Watch His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz For Free

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

This a great movie. It is better then The Wizard of Oz (1939) It is a great movie. A girl from Kansas find a magical land. The 1939 remake is good. But this is better. This is a great movie. 5 is underrating it. It is no 5. It a lot better. This is one of the best fantasy movies of all time. This movie is a must see. It one of the best version of The Wizard of Oz that I have seen. See this movie. It is a great movie. It is a must. Violet MacMilian was great actress. This a great movie. Frank Moore was a great actor. Pierre Couderc was a great actor. Fred Woodward was a great actor. Mai Wells was great actor. This a great movie. Great movie great movie great movie. See it.

When you think of the land of Oz, you probably think of Toto, a tornado, ruby slippers, a yellow brick road and flying monkeys. But if you look back before the 1939 movie, you find something more eye-popping. There was a movie made in 1925 starring Oliver Hardy as the Tin Man; it was the sort of movie that makes you think "What in the name of anything holy were they smoking when they came up with this?". In fact, it contained no Munchkins or yellow brick road.Go back even further and you find "His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz". This is an equally bizarre one. Although we have the Munchkins, Dorothy is a supporting character. The emphasis is on Princess Gloria of the Emerald City, whose autocratic father wants to marry her off to a buffoon while she has her eye on someone else. The wizard, scarecrow, tin man and lion have their roles in the story, while there are multiple witches. Yeah, this is some weird stuff. The movie will probably be of interest more as a historical reference, but it's impressive what they were able to pull off. Worth seeing.One interesting piece of trivia is that Button-Bright is played by Mildred Harris, who later married Charlie Chaplin; Milla Jovovich played her in Richard Attenborough's "Chaplin".

This is the third and final film in Baum's personally produced Oz trilogy of 1914. The three pictures are all essentially the same childishness--with magic, a journey and animal costumes. The camera-work and pacing are static and primitive even by 1914 standards, while the performers are quite the opposite--both of which can get annoying and boring. We get poor framing, from a generally stationary position, and the shots linger on much longer than they should, while the performers, except for the literally cold-hearted princess, are in constant motion, mostly broadly gesticulating and doing some knockabout nonsense. Most of it has nothing to do with anything imaginative or with adventure, and I don't see how it could be humorous to anyone but a child. There is some trick photography, but nothing new; in fact, these tricks (superimpositions, stop substitutions, a fish tank between characters and the camera to represent being under the sea, a tilted camera to make them appear to be going up and down stream) had been in use for near a decade or more even by then. At least, the makers of this Oz trilogy put some care and energy, albeit a nauseating excess of it, in front of the camera although not behind it.I wonder how popular these films were, although, apparently, they weren't popular enough, because Baum's production company was short lived. There doesn't seem to have been many movies back then which were so specifically targeted at children. The industry at the time, which was even before "The Birth of a Nation" (1915), was still struggling even to attract middle and upper class women to theatres. Times have certainly changed.

This was, of course, one of the early movies, and special effects were not an issue, for which we may be thankful in this day and age when many movies look more like video arcade games.The plot is bizarre, to say the least. It borders between dream state and LSD trip. It would be interesting to know what early twentieth century audiences thought when they viewed this.There a motley group of characters, and really, no one takes center stage all the time. People traipse aimlessly, meeting strange characters, and unique situations. Indeed, the wall of water would be a fresh idea as of the day of this critique.There is a strange sexuality to this one. Super sexy witches dance around very sensually, and would be the envy of the scantily clad girls in today's movies. They are quite beautiful and striking. Again, audiences in this day must have been affected some way. It is too bad that the sexuality seems to be equated with witches, though. Sort of false advertising.The music is probably too lame for today, and you may want to play your own while watching. Viewable mostly from an artistic perspective or in a social situation, and not as a sit down and watch movie.