Perfectly adorable

Fantastic!

Absolutely amazing

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This a very good fantasy movie. 6.7 is overrating it just a little. But still it is a good movie. Oz the great and powerful is better. But still this is better then The Wizard of Oz (1939). And that is not easy to do. This is a very good sequel to a classic film. See it. The Wizard of Oz (1910) is better. His majesty the scarecrow of Oz is better. This is better then The Wiz. It is kind of scary at times. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. This movie is a most see. The Wiz is a must see. And this is a must see. This is a great film. You should see it. If you like good fantasy stories see. It does not look our feel anything like The Wizard of Oz. But I say big deal. It is a classic fantasy.

I don't see why people got into such a hubbub about Return to Oz when it came out... actually, that's not correct for a couple of reasons. For one, sadly, it didn't do well at the box office, so presumably a lot of children didn't see it who might have. But for those that reviewed it, the consensus was it was "too dark" for kids. Hogwash. Kids can actually take much more dramatic and terrifying things than we think - maybe some may be more sensitive than others, but so are adults - and a response to feats of imagination are always eye-catching to them. If it was about the story and characters, that's another matter.On an artistic, sensory-visual level Return to Oz is mostly spectacular work, with a plethora of eye-catching and inspired practical effects (one of which I have to imagine the character of Jack Skellington was the inspiration for), matte paintings, marionettes and puppets, claymation, the works, with an Emerald city that looks like a Russian communist block from that time period (and I mean that in a complimentary way - it's exquisitely run-down) . And I liked how dark and weird it got, that was fine.If I didn't care for something it was most of the supporting characters who become Dorothy's companions. They didn't have the strong-memorable personalities or sense of enchantment (or even just good acting) of the three that accompanied Dorothy in 'Wizard' - or, hell, even the companions in Oz: The Great and Powerful, which I'd argue is maybe a more inspired film than this, albeit with CGI. And the villain - aho is appropriately bad-*ss and deranged, is only most effective by the third act, with a one-dimensional shrieking witch (albeit with wonderful multiple heads to choose from) in the rest of the film.So, Return to Oz is a really good movie. If it's a lost classic? Depends who you ask, I suppose. Nevertheless, Balk is fun to watch in a role where she's constantly thinking and reacting well in her acting - a sophisticated acting job young or otherwise.

Occasionally seen on a Disney cable channel. One of those Disney misfires that still remains flawed fun, like Tron, Black Hole, and The Black Cauldron. (By-the way, I also liked "John Carter"--see my review) A horrible beginning. Electroshock for Dorothy in an Insane Asylum? Nobody believes that she went to Oz, so she must be crazy. She runs away, falls in the river, and emerges in Oz. (Dorothy never returned to Oz the same way twice--read the books.) In some ways, way too faithful to the series of "Oz" books. Strange and wonderful special effects, a lot of them fascinating mechanical and animatronic puppetry, plus a brilliant "Hall of the Gnome King" "Claymation" animation sequence. This may actually appeal more to adults than children, who I suspect had nightmares when the witch "Mombi" changes her head. Most of the "sidekicks" are more-than-odd looking, like "Tick-Tock," who is a shiny tin-man-potbellied walking timepiece. The "Wheelers" are scary-creepy. "Pumpkinhead" is played by Brian Henson. Your typical scarecrow, lion and tin woodsman, look nothing like the beautifully costumed creatures in the 1939 version. Instead, they look exactly like the cartoon illustrations from the "Oz" books. This Oz is also a very dreary place. It is in ruins and Dorothy must somehow restore it to it's former glory. Basically, an adventure story and certainly not a musical. As she travels throughout Oz, she is always trying to find her way back home, while being chased by magical and monstrous villains. The little girl playing Dorothy is outstanding, considering the gloomy story she had to deal with. A "dirty" dusty Disney transfer doesn't help, either. Someday I must get to Kansas. I suspect the whole place is in "sepia tone" or black and white!

When I first heard of this movie, I was expecting, like everyone else something bright and cheerful just like its original. However, I was surprised at what was in this that was actually creepy yet I still found it enjoyable despite what critics said about this. Even though this movie did give me nightmares for days (I was nine at the time I saw it) there was a magnet in this movie that had me coming back to it. The well designed sets and imaginative characters and the feel that is much closer to L. Frank Baum's works (even though I did not read them) made it more enjoyable than the original. The character that freaks me out the most? The Nome King and his Nomes. The idea of some demonic face peering at me from a wall or rock just gives me the feel of paranoia. Despite its creepy vibe, I would recommend it for the brave and adventurous (if not very young) of audiences.