At least she wasn't named Soleil Moon Fry. The no-marquee name Fairuza Balk didn't help the public embrace, no matter how exquisite she is. Yes nominated for 5 Oscars, it won none and vanished for 20 years. The glittering climax of a restored Emerald City is a triumph of green and silver/gold set design, I defy any viewer not to rewind it several times just to see each and every part. One genuinely screamworthy scene in the hall of Heads with a headless Queen rushing about in a nightmarish vision is almost only for adults, so intense is it's genuine horror. Scene after scene perfectly realised: the green walled horror of the psychiatric asylum in reel one, the amazing claymation of the Gnome King, and especially the glittering halls of Mombi's castle. The production values of RETURN TO OZ are simply breathtaking. I think the world is tuned into this type of family film more now than in the Flashdance 80s. Viewed 20 years later on a Disney DVD of dubious quality, I have to say it is a film more suited to these dark and disturbing times and if released today would certainly get a better reception and better crits.and possibly make a lot of money. At the time I was irritated by the fixed goony expressions on Jack Pumpkinhead and the Scarecrow (loved Tik-tok, though, a fascinating and completely compelling design and movement piece) This time around I didn't mind it and actually appreciated the fact that they were 'book' expressions. $27 million dollars later in production costs returned maybe a quarter in theatre film rentals and RETURN TO OZ for all its merit and lavish production care and superb scary special effects.was consigned to the Disney dud bin. You mean the world's most popular kids film? Well. One Exec infamously said to us theatre owners: "We're going for the Frank L Baum book illustrations and nothing like that 1939 vaudeville thing". At the time of release every critic bleated at the grim and melancholy tone of RETURN TO OZ, and sadly themselves neglected to celebrate the original book look, a choice Disney execs applauded themselves for. Disney were in a very bleak period and the films, attempting to reflect perhaps a more mature or even grown up perspective chose, oh dear I have to say it: a dark and disturbing theme. One may recall SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, TRON, THE BLACK CAULDRON, ONE MAGIC Christmas and a few others that had much to offer any thinking crowd,and each had special effects that were quite astonishing. In the early 80s Disney certainly were off the cash trail with a range of films, each expertly produced, that were box office disasters. There is a lesson here.Īfter reading about 40 of the other comments here, all of whom say RETURN TO OZ is dark and disturbing, I will make a different comment. Compare this to the awful remake of "the Haunting" with it's stupid cartoonish CGI creatures (and this isn't a dig at computer animation, but since the technique is inheritely realist, it's not scary). By the way, please note that the old-school herky-jerky puppets and claymation monsters in this movie are scary as all get out. I think it goes without saying that you'd be legally insane to show it to little kids, but fantasy fans, OZ enthusiasts, and fans of cult movies should hunt it down as soon as possible. Much more "THIS is how long you have to be alive!" than "We represent the Lullaby League". What I'm trying to get at here is that "Return to OZ" is an OZ movie that is much more faithful to the books. To top it all off, it turns out that Dorothy's buddies are really good at killing things in particular the dear, heartless Tin Man who bloodies up his hatchet with unsettling apathy. There's a land of sentient vegetables who raise *people* in their gardens (think "Motel Hell" and you've got the idea). There's a land of beings who throw their own heads at you as weapons. Frank Baum's original, printed-page OZ is, quite possibly, the most messed up imaginary universe ever created. It's just that the movie was based on the book in the respect that the characters in the movie had the same names as the characters in the book.) Secondly, L. If you don't like it on some level or other, you can't be human. (This isn't a dig at the movie, mind you. It is actually a synthesis of the first five or so sequels to the BOOK. First off, this is NOT a follow-up to the classic MGM movie. To truly understand and appreciate "Return to OZ", you've got to know two things.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |