Oz movie was made in 1910.
@@MaskedMan66 I mean the 1939 version
@x-men lol I figured you did. ;-)
It's sad that kids moves shouldn't be dark, why!? As a kid I loved "dark" films like this and I think kids need this kind of movies to grow and develop their imagination. These movies made me imaginative and opened the love for movies for me.. Its a huge underestimating that kids shouldn't see any "scary" things!? That's what kinds and grown ups love! We need some suspense and adventure to our lives.
As I grown up now, I want to make this kind of movies as now I have been studying filmmaking 2 years. "childrends fantasy horror" is a genre that I grew up with and still love it and keep it close to my heart. I think we need this kind of (not CGI) fantasy horror in the 2020s!
I like this version over the original, to be honest I would have preferred to have seen them redoing at the time the Wizard of Oz with this darker tone. The books were generally quite dark in nature, and the 1939 film, was very light in comparison to the books.
The thing that might have stopped them for doing that is Disney.
*from
Ironically, though, the Witch in the 1939 film was WAY scarier than in the book.
MGM's movie wasn't "the original." It was the third big-screen version of "Wizard.'
@@Emper0rH0rde I dunno. A one-eyed hunchback crone does seem scary compared to Margaret Hamilton doused in green toxic copper paint.
Absolutely love this movie. So much heart and imagination behind it, unlike most of recent cgi heavy nonsense that's been pumped out over recent years. You just can't beat practical effects, nothing against cgi but it's been way too over used now days.
Rubbish; there are good and bad examples of both. FX is FX, that's all.
@Frizzurd What are you talking about? All I was saying is that there are good and bad examples of all manner of special effects, including bad stop motion and good CGI. You seem to be spoiling for a fight.
"Don't remake classic films!' Hmmm... Hollywood didn't listen to that did they?
nor should they have
@@linkeragon7885 Right. Because if you think the new ones stink, like so many of the horror remakes have, you appreciate teh originals all the more. And if it's good, you've got a new classic to add to the collection.
Walter Murch and company didn't remake any classic films. They created something brand new from elements of two BOOKS.
This film didn't really frighten me as a child. I thought, and still this this is a wonderful film. And if I have kids of my own, I would show it to them.
This is a brilliant and under-appreciated movie, much better than almost anything else that has ever come from Baum's source material. For the era of its release, the visual fx were extraordinary; Jack, Tik-Tok, The Gump and the rest of the Ozites are incredibly lifelike and brilliantly realized. It's also a very serious and mature film with elements of real danger and a plot that moves quickly (unlike most bloated, lengthy movies nowadays). I've read that the influence of older horror genre films (particularly British horror movies) influenced the Director's portrayal of the gnomes and the gnome king's mountain. The soundtrack is also unforgettable with beautiful themes bringing unique life to each character (in particular the strings for Ozma/Dorothy and the brass for Tik-Tok). Although the script takes the second and third books (as well as some elements of the sixth and seventh books... and others for those who want to be technical about it) in the series and mashes them together, I believe that it actually improves on the experience and expedites the plot in some ways. All-in-all, it was a brave departure from the MGM musical that so many of us know and love (a movie that mined very little from the source material itself). Also of great significance is the fact that this film does perpetuate the brilliant traditions of parallelism and ambiguity set in motion when the decision was made to cast the same actors who played the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion as the farm hands leaving the audience wondering if the whole movie was a dream or if it really happened - with a HUGE potential wink or acknowledgement (that could also been interpreted either way) coming toward the very end of the movie which I won't spoil for anyone who has not seen it.
So much love.
Actually, both the movie and its novelization make it pretty clear that Oz is real.
P.S.: Nome King.
I remember being scared throughout this movie... but I kept watching it because I was interested in the story and I liked the characters. :D
I actually like this more than the first movie. :)
If you mean the MGM "Wizard," it's actually the seventh Oz movie. The first was made in 1910. ;-)
This film terrified me so much as a child, those stilt creatures and the pervasive dark atmosphere were truly disturbing. I'm very glad i watched it in my youth though, kids today don't get deep films nowadays, just streamlined predictable plots endlessly recycled into mediocrity
The dark pall cast over Oz by the Nome King was part of the point; Dorothy had to put an end to it-- and by golly, she did!
I thought the electro therapy scene was very realistic. Dorothy would’ve stuck to her convictions and would’ve been scene as a troubled youth. They also could’ve done the ice pick lobotomy and it would’ve made sense also.
@@captaincrunch7126 There was never anything about an "ice pick lobotomy."
The complains of Siskel and Ebert reminds me of guys complaining about sequels and remakes because is not the same movie they watched as kids.
I watched this movie as a kid and loooooooooooooooooooooooooved, its scary for adults not for kids,
After this movie I became obsesses with the other Frank L. Baum Oz novels, and after reading all the original oz novels I need to say that this movie is the version most close to the books until now.
That's why in the late 80s an early 90s Disney made touchstone pictures for adults.
Have you read the entire Oz canon, known as the Famous Forty?
The phrase "hiding behind the sofa" has always been associated with Doctor Who, but I also think it applies perfectly to Return to Oz.
Except try finding a sofa in a movie theater.
The Wheelers used to creep the shit out of me! Probably still do?
I had nightmares but I still loved it!
LOVE Return to Oz! I first saw it at the age of 7 or 8 and not only was I not scared of it, I checked it out of the video rental store at least 10 or 12 times before finally getting it on VHS myself. I'd read the books earlier and thought it was a much more faithful adaptation than the MGM version (although it could have used more of Baum's trademark humor) Granted the MGM version had some fun songs -- but Return to Oz got to show me Oz (just wish we could have stayed at the Emerald City a little longer at the end).
I don't care what anyone says -- to me Fairuza Balk IS Dorothy, not Judy Garland!
I always thought of Dolph Lungrin as Dorothy!!!
351cleavland It's Lundgren.
351cleavland That scene where Dolph kills a flying monkey with the heel of his ruby slipper made me appreciate the subtleties of his performance. Oz: Battle of the Damned is an underrated action classic.
Both are excellent Dorothys, but Ruza comes closer to the brave, practical child of the books. Neither of them has the correct hair color, however.
@@MaskedMan66 Depends on the colorization. Some people who've touched up Denslow's illustrations have made Dorothy's hair brown to coincide with the film adaptations of her character & had her outfit match the color scheme of Judy's depiction, but retained the Silver Shoes over the Ruby Slippers, as per the original narrative.
This movie gave me nightmares as a child but I love it.
This movie was and still is brilliant.
I agree. It's a refreshing and stunning film.
This movie is now a cult classic and is still extremely hard to find on DVD or Blu-ray. It’s a gem if you find it. Much sought after by a lot of fans. Disney and at the time had no idea how well and beloved it became much later in time.
$10 on Amazon...
It's on Disney plus
@@phillipspeers2661 Is it tho??!
I love the original because it's a timeless classic. And I love "return" because it's such a thought provoking movie. Very different films but both great in their own way.
The original Oz movie is _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ from 1910.
Truly excellent film. Close to the original Grimm's tales in tone. The smart, moral child winning out against the monstrous, selfish adults.
The Grimms had nothing to do with Oz; Oz is the creation of L. Frank Baum. And don't forget that Dorothy's friends are mostly adults, if non-human ones.
This is a film that I appreciate more now that I am older.
It's very clever and if you watch it with an open mind it's a great ride.
I saw this in theaters when I was about 10 or 11, and I liked it quite a bit. I wasn't familiar with the "darkness" that was taken out of original fairy tales or children's stories at that age, but have since read the unedited versions. Things made more sense with their darkness included. And it was appropriate to put it in, it was a more adult version of it. Still, if one was familiar with the series of books it was closer to the actual books. People are so married to the classics that it's too difficult to take a more creative approach.
I loved the film as a kid.
I loved this movie so much when I was a kid, I still enjoy watching it.
A quote from Tim Burton's Big Eyes: "Why does someone have to be a critic? Because they can't create" I loved this movie, Tick Tock is my favourite, the scene where he cries always make me want to cry.
I grew up watching this movie as a kid and it was seriously one of my favorites. Sure it's an aesthetic departure from the original but it was made several decades later. I had no idea it was such a flop when it came out.
The Oz books are Dark. The original Wizard of Oz has over 80 decapitations in it....
Only forty-one. One wildcat and forty marauding wolves. But there's zero blood. And the story isn't dark, nor are the characters.
@RockManLP Except that it happened before the story began; in any case, as is later shown in his eponymous book, his original head is still alive.
@@MaskedMan66 Tin Woodman cuts up his own body with his own axe which has been enchanted, then he chops down a tree and chops it again to kill beasts called Kalidahs who are trying to eat them, kills a wildcat to save a mouse, kills a battle while walking on the road, kills wolves, the scarecrow kills 40 crows, the lion is tied up by the flying monkeys and taken to the castle, they geet attacked by trees and he cuts their limbs off to save them, the lion fights a giant ass spider, there may not be the kind of blood like is written and seen today, but killing and fighting, and such is still a dark violent story, and there is no getting around that. Toto almost dies during the tornado to Oz, by falling through the open cellar door, and Dorothy has to call over to reach out to get him, Baum wrote it for children, but he did tell dark story's which get darker and more political at every story.
@@wwozanewmusical The Oz stories are neither dark nor overtly political. He tells all the events you mentioned with a light, matter-of-fact prose which makes them seem not all that horrific; plus, he was a master of puns and sheer whimsy. There are always lots of laughs to be had in the Oz books. You also didn't bother to mention intent; the Tin Woodman was not some murderer. Just because there's violence in a story, that doesn't mean it's a "violent story," especially since there are so many other facets to it.
Baum's stories are far less horrific than some of the classic fairy tales to which he objected, like those of the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen. And yet, children have loved those for centuries.
One more nit-picky detail: it's the Winged Monkeys, not "flying monkeys."
Saw this in the cinema as a child and yes, between Mumby and the Wheelers, it scared me shirtless but I loved it. Bonus points for mentioning Somewhere In Time.
Please do a retrospective on 'Oz the Great and Powerful'; I find that film just as compelling as 'Return to Oz', production-wise, at least.
Notice how Siskel and Ebert criticize the makers of Return to Oz for its strong and frightening scenes, but never have the balls to criticize L. Frank Baum who was responsible for the story in the first place. Yet another example of their middle-of-the-road hackery. I'm soooo glad Oliver Harper doesn't use these guys anymore. He's a much better critic and doesn't need to look up to these hacks.
I agree. I may have not have read the books or saw Return to Oz but that review was a total research fail. Ever since I was growing up and learning about film criticism, I had a long time to understand the importance of not always agreeing with the critics I enjoy listening to.
You know what's weird? When they did some of their specials like Star Wars or the MPAA rating system, they did their research fine but with Return to Oz, they didn't do any. Don't get me wrong, I love the 1939 MGM musical but that doesn't mean that I think that every Oz film should be for children, which is what they're insinuating.
The best way for me to rid all memory of the review is to watch either James Rolfe's book to film comparison to the Oz series or read Roger Ebert's review of The Wizard of Oz in his Great Movies series as he actually acknowledged the troubled shoot though he still ignored the books. For you, you're better off with James Rolfe's.
Bad news Jim, they're not the only critics who failed at their research on the source material. Here's Leonard Maltin's review from Entertainment Tonight: czcams.com/video/NGHg_0WzcJo/video.html
Jim Slav Now that I have read the books, now I noticed that. But I'm here to cover what I think is the real issue of the review that nobody else seems to cover. Many people watch the show back in the day, and sometimes take their opinions as "the truth" without having an open mind and/or doing their own research. Because of this mindset, people back in 1985 are really gonna believe that much of the dark material and characters were made up by the filmmakers, when really they are taken from the source material. It's one thing if people prefer the 1939 MGM classic over Return to Oz, it's another to base their opinions on a steaming pile of monkey fuck (James Rolfe taught me that one). BTW, I'm almost done with North Carolina and will be home tomorrow. So that's good news. But I feel I have get this out of my chest and that's why I felt that their review is still a problem.
Hi Jim. I know you're having time and money to buy new equipment, but I'm writing this because I'm having a very busy life in the summer and early fall. I'm thinking about taking some online courses, water aerobics, bowling, and softball. So my blogging might be a bit limited. 3 ambitious projects I've been think about doing in the future is my coverage on the troubled history of Star Wars, a Christmas in July special devoted to my pans on the Adam Sandler animated comedy Eight Crazy Nights, and my debunk on Siskel and Ebert's infamous 1980 special devoted to the slasher genre because there's so much wrong with the episode. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I can't watch all the movies they discussed on the episode and I apologize if I ignored something big. Very busy life I'm about to have.
I can't count how many times I watched this as a kid. The scene where Dorothy steals Mombi's powder of life, Chilling. One of my Top favorite movies. The effects are better than most modern day films.
Loved this as a kid! It popped into my head last night while falling to sleep. Went looking for it. Would love to watch the original again!
I had the VHS when I was little. I still have it on my shelf!
Nicely done! I love Return to Oz and have seen it many times, and this makes me want to watch it again.
There's a rumor that Walter Murch oversaw a HD restoration, so we might be getting a Blu-Ray soon!
I hugely prefer this adaptation over the musical since it greatly adheres to the L. Frank Baum OZ books in terms of adaptations.
How do you mean?
As a note about S&E missing that kids were scared of the original, I'm living proof. I saw a reissue of it in a theater in the early 50s when I was very young, and every time Margaret Hamilton showed up as the Wicked Witch, I ducked down so that I couldn't see the screen!
This was always one of my favorites and I thought was overlooked.
Great retrospective and review! THANKS!!
it got a blu ray release finally
@Ryan Stewart It was a Disney Movie Club exclusive release. But you can also find it on Amazon. Albeit, it is quite expensive (it costs about twice the price of a new-release movie), but as a huge fan, I thought it was worth it.
7:52 What an unfair review.
Dude, it's not the same universe as the original. It's based more on the books.
@GatorViolet Even what you're calling "the original" isn't the original Oz movie. It's the seventh. :-)
Those dudes rarely gave fair reviews.
God I hate Roger Ebert, can't believe that people value anything he has to say.
SamJawBone he “had to say”
Count me among the fans of this beautiful and well crafted film.
Jack had a huge impact on me when I was a kid. I was obsessed with how tall he was. Ironically I ended up being 6'8. I also saw this at my grandparents house and my grandfathers name is Jack.
"Return to Oz" One of the best movies ever in my opinion. Yes it's scary for kids, it scared my when I was five, but who said kids of that age would have to see it?
When I was little I would make my brother put the sofas together and pretend it was the gump.
The movie shoots itself in the foot by using the name Return to Oz. The Judy Garland Oz movie is so ubiquitous that people thought ‘Return’ in the title meant Return to Judy Garland’s Oz movie. Instead, they should have directly used Baum’s Oz book sequel titles the movie references. This would have also laid the groundwork for two or three movie sequels with the screenplay properly adapted.
Thank you very much, Im glad you feel inspired to watch it again!. my job is done. lol
Seen both oz movies...can't stand the first one but really like this one....love this fantasy movies that simply look so good...the same level as the never ending story, labyrinth, The Dark Christal, Legend, Krull, Excalibur and time bandits and also as Dark...and that's what is so awesome with this films...those 2 critics failed to see that beauty of the movie and focus only in kids and if they would like it...saw it as a kid and it rocks.
louiethepitt The Wizard of Oz is best movie ever made.
Matthew Bennett
that may be the case according to your taste...but still that doesn't mean that this 2 critics fail to see beyond some little children from that era....saw that back to oz as a child and it rock.....maybe it was ahead of its time.
louiethepitt Return to Oz was ahead of its time and very groundbreaking its an impressive version of Oz that I quite enjoy just not as much as the 1939 version which also was ahead of its time and one of the most groundbreaking films of its era.
"Don't remake classic films! Don't even get near the classics!"
Hmm, what a relevant comment for summer 2016 films. Too bad modern studios don't feel the same way; very little originality in Hollywood these days.
Remakes can be good. I mean the Wizard of Oz was a remake of a 1920s silent film.....oh....wait......
There was more than one silent Oz movie, one was so loosely based on characters it was funny at the time but then the deeper idea I find interesting.Aunt Em and Uncle Henry were evil people trying to make Dorothy think she was from Kansas whereas she wasn't. She was from Oz. There was a lot of running around with arms flaying and clasping of hands in fear or whatever emotion that was in the silent years. Too many wide shots that were done no doubt because of the amount of light needed to film any movie of that time. The silent one they are referring to was maybe the one that L. Frank Baum was a director for. That at least had a tins woodsman and a scarecrow and something in a outfit to be a lion I spose. It's ok for it's time. I could imagine people in the dust bowl areas watching the sandstorm with tornado wanting to check outside to see if it was really blowing out there.
This wasn't a remake of anything. Nor would a new version of "Wizard" be a remake; it would be a new version based on the same material, but having nothing to do with MGM at all.
@@joedigger9919 The first Oz movie was made in 1910, and two years before that, Baum filmed selected scenes from his first three books for a multimedia presentation he toured with.
@Reepacheirp firewalker In Larry Semon's 1925 movie, Henry and Em weren't evil, they were keeping her secret until the appointed time, and Henry became one of Dorothy's courtiers in Oz. Baum's silent movies are enormous fun.
I’m an 80’s baby and I absolutely adore this movie.
Princess Momby and her Hallway of Heads is one of my favorite scenes as is when Dorthy steals the Key to get into Momby’s original case, my other favorite is when she finds Tic Toc and last but not least when the Gnome King offers Dorthy to eat with him… I listen to the soundtrack and I’m pleased to have found that there is behind the scenes footage avail on CZcams. Thank you for covering this 80’s cult film !!! 💚🙏🏻
You ever noticed that the climax looks like that they're in Hell? You have fire and demons everywhere.
There was a 30th Anniversary Edition Blu Ray that was released a couple of months ago and there is no special features on it!
Some 30th Anniversary Edition!
The gir who plays Dorothy is the right age for Dorothy, for some reason in the original they aged her up
My dad bought this for my children in the 90's. We all loved it. The kids watched it many times. The scary Ness was one of the things we enjoyed about it.
This is one of my most favorite movies of all time. I read the comic book adaptation when I was 7 years old.
Thank you Oliver, another classic film that visually stimulated my imagination when I was younger. You gave it the review it deserved that Siskel and Ebert were terribly wrong at. This film did stay closer to the original source material more than the 1939 one did. And I definitely agree it should not be forgotten> :)
I managed to get a Blu-ray copy of this on eBay from America (It's only been released to Disney Club members, and only in America). It looks great :D
+Phillip Parr A lot of people are uploading digital torrents of the blu-ray now...
APRICEPRODUCTION but are they recompressed, or as ripped?
There is two versions 720p and 1080p BrRip x264 - YIFY usually they are the full ripped version no loss in quality... uploaded sometime this year in April.
APRICEPRODUCTION just checked - it's 19.6GB straight off of the disc
+Phillip Parr The one uploaded is in MP4, at just under 2GB, but usually what they do is convert it from the Blu-ray folders into a single file... Generally the quality tends to be identical, to the disc size version in picture and quality. But you tend to lose, multi tracks or special features, and generally left with the film intact.
That thing Roger Ebert does with his hands when he's talking drives me nuts haha.
Love this film, really freaked me out as a kid. So of course I showed it to my nieces when they were 7/8.
I prefer this over the original but I guess that's because I'm a kid of the 80s and find this aesthetic more appealing. That and I hate musicals.
Rods toy box I love the first movie better this is to bleak and horrifying. I like it though.
@@matthewbennett9928 Ah, so you've seen the one from 1910, have you?
"Dont remake classic films "
So they shouldn't have made the 39 movie as it was a remake of the silent film from the 20s, and the numerous films from the early 1900s?
I’m coming back to watch this review because I just watched Return To Oz after not seeing it for years. I think it’s an absolutely fantastic film. Superb acting, characters, special effects, emotion, beautiful music etc. Soooo much charisma and it’s very thought provoking. My 3 year old loves it. Scariest scene by far is Maumbi’s head in that cabinet!!! 😱. It’s an absolute masterpiece, so thank you for this review Oliver!
I had this movie on vhs. It was one of my favorite. Ppl should definitely watch its so creative!
Now I know where my PTSD came from....
While I like Siskel and Ebert and respect them as critics, I can't deny they made some errors. They were too quick to judge some very good adult horror films like the Nightmare on Elm Street films (well, 1, and 3). They were also too quick to judge films like The Dark Crystal and the first Ninja Turtles (the 1990 version) and assumed that just because children's films are aimed at kids, they should remain light-hearted.
You're absolutely right, they constantly flip flop in their reviews. They praise family films with dark content yet criticized this film for being dark. They didn't seem to do research on the books like I did. And there are actually dark moments in the 1939 movie. That is the most ignorant review I've ever seen from them. Other than that and their occasional snobbery, I enjoy their reviews too. (I only saw the 1939 movie but I kinda knew something was wrong with their Return to Oz review)
I actually remember Ebert praised Disney's Pinocchio for being dark. And as we all know that movie did have some pretty nightmarish images.
Connor Brennan Elm Street's films are all sorta good. 1 obviously, 2 is alright (Freddy in the film is terrifying), 3 obviously, 4 is a really fun movie but yeah its not scary, 5 has good sets story and atmosphere but yeah its sorta cheesy and Freddy's Dead well...
plus they got that pedo vibe to them
This movie was on every other day in my house back in the 80's and early 90's when my sisters and I were children. Return to Oz, Labyrinth, and Never Ending Story. My mother's cousin owned a video store and he copied a VHS for us because it was unavailable to purchase anywhere for a time. We all loved it. I liked the serious take, the darker story of an apocalyptic land of Oz. I actually wish we saw more of the restored Oz at the end. I know they put a lot of money and effort into the costuming of all the Oz inhabitants when I got to see some close-up photos. We had a book with a red cover all about OZ films from the silent era to this film, I loved it! It was called "The World of Oz: A Fantastic Expedition over the Rainbow" by Allen Eyles. Copies are on eBay. I'll need to buy it again. We couldn't find the soundtrack until 2000's when the fansites came out. Please with Siskel and Egbert, I don't remember the OZ books being 'Musicals.' That's such a lame reason for it not to be in the same league as the 1939 film. Fairuza Balk's performance totally went over their heads too.
I grew up on this film, as well as many others you have reviewed, and this was a favorite. I enjoyed it far more than the Judy Garland version and always recommend people watch it. Amazing review and you captured my feelings on it all too well.
I loved loved this movie as a kid my brother who 3 1/2 years older found it scary
Tik-Tok was an awesome character.
Best Wizard of Oz ever made, felt like I was literally watching the book in terms of feel and look
Loved this film. Still do. I always wanted to be this version of Dorothy as a kid :)
Siskel and Ebert are horrible critics who have no clue what they are talking about. First of all they are too old to be critiquing children's films and should not compare the sequel to the original. I for one like the sequel way better just because it was more edgy and not too sugary sweet. Critics usually have bad tastes in movies
You are correct-they are too old to be critiquing films because they are both dead.
I am aware that they are deceased as of this present time............however I was referring to the time they were alive, and this film they were reviewing
They weren't horrible, they just weren't always right, like every other critic.
My opinon buddy. They just seem to go with the majority on everything. Not everything needs to be picked apart even if you're a critic.
LiquidThunder2121 Okay, you clearly haven't seen or read many of there reviews, they have claimed moves that people loved and were hits were crap. That's not going with the majority. Especially with Ebert, he even prasied movies that people hated a lot.
Love the review.
I’m very happy to see a positive review and all the positive comments here. I adore this film and have for 30+ years.
This film and Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981) are the only films that have brought me to tears. I wept hard one night watching this, suffering a bad flu, shedding tears of sadness and joy. I almost avoid it now because I don't know how to reconcile such emotions.
The original wizard of oz REALLY deviated from the books. If these two bodies would read a book every once in a while instead of only watching films they would know that...
to the counter defense of the 39 film, the reason for this is because when they made it they took elements from all forms of Oz-The original book, The stage plays, and the other films released in the 10s and 20s. Even L. Frank Baum's own films deviated from the books in most ways. the only problem is that all modern Oz films seem to be guilt tripped into thinking they MUST take elements from the 39 film rather then try and be it's own thing(which is why the film succeeded in the first place.)
fawfulmark2
True -- Baum probably would have enjoyed the 1939 film (since he loved vaudeville and had produced some stage plays that were more similar to the MGM film than his own books)
That said, the later Oz books Baum wrote were written for his fans -- which I think is why Return to Oz (which is much more faithful to his books) struck such a strong chord in the fans of the books. No other Oz film has come so close in bringing the land of Oz -- as depicted by Baum and John R Neill -- to life as Return to Oz. (Oz the Great and Powerful is a good attempt though)
To hell with Siskel and Ebert. They were without a doubt some of the worst film critics ever! Return to OZ is an underrated film.
no hassle They dumped on Lifeforce as well. Probably Director wannabes that couldn't cut it so they just shit on all the good stuff. Pair of holes.
They were not the worst!
I thought i hadn't seen this movie, but seeing the footage.. i definately did as a kid. i Seem to recall liking it.
I LOOOVED this movie as a young child. This was my childhood. I remember always wanting to watch it. I don’t remember it scaring me, I think if it did I would remember. It’s a very good film
It's a shame that Tic-Toc didn't make an appearance in the movie OZ The Great and the Powerful.
He might not have been invented yet in the film's timeline
This Dorothy is the most beautiful girl I've ever seen. And I'm not surprised that the Japanese loved this movie - what with all their 'perverted Japanese salarymen'. "Return To Oz" is way better than most fantasy films and much more true to the original material, I'm sure. Siskel and Ebert make idiots of themselves, as usual. Are these two guys so stupid that they can't imagine that this is based on the books and not the previous film? I always thought these guys were basic...but since watching them on CZcams in more depth, I gotta say, these reviewers were absolute buffoons.
Not really, they, just like every other critic at one or more times, were wrong.
Billy Barnett They were right about "My Dinner With Andre". That's a fascinating film.
johnellizz They were right about Roger Rabbit and Beavis and Butt-Head Do America.
I grew up in the 80’s and have Always loved this movie.. its sooo unique. Amazing and I love it always
The film critics were excessively harsh with this film. The audience too wasn't ready for a darker adaptation of a children's book(with horror undertones in the first act and with the witch segment). I watched It on Disney+ yesterday and I'm blown away by some the special effects used, the mate paintings, set designs, costumes, Fairuza Balk's acting, score...It's sad the film didn't do good in the box office because It's a very competent one and could have become a classic If It were appreciated for what It was, instead of being in the shadow of the 1939 version. A real gem!
This is what's called fixing a horrible musical that totally twisted the actual books in a way worse than Percy Jackson. The original writer would have been so pleased Disney fixed the disaster that was The Wizard of Oz musical.
+shadowkat678 I'm not a fan of musicals either. Watching them sing and dance is a buzz kill and takes me out of the story.
MIke Putz Thank goodness I'm not the only one...
shadowkat678 I don't mind the original musical but I love Return To Oz MILES better.
Same here. Can't stand Wizard of Oz
I never liked Siskel and Ebert anyway.
I've seen better from S&E than this crap.
I watched this movie as a child. I enjoyed it when I was eight and I watched it a few years ago and I still enjoy it.
Thanks for the feedback!. I like the idea you mentioned about the grandfather reading the book at the start and end.
I was about ten when I saw this in the theater and loved it. It was both creepy and wholesome with awesome practical effects and stop motion. I remember how amazed I was at Billina. She looked so real. The puppeteers were so creative and expressive with their work.