This was the (official?) sequel to The Wizard of Oz. It was... different to the original, and obviously nowhere near as ground breaking, but I still really enjoyed it. I found it damn scary as a child actually! Does anyone remember the part where Dorethy is trying to find something in the Witch's castle and then she wakes up all the heads and they start screaming? :shock:

Does anyone remember this film? :)

I remember that part

Yeah, I remember watching that movie quite a few times many years ago, it was and is creepy. :twisted:

I just couldn't believe it was associated with Disney?!! :lol:

Yeah that movie scared the crap out of me when I was little. Now when ever I think about it that is what pops into my head. Seriously who thught it would be a good idea to set a kids movie in a mental institution.

the part with the heads was when Dorothy was trying to find Mombi's (or whatever her name was) original head, but I don't remember why she was looking for it......

I saw it when I was about 5. One of the freakiest movies I ever saw. I wouldn't recommend it.

but I would :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I watched this a couple of years ago. It scared me and I was like 10 at the time. :o

I remember it as well,it was alot darker and scarier than the original.I was scared as well with head part and the bike men were freaky.I couldnt believe Dorathy was played by Fairuza Bulk. I was anoyed with it as a kid becuase the scare crow wasnt played by a guy it was just a stupid puppet and the cowrdly lion was actualy a normal lion which was dissapointing becuase the way the original character were was alot better. I liked the robot he was really cool and the flying moose they were good characters. I liked it when the bike men turned to sand and did any one laugh when the rock god showed the red slippers on his feet the tranny lol.

Another movie that Disney loves to deny existence. I haven't seen it in years, I think the last time I remember watching part of it was on the Disney channel about 10 years ago.

What I don't get is how this could possibly be a Disney movie. If it's Disney why is it actually based on the book instead of making annoying changes to make it "family friendly". Where's the Jar-Jar like character that follows around for ineffective comic relief? Why hire a young actress that actually looks like she could be a young farm girl instead of the many 10's avaliable in Hollywood? Why actually give the movie soul and make it scarry? How can this movie be good at all?

Well it was a great movie and it is one of my all time childhood favorites. Apparently Disney was going through some changes at the time and decided to make movies differently. Sure enough they managed to create an awesome film.

standing alone, this movie was not all that bad, however as a sequal it sucked. this is the kind of movie that adds fuel to the fire of those who argue that sequals are a bad thing. i personally love sequals, but i feel that there should be certain guidelines, which were all pretty much smashed by this movie. the number one rule is to never replace the origional actors. unfortunately in many movies, like this one, that rule must be broken because the origional actors are either dead, too old, unavailable, etc. however that is no reason to radically change the characters. scarecrow from a person to a puppet, the lion from a person to a realistic lion, dorothy being de-aged, oz looking nothing like it did in the origional movie. how can this possibly be a sequal. perhaps if this would have been called a retelling of the story and stood alone rather than being a "sequal" it would have been more successful. calling it a sequal is a slap in the face to the fans of the origional and loved the characters and the fact that the movie was very lighthearted. so making it a dark movie was an even bigger slap. if movie companies want to do a sequal than go for it, but either stay true to the origional or lay off.

It was based on the book and far more accurate to the book than the famous Judy Garland movie. It was better for the movie to have a soul rather than just thrilling geeks over a bunch of cameo appearences.

which is exactly why i believe it should be considered a retelling instead of a sequal. for example, look at the batman movies. i loved the 1989 batman and i loved batman begins. but if batman begins would have been an actual prequel to the 1989 batman it would have been upsetting because there is little to no connection between the two and it ends up being confusing. however by making batman begins a retelling and a restart to the batman movies it works out perfectly. the book world and the movie world, though often produce works based on each other, are and should be separate. it wouldnt make much sense to write a book based on a movie, then write a direct sequal to the book that is based heavily on the movie but has very little to do with the first book. the first movie can be based as much or as little on a book as the writers see fit because it is the first. but the sequal should always be based directly off of what it is a sequal of so that it makes sense to everyone, including people like myself who have never read the book, nor have any interest in ever reading the book.

the wheelers were pretty wierd, no feet no hands...just wheels and cool clothes.

Tick Tock kicked ass! The funniest part was when the gnome king (a hige rock man) pulled back his stone gown, and he was wearing the ruby slippers! camp as tits!

the gump!

I actually got my girlfriend the DVD so I know the whole movie pretty well!