Although it is a rather unrefined movie, it's still fun to watch this early film version of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", and it has plenty of energy and ingenuity that make up for its rough edges. It is certainly of interest historically, and for anyone who enjoys the films of the early 1900s, it also works well enough as entertainment.
The story differs considerably both from the book and from the well-known 1939 classic, in large part because it was adapted from a stage production of the story, rather than from the original novel. But most of the characters are easily recognizable, and it's also quite interesting to see a very young Bebe Daniels as Dorothy.
The scarecrow and the tin man probably get the best roles, and in a number of scenes they engage in some amusing antics, making it worth looking for them even when they are not the main focus. It's apparently uncertain who played the scarecrow, which is too bad, because he is pretty funny, and his performance is not unworthy of being compared with Ray Bolger's performance in the wonderful Judy Garland version.
The adaptation does have a very stage-like look, but given that approach, most of it works all right. Some of the camera effects are pretty good for 1910, and even the ones that seem more obvious are at least interesting to watch.
In watching this now, it probably benefits from the endearing qualities of the Oz characters, which are so familiar from other sources. But its original audiences probably enjoyed it as well for its own sake, since it has plenty to offer, and it tells the story with lots of liveliness.
The story differs considerably both from the book and from the well-known 1939 classic, in large part because it was adapted from a stage production of the story, rather than from the original novel. But most of the characters are easily recognizable, and it's also quite interesting to see a very young Bebe Daniels as Dorothy.
The scarecrow and the tin man probably get the best roles, and in a number of scenes they engage in some amusing antics, making it worth looking for them even when they are not the main focus. It's apparently uncertain who played the scarecrow, which is too bad, because he is pretty funny, and his performance is not unworthy of being compared with Ray Bolger's performance in the wonderful Judy Garland version.
The adaptation does have a very stage-like look, but given that approach, most of it works all right. Some of the camera effects are pretty good for 1910, and even the ones that seem more obvious are at least interesting to watch.
In watching this now, it probably benefits from the endearing qualities of the Oz characters, which are so familiar from other sources. But its original audiences probably enjoyed it as well for its own sake, since it has plenty to offer, and it tells the story with lots of liveliness.