The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

So much average

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is a 13-minute film from over 100 years ago and taking this into account they did fine. You have to keep in mind that there was still no sound, even if Youtube versions may include some spectacular soundtrack that was added later. And another important aspect is the lack of color, which really hurts the material if you think of the bright feature film that is so elevated by the wonderful use of color. So yeah, the fact that this one here did not became a great film is not caused by any of the cast or crew. Film as a medium simply was not yet ready for the wonderful story of Dorothy Gale. 1910 was actually an important year for the character as there were no less than 3 versions of "The Wizard of Oz", this one here being the most famous. The main character is played by Bebe Daniels very early in her career. Silent film lovers will know she turned into a huge star afterward. An okay watch all in all, nothing less, nothing more.

This is a shock, at first, to view. It looks so primitive that you can hardly believe what you're seeing. It makes the 1939 version look like today's advanced technology, in comparison. The sky, for instance, looks like a cheaply painted paper mache that just moves right to left. That is supposed to indicate a windy day and looks so hokey you watch this in amazement. But, it's 1910, and the very early years of motion pictures, so I am not ridiculing it. In fact, it makes you marvel how much they advanced in just several decades of film-making after this was made.It is interesting to note some of the differences in the story, too, such as Nebraska being mentioned instead of Kansas, but this was adapted from a stage play, not the novel (as the '39 film was). Differences aside, it was still fascinating to watch because it's almost like going to school and watching your kids in some Middle School production! Once again, I am not slamming it because I realize when it was made and appreciate the effort....and historical value of this film. Also, it's hard to get much of a story in when the film's running time is only 13 minutes.Note: a young Bebe Daniels plays "Dorothy." You can see this movie on DVD as part of the "More Treasures From the American Film Archives, which was released in 2004.

Dorothy, Scarecrow, and Toto bring a donkey and cow (played by Men In Suits) along with them in the cyclone (which is simulated by having them hug a big hay bale that turns around and around). ALL THE INTERTITLES ARE IN GIANT BLOCK CAPITALS.Toto is a real dog who turns into Man In A Suit #3 to fight the lion (Man In A Suit #4), who is not cowardly at all. There is a line of chorus girls and another of palace guards. At the end, the guards ride in on REAL HORSES, which makes the Men In Suits (by now including #5, bug, and #6, frog, from the Wicked Witch's lair, and #7, kitty cat, who otherwise has no apparent role in the action) look really, really lame. The cast of thousands and elaborate sets make you wonder why no one had yet thought of MULTIPLE CAMERAS, and EDITING. But that was a concept they obviously couldn't wrap their minds around, back in 1910. Who knows - maybe a second camera would have cost more than all the actors, dancers, horses, and animal costumes put together.

This film is included in the "More Treasures of the American Film Archive" DVD. The running time is listed at 13 minutes. It kind of looks like a junior high school production of "the Wizard of Oz" with people dressed up in costumes to portray Toto, the Cowardly Lion, Imogene the Cow and what appears to be a donkey. The latter two accompany Dorthy to the Emerald City with the all the rest. The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodsman are not too bad, and not that far removed from the 1939 Classic. The Wizard himself looks like the 19th century Medicine Show man that the Wizard was supposed to be. It is interesting that they basically told the whole story in such a short time frame. This film is actually interesting to watch in a historical sense. For that reason I gave it a 9.