bkoganbing There are well over 20 different adaptions on the big screen and small of L. Frank Baum's Wizard Of Oz, only one of which is the well known and immortal one that every child starts seeing on television around the age of 2. Before films were a going concern, The Wizard Of Oz had a stage version that ran a couple of years in the first decade of the last century that starred the famous vaudeville team of David Montgomery&Fred Stone.This silent version of Larry Semon's creation will never replace the MGM classic of 1939. For one thing there simply isn't any fantasy involved. Oz is not on some other plane of existence, it's a real place where Dorothy actually belongs, she's the exiled princess much like Luke Skywalker was exiled to whatever planet in the galaxy he was at. She discovers this on her 18th birthday when her heritage is revealed.Another thing is that indeed the Wizard is as much a humbug as Frank Morgan was in 1939, but here he's supposed to change the farmhands who along with Uncle Henry and Auntie Em have come with Dorothy to Oz in that massive tornado. They're in most unconvincing disguises and you always know it was a disguise. In the more famous film, never do you doubt that Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, and Bert Lahr are who they are supposed to be.In fact some rather crude racial humor is used for the Cowardly Lion as it is played by a black actor named Spencer Bell. Part of the film calls for Bell and Semon who is the Scarecrow to be in a den of real lions. What happens just isn't funny and worse you know that Lahr and Bolger would have carried off the comedy.I think most people watch this version of The Wizard Of Oz to see Oliver Hardy as the Tin Man. At this time before he teamed with Stan Laurel, Ollie was doing a lot of work as a second banana comedian with Semon. He's only very briefly the Tin Man and just doesn't cut it.This version Of The Wizard Of Oz was a huge flop and deservedly so from what I've seen. It remains a curiosity, nothing more.

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.

thewebbiest They just showed this on TCM.I love silents, the more obscure the better, but this really tested my limits. It is a caricature of a silent picture. Pointless slapstick gags. Cardboard villains. A hair brained and kind of creepy heroine (she is 18 but dresses like an 8 year old). Hammy acting. Racist stereotypes, including enthusiastic watermelon eating. Also lots of negative typecasting of fat people.The score by Robert Israel was the only redeeming feature, who has composed excellent scores for many silent pictures. I would say this movie is strictly for film scholars.

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)