Return to Oz (1985)

A Masterpiece!

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

This film shows more of what OZ really was, or is, if you believe an alternate universes. It's a mirror of our own world. And we can exist there and here at the same time, all we need is a pair of ruby slippers and a counterpart who lives in a mirror. I rented this on a beta tape and watched it with my mom after it had finished its original theatrical run. We both liked it, but without the widescreen format and a theatrical sound system, it lost some of its ability to overwhelm us. But we still enjoyed it, quite a bit. I wish my mother were here now that I have a 50" HDTV and a halfway decent DVD copy, and a Kenwood surround sound system. I can sit in the middle and it is just as if I am sitting in a seat in a theater because that's where this needs to be watched. Because when I watched it last night, I was completely overwhelmed by this amazing movie. The "Kansas" scenes are very dismal, not sure where they were filmed actually although I know some of this was filmed in London. But the landscapes looked very much like a dismal Kansas late fall prior to the turn of the 20th century. Nicol Williamson represents a type of "doctor"/quack that dangerously fiddled around with electronic devices before people really understood how electricity worked, and his Oz mirror alternate is none other but the Gnome King himself . Joan Marsh was his nasty looking nurse (and Mombi). Piper Laurie is Auntie M and Matt Clark is Uncle Henry. But the breakaway performance in this film is Fairuza Balk who really captures the spirit of Dorothy as laid down by Judy Garland. The DVD which I found has a very good interview with Fairuza where she talks about being one of 1000 girls that they interviewed for this part, of all the kids that they looked at she was the most perfect for this. Although this film does not have musical numbers, it does have animatronics by Brian Henson and I didn't know it at the time but claymation by none other than Will Vinton, who put life into the Gnome King in such a frightening way. Some other reviewer said this, but this is actually a horror movie, the last we saw Oz before Dorothy went home it was not like this Oz. This is apparently six months after that and something very bad has happened and it is up to Dorothy, her chicken, and the Royal army of Oz "Tic Toc" to find out what is going on. And there is also a mysterious girl who shows up in mirrors, that gives Dorothy a helping hand now and then: Who is this? This movie could have and should have been made long ago, shortly after the original had been made. But if it had been, there's a high probability it could not have been done as well as this. And somebody else also said this is not a sequel to the original, but it is a continuation of that same story. Most importantly, it reveals characters that were part of the Oz stories that were not mentioned in the first film. Bellini, Tic-Toc, Ozma, Mombi. Maybe in another 20 years they can continue the story. It could happen, and it should happen.

It's hard to make a sequel to one of the most beloved films of all time, but they actually did it pretty well here. This movie features Dorothy returning to Oz to find out that the evil Gnome King has turned the citizens of Emerald City into stone. What I love about this movie is how beautiful it looks. The costumes are simply amazing and every one of the characters looks so unique. I'm glad to see Jack Pumpkinhead in a better movie than "Journey Back To Oz". There were indeed references to the original film.They still made it a movie in its own right and didn't cram the references down our throats. I do wonder why the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion look different. It's hard to say that this is really an official sequel to "The Wizard Of Oz". Everyone was saying how dark this movie was, but I didn't think it was that bad. It didn't show blood or anything. This is the best Oz movie besides the original and boasts of great special effects with stop motion as well. ***

If I was to name my absolute favourite film in a second, Return To Oz would probably be the first one to come to mind. It has great acting, a good story and the most important aspect for a family film, it appeals to kids and adults while never talking down to either group ONCE. Kids see this movie and are swept away into the magic of Oz, adults get a taste of what its like to be a kid again for a couple of hours.So what is the plot to this film? Dorothy is sent to an "electric healer" by Aunt Em and Uncle Henry to cure her "dellusions of Oz". She escapes during a storm and gets swept into the magical world of Oz. Although if you're expecting munchkins and the overall delightful background of the last movie...you'll be beyond disappointed. The Yellow Brick Road is destroyed as is the Emerald City and the citizens of Oz are all turned to stone. She meets companions such as Bellina, Tik Tok, Jack Pumpkinhead and a Gump (I'm not going to try and explain that, I don't even know how).The acting is absolutely marvelous, Fairuza Balk is who I think of whenever someone says "Dorothy Gale" to me because she just took that part and made it hers (which, considering the original was Judy Garland, thats not easy. Especially for an 8 year old!), Nicol Williamson and Jean Marsh play threatening villains incredibly well and the voice acting fits the puppet work and claymation to a tee.The visual effects still hold up as being impressive. I find this element the one that really does pull the audience into the fantasy world that Walter Murch created. Its also Oscar nominated visual effects (why the hell didn't they win?!).Okay, this film is actually one of the darkest family films you're likely to encounter however I think it comes with the medium pretty well. Kids like being scared, otherwise, why would they go out for Halloween? In fact, I think one family film director said "you can throw any emotions you want at kids, as long as you give them a happy ending" and this film does have that happy ending and somehow keeps the charm of the 1939 film.Now I've glorified this film (and for me that was as easy as counting) I should name some things I didn't like about it. The film does feel short and for me, that is a problem (although if this was a 3 hour epic, I'm sure I'd still be saying that), and for one that I feel is legitimate - The Nome King's plan is revealed very abruptly. Although one major complaint is not this film's fault - I never saw this as a kid. I would have loved to have seen this back then but sadly, that time has passed and all I can do is love it as an adult...the next best thing.The major thing that really does give this film strength against the other countless crap Oz sequels is that it actually has the heart and soul of a family film. Modern family films are "ooh, look at the great visual effects." and everything else in terms of story and characters are unengaging and dull, the script talks to the audience as if it needs to hold its audience's hand through everything. This film just entertains and pulls the audience into an experience through the film. A lot like the original Star Wars trilogy.Overall, yes, this review might be bias due to how much I respect and love it but despite what critics who saw this film back then said, this film is an enjoyable film if you can let it sink in that "there are Oz reboots", you'll find something to enjoy about this film. I put a guarantee on that, THATS how much I love this film.PS. The obvious question after this is "what did I think of the 1939 film?" I think its a great film yet, it falls short in comparison with this.

After having watched the 1939 classic "The Wizard of Oz", I heard that Hollywood made a sequel a few years later in the 80s and unlike the original, which was owned by MGM, this was owned by Disney. I first watched it when I was 14 years old and I seemed to be a bit impressed by it. OK, it's not as strong as the original due to it's flaws, but it's a very good sequel and a very underrated one at that.First of all, I like how the story doesn't repeat the original and it's darker tone is represented well throughout the film, but aside from it's decent character development, it does derive itself from two books of the Oz series "Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz". The script does have it's problems with several scenes that were completely cut.Flaws aside, everything is done perfectly. The cinematography is brilliant, the stop motion effects on the Nomes, although dated back then, are splendid, the scenery is beautiful, the costumes and make-up on the new characters including the villain Mombi, the Nome King, Jack the Pumpkinhead, and others are perfect. The direction from editor Walter Murch is solid and builds a lot of tense and atmosphere to the darker tone of the film; the music from David Shire is pretty good too. The best part goes to the cast of actors. Fairuza Balk did a fantastic job portraying a much younger Dorothy (don't get me wrong. Judy Garland's role as Dorothy was timeless), Jean Marsh is a menacing Mombi, Brian Henson is a wonderful sidekick Jack the Pumpkinhead and Nicol Williamson is a frightening Nome King.Overall, Return to Oz isn't as excellent as "The Wizard of Oz", but I can see why this got a cult following over the past few years and I would recommend this to those who haven't seen it.