Just perfect...

good back-story, and good acting

Fantastic!

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

This silent version of "The Wizard of Oz" has become one of the bonus features frequently included on home releases of the 1939 classic. It certainly isn't as good as the more well-known version. It can be intriguing due to the familiarizations you have with either the characters from the MGM film, or their counterparts in the L. Frank Baum books. "Dorothy" (Dwan) is a nubile teenager lusted after by others in the cast. "The Scarecrow" is her real-life husband and director Larry Semon, a once beloved comedian who died mysteriously. "The Tin Woodsman" is Oliver Hardy, before teaming up with Stan Laurel. And, the actor playing "The Cowardly Lion" is identified as "G. Howe Black" to highlight his skin pigmentation. Some of the visuals and stunts are good. But, the story isn't.**** The Wizard of Oz (4/13/25) Larry Semon ~ Larry Semon, Dorothy Dwan, Bryant Washburn, Oliver Hardy

They just showed this on TCM.I love silents, the more obscure the better, but this really tested my limits. It is a caricature of a silent picture. Pointless slapstick gags. Cardboard villains. A hair brained and kind of creepy heroine (she is 18 but dresses like an 8 year old). Hammy acting. Racist stereotypes, including enthusiastic watermelon eating. Also lots of negative typecasting of fat people.The score by Robert Israel was the only redeeming feature, who has composed excellent scores for many silent pictures. I would say this movie is strictly for film scholars.

In my travels of music & odd movies it really amazes me at what I find. I found this 1925 "OZ" at a Goodwill store 1 mile down the road. It's a VHS 1980s copy. It plays pretty well,except a bit wobbly at the start.I already knew this wouldn't be "Dorothy & Toto" but I thought at least it would be in the same stratosphere. Now,I'm not saying it's a bad movie but it's certainly not at the level of "silent era creativity" I expect from that time.The best things here are the sets for one,very inventive,some of the visual effects (like the director/star jumping hundreds of feet to the ground and surviving!) Yeah..right! ...and as mentioned,it is interesting to see Oliver Hardy before "Laurel & Hardy".The biggest downsides here are : The obvious racist and insulting stereo-types of the day,that being our resident "token" black whose been renamed for the amusement of the 1920s audience and just "has" to be filmed eating watermelon! (Insert roll-eyes here).On top of that,the overweight Uncle Henry who is "literally" the butt of heavy humor. (I was wondering, "How many more things will he sit on and hurt his posterior with?" ) Very annoying in this copy is the incessant organ music. True it's what they used then in the movie-house but for today's time it's an irritant. I turned down the volume and did what Charlie Chaplin did and used classical music. This music actually fit the scenes I was watching and in a great coincidence...... the moment the film ended,so did the classical tape! If you're not familiar with the books,you will pretty confused but even if you were it would be the same story. ...but in this case it's not.5 stars for some interesting sets,stunts and even visuals plus Mr. Hardy. 5 off for the rest. I watched Judy Garland's right after and got more than my $1.99's worth. (END)

This film SHOULD have bankrupted everyone associated with it, to concur with Walter Kerr! I saw clips of it years ago on PBS, with a soundtrack cobbled together from Copland's OUR TOWN score and other classical selections. Not half-bad, made me curious to see more, having just read the original Oz book. Then I saw the complete film years later on cable. Whaa-OH! Not GOOD, either! Twelve parts Semon's desperation slapstick to one part Baum gave me one walloping cinematic hangover! Those titles like the quote in the above summary! Those falls from towers, airplanes, haystacks--and don't forget the mud baths! That puking duck! That THING out of the basket! I'd recommend this only for the virulently curious and undaunted. Track down Richard Roberts' superb three-part CLASSIC IMAGES essay on Semon before you do--it's online, try the Semon entry in Wikipedia. You'll find it by far more amusing (and coherent) than this film!