To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

There is no question that from a Hollywood screenplay and production perspective, the "Wizard of Oz" is high on the list of achievements for excellence. The movie, in terms of cast, score, production is exciting, entertaining and thrilling. The movie is sure to get glowing reviews for decades to come. However, there is a difference between a review which states the obvious about cast and production, and one which goes a bit further. Despite its grandness, my overall complaint about the movie is a problem not specific to this film itself, it is the industry problem of not staying true to the book for any number of reasons, particularly sensitive issues. Sadly, the more movies one reviews which have their beginnings in literature, the more visible the altering of story lines becomes visible and troubling, as do the motives for such alteration. The Hollywood credo seems to be that Issues of politics, social condition, religion and race must be handled "delicately." After decades of study, what we now know about "The Wizard of Oz" is that it is not a simple fairy tale for children. That the book was banned in libraries across the country, and religious leader called on movie house to ban screenings, should give you enough pause. The story itself is a social and political commentary on America and the rise of populism, the challenge to the US monetary gold system, the struggle of farmers and factory workers and so on. Don't fell bad if you missed this. It took about 30 years for scholars to figure this one out.The brilliance of Baum's writings and legacy is that he never acknowledged the story as a parable, nor did he discuss the metaphors and symbolisms in this text. Years later, literary scholars who studied the story as written agreed that there was overwhelming evidence, based upon the journalistic writings and political leanings of the writer, the times he lived in and the issues of the day. The coincidences were simply too many to ignore. Think about it, who picks as characters, a scarecrow, tin man, cowardly lion and a young girl from Kansas, to journey down a yellow brick road to an emerald city. So, the question in my mind is a tricky one. Does the movie pay sufficient homage to the issues of the day, if it deviates substantially from the original manuscript? And if not, how do we rate this movie? Many reviewers take the position that it's just entertainment. To which I say cop out, I disagree. Movies and books contain messages and social ques as do omissions. Literary works contain messages which the writer puts there for a reason. A movie is not just a movie, nor is a book just a book. Yes, for decades, I missed this one, it went over me like the "Matrix" first got by me. The bottom line is that if a movie contributes to ignorance through suppression and omission of an original text, we must temper our jubilation. Enjoy, the movie, but realize that this movie is just really good entertainment and not the story as intended.

I hadn't sat down and watched this movie from beginning to end for several years. After watching it so many times as a kid I think I could replay it in my head with my eyes closed. I call this movie my favorite movie of all time, and I very strongly dislike musicals. But anyway I had the option of watching this film for a cinema history class I am taking and I realized I couldn't remember the last time I sat down and watched it, so I did. This movie still has everything. A beautiful soundtrack and score, great acting and singing. It's so well done and nearly everything this movie does still holds up pretty well today. Sure you can tell leaves are plastic, or where the backdrops begin, but the backdrops are beautiful! And the plants are laid out with great detail so as to seem like Dorothy and her friends are really in a poppy field, or a cornfield. This movie is so well rounded with its attention to detail. Every stage of their journey has a unique and identifiable look to it. The costumes are so fabulous and ornate. The Cowardly Lion has always been my favorite character and I love his outfit and his physicality in the role, leaping about on the rocks in the jungle and his wagging tail. It's no wonder this movie has stood the test of time.

Premiered in 1939, The Wizard of Oz was ahead of it's time for a number of reasons. It was one of the first films made with technicolor AND in black in white giving it both a past and futuristic feel. Although not talked about often it also had no main male hero, the Scarecrow, the Lion and the Tin man were all considered to be "common man" roles whereas the main character is Dorothy and the only real powered figures in the film were the White Witch and the Wicked Witch of the West. No movie prior to this had made the most powerful and most revered character a woman

This movie was great. I watched this when I was a little girl and I just re watched it now. The music was amazing and the concept behind the movie was entertaining. This is the first musical that I have actually watched and this is what made me actually like musicals as well. It had great color and camera angles and the costumes was amazing for its time frame.