The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910)

I love this movie so much

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

...because as each film from the early age of cinema, it is a trip in past. the mixture of admiration and fun remains the same. in same measure, the delicate line between theater and the new art of film, the solutions for adaptation, the interesting performances, the lovely "special effects", the rhytm of story. short, a splendid short film, an admirable work.

This is a great movie. 1939 is a remake. It not a bad movie. It a good movie. But this is the original Wizard of Oz. And it is better. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. The first remake from 1914 is a little better. But still this is a great movie. A very good fantasy film. See it if you can. 5.7 is underrating this great film. It is no 5.7 it mush better. This is a true classic. Bebe Daniels who played Dorothy Gale was a great actress. Winifred Greenwood who played the Wicked Witch is also a great actress. This movie is a must see. Robert Z Leonard who played The Scarecrow is was a great actor. See this movie. It is a great.

Dorothy, Scarecrow, and Toto bring a donkey and cow (played by Men In Suits) along with them in the cyclone (which is simulated by having them hug a big hay bale that turns around and around). ALL THE INTERTITLES ARE IN GIANT BLOCK CAPITALS.Toto is a real dog who turns into Man In A Suit #3 to fight the lion (Man In A Suit #4), who is not cowardly at all. There is a line of chorus girls and another of palace guards. At the end, the guards ride in on REAL HORSES, which makes the Men In Suits (by now including #5, bug, and #6, frog, from the Wicked Witch's lair, and #7, kitty cat, who otherwise has no apparent role in the action) look really, really lame. The cast of thousands and elaborate sets make you wonder why no one had yet thought of MULTIPLE CAMERAS, and EDITING. But that was a concept they obviously couldn't wrap their minds around, back in 1910. Who knows - maybe a second camera would have cost more than all the actors, dancers, horses, and animal costumes put together.

Although it is a rather unrefined movie, it's still fun to watch this early film version of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", and it has plenty of energy and ingenuity that make up for its rough edges. It is certainly of interest historically, and for anyone who enjoys the films of the early 1900s, it also works well enough as entertainment.The story differs considerably both from the book and from the well-known 1939 classic, in large part because it was adapted from a stage production of the story, rather than from the original novel. But most of the characters are easily recognizable, and it's also quite interesting to see a very young Bebe Daniels as Dorothy.The scarecrow and the tin man probably get the best roles, and in a number of scenes they engage in some amusing antics, making it worth looking for them even when they are not the main focus. It's apparently uncertain who played the scarecrow, which is too bad, because he is pretty funny, and his performance is not unworthy of being compared with Ray Bolger's performance in the wonderful Judy Garland version.The adaptation does have a very stage-like look, but given that approach, most of it works all right. Some of the camera effects are pretty good for 1910, and even the ones that seem more obvious are at least interesting to watch.In watching this now, it probably benefits from the endearing qualities of the Oz characters, which are so familiar from other sources. But its original audiences probably enjoyed it as well for its own sake, since it has plenty to offer, and it tells the story with lots of liveliness.