Interesteg What makes it different from others?

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

bkoganbing There are well over 20 different adaptions on the big screen and small of L. Frank Baum's Wizard Of Oz, only one of which is the well known and immortal one that every child starts seeing on television around the age of 2. Before films were a going concern, The Wizard Of Oz had a stage version that ran a couple of years in the first decade of the last century that starred the famous vaudeville team of David Montgomery&Fred Stone.This silent version of Larry Semon's creation will never replace the MGM classic of 1939. For one thing there simply isn't any fantasy involved. Oz is not on some other plane of existence, it's a real place where Dorothy actually belongs, she's the exiled princess much like Luke Skywalker was exiled to whatever planet in the galaxy he was at. She discovers this on her 18th birthday when her heritage is revealed.Another thing is that indeed the Wizard is as much a humbug as Frank Morgan was in 1939, but here he's supposed to change the farmhands who along with Uncle Henry and Auntie Em have come with Dorothy to Oz in that massive tornado. They're in most unconvincing disguises and you always know it was a disguise. In the more famous film, never do you doubt that Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, and Bert Lahr are who they are supposed to be.In fact some rather crude racial humor is used for the Cowardly Lion as it is played by a black actor named Spencer Bell. Part of the film calls for Bell and Semon who is the Scarecrow to be in a den of real lions. What happens just isn't funny and worse you know that Lahr and Bolger would have carried off the comedy.I think most people watch this version of The Wizard Of Oz to see Oliver Hardy as the Tin Man. At this time before he teamed with Stan Laurel, Ollie was doing a lot of work as a second banana comedian with Semon. He's only very briefly the Tin Man and just doesn't cut it.This version Of The Wizard Of Oz was a huge flop and deservedly so from what I've seen. It remains a curiosity, nothing more.

cricket crockett . . . of all time, it's not hard to understand how this repetitious, soulless, racist waste of film bankrupted its studio and its writer\director\star, Larry Semon. (Some film critics contend that Semon once was mentioned in the same breath with Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd, but these pundits are most likely bluffing and playing "Gotcha!" in an attempt to over-inflate their own stature.) Eggs eggs eggs bees bees bees mud mud mud boxes boxes boxes lions lions lions: that pretty much sums up the "plot" of Semon's lame 1925 silent version of THE WIZARD OF OZ. Since when does a hen lay eight eggs at a time? Since when do Black farm hands shirk work to chomp pilfered watermelons? Since when do people routinely survive 50- and 75-foot-falls none the worse for wear? GONE WITH THE WIND's excess essentially killed off its source material (Margaret Mitchell's novel). Unlike, say, JANE EYRE or GREAT EXPECTATIONS, there's not a new film version to enjoy of GWTW each generation. Larry Semon tried to pull the same GWTW trick on OZ. Fortunately, he failed to do so.

Syl I didn't read the book by L. Frank Baum so I can't say if this adaptation is faithful but it was adapted by his son for a screenplay. In this silent film version, everything is minimal but still it is entertaining at times. The cast stars Dorothy Dwan as Dorothy. The supporting cast has Oliver Hard from Laurel and Hardy as the Tin woodsman. The film has retained Dorothy, the scarecrow, the tin man, and the lion in it's cast. There are no special effects but there are large crowd scenes. The story is about Dorothy who is the rightful heir to the kingdom of Oz but the Wizard of Oz is doing everything he can to keep her from gaining the throne. There is no tornado or wicked witches but the wicked wizard. This film would be good for die-hard Wizard of Oz fans as well as silent film-buffs but for not much else.