Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return

I have to say...When I told my daughter we are Going to the movies..I wanted to take her to see Rio 2, but she said She'd rather watch Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. I thought i was gonna be In for an hour&a half of boredom and a terrible Computer-Animated Wizard of Oz Movie..but luckily, my daughter made a good choice. When we Entered the movie, we realized nobody else was there, (Not surprising) and that made the kiddo so excited bc She could talk when she wanted to and walk around..This Film kept her interested, and she had a big smile on her face The whole time. It kept a pretty decent pace, had lots Of good action sequences & The animation was Actually much better than I thought it would be, looked somewhat Realistic. Also had a few good laughs&she loved the Musical scenes. I'm a 31 yr old guy..so obviously this Isn't my kind of film..i love computer animated Kids movies but this one doesn't aim any over the head Jokes for adults and comes off as corny to an adult.. but since my Lil one had such a great time, it's a good one. I recommend this as a movie for a family w small children to Watch together or for ages 3+ to watch alone(the action & bad guys May be too intense for some younger kids to watch alone. Overall, much more enjoyable than expected. -Ghandi Bonez

As I suspected from its origins, this film is uninspired, unoriginal, and mostly humorless. Apparently it is doing poorly at the box office-- and rightly so. What is missing is the sense of humanity and wonder that infuses L Frank Baums's classic books (especially the first few) and the MGM classic film based on his first book. I think the problem with this film is that it is based on the rather mediocre "Dorothy of Oz" written by a Roger Baum, a great grandson of L Frank Baum. "Dorothy of Oz" has the same deficiencies as this film: lack of universality, originality, understanding of humanity or appeal to adults. Because of these deficiencies, even children will find this film as forgettable as Roger Baum's book. Instead of true originality we are given some new "cute" characters like Wiser the owl. It can't just "get by" on cuteness or nostalgia for the original Oz story. It just doesn't work. Successful children's books and films are driven by vision and heart: this film (and the book it's based on) have none.

I became aware of this film even before it was made, when people soliciting investors for the film contacted me. They were surprised to learn that someone actually knew about L. Frank Baum and his wonderful books (beyond the MGM film that almost everyone has seen). They appeared to believe that anything connected to the Wizard of Oz was golden, and were outraged by the idea that Roger Baum's book is uninspired and that a film based on it was doomed to fail.

Unfortunately, in the end the producers were not able to rise above the unoriginal "Dorothy of Oz." I feel sorry for whoever did invest in this boring debacle. I recommend that you skip this film, no matter the age of your children. Instead see a classic: rent Pinocchio, MGM's "Wizard of Oz," or Disney's "Mary Poppins" each of which has the heart that this film lacks.

Fortunately I have two little kids now or I would have never watched this movie. In addition, I never heard this movie was coming out or anything about it until we all saw it on Netflix.

My kids aged 9 and 2 1/2 years of age. They both love animated movies to death and have seen a lot of them. Animated movies are not my cup of tea, but because they are playing all the time in the house I see, hear, and remember the movies even though I am watching them indirectly.

I was searching for yet another animated movie and I stumbled upon this one. Being older, I am a fan of the original Wizard of Oz movie from the 1930's having seen it a million times growing up. It looked interesting so we all watched it. Now for the critique:

2. The Story (ebb & flow): It seemed like a logical sequel to the original live action movie that I love, although the sequel is animated. I thought it was easy to understand and wasn't illogical like some other reviewers stated. As an adult and an experienced movie watcher, I thought the story was well written and easy to understand. The fault lies in the source material. Most young people today do not know the story of the Wizard of Oz so they can't connect to it.

3. Characters. Once again, as in the fault of the story, the characters are not recognizable to the target audience: kids. Yes the adults will know about the Wizard of Oz, but the core audience will see it as an original movie. No kids watching the movie will know about the Lion's courage, the Tin Man's heart, or the Scarecrow's brain. Their background is unknown and the movie does not make an effort to rectify the situation. The only character in the movie that you end up learning a lot about is the Jester and only because he talks about himself and his past near the beginning of the film. To me thats a bad idea. Why? Because kids should know about the good characters, not the bad ones. The good characters are the ones you want your children to connect with and feel sympathy for, not the evil ones. I felt they focused too much on the Jester character and not enough on characters that mattered.

4. Animation. The animation quality wasn't bad. Was it the best I've ever seen? No, but it wasn't the worst either. I would say it was good animation that probably could have benefited with a little more financial resources allocated to it.

5. Musical parts (songs): This is where the movie shines. I felt the songs in the movie were of high quality and very catchy. If this were a successful Disney movie, the songs from this movie would be sung by every boy and girl like what happened in Frozen. Frozen had like two or three catchy songs, where Legends of Oz had four or five that would be popular. Of course this is my opinion and I'm not a fan of musicals.

6. Excitement & Entertainment. This is where the moneys made for a movie. Did you feel you got your moneys worth? The movies strengths were its musical numbers and the good story to support the songs. If they had instead used the songs in a more higher profile animated movie, it would have been a better idea.

Bottom Line: An enjoyable movie that needs to watched more than once to really appreciate the strengths of the movie: it's songs. I bought the DVD!

I find it hard to trust the 1st dozen or so reviews on some films found at this sight. Of course I could be mistaken but, I saw this film and found it to be full of nonsense and trite cliché dialog. With the mega cast that participated in the making of this film I expected a much better and more interesting story to be explored in this sequel classic.

As I watched the various characters enter the beginning scenes I felt they were very cardboard like. The few comedic scenes seemed almost too childish even for children. As to the animation, it was not to my liking. It seemed that it was taken from generic Saturday morning cartoons. It was bland and even boring to a degree.

Lastly I noticed that production costs of this animated film were surprisingly much more than I expected it to be. Nearly a million bucks a minute. I felt that for that kind of mega bucks this should have been a higher quality of product. The next few weeks will show weather the movie goers buy and or embrace this less than stellar movie.

Not every children's Animated film can be a "Frozen" or a "Finding Nemo" but they should at least aim for that quality and level of product.

I'm a parent who has 3 animated movies in his top 10 favorite movies of all time (Frozen, Wreck-It Ralph & Incredibles) so I'm a good candidate to review this film objectively.

I took my 8 yr old son and 9 yr old daughter to see it. Final analysis?

Me & my son: It was o.k. My daughter: I liked it a lot!

I think most kids will enjoy this movie a lot. I was moderately entertained, which is more than I can say for a lot of the animated drivel that passes through our theater. I give it a 6 out of 10. It certainly doesn't deserve to bomb at the box office. I thought it was better than mindless sequels like Rio 2 or even Despicable Me 2, which I didn't enjoy much. But here's a full breakdown of my review:

VOICE ACTING 8/10: Martin Short was outstanding, and raises the score here. Kelsey Grammar was also very good. I love Dan Akroyd, but his portrayal of Scarecrow left a lot to be desired. Jim Belushi and Lea Michele were adequate in their roles, if not rather forgettable.

ANIMATION 6/10: The animation definitely has a sub-par appearance compared to large studio productions (such as Disney or Pixar) but it isn't anywhere near direct to DVD levels. I could tell the animators put their heart and soul into this film, they just didn't have the tools to make it look amazing. Dorothy's animation is a distraction, but many of the non-human characters were great. There was a lot of attention to detail but, unfortunately, the movie suffers from its low budget appearance. People do judge a movie by its cover and it suffers here.

PLOT/STORY 5/10: There's nothing new or interesting about this story. It progressed from point A to point B without any real surprises or a sense of what was propelling the characters forward.

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT 5/10: The villain was the best part of this film. Excellently portrayed by Martin Short, he was a lot of fun to watch. Dorothy and most of her companions were pretty flat and uninteresting. Marshall Mallow was interesting but his relationship to his love interest seemed forced and a little contrived.

MUSIC/SONGS 6/10: The songs were technically proficient and had a professional feel to their production. Unfortunately, they were also rather uninspiring and not very catchy. There's no way anyone would be able to hum or sing any of those songs after just one viewing, as one "reviewer" claimed, they were just too unremarkable.