Paularoc What a treat it was to see this early film of the Wizard of Oz story. I did not know that there was a 1903 musical play and that this film was based in part on that and not entirely on the book. It does explain the cow – something that had me scratching my head, figuratively. I am most appreciative to those reviewers that provided this background information. While I wish the print I saw had been a little sharper (I could not read some of the documents), I nonetheless enjoyed it, particularly the cyclone scene and the dancing. While of course technically primitive, I still found it enchanting and how it must have even more enchanted the audiences of 1910. As some reviewers have pointed out, comparisons with the 1939 film are pointless but it is interesting what an endlessly fascinating subject the story of Oz is. Fortunately this bit of film history has not been lost.

MartinHafer Okay, it's important to point out that you can't compare this movie at all to the 1939 classic--and for so many reasons. Film was just in its infancy in 1910 and full-length movies meant about 10-20 minutes. Sets and costumes were simple and often looked like they were taken right off the stage of a high school play. And, writing and acting as we know of them today, just wasn't invented yet. So I cut the early films a lot of slack and praise movies that actually had decent production values and provided some entertainment into the 21st century--most early films fail on both these counts.The movie isn't really based on the books but on a stage musical and this at times is pretty obvious--especially when the characters start dancing for no apparent reason at all! But, aside from this odd way of telling the story, it's an adorable and interesting film--particularly as it has people in animal costumes throughout (not just the lion). It just seems very cute and makes watching this historical picture a lot easier! By the way, despite the good production values, this film is not as good as some of the full-length films by the Frenchman, Georges Méliès. His 1902 LE VOYAGE DAN LE LUNE has even better sets and tells a more coherent and watchable story--hence that is why it is rated as a 10 by me and this one only an 8.

nycritic TCM showed this silent short one night while showcasing their Treasures of the American Film Archive, and at 13 minutes, this version of THE WIZARD OF OZ is quite engaging. I can only wonder, though, at the reactions of an audience, circa 1910, going to theatres and watching this version of a story that 20 years later would become one of the most enduring classics not only for children but adults alike, because seeing the events portrayed here just only shows how little we had back then, how much we have now... and why these little shorts are worth preserving. On that basis alone I'd recommend viewing this version devoid of preconceived notions of modern cinema, but as an intellectual ride.

RDenial This film is included in the "More Treasures of the American Film Archive" DVD. The running time is listed at 13 minutes. It kind of looks like a junior high school production of "the Wizard of Oz" with people dressed up in costumes to portray Toto, the Cowardly Lion, Imogene the Cow and what appears to be a donkey. The latter two accompany Dorthy to the Emerald City with the all the rest. The Scarecrow and the Tin Woodsman are not too bad, and not that far removed from the 1939 Classic. The Wizard himself looks like the 19th century Medicine Show man that the Wizard was supposed to be. It is interesting that they basically told the whole story in such a short time frame. This film is actually interesting to watch in a historical sense. For that reason I gave it a 9.