What makes it different from others?

People are voting emotionally.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

a great concept, poorly executed, even decent acting by much of the cast couldn't salvage questionable directing and horrendous dialog.Even with this, all could have been forgiven if they hadn't missed on the final line of the series when DG says, "This is the OZ I remember - It's so good to be home..." After all of the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) tip-of-the-hat references they made to the original film classic, they couldn't have paid one last slam-dunk of an homage with "...there's no place like home..."?!? COME ON!That could have sent the series over-the-rainbow, but instead, it just melted away...

The main concept was borrowed from 'Wizard of the Oz', but a modernized with the three episode tale. The director is not a stranger to me, because I liked his previous television mini series 'Neverland'. That was another reason why ended up watching this one. As far my observations, this director is very creative because he just takes the original concept as an inspiration and improvises it. Those were really the good work to build something around the original idea and somewhere he overlaps between the two to make a connection. In an understandable way to say, his TV mini series all were kind of unofficial prequels or sequels to the original classic fantasy tales.DG is a small town waitress that she's not happy to spend her rest of the life there. She always dreamt to escape it in search of a cheerful life. Like a wish come true, one night a storm take her to a land called OZ. It is a paradise, but affected by a magical spell cast by the evil force. She meets the people who suffered from the evil queen's outrage. Later she comes to know the reason she was brought there and her involvement in the ongoing issues in OZ. The present and the past both were simultaneously narrated about what happened and is happening and what should be done to stop the bad things. So the Dg's journey commences accompanied by a few men who help her to travel safe.''I'd shoot you in the heart if I thought you had one.''The film had lots of upgrading items, like it was set in the modern world still the main character hop into the magical world called OZ. Here the OZ is abbreviated from 'Outer Zone'. All the three episodes were so good, each of them had twists at the end. The story was unexpectedly good, the fan of the original tale will definitely love it. The concept of protagonist and antagonist was built on a reasonable plan that will probably satisfy most of us at the end. It can be viewed by all ages. No silly costumes for the characters like from the storybooks. As it was a television product the quality was normal standard. Of course the technology and other options were easily fetchable, but the filmmaker used all the computer related resources in a limit. It's not like that they can't offer it, but to keep everything simple. I loved everyone's performances. In fact, Kathleen Robertson, who was in a negative role impressed a lot than the Zooey Deschanel. No one had the tough stunts in the movie, but felt that Zooey Deschanel had not comfortable with them. The guest appearance of the original tale was a surprise. Overall, it is the movie, a must see by the 'Wizard of the Oz' fans. A few things you must remember before giving it a try. It was kind of an sci-fi-fantasy, but the story and twists were the highlights.

The actors (and acting) is low grade. A waste of Alan Cumming's abilities. Ms. Deschanel is a silly, weightless presence (if I can even use the word "presence" for her, here) and everyone relies too heavily on that so-called (niche) talent of hers. The idea was really good but very poorly executed. Well-crafted nods to the original book or 1930's classic movie would have been great little "drops" in this series production but not done, or the few that were were again, poorly done. Why the focus on the Tin Man, I don't know. That character in this production is not in keeping with the original and the actor was not up to it. Goodness knows why the lion's character, Raw, was in there as he was barely a set decoration (again, weak, weak script and all the character names were weird, random and not clever). The scarecrow had a plausible twist but poor writing ability and script development dropped the ball and instead tried for random quirkiness which fell flat, flat, flat. The nemesis character was another waste. The costumes were as predictable (and therefore boring) as the script was goofy and meandering. I bought the DVD's for $5 and it's going in the trash.

OK, this Sci-Fi channel mini-series is an update of the Wizard of Oz. Rather than just redo the old movie (with Judy Garland. I've never seen the silent versions), it has been changed significantly, although viewers of the older movie and/or readers of the book will recognize the story.The special effects of original stuff on Sci-Fi cannot be compared to Jurassic Park or The Matrix, as they don't have that kind of budget. But I've noticed a regular improvement of CGI effects on Sci-Fi over the years as computer/software prices have dropped, and they are much better now than they were.Tin Man is spread out over three parts of two hours each. That's six hours of on-your-butt watching, with ninety minutes of that time being commercials. I can't watch things that way so I always record them so I can spend less time in front of the TV. I got the distinct impression that the good folks at Sci-Fi told the makers of Tin Man to put some padding in this thing to make sure that they could fill six hours of programming. I noticed a good deal of running and walking through fields that got a bit grating (another nice thing about being able to fast forward). I think the editing could REALLY have used some tightening up. I believe about an hour could have been chopped from the 270 minute running time with no loss of story development.All that being said, I still like what they did with the story, including the steampunk vibe. It was different and fun to watch, as long as no one takes the FF button off my remote. While the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz was more kid friendly than Tin Man, I think that young kids could still watch it without needing therapy.