Rather than adapt a later or create a new Oz story, this production has Dorothy still in posession of the shoes, and she clings to an apple tree during a tornado which takes her back to Oz.... See full summary »
This 150-episode series of shorts chronicles Dorothy's long stay in the land of Oz. The Munchkins are portrayed as tiny globs; the Scarecrow is a fool named Socrates; the Tin Woodman is a ... See full summary »
In the first season of Lost In Oz, twelve-year-old Dorothy Gale and her trusty dog Toto search for Glinda the Good, in the hope that she can give them the magic they need to send them home ... See full summary »
An adventurous young koala embarks on a journey across the wild and dangerous Australian outback in the hope of finding his missing father, but he soon discovers that there is more to being a hero than meets the eye.
Charlotte Rose Hamlyn
In the Land of Oz, the Emerald City's co-leaders, the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion, discover that an evil Jester has stolen the broomstick of his sister, the late Wicked Witch of the West, and taken control over the Flying Monkeys. With Oz's future at stake, the Scarecrow decides to use his invention called the Rainbow Mover to summon Dorothy Gale to save the kingdom again. However, flying monkeys invade the castle and force the trio out the window. In Kansas, Dorothy's farm has been wrecked by a tornado, leaving it in disrepair. A sleazy man claiming to be a government appraiser arrives and condemns the farmhouse, handing the Gales an eviction notice. Dorothy discovers people all across town have been handed the same notices and are moving on. Dorothy and Toto encounter a rainbow which transports them to Oz, but not to the Emerald City as intended.
The various citizens of Oz who appear in puppet cabinets with name plaques are all characters mentioned in previous Oz books. In the source novel, the "Grand Bozzywood of Samandra (1930)" was actually the "Grand Bozzywoz of Samandra." See more »
I can only imagine how you must feel. Trapped alone in a giant rainbow. Surrounded by colors! It must be
See more »
Unusual Credit Style: In the closing credits, there are numerous entries for co-producers & other "producer" positions that list both husband & wife for each credit entry, such as "Jack & Jill Jones". Some credits are simply listed as a family unit. One such co-producer is listed as "The Ross Family". It is rare that credits are given in groupings of families. Most credits are a single person's name. See more »
Fortunately I have two little kids now or I would have never watched this movie. In addition, I never heard this movie was coming out or anything about it until we all saw it on Netflix.
My kids aged 9 and 2 1/2 years of age. They both love animated movies to death and have seen a lot of them. Animated movies are not my cup of tea, but because they are playing all the time in the house I see, hear, and remember the movies even though I am watching them indirectly.
I was searching for yet another animated movie and I stumbled upon this one. Being older, I am a fan of the original Wizard of Oz movie from the 1930's having seen it a million times growing up. It looked interesting so we all watched it. Now for the critique:
2. The Story (ebb & flow): It seemed like a logical sequel to the original live action movie that I love, although the sequel is animated. I thought it was easy to understand and wasn't illogical like some other reviewers stated. As an adult and an experienced movie watcher, I thought the story was well written and easy to understand. The fault lies in the source material. Most young people today do not know the story of the Wizard of Oz so they can't connect to it.
3. Characters. Once again, as in the fault of the story, the characters are not recognizable to the target audience: kids. Yes the adults will know about the Wizard of Oz, but the core audience will see it as an original movie. No kids watching the movie will know about the Lion's courage, the Tin Man's heart, or the Scarecrow's brain. Their background is unknown and the movie does not make an effort to rectify the situation. The only character in the movie that you end up learning a lot about is the Jester and only because he talks about himself and his past near the beginning of the film. To me thats a bad idea. Why? Because kids should know about the good characters, not the bad ones. The good characters are the ones you want your children to connect with and feel sympathy for, not the evil ones. I felt they focused too much on the Jester character and not enough on characters that mattered.
4. Animation. The animation quality wasn't bad. Was it the best I've ever seen? No, but it wasn't the worst either. I would say it was good animation that probably could have benefited with a little more financial resources allocated to it.
5. Musical parts (songs): This is where the movie shines. I felt the songs in the movie were of high quality and very catchy. If this were a successful Disney movie, the songs from this movie would be sung by every boy and girl like what happened in Frozen. Frozen had like two or three catchy songs, where Legends of Oz had four or five that would be popular. Of course this is my opinion and I'm not a fan of musicals.
6. Excitement & Entertainment. This is where the moneys made for a movie. Did you feel you got your moneys worth? The movies strengths were its musical numbers and the good story to support the songs. If they had instead used the songs in a more higher profile animated movie, it would have been a better idea.
Bottom Line: An enjoyable movie that needs to watched more than once to really appreciate the strengths of the movie: it's songs. I bought the DVD!
4 of 6 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this