Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good concept, poorly executed.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Shirley Temple is about as good as ever and there are some other nice acting performances but this is otherwise a second-rate film.It is obvious that 20th Century Fox was looking for their own Wizard of Oz but this movie lacks much of what made that classic what it was.This film is released one year after that breakthrough smash but was a flop.There are some nice special effects and the Technicolor is excellent but there is not enough substance here.The plot is largely too dark and doesn't fit well with Temple's persona.There are some brilliant cinematic setups, particularly one in the forest and another that is supposed to be a mix of heaven and a Greek temple that is reminiscent of the castle scene in The Thief of Baghdad (same year - 1940).This is one of the first films to feature Ann E. Todd, who is a scene stealer.Helen Ericson is lovely as literally the bright light.This is also Sybil Jason's last film. Some of her scenes were cut, reportedly at the urging of Temple's mother, so as not to overshadow the star. Jaosn was a great child actress and she steals the screen in her two scenes.This is worth seeing for film buffs but not for a date night.

Cat steals the show. Dog adorable. Fairy fantastic. Mrs. Luxury actress from Gone with the Wind. Mr. Luxury actor from Sherlock Holmes. Bratty Shirley leads the pack all over the place. Light is lovely. Trees angry about human destruction of their beauteous selves. Interesting concepts. My observations.

I tuned it at the point where Shirley Temple's character was just meeting the witch/fairy so I didn't know this little girl was an obnoxious child and I didn't know their pet dog was a bulldog.I immediately saw the Oz connection, but this story seemed much darker and sadder. The children visit a graveyard where they see the tombstones of their grandparents who awake because someone is thinking of them. The grandparents are happy to be visited by the children, but then the little girl insists they have to leave right away, even tho Grandma wants so desperately for them to stay so she can bake them an apple tart (she mentions it twice). It seemed to me that the little girl was too anxious to leave such a happy time with the grandparents she supposedly missed so much and was so happy to see, and for no other reason than to look for something that was supposed to make her happy.I couldn't figure out the cat character. Why was she trying so hard to keep the children from finding the bluebird and being so mean about delaying them? What difference would it have made to her if they found the bird? I realize that some people think that all cats are conniving, but I don't think there's a one that would conspire to actually kill the humans that it lives with! The scenes of living in luxury were confusing. At first, Mr. and Mrs. Luxury welcomed the children and told them about how wonderful it would be to live in their house and couldn't wait to give them fancy clothes. Next thing you know the children are fighting over who gets to play with which toy and the adults can't be bothered with them. Mr. Luxury all but ignores the little girl when she comes to him and he speaks to her in harsh tones and is concerned only with whether she will hurt his gouty foot.A few reviewers mentioned the last scene, where the children meet the unborn. Why these unborn children would be different ages was a puzzle, and this scene was the saddest of all for me. The little girl meets her sister who is not yet born, but the sister says she will not be with them very long before she goes away (dies), and what does Shirley Temple's character do? She hugs the sister and flashes her dimples and says "I'll tell mother to expect you" and how nice it was to meet her. Did she not understand what the child was telling her? And the boy who I assumed would grow up to be Abraham Lincoln, he was such a sad character; he didn't even have the happiness of childhood to look forward to. He would be born sad and remain sad for his whole life. That's a terrible thing for anyone to imagine, that people might know when they will die before they're even born and then live their lives only as a means to complete what they already know to be their destinies.Let's not forget the two unborn children who loved each other so much that they couldn't stand to be parted. I expected the Father Time character to tell them not to worry, that they would be reunited one day to love each other once again, but this was not the case. Indeed, Father Time rather angrily forced the boy to leave the girl, who sobbed uncontrollably. One can only imagine the lives both of them would live on earth when they started out so unhappy.I was confused by the end, where both children had had the same dream. And considering that they never did find the bluebird, they both seemed to be extraordinarily cheerful about it. Frankly, I didn't see anything in their dream that would cause them to be that happy when they woke up; if anything, I would imagine they would be more depressed than they were before.As I said, I didn't know the dog was a bulldog, so to have made his human form such a dopey thing that was scared of the dark and unable to assert himself in front of other dogs, made no sense. And if the cat perished in the fire, why was she there in the house the next morning? All in all, even though the sets were lovely to look at, I thought this was a very depressing story and not one I would recommend for small children to watch, considering all the references to death. Heck, I don't think I'll even watch it again, that's how depressing I thought it was.

A simply awful version of the wonderful "The Wizard of Oz."How Gale Sondergaard, an Oscar winner, who turned down the golden role of the witch in "Wizard" allowed herself to be in this film is beyond me. She is catty here, please excuse the pun, and walks around like a "yenta" from Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, N.Y. She simply prances around and that makeup job was awful on her.The film badly attempts to personify vice and virtue. Yes, it's true that a life of luxury isn't the best necessarily but the film does a poor job of describing that.Spring Byington is miscast as the mother. She is more of an aunt type.The only thing that this film has going for it is possibly the special effects and other scenic views.The children in the future segment was ridiculous. They're waiting to go to earth to be born but in the meantime they're teenagers where they are.Shirley Temple is a little too cute for my tastes here.The picture attempts to state that you really can't go back to the past. How true.