Leofwine_draca
This silent adaptation of the L. Frank Baum classic - so memorably filmed in glorious Technicolor in 1939 - is nothing like the famous version we all know and love. That's because pretty much all of the story has been jettisoned in favour of another, slightly twee tale that nonetheless features all of the famous characters.This production was clearly a labour of love for director Larry Semon, who also bags minor supporting roles. Dorothy Dwan is Dorothy, nothing like Judy Garland, looking a lot older for a start. The other characters are present with the addition of a comedy black farmhand called Snowball. Most interesting of all for the modern viewer, Oliver Hardy appears, looking young and slim (ish). All of the characters play multiple roles in both the real world and in Oz, as in the 1939 version.THE WIZARD OF OZ boasts some good, fun special effects scenes which I really enjoyed, including the bit with the barn flying through the sky which I thought was incredible for its era. The bit with Snowball being chased by a lightning bolt is hilarious. Unfortunately the rest of the story is a bit long-winded and not a patch on the Baum source material. It feels simplistic, focusing on the visuals too much and lacking real meat. The 1939 film is the one to stick with when it comes to Oz.
Lee Eisenberg
We all know "The Wizard of Oz", right? Well, we know Victor Fleming's 1939 musical adaptation. But then there's Larry Semon's 1925 version, which has to be one of the single weirdest movies ever made. Part of this is because there's little similarity to the version that everyone knows: no Toto, no witches, no Munchkins and no Yellow Brick Road. Instead, there's a bunch of slapstick humor (complete with a clean-shaven Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodsman). And unfortunately, there's a black man named Snowball.While watching the movie I made a bunch of MST3K-style comments at it - most of them unrepeatable here - just because of how over-the-top it was. For example, people jump from high altitudes and survive. It's one of those what-were-they-smoking-when-they-came-up-with-this movies. You have to see it to believe it. The only analogy is the Soviet version of "Mary Poppins" (yes, there was one).I've never read Frank Baum's novel. I hope to eventually. I understand that the more famous movie adaptation is closer to the novel. Whatever the case, you can't say that you've truly seen "The Wizard of Oz" until you've seen this version!
Neil Doyle
This WIZARD OF OZ is merely a frantic slapstick showcase for LARRY SEMON, apparently a silent comedian who is unknown to today's audiences and who died at a young age (39). He had a hand in the production and even designed his own Scarecrow costume, but the film is a curio that starts with a toymaker (again, LARRY SEMON) who tells a little girl the story of Dorothy (DOROTHY DWAN) from Kansas who, it turns out, is heir to be ruler of The Land of Oz.But the story he tells has nothing whatsoever to do with L. Frank Baum's story as we know it from the '39 version starring Judy Garland. And this Dorothy is a grown-up young lady of 18 who bats her eyelashes and puts a finger to her lips in a coy manner as though signifying youthful uncertainty.The only connection to the Oz story Baum gave us is the tornado, the effects for which are very good for 1925, and the combination of the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and The Cowardly Lion. OLIVER HARDY is the Tin Man (before his screen partnership with Stan Laurel), SPENCER BELL, a black man, is the Cowardly Lion and LARRY SEMON hogs the whole show as The Scarecrow. The best I can say for Lemon is that his costume and make-up for the role is laudable.But the fragments of story used here are all over the map, the key to everything being the chance to have all of the performers involved in slapstick stunts. Only MARY CARR as Aunt Em is spared this indignity.There are a few well staged moments that one can appreciate but all in all it's a bit too much for any adult to watch and I have no idea what children thought of this bizarre exercise in slapstick comedy.
sunspott
This film SHOULD have bankrupted everyone associated with it, to concur with Walter Kerr! I saw clips of it years ago on PBS, with a soundtrack cobbled together from Copland's OUR TOWN score and other classical selections. Not half-bad, made me curious to see more, having just read the original Oz book. Then I saw the complete film years later on cable. Whaa-OH! Not GOOD, either! Twelve parts Semon's desperation slapstick to one part Baum gave me one walloping cinematic hangover! Those titles like the quote in the above summary! Those falls from towers, airplanes, haystacks--and don't forget the mud baths! That puking duck! That THING out of the basket! I'd recommend this only for the virulently curious and undaunted. Track down Richard Roberts' superb three-part CLASSIC IMAGES essay on Semon before you do--it's online, try the Semon entry in Wikipedia. You'll find it by far more amusing (and coherent) than this film!
AD
