I bought this and watched it. I was not expecting much from a $10,000 film. Wow, was I wrong. The cinematography is brilliant. Simply beautiful to experience. The locations used are simply...delicious to look at. Yes, I know that is an odd description but it is true. Even the settings with want, rot or decay are stunningly realistic and incredibly interesting. A Hollywood movie would build a FAKE set and hire people to make it look decayed. And then they would add such FAKE lighting that it would look so unconvincing. I would bet that a lot of the locations used in OZLAND were places of actual neglect or decay...and they are brilliantly used.The camera angles are very professional, the movie contains lots of nice wide shots. The colors chosen are rich and immediately give the movie huge bang for the visual buck.The movie focuses on two characters and luckily the acting is legit.I WILL say that the screenplay, because it focuses on two characters had its work cut out for it because a movie is NOT a stage play. I can honestly say that although OZLAND packs its movie thick with words that it does give moments of pause and silence to help with chewing, swallowing and digesting the movie.I do wish (being honest) that there was a subplot. The settings used and cinematography were so strong that it deserved a subplot.The movie felt like THE ROAD. And I kept thinking that as I watched. This is a compliment. I wanted the characters to face exterior threats instead of just hints from a story. But, that is because the potential of what was presented was so strong. Had there been a subplot it might be wise to make those scenes completely without dialogue. This way the weight of the dialogue of the two speaking characters' scenes would feel less heavily worded.I am also wondering if it would have been better to have started off the two characters as separated. In the Wizard of Oz Dorothy discovers the other characters one by one as she journeys. I think having the younger character walking about for a while all alone would have made the arrival of the other main character a little more effective. He could have provided the younger one (as he did) with water to aid him.All in all this film is a MUST SEE for anyone looking to create Indie Films. Well set, well filmed, well written, well acted.I recommend it! I expect MUCH success from the brilliant minds behind this movie. They have super great potential!

I watched this the other day, and frankly wished that I had not. Here's the whole movie. 2 guys, seemingly post-apocalyptic world, and they're walking. The two characters seem to have a relationship like Lenny and George from "Of Mice and Men", one a pragmatist and the other slightly askew. The similarities end there though. There is no background for either of these characters, which besides being annoying, makes it where you have no real connection to them which in turn gives you no real reason to care what they are doing (especially considering the length of this tripe); to keep this brief I'll just say the world that was created for this movie was incredibly flawed, and could have been (with some thought) much more developed(as could its characters) than it was. It seems like a guy just went, "Let me make some cool shots of you guys!" and then tried to stitch them together to make a movie.

I'm actually quite a fan of post-apocalyptic movies and TV shows, and really enjoy some of latest offerings.However you really need some kind of background narrative. How did we end up here? What was the disaster? Nuclear holocaust? Environmental degradation? Disease? These answers are never only hinted at and not properly explored.The need is to reinvent a kind of post-apocalypse version of 'Gone with the Wind' despite any other logical considerations. They seemed to go to a great deal of trouble to give us a sort of 20-30 year old dilapidation, then there were recent track marks on dirt tracks, road lines painted within the last 5 years, aircraft con-trails and haircuts done with electric hair-clippers. I was also left wondering, why no old cars? No horse and cart or at least bicycles instead of all the walking? In the end I felt the whole movie was just all a homage to GWtW, but the post-Apocalypse was just a poorly written with poor continuity for a backdrop.Could have been much more, probably wasn't supposed to be, but should have been.

First I must thank Director, writer, producer, editor, special effects, designer, etc.: Michael Williams, for this 'thinking persons' film! OZLAND is loaded with so much allegorical symbolism, and cryptic messages that true cinema buffs can discuss this plot line all night and for days afterwords.The plot shows two men, Emri and Leif, walking westward in an unidentified setting at an undefined time. There are no other humans to be seen as they travel through the decaying remains of small towns, villages, and farms. Something devastating has occurred and Emri & Leif seem to be the only two humans around. We find out through their conversation that they were born into this post apocalyptic world and have no memory of civilization outside of what their parents have told them. How they met is also not explained.The story opens with them walking and searching for water as the environment is very dry. Along their way Leif happens upon a copy of the famous Frank L. Baum's book 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'. Leif can read, Emri has trouble reading. As they travel west Leif reads aloud and to himself. Leif, being the quixotic one, is very taken with this story and decides it must be true. Emri, being the realist, has serious doubts there is anything real about the story. During their journey they come upon items and imagery that could possibly attest to the reality of the very characters in the book! With each discovery Leif becomes more certain that 'OZLAND' exist while Emri holds on to his intuitive notion that its all a coincidence and OZLAND does not exist. Emri's doubting and questioning and Leif's belief in the existence of OZLAND eventually causes a fracture in their friendship.What I find so symbolic and allegorical in this story is the believer and the non-believer! Leif takes the book, which here symbolizes the sacred text of every religion (here Christianity due to the crosses they come upon), and grasp upon it as fact and then finds items and images that he believes make the characters in OZ true therefore the story is true. Emri on the other hand has serious doubts there is any fact to the book but lacks the evidence to prove he's right. Leif has 'the book' and the imagery they have found to prove OZ is real but the items and imagery are only real proof because he believes they are proof. And isn't this the story of ourselves in todays world? The believers verses the nonbelievers.There is a pivotal scene in the movie that deserves close attention. As they are walking down a road they notice something out in a field. They walk over to it and discover it is a cross with a crucified corpse still attached, now dried out and mummified. Attached to the cross, just above the head of the corpse, is the word 'TERRORIST' scratched into a wooden board. Lief ask Emri "what is terrorist"? Emri tells him terror is like being scared. Leif takes it as someone who scares others! To him this corpse must be the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Just what is the message here? To me it means that Jesus actually brought fear into the lives of others. He preached through faith you will be saved. We spend our lives seeking faith yet we cannot prove our faith will save us, there is no proof. Each and every person comes to the same end - death. Is there heaven? We will never know but we assume faith in Christian text makes heaven true. This is the dilemma Leif finds himself in. He so believes the OZ story this dried crucified corpse is proof enough that the scarecrow was real. Emri takes it for what it is - a dried out crucified corpse - nothing else.There is a serious flaw in the story that relates directly to the cross in the field scene. Later in their journey they head for a place in which they are certain there will be other people. Upon reaching this destination they find three graves, each with a Christian cross. Leif and Emri have no knowledge of Christian belief as it is never referred to throughout the film. I am wondering just what is the message Michael Williams is relating here? For both Leif and Emri's only reference to a cross is to someone that brought fear into the lives of others.At movies end Leif is given the opportunity to find his OZLAND. Emri begs him not to do what he wants to do. Leif convinces Emri he must for surely OZLAND is his home. Emri seeks shelter down into the darkness of the ground. Leif stays above ground. Eventually Emri emerges from the safety he sought to discover Leif has gone. Here again the symbolism is overwhelming. Emri rises from below, think grave, into the light to discover his only companion gone. We know he's dead and I believe Emri also knows this. But what does this say about Leif?