This is a great movie. 1939 is a remake. It not a bad movie. It a good movie. But this is the original Wizard of Oz. And it is better. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. The first remake from 1914 is a little better. But still this is a great movie. A very good fantasy film. See it if you can. 5.7 is underrating this great film. It is no 5.7 it mush better. This is a true classic. Bebe Daniels who played Dorothy Gale was a great actress. Winifred Greenwood who played the Wicked Witch is also a great actress. This movie is a must see. Robert Z Leonard who played The Scarecrow is was a great actor. See this movie. It is a great.

I suppose the best thing that could be said about this primitive kiddy one-reeler from 1910 is that it's cute or somewhat interesting. As noted elsewhere, this adaptation is based more so on Baum and Julian Mitchell's 1902 play rather than on the original book by Baum. Everyone's familiar with the 1939 Judy Garland musical (if you're not, why are you here?), so this 1910 film can be interesting as comparison. Baum himself supervised three adaptations of his stories in 1914, beginning with "The Patchwork Girl of Oz"; all three have been available on video, as has a 1925 "The Wizard of Oz".This 1910 Oz is very theatrical, and most of its tricks are theatrical, too: moving backdrops and strings for flying. A couple stop-substitutions are about the only thing cinematic here. A static camera, tableau style and staginess are to be expected in a film this early that was adapted from the stage. This film, however, features annoying spastic performances—even more so than in the 1914 trilogy. The filmmakers didn't have to do any cramming for a 13-minute adaptation, nor use lengthy title cards to explain the basic plot; in fact, much of the picture is spent by characters jumping around as though they're hopped up on sugar, including some dance interludes probably held over from the stage version. Furthermore, this edition was followed by two subsequent Dorothy Oz installments, which are now lost. I wouldn't recommend this kiddy flick, but, apparently, some like it.Among the cast is a young Bebe Daniels as Dorothy. Daniels later worked in a few silent films by Cecil B. DeMille and is now mostly famous for her role in "42nd Street" (1933). Reportedly, Alvin Wycoff, who would be DeMille's longtime cinematographer during his early career, which included the innovatively photographed "The Cheat" (1915), also has an on screen role in this production somewhere.

Wizard of Oz, The (1910) *** (out of 4) Nice if strange version of the classic tale. The production values here are actually pretty nice and it's a rather strange trip seeing humans in outfits playing the various animals including the lion.Magic Cloak of Oz, The (1914) *** (out of 4) The fairies of Oz create a magic cloak, which will give one wish to the person who wears it. Once again the production design is very good here with wonderful and magical sets. The story is quite touching and I'm sure kids would love this version just as much as adults. The highlight of the film is the scene where a horse (played by a human in an outfit) is scratching his butt up against a tree and tries to teach a monkey how to do it.Wizard of Oz, The (1933) *** (out of 4) Pretty good Technicolor cartoon based on the book. The animation is rather nice and the scarecrow and tin man are pretty funny here as well. This was the first version to show Kansas in B&W and then Oz in color.

Dorothy, Scarecrow, and Toto bring a donkey and cow (played by Men In Suits) along with them in the cyclone (which is simulated by having them hug a big hay bale that turns around and around). ALL THE INTERTITLES ARE IN GIANT BLOCK CAPITALS.Toto is a real dog who turns into Man In A Suit #3 to fight the lion (Man In A Suit #4), who is not cowardly at all. There is a line of chorus girls and another of palace guards. At the end, the guards ride in on REAL HORSES, which makes the Men In Suits (by now including #5, bug, and #6, frog, from the Wicked Witch's lair, and #7, kitty cat, who otherwise has no apparent role in the action) look really, really lame. The cast of thousands and elaborate sets make you wonder why no one had yet thought of MULTIPLE CAMERAS, and EDITING. But that was a concept they obviously couldn't wrap their minds around, back in 1910. Who knows - maybe a second camera would have cost more than all the actors, dancers, horses, and animal costumes put together.