WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Lee Eisenberg 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!

frankebe Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" is a movie that needs to be re-evaluated. It also may be one of those films that just needs all the help it can get, which it does get in a pristine print with a brilliant soundtrack by Robert Israel, via WarnerVideo.So far as I can find, there is only ONE source for this version: The Wizard of Oz (Four-Disc Emerald Edition) (2006) "70th Anniversary", selling on Amazon for a mere $13.58.Being interested in early cinema fantasy, I bought this set specifically for its inclusion of the 1910 Oz movie (pretty good, by the way). I wanted to compare that to what Melies was doing around then.After watching the 1910 and all the 1914 versions (also on this set), I then put on the Semon film, intending to watch just a few minutes and then go to bed. Immediately, I was captivated by the engaging full-orchestra title music. Then the film proper came on and I was amazed at the beauty of the image. Sparkling clear and clean! Comparable to the most recent Kino release of Keaton's "The General". Semon's big production values are finally fully visible. Further, imaginative and gorgeous tintings with no loss of detail give the effect of a full-color movie. It was stunning. I couldn't take my eyes off the film!Add to all this, Robert Israel's beautiful music, comedically but sensitively set to the action in perfect synchronization. It may be Israel's best work (and may prove how utterly critical it is to have a superior musictrack to a "silent" film). And with Semon's imaginative cinematography, the movie was playing out like a classic. There was no way to stop watching…Now, forget about the title. Frank Baum himself re-wrote the basic Oz story many times. In his own movies he sets up the same characters and just revises the same story over and over. So if you're unhappy with the "fidelity" of this film to the book (or the 1939 movie (c'mon, get over it)), just call it "Semon in Oz" (oops... heh... I mean, y'know, like "Abbott and Costello in Hollywood"). What's wrong with that? Do NOT think about this as THE Wizard of Oz.I realize that slick appearance does not make up for poor content, but as Pauline Kael once said about a W.C. Fields movie, So what if everything is "all gummed up"? Story-logic doesn't always matter; sometimes I'm more interested in the comic riffing…So I watched the whole movie, and was continuously delighted, even laughing out loud. Then I was surprised to note that it had been 72 minutes long. I thought it had only been about 45 minutes!Well, there is a whole lot more I could write, and anyone can point out the weaknesses of this movie. But suffice it to say that I was thoroughly engaged and entertained from start to finish, and I am one who has a BIG problem sitting through movies over 20 minutes long. I can barely sit still long enough to slog through the labored stories of silent drama ("A Child of Paris", "Sunrise", D.W. Griffith melodramas), or comedies of Coleen Moore, Mary Pickford, and D. Fairbanks, which have me itching for the fast-forward button; even Keaton and Lloyd occasionally dawdle too much for me. (On the other hand, Melies is never too long, nor is Chaplin or Langdon; or, once front-and-center, Laurel & Hardy.) Now I am curious to show this version of this movie to others to see if they enjoy it. Or conclude that I've just finally lost my mind from watching "Ridolini" too many times.

thewebbiest 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.

windypoplar The 1925 silent "Wizard of Oz' Is, in many ways, a vanity project for Larry Semon, his brand of mugging to the camera comedy is a bit hard to take now, that said this is still pretty interesting and good for a silent.Rather different from the book and later MGM Movie, this version, the print I saw is the restored 100 minute print with added narration by Jaqueline Lovell, bookends the story with a grandfather reading Baum's book to his granddaughter. The early parts of Dorothy, played by the lovely Dorothy Dwan, are funny and strange. There is an odd air of sensuality throughout the film, odd since its intended for Children, I presume? SEmon does a very touching and funny bit with a lollipop, he wants to give it to Dorothy, but can't summon up his courage, Finally it end up eaten by a duck! Oliver Hardy plays another farmhand and he's very good, you can see why he became a star, his facial expressions and manners are just much better on screen than the other players, who are either too stiff or too hammy. The twister is here along with surprisingly good lightning effects. The land of OZ is basically a big soundstage, but it moves pretty well for a silent.Some things are bad though, the character of Snowball is listed as being played by G. Howe Black, a seemingly racist play on words. If its any consolation the actor is good and the character ends up the Lion and something of a hero, he rescues the scarecrow, Semon, in a bi-plane, near the end of the pic. For a silent this isn't bad, thought its terribly dated as one might expect. Worth a look for Oz devotees.