User reviews

Mildly amusing animated story about the original Dorothy's granddaughter, and the same generation of other classic character's. The plot's all over the place, there are a few mild chuckles and some decent character creation. But my 10 year-old girl adores it and has seen it about 437,628 times. So that's all that matters.

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.

I saw this film after coming across it on Wizart's YouTube channel... which I later learned that this film was NOT created by them in any way. Instead by a studio called Melnitsa. (Wizart has no credits in the film)

Following the comments on theTrailer post I came into this film with already low expectations. I also prepared myself for a film that was flawed, but I liked anyways (which was my history with Wizart's films). Despite that, what I saw was a quality much higher than that of anything that Wizart had ever come out with, which raised my suspicion that they had any involvement.

I watched the film once with hesitation, not sure what to think of the film. I knew my feeling of the film wasn't a bad experience, I just wasn't sure how to critically assess what I had just seen, so I watched it again looking for specifics.

What I concluded after the second time is that this film had a better relationship with older classic Walt Disney films than it did with anything modern.

A classic fairy tale story: A true Hero, A true Villain... simple linear story. (may disappoint people looking for a film with a "surprise twist") However, with such a simple story kids (especially younger children) will find following along in this adventure to be easy to pick up.

Characters were simple yet well developed including many of the side characters. Many of these characters including the classic characters are easily memorable and lovable (even the villain Urfin and his sidekicks) I don't consider this a spoiler, but my favorite personality was the ogre character. And nothing quite as entertaining as watching the silliness of the wooden soldiers.

Animation was done in mostly 3DCG and clearly had a good team behind the design and motion of the characters and the choices that were made like how the trees in OZ all looked like pompoms whereas the trees in the real world were modeled a little less cartoon-like (yet still stylized for the animation). Various little touches made in this film were actually quite impressive.

Music was well-paced and adventurous. Nothing specifically special, but it did make the film more enjoyable.

Voice acting, English Dub, the VAs did a great job translating this film from it's original Russian language. Dubbed by many voice actors heard in a good number of Japanese anime, it seemed that the casting for this film actually fit the characters very well. Although the lipsync wasn't perfect, it is clear that the actors did the best they could to make the character match (most of the time it isn't really noticeable.) This is commendable since many anime-dubs end up proving to be quite unbearable to listen to.

Other than a few continuity flaws that occur throughout the film, most are subtle, but one or two more noticeable, the film really does come off as an overall fun, friendly, and adventurous film that leaves you feeling wanting to watch it again. Also, with some clever writing, some of the lines in the film come off as easily quotable, which is something that I haven't had in a film for some time.

I don't know that everyone is going to find this film as enjoyable as I did, and again, I DID go into it expecting a bad film... however, seeing this film (at the time of writing this review) being listed as a 4.8/10 I really had to wonder why would this film, as crazy, simple, and so well crafted as it is earn such a low score.

Maybe it is I who am crazy.....