I'm not one for musicals, but this is WAY better than the original. Much better direction (Sidney Lumet!), amazing songs (Michael Jackson, Diana Ross vs. Judy Garland, seriously?), expensive sets and elaborately choreographed dances, much better acting (also has Richard Pryor), and a cooler, more original story. There are crazy, visually bizarre characters and scenes throughout, with flamboyant costumes and bright colors. Definitely a unique treat.

Lumet directs more to show off the cool but garish design than tell the story; when sets and costumes are taken from him (ie. Pryor's scene at the end) he obviously has no idea what the hell to do. Ross looks too old for her role; Michael Jackson's Scarecrow is likable though distant. The songs are okay but there are too many of them.

Botched transition of stage play to film, with only Nipsy Russell, the Lion and Lena Horne to recommend it.

What the Christ

Scratching my head, wondering why.

What the fuck is this shit?

Diana Ross is a shrill, ear shattering, irritating bitch. Michael Jackson, who I acknowledge is a good singer, is a poor actor. The songs are shit, the film is shit, Richard Prior is shit. What I am trying to say is that this film is shit.

The big problem with this movie can be summed up in three words: Extraneous musical numbers. You could cut forty-five minutes, half unnecessary songs and half overly-long songs and have a far better movie. (The fact that cut songs from the play were put *back in* boggles me.) There are other problems - Diana Ross can't play vulnerable - but all it'd really take is a strong editor to make this, if not a great movie, at least a reasonably good one.

What was the point of this?

An interesting concept, poorly executed. Don't compare it to the better known version - chalk and cheese. Overly long, too and in parts just downright tacky. Some dark themes and there are a few glimpses of potential from Ross and Jackson - but this is just a bad idea captured on film. With this cast you would think it would be a musical certainty... but you'd be wrong. Give it a miss

Guh. I love Michael Jackson and I still hated this film.

this pathetic almost mockery of The Wizard Of Oz was two steps away from black face minstrels that (for some reason) we all grew to hate. one Jackson down, four to go

i'm speechless and it would take more than 500 characters to list all the shortcomings this movie has to offer. single silver lining: michael jackson cast as the scarecrow - since his plastic surgery happened afterwards, this choice appears a bit like an unintentional self-mockery or self-fulfilling prophecy that makes you smirk for a moment.

Horrible casting of Dorothy. And just a dumb idea. Why not spend that money on a great original script for an African American musical?

Complete garbage, just look at the picture

I didnt even finish watching this tripe.

i enjoyed the music, the plot may have been over-the-top in a disgustingly wacky way, but that's not to say that it wasn't interesting and entertaining. nipsey russell was the perfect pick for the tin man and even in the late 70's diana ross is quite a looker.

Even being totally wasted couldn't make this shit appealling.

Probably watchable around the holidays if nothing else is on TV. Or if you think TV if the only way to watch movies. You know, if you think that - you are just the kind of person who deserves to see this movie.

great music, but just way too weird...

Bizarre and packed with songs, this is a dramatically different interpretation of the story. Diana Ross makes a beautiful and empathetic Dorothy, and her songs are some of the best parts of the film. Some areas of the film are just sort of unpleasant and don't seem to add much, but in general it's enjoyable.

Lumet's take on the classic tale really took me for a loop. Almost all the places Dorothy ended up were so random and awkward at times, the dancing was horribly choreographed, and he made the story so lack-luster from the original that it became boring. I wanted to feel for the characters but I just ended up rooting for their demise so something interesting might happen. It was also uncomfortable how Lumet paired the child-like nature of the story with sexual undertones. Not good.

A complete car crash. Aspects of it are legitimately good but so much of it is also just baffling, and that's beyond how the late Sidney Lumet ended up making a musical adaptation of The Wizard of Oz produced by Motown Records and with a script written by Joel Schumacher.

what the hell, sidney lumet?

Shockingly bad. Joel Schumacher?

I understand why so many people didn't like this film was because of the direction and the writing and its just an acid trip. Well, this is a typical pop 70's movie musical which in fact many movie musicals made in the 70s were shot in that kind of acid trip style. Yes, the direction and writing were terrible. But its the acting of the four friends and the music that makes this movie great. A piece of shit? No. A classic? No. But very underrated. It takes a few watchs to really enjoy it

I hate anything to do with the Wizard of Oz.

Broadway's blackface version of _The Wizard of Oz_. Ugly in design, dreary in lighting, chaotic in dance, insipid in song -- what less could you ask? The major area of fascination is in scrutinizing, up close, the monster-ish makeup on the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion.

Would be ranked lower if it didn't have such prominent nostalgia value for me. I watched this a billion times as a kid... now it seems entirely too creepy and disjointed. It's got a few great songs, though.

I suppose this was necessary....that doesn't mean it was anything worth writing home about.

Masterpiece of art direction, but can get boring, especially with the super long shots.