IMDb > The Wizard of Oz (1925) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
The Wizard of Oz (1925) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 32 comments in total 

20 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
A Pretty Weird Adaptation, 2 January 2003
Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio

This is a pretty weird adaptation of the "Wizard of Oz", bearing only a passing resemblance either to the original book or to the beloved Judy Garland version. The story is much different, and the characters look and act much differently. Frankly, most of it isn't really very good, although for those who enjoy silent films there are some points of historical interest.

Instead of the more familiar story of young Dorothy's trip to Oz, the scenario here has a melodrama centering on a somewhat older Dorothy (Dorothy Dwan), combined with some slapstick involving the Oz characters. In itself, it's not necessarily a big problem to adapt the story (after all, the great 1939 version also made some significant changes from the book), but this one does not really fit together very well, and it certainly does not work as well as the more familiar story. It really looks as if Larry Semon just tried far too hard to put his own personal stamp on the story, instead of simply trying to make a good movie version of the Wizard. It's interesting to see Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodman, but he doesn't really get a lot to do, and a number of the other characters are ill-conceived, and do not work out well at all. It's also plagued with a lot of excruciating puns in the title cards, plus other similar problems.

Some of the finest movies ever made came from this era, when the silents were at their peak, and it should have been possible to make a first-rate adaptation of the Oz story, but unfortunately this isn't it. With its overdone attempts at humor and melodrama, it looks more like the stereotyped images of silent movies that are held by so many ill-informed modern moviegoers. For silent movie fans, there are still a couple of points of interest that might make it worth watching in order to satisfy one's curiosity, but otherwise there's really no particular reason to see it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

22 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
What the hell...?, 2 April 2006
1/10
Author: mutty_mcflea from Bristol, UK

This unfunny and unfaithful adaptation of Frank L. Baum's wonderful book dumps every element of the story bar the title and a few character names. The Cowardly Lion, Scarecrow and Tin Woodsman are nothing but disguises, Dorothy is supposed to be 18 here but looks about 40, and the movie's half over before the tornado shows up. What's left is a monument to Larry Semon's titanic ego. He awards himself multiple roles, including a toymaker who appears in pointless bookend sequences, and stuffs the movie full of his somewhat incompetent brand of camera-hogging slapstick at the expense of anything resembling a magical fantasy. The one and only reason to watch this dreadful film is the curiosity value of seeing Oliver Hardy in an early role.

Was the above comment useful to you?

14 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Oy vey!, 1 May 2003
Author: Futura-2 from Here

I approached this film with great interest. Being a fan of Oz in general and silent film in particular, this seemed like a sure fit. Well, it's hard to put all prejudices aside, having (like most people) been bombarded with various adaptations of L. Frank Baum's book that one naturally has preconceptions.

Now, I won't bother to comment on the liberties taken in this film, the 1939 film bears, in all truth, barely a passing resemblance to Baum's dark and bizarre novel. The problem is, the changes made for this film just don't work. It's really just a standard silent slapstick film, but not a very funny one.

It's hard to sit through 90 minutes of lame jokes and vulgar stereotypes. But, as a historical curiosity, the film merits a once-over. I cannot, however, endorse the release pictured on the IMDb page, with it's "Digital Soundtrack" and "Narration." The music is inappropriate and the narration is silly...I mean, I CAN read for myself thank you! It was like sitting in the theatre with some rude patron talking to the screen! I expect this was added for children watching the films, but I really don't think many young children today would sit through this, sadly.

See it at least once, but don't expect too much from it.

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
A curio from the silent era but not a good film, 5 November 2006
3/10
Author: DPMay from Birkenhead, England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

**Contains spoilers ** Where do I begin with this one? Okay, you'll have gathered that the film is based only very loosely on the book. And by very loosely I mean its taken a few basic ideas - a girl called Dorothy, three workers from her farm in Kansas who (sort of) become a scarecrow, a tin woodman and a lion, and a far off land called Oz where resides a 'wizard'.

Larry Semon's complete re-working of the story just fails. It is an awkward mish-mash of ideas. Some of the elements of Baum's original story are shoe-horned into the plot without much logic behind them, and there are a number of sub-plots that are not satisfactorily resolved.

Dorothy loves her Auntie Em - but once the action switches to Oz, Auntie Em and Kansas are just forgotten about.

Then there's Oliver Hardy's character which is inconsistent throughout the film. When we first see him he's kind and protective towards Dorothy. At the end of the film he's one of the prime villains! Likewise Dorothy's Uncle Henry is initially hostile towards her, then is a protective guardian before becoming a bit of a villain again by the end.

Most disgracefully the film's eponymous character, the Wizard, is hardly in the plot at all. He's not a wizard but a charlatan and has little relevance to the story other than to provide a (very tenuous) reason why the farmhands disguise themselves as a scarecrow, tin man and lion.

Dorothy totally lacks any motive throughout this film. The plot is more centred around Semon's character who loves Dorothy but spends most of the time clowning around totally independently of her. His gags are mostly physical and some of the stunt-work is impressive but there are also sequences which go on well past the point where the idea has been milked, notably an impossible scene where Semon is hiding in wooden crates and somehow manages to teleport himself from one to another! Given the otherwise complete absence of magic in the film, the sequence defies explanation.

Also confused is the idea that the ruling Prime Minister of Oz is going to whatever lengths necessary to retrieve papers that prove that Dorothy is the true ruler of Oz. Now even overlooking the extraordinary coincidence that his men turn up to get them on the very day she is about to be given them, it begs the question why he left the papers there in the first place when they could easily have been destroyed. And to add to the lunacy, even when the papers are found and their contents made public, in the end it makes little difference to his position! As a framing sequence we see a grandfather figure relating the story to a little girl. This starts off well enough as the viewer gets the impression that what we are seeing is what the girl is hearing/imagining, but later on when we cut to these characters the grandfather doesn't even have the book out and the girl is in a separate room! The ending is also muddled. Dorothy falls for the prince she hardly knows (just like that) and the supposed hero of the film, Semon, is seen falling (to his death?) from an aeroplane. And the wizard himself just disappears from the proceedings about halfway through! Hardly a fairytale ending!

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Strange, but interesting. DVD needs help., 23 December 2002
Author: JMJedi from USA

This is a strange, sometimes misogynistic, and sometimes racially stereotypical film, reflective of the time in which it was made. It fascinates on a historical level, and on a foundational comedic level. You can see the trademark Oliver Hardy gestures in development, and his interaction with Larry Semon foretells his film relationship with Stan Laurel. Some cute little animation effects (a bee enters one of Semon's ears only to exit from the other), reflective of Disney's contemporaneous mix of live action and animation.

The "digital" score and the use of a "narrator" (who horribly reads the subtitles...where did she learn to read???) is annoying.

All in all, cute, and worthy of 90 minutes.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Sometimes it tries too hard... At others it doesn't try hard enough, 1 February 2006
3/10
Author: nineandthreequarters from Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

There are a number of reasons for WANTING to like this movie. There are indeed some moments of inspired slapstick and Larry Semon deserves his dues for daring to take the story into new directions. But, uh, good luck reminding yourself of this as you try to sit through the movie.

Some boys play with electric trains to feel like big men, Semon played with L Frank Baum's novel and a film camera and then sought to inflict this film upon cinema-goers when it seems to have been made solely to amuse himself. Yes, Semon does some fine physical comedy. Giving credit where it's due, his looseness and comic 'floppiness' contain elements that will later be part of Ray Bolger's performance in the celebrated 1939 film adaptation of this story.

Unfortunately, Semon's enthusiasm is effectively much of this film's problem. The movie strings together slapstick moments, a story about Dorothy being a kidnapped and relocated princess of Oz, a perverted uncle, a racially-stereotyped black farmhand, and a convoluted set of scenes with a disturbing-looking grandfather reading the Oz story to his granddaughter and presenting the story. All these ideas that may seem inspired in isolation are not presented in any coherent form here, and the movie comes across as a contrived attempt at a star vehicle for Semon.

Yes, every film adaptation of a story will make departures from the original material. However, if other films put a few dents and dings in Baum's novel, this one smashed it into Semon's oncoming ego.

Watch it for historical interest, see Oliver Hardy developing the characteristics that would become legendary in his partnerships with Stan Laurel, chuckle at the occasional stunts and pratfalls, but don't expect to be too impressed... or know what the hell is going on

Was the above comment useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
I'm afraid, rather average., 28 December 2000
5/10
Author: (rhoughton@iprimus.com.au) from Melbourne Australia

Even in it's day, I think that this movie would have been looked on as rather average. It just isn't a patch on the classic 1939 version. The scarecrow, the tin man and the cowardly lion are not characters, but rather disguises that three of the characters "put on". And there is no witch at all. [Margaret Hamilton, we miss you.] Although the plot is good, the way it's done would confuse younger children, and it somehow just doesn't hold up. It is interesting to see, only for its historic aspect.

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Spare me!, 28 January 2006
2/10
Author: Spuzzlightyear from Vancouver

Oh did I want this one to work. I am sure a lot of you, including me, had high hopes for this silent version of the W of O in the hopes that you could compare the two. Well, better make a short (or long) list, because the 1941 version is NOTHING like this one. This silent version is a very very long winded and boring rendition of the tale. Gone are the witches, tornadoes, munchkins and the yellow brick road. From what I understand, Dorothy is the long lost queen of Oz (by way of being dropped far far away from Oz as a baby), and she quite by accident arrives in Oz by way of flying house (well, at least they got THAT part right. Soon, some of the companions in the house become the lion, the tin man and a scarecrow (don't ask), while Dorothy rather likes the position she is given and starts ignoring all that were dear and true to her. What will happen next? WHO CARES? Just pretend that the Judy Garland edition was the first one to come along and spare yourself the time and agony.

Oh, and if you rent the Reel Media video version, be prepared for an oddball soundtrack and some not-needed audio transcription of the titles in the movie.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
I rarely say this about silent films, but this one stinks,..., 13 October 2006
2/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

This movie was reportedly the one that sunk Larry Semon's career. Instead of the usual short films he was known for, Semon decided to do something "important" and made this (for the time) long film adaptation of THE WIZARD OF OZ,....or at least that's what the title indicates it should be. The story, it seems, bears little similarity to either the 1939 movie or the books. In fact, apart from a few names here and there, it is pretty much unrecognizable as the story about Dorothy and Oz. Instead, it was just an excuse to string along a lot of familiar and not especially funny gags--like I have seen in several other Larry Semon films, the big stunt is his swinging from tower to tower. A neat stunt the first time you see it, but not when it's old material and has nothing to do with the plot.

Overall, I consider this movie a wasted effort. I know that Semon COULD be funny--like he was in his short films. But here, it's just a confusing and dreary mess. Likewise, having Oliver Hardy in the film SHOULD have been an asset, but he was pretty much wasted as well. While not exactly a classic, the 1910 short silent version was much better and stuck closer to the original story and the 1939 version is a classic. This one is better off staying forgotten or seen by the morbidly curious as the project that may have ultimately destroyed Semon's career.

PS--In addition to being a terrible movie, there is a Black man named "Snowflake" that likes to eat watermelon! Ugghh!!!

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
This is a movie for laying down and avoiding!, 3 November 2005
Author: mahatmarandy from Newport Nohwere, Florida

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

What a terrible film! I should point out that I don't like the famous 1939 version of the film either. I am, however, a big fan of the 40 or so Oz books, and this film really has nothing to do with any of them! In essence, it's set in contemporary (1925) Kansas, and Oz is a modern country off in the third world somewhere. (It looks a bit like Russia). Dorothy was the heir to the throne, who was kidnapped by the prime minister as a baby and dropped off with the Gale family in Kansas. Eighteen years later, the Prime Minister is afraid she'll return to the throne, so he sends some goons to Kansas to off her. (They go by plane!) They fail owing to a tornado, and Dorothy et al end up in Oz, where she becomes queen, but the Prime Minister is still attempting to gain power. A whole lot of pointless and frequently racist slapstick ensues, when, unrelated to any of this, the Prime Minister is deposed, Dorothy marries a Prince of Oz, and lives happily ever after.

As inexplicable as all this is, it's even more inexplicably told in a series of flashbacks from a creepy 'grandfather' figure to a little girl; he's reading it from a book. There's no reason for this device, it's just one of a bunch of things they do in this movie to kill time.

What amazes me about this isn't so much that they took a beloved 26-year-old children's book (at the time) full of magic and wonder, and they managed to completely wrest any semblance of magic or wonder out of it. That's no mean feat, but they did it. It's as if someone made a movie version of The Bible "Without any of them thar' hokey miracles in it!" Seriously, stay away from this film. I was charged two dollars for it, and feel I got ripped off at that price!

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Amazon.com summary Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user comments Your vote history