Return to Oz Review

        My look into the Oz films continue. We’ve seen mostly musical adaptations of the classic book. While The Wizard of Oz remains as a classic treasure, The Wiz was a mixed bag that tried to be contemporary for the time instead of honoring the Broadway spin-off. There weren’t any live action adaptations of the Oz books between the release of The Wiz and this one. Just Japanese anime movies of the story would fill in the gap of time. For awhile, Disney attempted to do something with the property, as they had the film rights for the sequel books. 

1. Back to Oz

        As I mentioned earlier, Disney had the film rights to the Oz sequel books. There were attempts to make them into a television series and a film at the time, but none of them got anywhere close to shooting. It was during the 80s that director Walter Murch had discussed the project with Disney as they were close to losing the rights to the sequel books. Initially pitched as a follow up to MGM’s film, right down to having to pay the studio a massive fee to incorporate their ruby slippers into the film. Just looking at the poster and seeing brief snippets showed that there was a huge creative liberty that occurred. 

        While I’ll get to that, the film is mostly straightforward. Based on the two Oz books: "The Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz", the film picks up months after the tornado whisked Dorothy to the fantasy land. We see Dorothy be sent to a sanitarium by her aunt, due to her believing that the young girl’s “dream” is too much. The little girl is transported once again, only to find that Oz and the Emerald City is in destitute. And we meet new characters that help Dorothy try to restore the city and the Land of Oz. 

        So yeah, this movie is a massive 180° shift of the first film. Meaning there’s no musical moments, munchkins, Glinda and even Toto gets left behind in the family farm. This is a different film by all measures. And it would’ve been a nearly impossible task to try to stay consistent with the first film since it had a visual style and clearly time had passed since it couldn’t be a musical without the comparison. I’ll give the director that since he took the direction of the movie to somewhat match the books. 

        Again, I’ll elaborate on that more along with the creative choices. One thing I’ll say that this isn’t the first time that I’ve seen the actress who portrays Dorothy. It’s weird seeing an actor/actress in a younger role than what I’ve been initially exposed to in my younger years. The first film I saw of Fairuza Balk was in Adam Sandler’s The Waterboy as she portrayed Bobby Bouche’s girlfriend. While she wasn’t a big star, she’s mostly known for the supernatural film The Craft. 

        Back to Dorothy, knowing that the film is a sequel to the 1939 classic, it’s a curious choice to cast a younger Dorothy instead of leaning towards Judy Garland’s age for consistency. Not that the age made Balk not good enough for her portrayal. There’s even moments where you can hear the accent that Garland used in her portrayal of the girl as Balk would imitate it in some form. I feel that it was a deliberate choice given what we see her go through in the whole movie. And man, does she go through some things that seemed intense for the time. 

        I know you’re getting annoyed since I don’t elaborate on the dark elements that the film has. I’ll tease you once more since we get new characters that Dorothy meets. We see that none of her friends appear initially, to replace Toto we get Dorothy’s pet chicken Billina. As well as a robot named Tik-Tok, a scarecrow with a Pumpkin for a head named Jack Pumpkinhead. I think out of all of them, my favorite is Gump. He’s a mounted head of an Oz creature that has witty commentary. All of them are a mixture of puppetry and practical effects. I like how there was more of an emphasis on the special effects to show the other inhabitants of Oz. All of it is impressive, especially for the villains. 

        So, let’s talk about the villains. It would be a near impossible task to top the Wicked Witch. She’s one of the best movie villains of all time. Instead of one villain, we get two with the Nome King and Mombi. The Nome King is an all-rock creature who inhabits the mountains and has minions commute from any rock to his lair. It’s looks cool that their facial structure resembles cracks in the stone. Meanwhile, Mombi is the most interesting since she has multiple heads and one body. And I mean, she has various heads behind individual glass cases as she chooses which to pick. One tidbit that they carried over from the first film is that Dorothy encounters the people who would personify the villains. For Mombi, it has one moment where I think was intense for a Disney movie. 

2. Dark Fantasy

        The 80s was an interesting time for fantasy. There seemed to be an inflection point to have the style of films be dark. For fantasy, there were loads of dark fantasy films that weren’t light hearted as some may think. You had films like Legend, Dark Crystal and even Conan the Barbarian that took the genre and pivoted the style to a sub-genre. A lot of it had an edge where it gets, for a lack of the word, dark and interesting since it had no restraint with how it wanted to portray the fantasy element. 

        What makes Return to Oz ostensibly different than the MGM classic is that it tried to adapt the books and be a direct sequel. It’s visually jarring since there’s a huge contrast between the two when you try to marathon them. One is a product of the time that is beloved in cinema, while this one tries to be a sequel and be faithful to the books. It’s clear that there’s a tonal inconsistency, since we have somewhat creepy imagery when Dorothy encounters the new threats in Oz. Now, from researching the books, it’s clear that this is the faithful adaptation. 

        A good chunk of the Oz books have a lot of weird and creepy imagery than what people are not aware of. The film even mentions how Tinman became such, by having Dorothy give out his whole reasoning when discussing it with her new friends. I feel that with the attempt to be faithful to the books, the film alienated the film fans of Oz while being embraced by the true fans of Oz. Additionally, when Dorothy goes into Mombi’s quarters, she’s chased by the headless body of the villainess as the various heads scream and shriek at her. 

        It’s clear that the MGM film made a huge imprint into pop culture that having this one be a sequel is clearly a huge misfire to the ones who haven’t read the books. Of course, it didn’t need to have the ruby slippers and stick with the silver ones. Like, the film tried to have it be both ways but depending on if you’ve read the books or just seen the classic, it’s a clear juggling act of a movie. It isn’t bad since it tried to be different since it couldn’t replicate what made the Judy Garland one a classic. To me, I feel that it was ahead of its time. 

3. Legacy

        No surprise that the film didn’t make back it’s budget. And more so that it seemed like Disney wanted to bury it since the company didn’t believe in the film. It’s one of those instances where the behind the scenes is as interesting as the film itself. Especially as the director was fired then re-hired as the budget ballooned than what Disney was comfortable with. I think had the film be isolated enough where it was it’s own Oz film without any connection to the Garland one, then maybe it would’ve received just enough to squeeze back it’s budget. 

        Reading the reviews of the past, there was a clear line of contention where some thought that the film betrayed the original while others praised it’s faithfulness to the books. It’s baffling to read that since The Wizard version took creative liberties to the extreme when showcasing the colorful cinematography. Yet, this one is crucified by having be tacked on to the original yet being faithful to the source material. As time passed, the reception for the film improved by just borderline in Rotten Tomatoes. Which I think is appropriate due to nature of the film and what it’s trying to go for. 

4. Overall

        Return to Oz is an interesting adaptation of the Oz books. It’s one of the underrated Disney films and an underappreciated adaptation of the Oz books.