The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

We all know "The Wizard of Oz", right? Well, we know Victor Fleming's 1939 musical adaptation. But then there's Larry Semon's 1925 version, which has to be one of the single weirdest movies ever made. Part of this is because there's little similarity to the version that everyone knows: no Toto, no witches, no Munchkins and no Yellow Brick Road. Instead, there's a bunch of slapstick humor (complete with a clean-shaven Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodsman). And unfortunately, there's a black man named Snowball.While watching the movie I made a bunch of MST3K-style comments at it - most of them unrepeatable here - just because of how over-the-top it was. For example, people jump from high altitudes and survive. It's one of those what-were-they-smoking-when-they-came-up-with-this movies. You have to see it to believe it. The only analogy is the Soviet version of "Mary Poppins" (yes, there was one).I've never read Frank Baum's novel. I hope to eventually. I understand that the more famous movie adaptation is closer to the novel. Whatever the case, you can't say that you've truly seen "The Wizard of Oz" until you've seen this version!

At least the 1939 film is a classic in its own right. This 1925 travesty takes the source material and urinates all over it. This has got to be the worst comedy I've ever seen. I cannot judge Larry Semon as a comedian as I have yet to see any of the shorts he made before this, but my God, he is not the least bit amusing in this.There's so much wrong with this movie: inconsistent characterization, tired gags that must have been old hat even by 1925, a racist caricature who eats watermelon and gets spooked easily, an 18 year old Dorothy who certainly looks older than that, a pointless framing device, endless padding, and the fact that the viewer often has no clue as to what the hell is going on. And the less said about that awful, incomprehensible ending the better...Unless you're a masochist, stay far away from this one.

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 WIZARD OF OZ is merely a frantic slapstick showcase for LARRY SEMON, apparently a silent comedian who is unknown to today's audiences and who died at a young age (39). He had a hand in the production and even designed his own Scarecrow costume, but the film is a curio that starts with a toymaker (again, LARRY SEMON) who tells a little girl the story of Dorothy (DOROTHY DWAN) from Kansas who, it turns out, is heir to be ruler of The Land of Oz.But the story he tells has nothing whatsoever to do with L. Frank Baum's story as we know it from the '39 version starring Judy Garland. And this Dorothy is a grown-up young lady of 18 who bats her eyelashes and puts a finger to her lips in a coy manner as though signifying youthful uncertainty.The only connection to the Oz story Baum gave us is the tornado, the effects for which are very good for 1925, and the combination of the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and The Cowardly Lion. OLIVER HARDY is the Tin Man (before his screen partnership with Stan Laurel), SPENCER BELL, a black man, is the Cowardly Lion and LARRY SEMON hogs the whole show as The Scarecrow. The best I can say for Lemon is that his costume and make-up for the role is laudable.But the fragments of story used here are all over the map, the key to everything being the chance to have all of the performers involved in slapstick stunts. Only MARY CARR as Aunt Em is spared this indignity.There are a few well staged moments that one can appreciate but all in all it's a bit too much for any adult to watch and I have no idea what children thought of this bizarre exercise in slapstick comedy.