Dorothy’s trip back to Oz only solidifies the notion that whenever there’s a sequel to a beloved classic, it’s difficult to please everyone. It never manages to capture the feeling of the original, or create a world to captivate a new audience. While visually unique and creative, it’s bothered by a weak plot line, and littered with humor that was too grown up for kids, but not mature enough for the adults. It straddled the line between being fun, and grossly disturbing.
No this is not 28 days later, its a kids film
Return to Oz is a 1985 sequel to the original classic “The Wizard of OZ” directed by Walter Murch. It picks up 6 months after the events of the first film. After being put in a hospital to cure her of the asinine visions she talks about to her family (her first trip the land of OZ) Dorothy (Fairuza Balk) escapes, but she falls into a river and gets swept away, only to find herself back in OZ. However when she arrives, she finds a desolate land, devoid of all the life she remembers. Dorothy then sets off to find out what happened to all of her friends.
Dorothy (Balk) navigating the creepy hallways with Mombi’s (Marsh) severed heads.
It’s a challenge to understand why Murch chose to make Oz such a depressing landscape. The wonder and beauty of the world that everyone is familiar with is a far too distant memory. The colorful yellow brick road is torn apart, emerald city in ruins, and all her friends are turned into stone creatures. Even when Dorothy first comes into contact with the people who now inhabit the world, it’s like a scene out of Mad Max. Dorothy is terrorized by what’s essentially a gang called the wheelers. While they are trying to be a whimsical band of stupid thugs, they come off as genuinely psychotic, and perhaps a bit disturbing. This is not even speaking to the whole idea of Dorothy needing mental shock treatment as a means to cure her, quite heavy stuff for a kids film.
Where this film also fails is in the way the characters interact. Dorothy tries to capture the essence of the original character played by Judy Garland, but it just comes off as awkward and odd. It’s not as if the original Dorothy was trying to talk a certain way, it’s just how characters were on film at the time, and emulating that style nowadays just doesn’t translate well.
The one triumph was the character Tik Tok voiced by Sean Barret
One thing that worked quite well however, were the costumes and effects. Tik-Tok, her robot companion was fantastic. His robotic movements and need to be constantly wound was actually a fun treat and I found his character to fit within the lore of OZ. However, right when I get to thinking this film is finally starting to hit its stride, we meet Mombi (Jean Marsh). This evil princess habit of collecting the heads of young girls so she can change her appearance. Again, this just exemplifies the sudden uneasiness I experienced from this film, and I certainly wouldn’t want my young ones to see the image of all these disembodied heads sitting on pedestals in a closet.
In the end though I can see how tough it must’ve been to create a story that appeals to both an older audience and a younger one. After all, the older audience grew up with the original, whereas for the younger crowd it could be their first time experiencing OZ. The outcome of this is a film that is too unbalanced. It tries so heavily to appeal to both that it gets lost somewhere in the middle.
Run time: 113 Mins
Rated PG
Your reviews are always so intimidating, haha! I really look forward to reading yours every week to see what you come up with. Anyway, once again, you’ve written a fantastic review. You paint a very vivid picture and one that is easy to follow. You follow the “5-steps” very well and make sure not to leave anything out. The visuals are great as well. The only criticism I could possibly find is a continuity error. In your text, you refer to the character as “Tic-Toc” and in the picture next to the paragraph, he is noted as “Tik-Tok”. It’s a very small error, but I couldn’t find anything else to criticize you on, haha.
oh my goodness, I totally spelled his name wrong, I think I was eating a tic tac when I reviewed it.
And I love that you think my reviews are intimidating haha.
I agree that this film was not for the eyes of children. There were some pretty heavy scenes that you mentioned and tons of others as well that made it too sophisticated and disturbing for anyone under 15.
You talk about how Fairuza Balk tried to immitate Judy Garland from the original Oz and it made for poor acting and I 100% agree with you on this as well. I think that the way she spoke on screen made it hard to believe as a story. All I kept thinking about was… “she’s just acting” I wanted to see the lights and microphones hanging above their heads. I definitely did not feel like I was in the movie while watching it, which is what producers are suppose to make the viewer feel like. Not to mention, the dialect she was using definitely wouldn’t be coming out of a 8 year olds mouth. It seemed the script was made for a 20 year old Dorothy instead.
Another thing that really bothered me about the set was that none of the characters fell into the same style category. Dorothy was a human, the lion was inbetween a real lion and a cloth one. Don’t even get me started on the scarecrow. None of them fit together like the original version where they all had some human characteristic that was altered, at least they all fit together and seemed like they were from the same place.
Overall, it was a disappointing sequal that decided by twisting the concept of the first film it would become a huge success. Not, no one even knows who the target audience is for.
Right!? I’m so glad someone felt the same way. Why have her act like a character from a movie half a century old? Acting has changed, and really for the better.
I appreciate your emphasis on how this “kids movie” is hardly a kids movie; the line about the borderline humor and explaining the shock therapy were importants things to note, I think. It’s these details that really set the tone and theme for the film, which happens to be a disturbing one…
Something that I actually overlooked (because I was so upset about the film) was that Tik-Tok really was a fun treat! I’m glad that you pointed this out and didn’t completely pan the film. You might even be able to expand on this more, but then again even that little bit is short-lived.
I wonder what you think about the idea that this movie could have been cool, if the director/studio/responsible party had really embraced the idea of re-launching the Oz mythos. Instead, we got something kinda–but not fully–weird and dark, marketed as a direct sequel to the ’39 version but deliberately cutting ties in some significant ways (puppets for Scarecrow and Tin Man, for ex.). The question to think about is how much does the new version really *HAVE* to honor the earlier, iconic one? Maybe this one is just not different enough?