It's hard to rate this movie. And for many viewers you may have to send a few explanations in advance. Yes, this movie is in a way a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz". But only in a way. It is actually based on a book by the Russian author Alexander Volkov, who adapted LF Baum's (first Oz) novel for the Russian market in 1939. In doing so, he kept many things that seemed good to him, but also changed a few things. So he assigned colors to the peoples and gave them names, gave the witches names, changes the names of the main characters, omitted the episode in Pozellandorf, instead built one with an ogre.
Volkov's book was extremely well received, and by 1975 it had 5 sequels that were very different from those written by Baum. The second volume in particular, "Urfin Djuice and his wooden soldiers", was outstanding popular, not only in the Soviet Union, but also far beyond. For this he created one of the most grandiose, most complex and simply the best villains in the history of children's literature.
This film starts there. Not with the first volume. And rewrites a lot in such a way that it became a continuation of the American classic from 1939 with Judy Garland, probably in order to be able to survive on the US market. That was probably a mistake. Because so the film can neither satisfy the fans in the USA (and beyond) of the first, but even less the fans of Volkov's books. That's a shame, because without the double ballast it would probably be a thoroughly successful film. Even if the optics unfortunately does not come close to the loving illustrations from the books that were created by Lazar Steinmetz, the creators are using many possibilities of the trick technique that is now possible.
As already indicated, the story is a mixture of the classic story - or references to it - and the second Volkov volume. Unfortunately, this results in a somewhat crude mix at times. Why one does not keep the names of the books is incomprehensible when one introduces the villain Urfin. Why Dorothy instead of Elli? Where is your travel companion from the second volume, your uncle Charlie Black? The crow Kaggi Karr has no name here, figures like Din Gior and Farmant do not appear at all. In general, the basic mood of the book was thrown upside down in many. Right from the start - winter in the land of eternal spring? And why this unnecessary love story as a background story for Urfin?
If you don't know the Wizard of Oz or Wolkows adaptations, you should definitely have fun with this technically well-made film. Everything else will be harder to find real access and even harder to judge the film really fair. As a lover of Volkov's books, I should actually give a maximum of 4 to 5 points. But I recognize an effort to create something new, even if it has only partially succeeded.
