User Reviews

**Contains spoilers ** Where do I begin with this one? Okay, you'll have gathered that the film is based only very loosely on the book. And by very loosely I mean its taken a few basic ideas - a girl called Dorothy, three workers from her farm in Kansas who (sort of) become a scarecrow, a tin woodman and a lion, and a far off land called Oz where resides a 'wizard'.

Larry Semon's complete re-working of the story just fails. It is an awkward mish-mash of ideas. Some of the elements of Baum's original story are shoe-horned into the plot without much logic behind them, and there are a number of sub-plots that are not satisfactorily resolved.

Dorothy loves her Auntie Em - but once the action switches to Oz, Auntie Em and Kansas are just forgotten about.

Then there's Oliver Hardy's character which is inconsistent throughout the film. When we first see him he's kind and protective towards Dorothy. At the end of the film he's one of the prime villains! Likewise Dorothy's Uncle Henry is initially hostile towards her, then is a protective guardian before becoming a bit of a villain again by the end.

Most disgracefully the film's eponymous character, the Wizard, is hardly in the plot at all. He's not a wizard but a charlatan and has little relevance to the story other than to provide a (very tenuous) reason why the farmhands disguise themselves as a scarecrow, tin man and lion.

Dorothy totally lacks any motive throughout this film. The plot is more centred around Semon's character who loves Dorothy but spends most of the time clowning around totally independently of her. His gags are mostly physical and some of the stunt-work is impressive but there are also sequences which go on well past the point where the idea has been milked, notably an impossible scene where Semon is hiding in wooden crates and somehow manages to teleport himself from one to another! Given the otherwise complete absence of magic in the film, the sequence defies explanation.

Also confused is the idea that the ruling Prime Minister of Oz is going to whatever lengths necessary to retrieve papers that prove that Dorothy is the true ruler of Oz. Now even overlooking the extraordinary coincidence that his men turn up to get them on the very day she is about to be given them, it begs the question why he left the papers there in the first place when they could easily have been destroyed. And to add to the lunacy, even when the papers are found and their contents made public, in the end it makes little difference to his position! As a framing sequence we see a grandfather figure relating the story to a little girl. This starts off well enough as the viewer gets the impression that what we are seeing is what the girl is hearing/imagining, but later on when we cut to these characters the grandfather doesn't even have the book out and the girl is in a separate room! The ending is also muddled. Dorothy falls for the prince she hardly knows (just like that) and the supposed hero of the film, Semon, is seen falling (to his death?) from an aeroplane. And the wizard himself just disappears from the proceedings about halfway through! Hardly a fairytale ending!

There are a number of reasons for WANTING to like this movie. There are indeed some moments of inspired slapstick and Larry Semon deserves his dues for daring to take the story into new directions. But, uh, good luck reminding yourself of this as you try to sit through the movie.

Some boys play with electric trains to feel like big men, Semon played with L Frank Baum's novel and a film camera and then sought to inflict this film upon cinema-goers when it seems to have been made solely to amuse himself. Yes, Semon does some fine physical comedy. Giving credit where it's due, his looseness and comic 'floppiness' contain elements that will later be part of Ray Bolger's performance in the celebrated 1939 film adaptation of this story.

Unfortunately, Semon's enthusiasm is effectively much of this film's problem. The movie strings together slapstick moments, a story about Dorothy being a kidnapped and relocated princess of Oz, a perverted uncle, a racially-stereotyped black farmhand, and a convoluted set of scenes with a disturbing-looking grandfather reading the Oz story to his granddaughter and presenting the story. All these ideas that may seem inspired in isolation are not presented in any coherent form here, and the movie comes across as a contrived attempt at a star vehicle for Semon.

Yes, every film adaptation of a story will make departures from the original material. However, if other films put a few dents and dings in Baum's novel, this one smashed it into Semon's oncoming ego.

Watch it for historical interest, see Oliver Hardy developing the characteristics that would become legendary in his partnerships with Stan Laurel, chuckle at the occasional stunts and pratfalls, but don't expect to be too impressed... or know what the hell is going on

I hit the mute button to avoid the oddball "music" and the narration. Everyone is comparing this to the 1939 version but recently I got a 2 disk set of the music of the 1903 stage version and actually (from reading the plot, what there was of it, in the notes that came with the CDs) this movie hearkens back to it, with the dungeon and dictator and other anarchist elements. A 1910 film version is sort of the stage version in digest form. The play was performed by various amateur and professional groups from 1904 through the 1930s. So it's probable that Larry Semon developed his version less from the book(s) than from the play.

Though they are disguises and not characters, Semon and Hardy made a pretty good Scarecrow and Tin Woodman.

Semon didn't seem to know when to stop wringing a joke. Jerry Lewis was just as guilty in a few of his first post-Dean Martin films, too.

Charlie Murray was marvelous as the humbug wizard with that wonderful rubber face of his. I wish he's gotten more screen time.

The lines on the title cards aren't any worse than others of the period. It was the heyday of the wisecrack and very few of the comedies of the day overlooked an opportunity to use them. I'm including Laurel & Hardy, Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd.

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.

There were quite a few motion picture versions of L. Frank Baum's famous stories before 1939's "The Wizard of Oz." Four are lost. In 1910 there was "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" (13 minutes). A few years later, Frank Baum himself produced three Wizard of Oz movies, the most notable being "His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz" (1914). It just might be the best version before 1939.

Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" (1925), produced six years after Baum's death, is dreadful. Now, to be fair, it should be stated that the production values are high, and the stunt work is excellent. But where is the fairy tale – or the heart – of what resembles Baum's Oz? There are no witches or Toto or magical fantasy. Rather, the film is a silent showpiece for comedic actor Larry Semon, who not only butchers the basic story-line, but morphs it into a bizarre tale that ultimately bankrupted him. Semon relied on slapstick, not on intelligent plot. And the characters are so inconsistent!! Did L. Frank Baum Jr. really co-write this beauty?

The movie commences with Semon, starring as an eerie-looking toymaker (in one of several roles), who is coaxed into reading the Wizard of Oz tale by his granddaughter. The pages of the book are turned, and we see the opening credits. Next we are in Oz, then Kansas. Dorothy (played by Dorothy Dwan) – Semon's new wife and a bit older than the Dorothy of the book – is constantly brutalized by her ill-tempered and corpulent Uncle Henry, although Aunt Em is nice. Later, Uncle Henry will suddenly and strangely become Dorothy's protector in the Land of Oz, before he again turns malicious before film's end. Anyhow, Dorothy, puzzled by Uncle Henry's behavior, complains to Auntie Em, who explains that Henry is not her real uncle. It seems that Dorothy was the rightful heir to the faraway throne of Oz, but as an infant she was sent away and left on Em and Henry's doorstep with a note stating that an attached secret letter should not be opened for 18 years. Then, Prince Kynd's position was usurped by a bad trio of Prime Minister Kruel, Ambassador Wikked, and "able aide" Lady Vishuss. As Dorothy is turning 18 years old, the letter is opened. It explains that she must return to claim her inheritance. Meanwhile Kruel sends Wikked and some henchmen in a biplane (!) to steal the letter before it is opened; they are unsuccessful. So why wasn't the letter originally destroyed by Kruel, before he had left baby Dorothy in Kansas? Anyway, a gigantic tornado carries Dorothy, Uncle Henry, and two farmhands to Oz. Lightning transports a third farmhand (Snowball) there too.

At the same time, the people of Oz – aroused from their 18-year slumber – are assembling before Kreul's throne, finally wondering what had happened to Princess Dorothy (!). Next we are told that the Wizard (Charles Murray) is just a fake who is commanded to do oddities to distract the unhappy populace. As a title card states, "The Wizard was just a medicine side-show hokum hustler, but he fitted in nicely as the Prime Minister's "yes-man." Then another title card reads, "Do your stuff, Wizzy!" So "Wizzy" produces from a large wicker the "Phantom of the Basket," an appalling transvestite whose dance mesmerizes the people, but not Prince Kynd. Afterward the Wizard turns good.

The three farmhands are played by Oliver N. Hardy, Semon, and Spencer Bell. Yep, that's the same Hardy who later teamed with Stan Laurel (1926) after the movie bankrupted Semon. Hardy, who is not as fat as he would later become, is "transformed" by the Wizard into the Tin Woodsman. But in a wacky twist, he turns bad for the rest of the movie! He becomes the new "Knight of the Garter," and continues to yearn for Dorothy (!!). Ugh! But then, Dorothy here is not so innocent, but quite mature. Hmmm. See, you were warned that this pseudo-Oz movie is bizarre! Hardy would meet his end when he falls from a tower. And yet he earlier survived a similar high fall on the Kansas farm! Semon would become the Wizard's Scarecrow in Oz, and also would court Dorothy, who is really destined for Prince Kynd. Obese Uncle Henry becomes "The Prince of Whales." Get it? By the way, Aunt Em vanishes after the tornado struck Kansas. As there was no explanation, she presumably died in the twister. After Price Kynd regains the throne, and Dorothy's situation is righted, one would think that – at the very least – he would throw dictator Kruel into jail. But he doesn't, as he has to sort things out. Hmmm. With the "investigation" protracted, Kruel regains some power, and Uncle Henry and Tin Woodsman Hardy become his henchmen. Later the defeated Kruel explains that he had to send baby Dorothy away, or else another court faction would have executed her. So there was still another court faction?

The third farmhand, Snowball (Spencer Bell), is a Negro who is superstitious and easily frightened, and likes watermelon (Hmmm). He is billed as G. Howe Black (one of his movie pseudonyms). Get it? And yet he later dons a lion suit (Cowardly Lion), and scares away the bad guys in the dungeon's torture room. Near the end Snowball becomes a hero of sorts as he flies a biplane (!!!) with Semon hanging onto a rope ladder. But it suddenly snaps, and Semon falls from a high elevation for the third time. Snowball may be the only "American" character to "escape" Oz! But then a Scarecrow doll inexplicably falls from a shelf, and the little granddaughter awakens from her dream. Yes, this is all truly weird, and there are still other things wrong with this "adaptation." See this disaster once to say you saw it, and then let it go. But it is so difficult to believe that this nonsense was put into film!

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)

. . . but this 1926 silent rendering of the story does not. However, the mute OZ has BOTH a guy in a lion suit AND a pride of actual lions. I do not recall ANY planes flying around Kansas in the "Retro" (though later) "Talkie" rendition of the OZ story, but there are at least a couple of the new-fangled flying machines in the quieter OZ (though if there was a hot air balloon to go with the single-winged and biplane, I must have missed it). Though the latter-day musical Oz finds its "Cowardly" Big Cat singing about being "King" of the forest, its simplified plot seems to have left out the actual Prince featured in the earlier story. There might be a threat of falling from a great height during the OZ from the 1930s, but such plunges are pretty routine during the earlier 1920s offering. The final third of this monochromatic harbinger is more or less a Dorothy-free zone, taking place primarily in a cave-like dungeon mostly inhabited by pirates. Though the more famous OZ has its moments of broad humor, such as when the Tin Man is either swaying back and forth or rusting (not to mention the wise guy apple trees tossing their fruit), the older OZ seems to go after "slap-stick" style laughs more frequently, including the flight of the bumblebees and the eggs and chicks leaking out of the pockets of the scarecrow-to-be. (It's often said that you cannot make a proper omelet without smashing a few eggs.) Though there's a lollipop in the Silent Oz, there is not any evidence of a "Guild," and neither Good or Wicked witches seem to have discovered this Land yet. But to paraphrase the well-know song, unless you've seen BOTH of these flicks, you don't know clouds at all!

This is the "B" movie of its day. The bad guys have names like Kruel, Wikked, and Vishuss, while the good guys are lead by Prince Kynd. The DVD has a simplistic musical background, one that might be part of a 1980'd Nintendo sound track. The printed words are read to us. The story is a slightly different version of what we have been used to seeing, but not as bad as Asylum's adaptation of "Moby Dick."

The production borders on camp. When the characters are introduced the actors who play the role are also printed on the screen. The restoration is excellent as the grainy aspect has been removed, although the film remains dark around the borders. The movie also includes Frederick Ko Vert, a female impersonator who wears peacock feathers. His appearance frightens the residents of Oz. Prince Kynd laughs at Frederick and says, "That's a lot of applesauce." Applesauce means "nonsense" but is sometimes used as a code word to describe a sexy female. This might pass as "adult humor" in that age. There is also much slap stick humor.

Oliver Hardy is not the fat man in this film. That is Fatty Alexander. Dorothy turns 18 and the farm hands are interested in courting her...reminded me of the SNL skit, Olsen twins turn 18. There is also a black man, Spencer Bell, eating a watermelon in the movie, something that wouldn't be there today. His real name is fictitiously listed as "G. Howe Black." The race jokes don't end there, there are more.

The plot has holes big enough to drive a truck through.

As entertainment for the family the movie would be a sad flop for modern times. However, if you are looking at the history of camp, history of bad senseless films, or history of racial humor in movies, it might be worth a peek. That large young man on the cover is Oliver Hardy. There was much in this film which reminded me of that later classic, "March of the Wooden Soldiers." The main special effect in this film was how they were able to splice film (lion scenes for one) and make it look realistic. Clearly this film proves movie goers smoked pot in 1925...how else could they watch it?