The Wizard of Oz

Accueil
Films
Séries
Animés
À venir
Explorer
- Télécharger l'App
- Téléchargeur
Blogs

English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

123movies search icon

muted

The Wizard of Oz - 123Movies

The Wizard of Oz

4.9

/10

1922 notes

1925•1 h 35 m•United States

Dorothy, heir to the Oz throne, must take it back from the wicked Prime Minister Kruel with the help of three farmhands.

Comedy

Family

Fantasy

Recommandé

Avis

❤

29/05/2023 11:04

source: The Wizard of Oz

oly jobe❤

23/05/2023 04:00

The evil Prime Minister of Oz Kruel sends his henchmen lead by Ambassador Wikked down to Kansas to prevent young Dorothy and the people's favorite royal representative Prince Kynd of Oz from learning that Dorothy is the rightful Queen of Oz, a destiny she's to know on her 18th birthday. Eventually whisked off to Oz in a magnificent windstorm, Dorothy and her friends, soon disguising themselves as the Tin Woodsman, the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion, try to do their best to ensure she gains and remains on the throne of Oz while most of the male characters also seem to want to wed her! This is truly different. It's a slapstick take on "The Wizard of Oz". While some people may take offense to this treatment of L. Frank Baum's book, personally I think they are taking things much too seriously. Anything has the potential to be seen in a humorous light so why should "The Wizard of Oz" be any exception. To be quite frank and honest, I found this to be funny. Sure a lot of it is contrived (there's way too many chase scenes; the scene in the lions' den goes on much too long; nearly every male character is in love with Dorothy)plus the Cowardly Lion/Snowball is sure to offend modern sensibilities, he being the model stereotype of the frightened bug-eyed black servant. But getting past that, this really does provide one with plenty of moments almost certain to result in belly-shaking laughter, director Larry Semon's sweet-natured Scarecrow providing the best moments especially during his interactions with a young Oliver Hardy's Tin Woodsman and earlier on as a farmhand under Uncle Henry.

Joeboy

23/05/2023 04:00

I hit the mute button to avoid the oddball "music" and the narration. Everyone is comparing this to the 1939 version but recently I got a 2 disk set of the music of the 1903 stage version and actually (from reading the plot, what there was of it, in the notes that came with the CDs) this movie hearkens back to it, with the dungeon and dictator and other anarchist elements. A 1910 film version is sort of the stage version in digest form. The play was performed by various amateur and professional groups from 1904 through the 1930s. So it's probable that Larry Semon developed his version less from the book(s) than from the play. Though they are disguises and not characters, Semon and Hardy made a pretty good Scarecrow and Tin Woodman. Semon didn't seem to know when to stop wringing a joke. Jerry Lewis was just as guilty in a few of his first post-Dean Martin films, too. Charlie Murray was marvelous as the humbug wizard with that wonderful rubber face of his. I wish he's gotten more screen time. The lines on the title cards aren't any worse than others of the period. It was the heyday of the wisecrack and very few of the comedies of the day overlooked an opportunity to use them. I'm including Laurel & Hardy, Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd.

2008-2020-12ans

23/05/2023 04:00

I found this on DVD, and loving old movies, even silents, I thought it would be interesting. Indeed, it is nothing like the Judy Garland version, and it is changed from the original story. Dorothea, as her name is spelled, isn't a young child as in the books, but 18, and the rightful ruler of Oz. The Oz characters have queer names that actually befit their personalities, like Prince Kynd. The musical score sounded weird at first, but I got used to it (I rarely find a distracting musical score on a silent film). It is almost pure caricature. My one thing I hate is that a narrator reads the subtitles as they are shown on the screen. It is totally unnecessary, unless it was done to promote the film for children. In many cases I wouldn't think a small child would even want to watch a film with no talking (I certainly didn't), even if it is the Wizard of Oz. A lot of the actors are funny. Dorothy Dwan was around 18, but her looks and mannerisms are totally exaggerated, making her look like a woman with the mannerisms of a child. She, along with much of the rest of the cast, exaggerates her acting, which I don't usually see in silent films. Without it, it probably wouldn't have been very interesting. There is plenty of pure slapstick, and overall it is a treat, and therefore worth a look at. It doesn't take itself seriously.

Une fleur

23/05/2023 04:00

This WIZARD OF OZ is merely a frantic slapstick showcase for LARRY SEMON, apparently a silent comedian who is unknown to today's audiences and who died at a young age (39). He had a hand in the production and even designed his own Scarecrow costume, but the film is a curio that starts with a toymaker (again, LARRY SEMON) who tells a little girl the story of Dorothy (DOROTHY DWAN) from Kansas who, it turns out, is heir to be ruler of The Land of Oz. But the story he tells has nothing whatsoever to do with L. Frank Baum's story as we know it from the '39 version starring Judy Garland. And this Dorothy is a grown-up young lady of 18 who bats her eyelashes and puts a finger to her lips in a coy manner as though signifying youthful uncertainty. The only connection to the Oz story Baum gave us is the tornado, the effects for which are very good for 1925, and the combination of the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and The Cowardly Lion. OLIVER HARDY is the Tin Man (before his screen partnership with Stan Laurel), SPENCER BELL, a black man, is the Cowardly Lion and LARRY SEMON hogs the whole show as The Scarecrow. The best I can say for Lemon is that his costume and make-up for the role is laudable. But the fragments of story used here are all over the map, the key to everything being the chance to have all of the performers involved in slapstick stunts. Only MARY CARR as Aunt Em is spared this indignity. There are a few well staged moments that one can appreciate but all in all it's a bit too much for any adult to watch and I have no idea what children thought of this bizarre exercise in slapstick comedy.

Timmy Tdat

23/05/2023 04:00

The film, which was originally silent, was ruined by a narrator who couldn't even read the part. The music sounded like a cross between "Parrotsville" (island music) and porno (all the obscene popping sounds). However, for a dollar (which is what I paid for it), it was great to get to see the original film version. I just wish it had remained "silent" (with the original musical score, which may have been lost). I saw it the same evening the 1939 version was shown on network television and of course, there was very little resemblance. It was good to see Oliver Hardy in an early starring role (I assume it was an early one). The film is definitely a product of it's time, with the black man being the whipping boy and Dorothy playing a demure female.

George Titus

23/05/2023 04:00

While disappointing (to say the least), there are at least two interesting things about this version. One is to see someone who is not Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin (but is in fact Larry Semon, one of their contemporaries) trying to imitate them in what was clearly designed to be a star vehicle for him. It makes the work of the other two men seem that much more remarkable when you watch some of their competition. The most interesting thing about this production, though, is perhaps the fact that the MGM version was made only 14 short years later. The world moves very fast sometimes.

👑Dipeshtamang🏅

23/05/2023 04:00

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.

Abiri Oluwabusayo Khloe

23/05/2023 04:00

Whatever to Hollywood on this movie! A clear disappointing sign of the times when a key character of the movie, the lion is not only forced to have his named changed and (closing credited) listed as G Howe Black, but he is not even listed in the opening credits with every single other "player" in the movie. Then the way he was portrayed in this movies was sad and demeaning at best. G How(e) Black, cmon!!! What a black eye this is for Hollywood. No pun intended.Looks as though i have to add ten lines in order to have this printed so i would be more than happy to rant further for the sake of my opinion being heard. Why was Mammy not allowed to attend the premier of Gone With the Wind, ANOTHER Hollywood favorite? Her own movie and she was not allowed to attend the premier?!?!? WOW, we tolerated this? I am glad for the many strides taken by my ancestors especially those in Hollywood, for without their ability to put up with this foolish nature of America at the time, I myself may not be able to live in this town called Hollywood and make my go at becoming an actor myself. Thank you Mr Spencer Bell (the lion), Hattie McDaniel (mammy) and every other black actor that put on "the face" so that i can be here today. I promise to make you all proud.

DAVE ON THE TRACK

23/05/2023 04:00

It seems that Frank L. Baum, author of the original Oz books, produced (both independently and in collaboration with other studios) several wonderfully bizarre, surrealist silent Oz films, depicting the various books and stories he wrote. This film, however, was produced just after Baum Sr.'s death by Baum Jr., so that unauthorized versions could not be "pirated" or in any way tarnish the Oz name. No offense, but the much beloved MGM version is the greatest deviation, that is to say, the least faithful to the books (it may surprise some to know that Baum included many dark, brooding, and political themes in his delightful books). Granted that "The Patchwork Girl of Oz" and "His Magesty, the Scarecrow of Oz" (both produced by Baum in 1914) are even more delightfully imaginative and superior films, I couldn't recommend this film more highly, particularly for kids, Oz buffs, and lovers of the silent cinema. Especially for one dollar (just do yourself a favor and mute the sound).