The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I watched this on a VHS from the American Movie Entertainment box set (1996) of four early Oz films. The print was OK, fairly sharp and without too many pops or scratches -- but with at least one significant scene missing (where Scraps accidentally turns three of the other characters into statues) and some lengthy portions where the right side of the screen is burnt/melted. The music was weird; it vacillated between fairly appropriate ragtime-esquire piano and an electronic score more appropriate to a Tarkovsky film! Those caveats aside, I really liked the first half of the film a lot, as Ojo and Unc Nunkie set out for the Emerald City but end up delayed and sidetracked after encountering magician Dr. Pipt, his wife and his magical creation Scraps, the Patchwork Girl. The adventures up through that point, and the finding of the Woozy, and the sequence around the Dark Well are all inventive and fast-moving, but the film gets a bit bogged down and repetitive once the action shifts to the Emerald City. I did like that the characters for the most part looked like they came straight out of the original illustrations -- Scraps and Mr Pipt in particular looked and acted just right; also some of the sets, like Dr. Pipt's house, are quite excellent, busy and full of clutter, which seems appropriate. The special effects are pretty well done and there are a surprising number of them; especially nice is the way in which Scraps is put together. I think this one is more for true fans of the books than general silent film buffs, and I suspect that will be true of the other films.

A feast of quaint but super-hectic activity, presented before a solidly stationary camera (except for the effective concluding shot), this is a dated and none too interesting attempt by author L. Frank Baum himself to transfer his Oz from the printed page to the cinema. He is let down by the totally unimaginative direction (from well-known character actor J. Farrell MacDonald), the almost entirely stationary camera-work (though there are a couple of clever touches here and there) with its long, boring takes, and the inappropriately over-the-top enthusiasm of almost all the players.As a curiosity, the movie would make a tolerable two-reeler, but 65 minutes of repetitious jumping, sliding, running, kicking, dancing, climbing, gallivanting, funning and frolicking, is, despite the picturebook tints and novel costumes of its picturebook illustrations brought to life, just far too much of a mediocre thing.Now, if the highly imaginative original drawings by W.W. Denslow that accompanied Baum's first and most famous venture into the land of Oz, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900), had been brought to life rather than the conventional Victoriana here displayed, the film would doubtless have captured an audience's interest far more than this ultimately wearisome parade. Unfortunately, there was no chance of that happy eventuality. Baum and Denslow had a falling out in 1901 when both men claimed that the instant success of Oz was primarily due to their own input. Therefore it's no surprise that producer Baum made it his business to ensure the movie's visuals were as far removed from Denslow's creations as possible.

The recent phenomenon of Harry Potter isn't so unusual. An early case it the amazing popularity of Oz.The books, the first ones, became popular, amazingly so. By some measures more popular than Potter. They are simple: children, a magical land — rather a land like ours in many ways but with magic and magical creatures.Then the movies started. Magic sells cinematically when the world is like the one we live in plus magic that matches what the camera can emulate. When the writer understands the overlap, he or she can write books that are cinematically rooted. Each feeds the other. Each feeds the juvenile imagination.You should watch this. Because with distance, you can see how shallow that imagination is. The effects of today's movies are better, but they are no less believable to us than these were in their day. Let that soak in and you'll get pretty depressed about the current Potter phenomenon (and probably increase your appreciation for the "Rings" works).Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

"The Patchwork Girl of Oz" was the most racist of L. Frank Baum's Oz novels, featuring the Tottenhots (stereotyped Africans) and also an ambulatory Victrola phonograph that sings ragtime songs in an offensive "darky" dialect. Fortunately, this film version (written and directed by Baum himself) omits the ragtime racism and reconceives the Tottenhots so that they're only barely recognisable as racist stereotypes. This is a fun movie, which I recommend without reservation for adults and kids.It is of course rather a crude film, even by silent standards, and hampered by cross-sexed casting in both directions. The hero of the film, a Munchkin boy named Ojo, is obviously played by an adult woman. The Patchwork Girl, Scraps, is very obviously played by a man. However, Pierre Couderc, the French acrobat who plays this role, gives an incredible performance. He effortlessly turns backward handsprings and shoulder kips, his performance made even more amazing by the bulky costume and elaborate hoop skirt he's wearing. There's one very amusing sight gag when the Patchwork Girl and the Scarecrow meet for the first time. Ah, true love!The plot of this film is a simplified version of the Oz novel. Orphan boy Ojo and his elderly Unk Nunkie visit Doctor Pipt the magician. Pipt has invented the Powder of Life, which brings life to any inanimate object it touches. (Why doesn't it animate its own container?) Pipt's wife Margolotte has made a girl dummy out of patchwork quilts, which will become Margolotte's maidservant after Pipt animates it. When Pipt brings the Patchwork Girl to life, her exuberance causes her accidentally to spill another elixir over Margolotte and Unk Nunkie, which transforms them into marble statues. Dr Pipt can't reverse the enchantment until he mixes another batch of the Powder of Life, which requires certain ingredients ... including three hairs from a Woozy's tail. Ojo sets forth to obtain the ingredients.Animal impersonator Fred Woodward does amazing work as several different animals. Woodward is the spiritual father of Janos Prohaska, a 1960s stuntman who specialised in portraying animals and aliens. One of the roles Woodward plays here is the Woozy, a creature whose body is made of cardboard boxes. (This is a very low-budget movie, but that's part of its charm.) The squared-off look of the Woozy in the Oz book's illustrations was obviously inspired by the low-budget costume worn by Woodward in this movie.TRIVIA NOTE: Watch for Harold Lloyd and Hal Roach Snr (very early in their careers) in grass skirts and body paint as two of the Tottenhots. Shortly after this movie was filmed, Roach received the inheritance which enabled him to set up his own film studio. Juanita Hansen, later a Roach actress, appears briefly here. Also glimpsed is Charles Ruggles, who would soon get his big break as Private Files in L. Frank Baum's stage musical "Tik-Tok in Oz"."The Patchwork Girl of Oz" is an absolute delight, which adults and children will enjoy in repeated viewings. There are some impressive sets and costumes, despite the low budget. Jaded modern audiences will sneer at the very crude special effects, but I would rather watch this movie instead of a certain overrated MGM musical starring Liza Whatsername's mother.