A thoughtful consideration.
Short answer: meh.
Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.
Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.
Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.
Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.
A thoughtful consideration.
Short answer: meh.
by Anonymous | reply 13 | September 3, 2025 4:43 PM |
Pull quotes:
—The fundamental talent any great filmmaker possesses is knowing how to direct (or misdirect) the viewer’s visual attention. Cinema is, and always has been, primarily a visual art form; the storytelling happens within the frame of the screen. But in Sphere, there is no frame. As a result, the visual storytelling goes haywire. I kept wondering why it seemed that Garland’s close-ups were shoved into the very bottom of the screen. I even went back to the original film to check if I’d forgotten something. After some contemplation, I suspect she appeared crushed downward simply because the framing of close-up shots has become totally unbalanced in this new setting, with a vast expanse of sky above her head.
…
—In truth, I think most audiences will gladly overlook all of this, wowed by the sheer scale of the spectacle. What’s more upsetting is the running time, which has been reduced from 102 minutes down to 77. I’ve been told this was done to suit contemporary tastes — a thought both depressing and dubious — or to fit in more screenings, since there are three per day, and it takes a lot of time to reset the venue for certain effects and get thousands of people in and out.
Whatever the reason, the result resembles what you might get if you fed “The Wizard of Oz” to a machine and asked it to take out what it thought was extraneous. We sprint through the Kansas sequence; Toto is gone for scarcely a few seconds before he’s back, we barely see why everyone hates Miss Gulch, and no sooner does Dorothy spot Professor Marvel’s wagon than she is inside. The first time we spot the ruby slippers is when the Wicked Witch of the West does. The keeper of the Emerald City’s gates has no jokey back-and-forth about the sign on the door. The Cowardly Lion doesn’t sing “If I Were King of the Forest”; the Tin Man is permitted only a few bars of “If I Only Had a Heart.” And so on.
by Anonymous | reply 1 | September 3, 2025 1:32 PM |
No. I've seen clips of it on YouTube, and it looks like they've done a lot of CGI and AI enhancements. The remastered version destroys the look and feel of the original.
Don't fuck with the classics.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | September 3, 2025 1:33 PM |
Dush the Shfere have handicapped sheating?
by Anonymous | reply 3 | September 3, 2025 1:35 PM |
The critic: So here instead are three ways of seeing “The Wizard of Oz” at Sphere. I’ll let you decide.
It’s worth reading… valid point that there is more than one way to look at it…not really meant to replace the original. On the other hand, watch out! The future is now.
Fir me, a hard pass.
by Anonymous | reply 4 | September 3, 2025 1:36 PM |
“ Sure, works of art are altered all the time. George Lucas has famously tinkered with his movies long after release, for instance, and many filmmakers have fought with their studios over removing scenes or reshooting endings following test screenings. And of course, “The Wizard of Oz” itself is an adaptation, and one of this year’s inevitable blockbusters, the second half of “Wicked,” is itself both a takeoff and commentary on the same story.
Yet there is something disconcerting about this particular “Wizard of Oz”: it suggests that in the future, every artist’s choices could be reversed, altered or ripped to shreds, then presented by their corporate owners as if they’re essentially the original, just zhuzhed up a bit for a new century. I've heard the suggestion that the original filmmakers would have done all of these alterations if they’d been possible at the time. But even if that’s true — and that’s a big if — it’s both wild speculation and pretty convenient, at best. “
by Anonymous | reply 5 | September 3, 2025 1:40 PM |
Most reviews are brutal.
I hoped it would work but it seems to have destroyed what was special about the original. Plus they cut 30 minutes of it
by Anonymous | reply 6 | September 3, 2025 1:40 PM |
If they handed out tabs of acid at the door, I’d be in.
I once saw an art installation of “Psycho” that was slowed down so that it took 24 hours to complete. I don’t see what’s so objectionable about this
by Anonymous | reply 7 | September 3, 2025 2:40 PM |
Oh good, OP - those first 3 threads weren't enough
by Anonymous | reply 8 | September 3, 2025 2:43 PM |
R7 did you stay for the duration? What did you think of it?
by Anonymous | reply 9 | September 3, 2025 2:47 PM |
R8 it’s an actual essay of film criticism… your loss
by Anonymous | reply 10 | September 3, 2025 3:09 PM |
r3 Give it up
by Anonymous | reply 11 | September 3, 2025 3:14 PM |
No, I would not. It’s sacrilege.
by Anonymous | reply 12 | September 3, 2025 3:15 PM |
Looks like a fun experience, like a roller coaster.
by Anonymous | reply 13 | September 3, 2025 4:43 PM |
Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.
Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!