sddavis63 I have to say that this is an interesting adaptation of L. Frank Baum's famous story "The Wizard Of Oz" - the most interesting thing about it being that it seems to have little to do with either L. Frank Baum or The Wizard Of Oz. The story, as it's told here, is really about the attempt of a wicked tyrant named "Kruel" to continue to oppress the inhabitants of a land called "Oz." In this version of the story, there is no wicked witch - nor is there a good witch for that matter. In fact, for the most part, Oz isn't really much different from - well - anywhere else. But the people of Oz are looking for their long lost princess. Into the picture bursts Dorothy (played by a actress named Dorothy Dwan) who gets blown into Oz by a Kansas tornado (OK, something familiar from Baum's story) and discovers her true identity.The story doesn't really revolve around Dorothy, though. Nor does "The Wizard" (played by Charles Murray) have a particularly important role. He's a charlatan of no great significance. The movie revolves around the characters played by Larry Semon, a successful veteran of silent films, who also directed and produced this, along with helping to adapt the book. He's the "scarecrow" character - although not a real scarecrow, just dressed up as a scarecrow, and most of the movie is about his unrequited love for Dorothy.I found this really quite bizarre. The most interesting thing about it might be that it features Oliver Hardy (of Laurel & Hardy fame) as the Woodsman, among other characters. It's not bad technically and has some decent enough effects for the day. The story is quite disjointed, although it does have some humorous moments. I'd have to believe that the reason a lot of people think it's so bad is because it just isn't "The Wizard Of Oz." It was a very expensive movie for its day, and basically was responsible for bankrupting Chadwick Pictures. Semon's career also seemed to go downhill pretty quickly afterward. Still, one shouldn't dismiss it so quickly. It may not be a very good movie and the story may not make a lot of sense, but you can't deny that it's a true historical curiosity. (6/10)

MissSimonetta 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.

happipuppi13 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)

FerdinandVonGalitzien In the silent year of 1925, the popular Amerikan comedian Herr Larry Semon, adapted, produced and starred in Frank Baum's greatest children 's book "The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz"and this German count finds it is possible to say that it is a perfect film vehicle for Herr Semon but no one else in the story. Except for that popular silent comedian, there is no room or chance for the other characters; Dorothy ( Dame Dorothy Dwan ) is no more than a supporting character( no trace of Toto ) and the great wizard seems no mightier than a magician's apprentice.The first half of the film might be described as "A Farmhand ( obviously Herr Larry Semon himself ) In The Pratfall Land Of Texas" where a lot of sight gags are displayed, especially the inventive use of many animations tricks (amazing to this German count) The second half of the film or "A Scarecrow ( Herr Larry Semon himself again )In The Slapstick Land Of Oz", includes funny and elaborate and very well assembled scenes with walker boxes and hungry lions.Due to the omnipresent Herr Semon , the rest of the cast has little to do. Oliver Hardy (The Tin Woodsman) and Dorothy Dwan were regular supporting actors in many of Herr Semon comedy shorts. Dame Dwan is pretty old for her character so it is no great loss that her part is so minor but it's a pity in Herr Hardy's case, especially since he has a triple role."The Wizard Of Oz" is, in spite of it all, is an interesting oeuvre but Herr Larry Semon's artistic selfishness and his presence in almost scene becomes a kind of artistic egocentrism; a great classic becomes no more than a vanity project.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must go to Berlin, the nearest place to Oz.Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/