OzLand (2014) Reviews

• The idea was good; The execution, very not so good

  scaredsblood2015-11-17

  The idea of this movie is in a way an interesting one since it basically puts this book "The Wizard of OZ" as a religion believed in so passionately by Lief that he believes that Ozland (a children's story) is an actual place and defends this belief throughout the movie; even when his friend and companion keeps trying to be the voice of reason to this kid .who isn't a kid in age but his mentality is that of a child. It's a very good idea; I mean even believable in theory. Take a post apocalyptic setting and with no trace of other Humans except for our two main characters. I mean it's not hard to see that the idea of something like a book like that could be such a huge influence for certain people who just need a break from the very harsh reality that is their life. Survival is the only things that these two exist for; one day after the other, surviving. Not much silver lining going on and both of the characters have some way of coping; both use their imagination as an escape. However, one goes a bit further and starts to have some moments where every chapter he goes through there are things that he believes to be some sort of similarity between the book and his life. I'm sure this can also in some ways be viewed differently depending on if you are a "glass half full" or "half empty" type of person. For the dreamers that view this movie; the directors intent is to have them lean in favor for Lief's ideas. For those of us that see the more realistic viewpoint we will see things through Emril's viewpoint. (think that's how you spell his name) Now in theory this is a very great concept and the story itself isn't horrible although towards the ending it gets a bit predictable. The problems here however, are the actors abilities along with the story taking much too long to get to worthy events that capture the viewers attention. I can look past the slower pacing and even the actors being sub-par (that is being generous). However the pretentious nature of the directing and script is what kills this movie. The director/writer is trying SO hard to show how talented they are that they make drastically over-simplistic settings appear to be over- exaggerated. I have never seen a movie like this where it's set in the future, you get extremely rustic settings (think 1890 farmland) and then somehow trying to sell that visually you are making this to be a visual beauty when every setting is the same. The pacing is god awful, I don't find that many people will finish this movie unless they are just movie critics watching it to tell everyone else to stay away from it. This is why it's not recommended for 1 person to do so much with the filming of a movie. This is like if Birdman's Michael Keaton character was REAL and actually made a movie trying to show off his skills to everyone else. The pretentious-ness is so dripping off of every frame. The acting itself, well; it's bad, it's SO bad that it almost makes this movies director/writer/producer look GOOD, that's how bad this movie is and I almost think that they were cast specifically to NOT take away from this person trying to be a triple threat behind the camera. Idea is good, solid original idea which is what caught my attention Everything else however is either sub par or well below par or over done /over produced, under-directed actors but over directed settings. I wrote this because whatever that review is on the page that has like 9/10 stars and PRAISES this movie, it has got to be someone on the cast of that film or the writer/director/producer themselves trying to talk up the movie. Stay away from this movie, even if the idea sounds neat; it's not worth the nearly 2 hour run time, the horrible acting and directing and i didn't talk about the ending but WOW dripping with bull crap like the guy couldn't find a way to end the damn movie (nearly 2 hrs of nothing) and then just said OK and gave the most cheesy ugly anti-everything climatic ending in the history of film!

• Good plot, poor execution

  sarah-m2015-11-23

  This should have been made into a short film. It's an interesting theory; two people alone in the world find a book, and one follows it blindly, while the other one believes in survival. The acting is not very good. Maybe they didn't have a lot to work with. I'm not sure what was going on with Leif. Is he supposed to be a boy, or is he a full grown naive man? Is this what people would be like when they've never interacted with others? Unless you have two hours to kill and nothing better to watch, save yourself the agony. Side note, this in NOT an Australian film. Oz refers to the Land of Oz, as in The Wizard of Oz. If you're reviewing this, and you think it's an Australian film, then you're about as smart as Leif....

• I wanted to like this movie more but...

  faradaygrean2016-04-03

  Apparently everybody dried up and these two are alone in the world, wandering around looking for water. That's all they do is walk, look for water, walk and look for water. Then the younger of the two, Leif, finds a book: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. First of all, if I found a spring or a stream I'd be setting up house. None of this walking walking walking. But, they're lonely so they're walking to find people. It seems like they've been together a long time. You get this older brother, younger brother kinda vibe. Emri is the older of the two, Leif is the younger. They both tell a story of their last parent's death but never about how they met or how long they've been together- that would have added a little depth to the story. Glenn Payne did a great job as Emri. I felt for him. Here's this guy just wants to find a girl and 'comfort'. He's tired, he's been walking a long time. Walk to the next place, look for water. They're heading west because, why not? There's no joy in this world. All the people dried up, whatever that means. I don't know how old Zack Ratkovich is, he doesn't say in any bios. But his character was too confusing. The character comes of as about 17-19. The actor looks mid 20's- closer to thirty (sorry, Zack). So, for me, maybe a younger actor would have been a better choice. If he was trying to play an older but more naive type it just didn't work. He only looked like an older guy trying to play a kid. For such a low budget the cinematography was great. But, the writing was just so-so. The concept was big. There were times when I just expected more from the story. And there were times I wish I could mute the soundtrack. Some songs or even background music was enjoyable, but mostly it was dour. To Michael Williams I say: Don't stop. Just delegate a little more.

• A very cool post apocalyptic dose of magic realism.

  funfun-810922017-04-12

  A Beautiful film that evokes my favorite type of narratives. Micheal Williams delivers in this unique film. Great cinematography. I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic fiction and this one of the more unique entries into the genre. The two leads really nail it to. I strongly recommend it.

• A post Apocalyptic Oz

  jencollins562015-11-19

  A beautiful tale of people dealing with a dark and barren wasteland in post apocalyptic Earth. When a book about Oz is found one of them uses it to dream and hope for better things. The older of the the two looks at life through jaundiced eyes and hunts for the woman he wants to find and share his life. They see the same things but one through the emerald colored glasses of Oz with strange and exciting creatures and the other through eyes that can find nothing but fear and loss. The cinematography is beautiful with shots that show how very lovely and yet bleak their world is. I'll give nothing away but leave you to enjoy this film with fresh eyes and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I have.