Tin Man (2007) User Reviews

Could use some work, but overall quite interesting and entertaining

[Hypnotica · 7/10 · 5 December 2007]

WARNING: There is no "may" about this review containing spoilers.

It wasn't love of The Oz stories that led me to watch this, despite having watching the Judy Garland version Lord and Lady know how many times as a child. It was curiosity. I wanted to see just how different this would be from the story I knew.

The answer: Different enough to astound me.

The first section of this mini-series is riddled with references to the original story and the musical so many of us grew up with. I was expecting that. But imagine my surprise at the presence of machine guns and chain saws in Oz. Oh, excuse me, it is now called the Outer Zone, or the O.Z. Then, of course, there are hologram projectors, machines that can project what is in a person's mind, and cyborgs.

After the first section, it grows even farther from the old story. There are still references, of course, but it's definitely not what we knew anymore.

Our heroine, DG, was born in the O.Z., but sent away as a child for her own protection. Unlike her somewhat whiny predecessor, this woman has a bit of attitude and brains. And some serious guts, as she demonstrates when she tries to help a family being attacked by Longcoats, the Sorceress Azkadelia's henchmen, armed with only a branch.

I'm sorry to say, though, that Zooey Deschanel didn't do a very good job on this portrayal. I've seen her in other films and know that she can act, so I'm not entirely sure what she was doing here. Half of it was fine, but the rest was just beneath her abilities. (Personally, I blame the director for letting her get away with that.)

Azkadelia is definitely a far cry from the ugly Wicked Witch of the West. She may be beautiful, but don't let that fool you. The old witch has nothing on this new version when it comes to evil and cruelty.

In place of the Scarecrow, we have Glitch. Once a genius and Royal Adviser to the Queen, he has been reduced to a sometimes annoying, but lovable ditz. This, of course, is because he only has half a brain left. Literally. The witch had it removed so that she could use his knowledge for her own purposes. He keeps what marbles he has left sealed in his head with a zipper.

Replacing the Lion is Raw, a strange, but gentle creature with psychic abilities. Despite his timid ways, Raw is very capable of being brave, especially when it comes to his friends' safety.

The Tin Man is Caine. Or, rather, former Tin Man. "Tin Man" is the term used for police in the O.Z. He lost everything when he was discovered to be fighting for The Resistance. Worse, he was imprisoned in a sealed tin suit for years, forced to watch a holographic image of his family being tortured and taken from him over and over again. All he has left is the idea of revenge and keeping DG safe, since she is the only one who might be able to defeat Azkadelia.

The Wizard is anything but wonderful. He might have been once, but has been reduced to a stoner dependent on Vapors, a magic equivalent of ecstasy. Still, in his sober moments he is a big help to the heroes.

The flying monkeys are still in. The old version, ugly though they were, still managed to have a slight cuteness about them. Not these. When they're not out doing her dirty work, they accompany Azkadelia everywhere in quite a surprising way.

Toto is also still in... sort of. The little dog is actually a shape-shifter who was once a teacher to both DG and Azkadelia. After 15 years of imprisonment, he is all too willing to help his former pupil. The question is, which one?

Overall, I was impressed. There are spots that could have been better and things that could have been more thoroughly explained, but the concepts and story are quite imaginative. It *is* really long, but definitely worth at least one watch. (I could have done without those weird turkey-looking people who I think were supposed to replace the munchkins, though. They came off more like Oompa Loompas gone terribly, terribly wrong. I'd also really like to know how Caine could have survived in that metal suit for so long, but I guess it makes about as much sense as how the original Tin Man came to be made of tin.)

However, I must confess, I'm a little confused as to why it is titled "Tin Man." That implies that Caine is the main focus of the story, which he is not, although he is given a much more significant role in this version. Oh, well. It was still good, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

Something missing ...

[Vic_max · 6/10 · 17 December 2007]

This show was fairly imaginative. Everything seemed ripe for a great story but it never became very engaging. The characters and some of the visuals were imaginatively conceived, but I never felt compelled to keep watching.

Basically, this a loosely re-conceived version of the Wizard of Oz. It's modern day and each main character different, yet has something in common with their original Oz counterpart. It's sufficiently different that it's hard to predict what's going to happen next.

The characters are visually appealing to watch, but dialog is a bit lacking and the story even more so. In the three parts of the movie, only twice did it pick up in interest level - near the end of part 1 and near the end of part 3. The rest of the show was just kind of flat.

I can't really recommend watching the show - but some of the previews and snapshots that focus on the visuals may make it hard to resist.

The Wizard of OZ meets

[siobhanlb91 · 8/10 · 3 December 2007]

An interesting take on one of the oldest classics. If you love the science fiction genre and the wizard of oz, you should love this imaginative display of the original ideas of The Wizard of OZ. It has the main characters of the Wizard of OZ still searching for the same things. I found it extremely entertaining, so much so that I actually decided to watch the second part. (And I can only remember to watch shows if they REALLY capture my attention. Few do.) So far i've not found it lacking. It looks exactly like the commercials portrayed it It is extremely well acted and the scenery is amazing.

All in all, i've found it to be a good show so far. It's twenty minutes into the second episode and i'm already planning on watching the third part. (Show's on commercial right now.)

Honestly I Like it

[sammie-20 · 10/10 · 4 December 2007]

So far what I have have seen of Tin man is AMAZING, from the cinematography to the story line. It is an interesting perspective on a very classic story. While nothing can replace Judy Garland as the original Dorthy, Zooey's take on her is much more real and less "hollywood." She thinks much like any of us would in her given situation, and that alone makes her an endearing character. Yes the special effects are lovely, but that alone does not make this movie. What does is the way you are able to connect to the characters. You are part of the story, not just watching it on a silver screen. After having grown up on the old school version, this is something I could see my kids relating to. As much as I love The Wizard of Oz, it is very dated and you have a hard time NOW dealing with out candy coated the script is. The original wizard of OZ book was actually quite SCARY for it's time, so to see someone embrace that dark thread I feel breathes more life into the picture. Unlike Willy Wonka's remake, this one can actually stand BESIDE it's predecessor and hold its own. It is not trying to be like the classic which is nice. Orginality is much more intriguing.

A tad slow, but overall a good revisioning of a classic story

[DJRumpy · 6/10 · 5 December 2007]

I was rather surprised that I enjoyed this. The story was obviously dragged out a bit thin to reach 6 hours in length. The stretching causes the pace to seem a bit too slow. Possibly better editing could have alleviated that. The characters are well thought out and thankfully not exact copies of the originals. From what I gathered after seeing all three episodes is that this story takes place 500 years after the original Dorothy came to Oz. The story is much darker, which is refreshing.

The leads do admirable jobs in their roles. I found only the lion to be somewhat boring, probably due to his inability to vocalize very much. He just didn't emote very well, although he did have some decent screen time, I just didn't connect with him at all. Toto was another character that confused a bit. His motivation was questionable considering the devotion he professed to have. I also wish the Wizard was a more prominent fixture, but all in all, I was OK with that branch of the story.

To sum up. Good acting, and I think a good choice on the lead for Zooey. I found her quirkiness and general kind of cute gutsiness refreshing. The special effects are better than average and certainly better than the typical home-made sci-fi look you may be used to. The scenery was also very nice in the movie (albeit with a darker twist). If you enjoyed the original, and you aren't a die hard fan hoping for a rehash of the same old story, then check this one out. It may be worth your time ;)

Not in Kansas anymore, or the old Oz.

[greenwolfzada · 9/10 · 4 December 2007]

If you watch this simply because you love the old OZ, whether the book or the movie, you wont find what you expect when watching this one.

Sci-fi Channel's Tin Man is a work of art on its own, though it uses some of the original characters and locations, it is its very own unique tale, completely rewritten and turned into a fantasy adventure for the MODERN age.

It's not the old adventure, instead of just trying to get home, they have to try and save the O.Z.

Keeps you on the edge of your seat, waiting to see what happens next. Each new episode adds a new twist making you rethink your original ideas of OZ.

It's definitely worth watching if you like to see old stories retold in completely different ways. Not what you'd expect.

if the old Oz was Kansas, this version would definitely be WAY over the rainbow.

A Decent Update

[TheExpatriate700 · 7/10 · 7 September 2009]

Tin Man is an interesting update of the old Wizard of Oz story, with special effects and acting well above the Sci-Fi Channel's usual low standards. It is more akin to Battlestar Galactica (although not quite as good) than to their creature features. Zooey Deschanel, Kathleen Robertson, and Alan Cumming all turn in good performances, although Richard Dreyfuss fans should be warned that his role is smaller than advertised.

The plot overall is well written, although at times rather predictable, especially in the third episode. There are some issues with the dialogue though, with some genuinely flat lines scattered throughout the series.

In terms of younger fans of Baum, the plot might be a bit dark for the under ten set, but should be enjoyable for older kids, particularly teenagers with a taste for the bizarre.

Tin Man Well Done

[kmwilson3 · 10/10 · 9 December 2007]

What I like about Tin Man is that it isn't a remake, but a different take on an old, classic storyline. With new characters & a different storyline. Another thing I thought was cool was all the small references to the original Wizard of Oz. A small phrase here, a quiet mention there, you had to be paying attention to catch most of it. I would say my favorite character would have to be the Tin Man. He was the most tortured one out of the small group & yet he found himself again after helping D.G., Glitch & Raw. It was an inner struggle that some of us could relate to. Glitch, definitely an interesting character you can't help but like. Raw, an intriguing take on the Cowardly Lion. And of course, D.G., focused on getting to her family, but not entirely about getting home. The Evil Queen, The Wizard, Toto & all the other characters add their own splash into the Wizard of Oz pond. There are very few TV mini-series that I care to own, & the Tin Man is definitely one of them. I have recommended this mini-series to all my friends & co-workers & they have all agreed that it is a very good & touching story.

Converting a chick flick into an action-adventure

[usmc80 · 7/10 · 3 December 2007]

I hated "The Wizard of Oz" because it was such a chick-flick as far as I could tell. The only cool thing about it was the flying monkeys. My sister loved that stupid movie when I was growing up and she had to watch it every time it came on.

I decided to take a chance on "Tinman" last night simply because it was on one of my favorite channels, Sci-Fi. So far I've actually enjoyed it...and the flying monkeys are still cool. Zooey's not bad either, sort of the girl-next-door type you develop a crush on. Neal McDonough's acting is always good too, the same believability he put into his character on "Band of Brothers" a few years ago.

I'd say most of the people who don't like "Tinman" are probably "Wizard" purists or just not big fans of Sci-fi fantasy.

"Tin Man" hasn't got any depth, and it doesn't have enough style to compensate for it's lack of substance.

[kingderella · 4/10 · 21 February 2010]

"Tin Man" is "The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz" re-imagined as a dark, epic steampunk fantasy. The concept of bringing out the darker undercurrents of a beloved children's tale reminded me a lot of the computer game "American McGee's Alice", although "Tin Man" isn't quite that violent. Another obvious influence is Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

It's a concept with the potential to be very entertaining, but it doesn't quite come together. The biggest problem is that "Tin Man" hasn't got any depth whatsoever - the original tale's messages are completely lost - and it doesn't have enough style to compensate for it's lack of substance.

Some of the special effects just look cheap and some sets and costumes are terribly unimaginative. The cast isn't all that great either. Zooey Deschanel is adorable, but she makes a terrible action heroine, coming across as unintentionally clumsy and clueless. Worst of all is Raoul Trujillo as the laughable "Raw" (the character analogous to the Cowardly Lion). And the whole series just goes on for way too long.

There are nice moments scattered throughout the series, such as the re-imagined Emerald City, and some of the actors do a pretty good job. But ultimately "Tin Man" is a wasted opportunity.

A fascinating take on an old tale

[KestrelBard · 10/10 · 3 December 2007]

More than one generation has grown up on The Wizard of Oz and its variations, from the original book to the modern musical, Wicked. Tin Man is a different take than any I've seen before, but by no means does that make it bad. Fans of Joss Whedon's Firefly will probably enjoy this, but so will anyone looking for a new way to imagine Oz. The characters are really not the same as the original story line, but we still see several similarities. The quest for belonging, as DG searches for where she belongs and encounters people who will help her. Glitch, the Scarecrow variation, seeks half a brain that was taken from him because he was previously a top adviser. "Tin Man" Cain, meanwhile, was tortured by soldiers for years, and now feels heartless and seeks only revenge. And Raw, who even resembles the Cowardly Lion, is essentially a psychic whose kind the villain uses to read the minds of others. There is still the idea of good versus evil, and, frankly, I'm glad to see a Dorothy who doesn't spend her time complaining and searching for a way out. I love the old movie, but this is a wonderful new version. I wait for the DVD with bated breath.

Tinny Man on a Bumpy Yellow Brick Road

[stevensjts7 · 7/10 · 6 December 2007]

Why so much virtual ink spent on Tin Man, a piece I'm not particularly invested in? Perhaps because, as just about everyone else I've worked with knows, I would rather see a valiant attempt that doesn't quite work than a perfectly executed mediocrity.

I am somewhat taken aback by the almost unbridled enthusiasm with which Tin Man was greeted on the Internet Movie Data Base; is our hunger for something at least marginally original so deep that we fall all over ourselves indulging in overpraise? For God's sake, people, be a little discerning. Don't get enthralled by a piece because it's given you a Lewinsky.

I thought some of the "re-imagining" was very original, if not precisely inspired. The notion of the Evil Queen Azkadellia being DG's sister worked very well, especially the concept that it was DG's fault Azkadellia became, er, wicked. I also couldn't help but grin at the inside-out-ass-backwards reworking of Toto, probably the best thing in the piece. The Mystic Man was a nice variation on the traditional Wizard, and before he could ever become annoying he was killed off.

I liked the concept of "family" broadened beyond "traditional family values" (DG, Sis, Mom & Dad) to include outsiders (Glitch, Cain, Raw and Toto). How Fred Dalton Thompson and the Religious Right must have bristled at the notion of including everyone in the definition of "family." The notion of redemption (especially with DG's line about the whole adventure being about "second chances") was pleasantly reminiscent of pieces as diverse as The Magnificent Seven and Return of the Jedi.

The climax was a bit ponderous (and looked a lot like Obi-wan, Han, Luke and Chewie skulking around the Death Star in A New Hope) but was ultimately pretty good and certainly satisfying (especially DG's mildly incredulous "She melted" line).

I have always thought that the cast of David Lynch's Dune was remarkably good: whatever you may have thought of their individual performances, from Francesca Annis to Sting every actor absolutely, positively looked right for his/her role. The same can be said for Tin Man. Richard Dreyfuss's performance was excellent. He got the tone precisely right.

Everyone in Tin Man's cast, without exception, looked absolutely right. DG wasn't nauseatingly beautiful, Glitch wasn't annoyingly cute, Cain had a markedly "haunted" look to him (which, frankly, actor Neal McDonough has in every friggin' role he plays), DG's parents didn't have twinkling eyes and, best of all, Kathleen Robertson as Azkadellia was the most physically beautiful member of the cast.

Unfortunately, that's where my enthusiasm hits a bridge abutment. The performances are remarkably flat -- not bad, per se, but merely competent (which I hold as one step above the dreaded "mediocre"). There was an overall lack of energy and intensity evident in everyone except Richard Dreyfuss.

Zooey Deschanel as DG was especially disappointing, as -- though her acting was competent -- her posture was positively atrocious (round-shouldered and stooped) and her movement was more lacking in physical grace than Arnold Schwartzenegger's.

Something that really bugged me was the overall appearance of Tin Man. To elaborate, the "classiest" of the James Bond films (Casino Royale, Die Another Day, Octopussy, et al) and films like Gone With The Wind have what I can only call a "glossy" look, rather like a very expensive magazine about very expensive locations and possessions. This is predominantly the purview of the Director of Photography. Tin Man, despite its largely computer-generated spectacle, has a very flat, almost stark look to much of its scenes, which has the effect of making the whole film look "cheap" (even though it certainly wasn't).

This flatness extends further: it permeates the dialogue, which overall was about as flat and uninspired as a CNN talking-head commentary. Sure, it conveyed necessary information, but it certainly didn't "roll trippingly off the tongue." This is a danger in modern writing when pieces like this are adapted: the tendency to utilize colloquialisms to an enormous extent, usually under the wrongheaded assumption that the modern audience will balk at "formalized" dialogue. This is utter nonsense and I am continually shocked at how widespread the attitude is. Speak up, people: the writers, producers and filmmakers are not giving you the credit you deserve; you can follow "formal" English (can't you?).

Inexcusably bad grammar and extreme overuse of anachronistic terms (especially the ubiquitous "okay") is not only distracting, it diminishes the characters. Tin Man needed a dialogue consultant (like Tom Mankiewicz or Tom Stoppard) desperately.

The musical score by Simon Boswell was, frankly, a third-rate attempt to imitate the great John Barry (especially in its usage of quarter-note triplets throughout). The orchestrations had a decidedly "tinny" feel to them (appropriately enough, I suppose) and lacked the sumptuousness the piece cried out for.

The design was an interesting matter. It brought back memories of (here he is again) David Lynch's Dune for not only sets and costuming, but even in the "retro" look of the various technological elements. I can't say I minded or that it hurt the film, but to me it seemed rather uninspired.

The only other things that stuck in my craw apart from the dialogue were the design of the "Realm of the Unwanted" (which looked like Blade Runner meets Escape from New York/Escape from LA) and the cliché of Cain's son leading the Merry Men in Sherwood Forest.

I'm being hard on Tin Man precisely because it was trying so damned hard. I commend the valiant attempt. It's an important step on the way back to the originality so lacking in mainstream entertainment.

Not THAT Bad

[Vintage-April · 5/10 · 3 December 2007]

I'll admit, I may be giving this a higher rating than it deserves due to my VERY low expectations of it and the fact that I never liked The Wizard of Oz to begin with...

It really is more of a re-imagining of the story than a modernization. It takes the theme and the characters and takes them in broader directions than the typical, "I wish I had a heart," said the broken-hearted Tin Man.

It's also nice to see that the movie is actually utilizing real sets other than relying on a green screen 100% of the time- Are you listening George Lucas? Honestly, I'm quite liking it. Good pacing. I love Zooey Deschanel. The best thing I can compare it to is The 10th Kingdom, but it's actually much better than that movie too.

Give it a chance. Keep your expectations very low, and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Refreshing!

[buzzerbill · 8/10 · 3 December 2007]

I've only seen the first two-thirds of this, so this is in a sense an incomplete review--but what fun this is! Over the years, I've found myself growing less and less fond of the 1939 "Wizard of Oz". Perhaps it was the "20/20" interview with Yip Harburg a number of years ago in which he presented himself as the greatest thing in the history of music and "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" as the greatest song every written. Perhaps it's the relentlessly perky, folksy tone. Perhaps it just that I'm sick to death of Judy Garland--great voice, a complete wreck as a human being, same damned performance in every film she ever made. (Yeah, I know that someone will try to pull my gay card for that remark.) In any case--an O. Z. with a steampunk castle for the wicked sorceress, who by the way dresses like a dominatrix and has her winged monkey equivalents tattooed on her bust? A consistently dark tone, more Brothers Grimm than Louis B. Mayer? As other have noted, lots of clever parallels to other films as well as the original? I can't claim greatness for "Tin Man", but taken on its own terms it's a heck of a lot of knowing fun--without a single note of "Somewhere over the Rainbow". If your teeth hurt at the very thought of "The Wizard of Oz"--and whose don't?--you are going to like this.

Could have been better

[chippish · 7/10 · 5 December 2007]

Overall, I'd say this was a decent series. It's a story that I think had a lot of potential, with most of it wasted by bad acting and a weak script. I did enjoy watching it, but here are just a few things I found wrong with it.

Most of my complaints are with the characters themselves and with the writing, quite notably the part of DG. The character is interesting enough, but Zooey Deschanel was quite frankly the wrong choice for this part. The character of DG, in my mind, is supposed to be strong and fiery, and yet strangely vulnerable. She needs to have a sense of innocence around her despite her strong wills, which she did not have at all in this series. She was bland, showed no emotions in her performance and delivered her lines flatly. What was even worse was when she actually TRIED to get emotional. Totally not believable.

Besides her, I liked the other characters very much. My main problem concerning them, however, is the writing and the script. The dialogue isn't believable, for the most part. What really bother me, though, is that I don't think there was enough explanation and insight into some of the characters. It was mentioned in the series that when someone is locked in the tin box, they never come out the same as they were. This is obvious with Cain, as he emerges cold and nearly heartless. We never find out, though, exactly the kind of person he was before hand. Maybe it's not necessary to the plot, but it's often the characters that make the story, and not the plot itself. Also, we eventually find out that it is not actually Azkadellia herself causing all this havoc, but a wicked witch possessing her. It also appears that at times Azkadellia has a limited amount of control. I wish they had dropped more subtle hints that it's not quite Az herself who is doing all this.

I think my biggest issue with the series though, is the ending. No, not the ending itself, but rather that it just ends abruptly. I would have liked to have seen them rebuilding the O.Z, Glitch getting his brain back, and maybe DG wanting to go on another adventure with some clever quip about how that's what caused this whole thing in the first place, along with revealing what happens to the rest of the characters.

I did like it overall though, despite these problems. Though I must note that it was quite slow, but it would pick up just in time for the part to end. There were also too many commercials. I must have seen the maniacal pony 50 times.

Rough around the edges but entertaining

[helen_kupo · 8/10 · 3 December 2007]

Parts of this oz interpretation are hard to swallow but none the less the show has held my interest. The way they've incorporated elements of the story into the movie is sometimes clever and sometimes not so much. The acting can be irritating and forced-Glitch is very Jar Jar Binks at times... At first I wasn't a fan of the Tin Man but as the show goes on he is starting to grow on me. I love Zooey Deschanel however in this movie there are times when it feels like shes just reciting lines from the script or seems bored. If you have an open mind and can get past the bad parts over all its pretty good. Visually it excels for a movie mini.

D.G. from the O.Z.? Nice try, but should've tried harder.

[kyrat · 6/10 · 6 December 2007]

I was really looking forward to a darker reimagining of the Wizard of Oz.

The premise was interesting and on the whole the look was good. I kept an open mind and was willing to forgive a lot since it was just a miniseries & presumably doesn't have a large budget. However, overall, I was disappointed.

It started off OK, introducing the characters. I thought the casting was fine. Unlike apparently everyone else I had no problem with the lead actress and liked her non-hysterical approach to everything going on. I enjoyed the way they tried to modernize the story and yet keep basic elements (the Tin Man being heartless, scarecrow literally missing a brain). Small homages to the original were inserted (the blue gingham apron at the beginning, the brick road, the storm at the farmhouse, the Munchkins (who looked like turkeys to me) etc.) Monkey bat tattoos were an interesting twist and the monkey bat effects were done very well.

Unfortunately, the 'movie' just wasn't good enough. -I assume they didn't have a huge budget, so I tried to forgive the bad CGI and the film coloring "tricks" they used that looked like my amateur attempts in photoshop (look! we can do B&W w/ one color focus, look we can darken it to look creepy). -And some of the modernization attempts just didn't work for me. I couldn't figure out if O.Z. was supposed to evoke parallels like I'm a cutsey beach girl "dee-gee from the O.C." or if it was supposed to sound more hard & urban like "I'm D.G. from the O.Z, dog. word." -Why was it called "The Tin Man" if he was more of a supporting character to the DG/AZ storyline? -And maybe I've seen too many goth/Tim Burton things but "Az" was an incredibly boring, nonthreatening witch. Her attempts to be sexy bad witch was both uninteresting and trite. -However, the biggest problem was that the writing wasn't very good and it was too drawn out. -To top it off, the ending was painfully predictable and Disney-esquire in it's corny-ness and its literal embrace of the happy nuclear family.

This should have been condensed to a tighter 2-2.5 hour long movie and it would have been much better than an inferior drawn out 5-6 hour series (w/ all the commercials probably 4-5).

So I'll give them points for trying on a probably small budget, but next time it'd be nice to see a better effort.

Enjoyable

[directorstouch · 8/10 · 11 August 2008]

I have always been a fan of the Wizard of Oz. Lately with the success of Gregory Maguire's Wicked series as well as the Broadway musical of the same name, Tin Man makes sense. Everyone wants to add their own spin to the story.

I loved Tin Man, but the one thing that hurts it is that it is a television event and is therefore not constrained by film length. So it feels more like a TV show than a movie, which is fine, but it also suffers from "Season 1 syndrome", in which writers are getting to know the world they've created and actors are developing characters that usually take 3 seasons to really gel. So the writing and acting at times are a bit choppy, but I'm willing to ignore that as the story itself is very interesting and the version of Oz that is created is very believable.

Tin Man is part sequel, part remake, as events from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz are referenced as happening way in the past, but the archetypes from the original are used again, so in a sense, we're watching history repeat itself in a world that has changed drastically. Gone is the Emerald City, the lush forests and endless fields of poppies. Instead we find ourselves in a world in which the wilderness is creeping back in, and the last traces of civilization are confined in a massive, industrial city, focused on sustaining itself more than enjoying itself.

There's a new wicked witch, but she's very different than what we're used to as her backstory is an expansion of the vengeful sister from the original film.

The characters are interesting, but I think a full TV series could have explored them more (though plot elements would stagnate very quickly in a TV series). All in all, it's an enjoyable story. It has flaws, but they don't hurt the story too much. It has a very Sci-fi channel feel about it, echoing shows like Hercules and Xena. Somewhat cheesy, but a lot of fun to watch.

Not a bad effort, but could be better

[oiseaux-orders · 7/10 · 4 December 2007]

Pretty entertaining, although the wooden style of the lead actress who plays DG is annoying. She doesn't seem to sync with the rest of the ensemble at all, and can't seem to manage any emotion other than wide-eyed amazement. Also, the plot line seems redundant and contrived at times - I was expecting something a little bit more original, while still incorporating stuff from the Wizard of Oz movie we're all familiar with. I was surprised to see a bit of Time Bandits and Star Wars at the beginning (the swinging cage and the Ewok-like situation). It's as if the writers couldn't make up their minds which fantasy stories to "sample." Overall, worth watching once, maybe twice.

Honestly, How Did People Like This?

[Excalibur12ny · 3/10 · 4 December 2007]

Now I really don't want this to be one of those annoying comments that bashes a movie that everyone else is glorifying, but I feel as if someone needs to really shed some light on the actuality of this mini-series. I am a huge Wizard of Oz fan, but I'm not one of those who can't twist the story out of the box and love it for its own creation. However, all I can think when I reflect on what I've just watched for the past three days is: Really? That's what I waited months for? Really??

The way they advertise the movie leads one to believe it is going to at least follow the plot a bit. But after the first installment and into the second, the entirety of my "Tin Man" viewing party was completely bored and confused out of their skulls. All of a sudden, we moved from the story of DG in the O.Z. with her three trusted friends, going to see the Wizard and putting down the evil Witch ... to little girls skipping along a lake with flying dolls?? Since when has WoZ been anything like the last two installments of this series? It feels as if the telewriters (who are most definitely lacking in word skills, as is evidenced when the Dr. Frankenstein-looking henchman says to the Lion: "All you people need is a bit of encouragement," and the Lion, after cattle prodding him, replies: "Raw just need courage.") used the franchise of WoZ to gather an audience and springboard into their own little tale they'd woven with Oz no where in mind.

That aside, as an original creation and set entirely apart from Oz, it's just a terrible story. It's been told before a hundred thousand times: two girls, one of light, one of dark, and they must battle because of some stupid prophecy that entails an astronomical phenomenon. Really, now. This is the best the "Tin Man" could give us? And one of the writers --- I don't know which one --- was so in love with the Tin Man, he gave Scarecrow a lobotomy (literally) and the Tin Man usurps him as the one D.G. will "miss most of all." This saddened me for personal reasons, but the large amount of "awesomeness" of Kain meant that the "annoyingness" of Glitch and Raw had to be just as obvious. Really, the only one I ended up connecting with by the end WAS the Tin Man.

Finally, the music is God awful except for a small scene where Az finds her father's old cabin, and then later on in the final thirty seconds of the finale.

I will say, however, that aside from the obvious flaws in script, acting, or characters in general --- the effects are amazing, and while the costumes can get a bit repetitive or confusing (why does Toto have circus tents for pants and why do little D.G. and Az go the entirety of their childhood in the same pair of color-coordinated dresses?), it's really visually pleasing.

This is honestly what I suggest: If you don't have six hours to spare, don't bother. And if you do have six hours, go watch "Tenth Kingdom" and spend your time on a good fantasy mini-series. It's just as long, and ten times better.

More Grimm then Baum

[adamc-3 · 10/10 · 8 December 2007]

It has a steampunk sensibility, the only munchkins you see are quite possibly cannibals, and everything you thought you knew about Oz is wrong. What's not to like? Well the music feels like it was stolen from Stargate SG-1 cues and if you worship the '30s musical you'll hate this series. I despised the MGM travesty as it schmaltzed its way into the subconscious, but I loved 'Return to OZ' for its faithful rendition of Ozma of OZ. Tin Man is different. The casting is inspired, especially Cummings as Glitch/Ambrose the formerly smartest man in the world and Robertson as Azkadelia whose performance in the 3rd part steals every scene. Dreyfus is excellent and Deschanel makes a great spiritual successor to Dorothy Gale and Ozma as the outworlder who is actually a combination of the two characters. (Extra props for the appearance of the correct "silver" slippers on the original Dorothy). I have read all the famous forty, and while this is far darker then what most people think of Baum's and Thompson's work it actually is very close in tone to many sections of especially Baum's books (See the Road to OZ, The Emerald City of OZ, The Patchwork Girl of OZ, The Nome King of OZ, and The Land of OZ). Those books had violent situations, coercion of body and mind, and some pretty impressive monsters. It is obvious that the screenwriters of Tin Man read those books as well. In conclusion I loved the series and would really like to see more from the O.Z. The story ended well and the characters are still interesting.

Nice Story but Horrible Lead Actress

[emailcrystalsc · 6/10 · 6 December 2007]

I enjoyed the story very much. I worried about how bad they'd screw up The Wizard of Oz in this future/fantastical setting but it was actually a very neat interpretation and came across much more as a "tribute" to the original film while creating it's own intriguing world. It did of course have it's problems - a few characters were slightly underdeveloped and there were a few scenes which they practically beat you over the head with (okay! i get it. I'm supposed to notice this!). But these are easy to take when combined with the uniqueness of the story and the nice cinematography. The evil witch (played by Kathleen Robertson was well developed and acted (and very attractive). I felt sympathetic towards the character so that was a nice achievement on their part. SUPER cgi on the flying monkeys (which were in this case monkey/bats).

The only part that is not excusable is the HORRIBLE acting on the lead actress' part: Zooey Deschanel as DG. I kept saying, "Man,she acts like she's on Valium!" Completely bland, monotone and devoid of emotion throughout. The only thing she could do was open her eyes really wide to look in shock and after a bit this was annoying. Even in sequences when she was supposed to be running, she kind of just skipped along. (this counts as -4 stars for me)

Overall though, not a bad watch if you record it to your dvr and skip through all the commercials.

(and IMDb doesn't list a major character: Toto/Tutor. I'm interested in finding out more about the dog playing Toto.)

High concept idea with a mediocre realization

[gee-15 · 5/10 · 13 December 2007]

I LOVED the idea of a scifi/fantasy movie based on the Wizard of Oz and so looked forward to this miniseries with anticipation. I just finished watching it and I'm feeling a bit....irked. Let me first say what is right with the mini-series.

First of all, I thought the acting was good across the board (with one notable exception that I'll get to). Zooey Deschanel would seem the perfect person to play a rather sardonic Dorothy (though they didn't give her much opportunity to be sardonic). But I enjoyed watching her. The other actors were good as well with special mention to Alan Cumming and Neal McDonough. The other actors were fine as well.

Second, I liked the production design, costumes, music, and the general feel of the movie. Even though the world of the O.Z. seemed to have a multiple personality disorder. Sometimes it was rustic, sometimes industrial, sometimes urban punk. It was a bit hard to figure out what this world was supposed to be.

Third, the little references to the Wizard of OZ that were dropped by different characters. The twisting of the original concepts to fit into the world created by the movie. All of that was enjoyable to spot. I especially like their conception of the Tin Man.

Now, what I didn't like: the plot and the writing. I'm sorry but the plot was no more complex than the original Wizard of OZ which is fine for a children's story but disappointing for a film aimed at adults. The whole storyline was tepid when it should have soared. The plot was just boring. I kept waiting for the real movie to start. Things did pick up a little plotwise during the second part but the conclusion was utterly predictable.

Finally, I'm sorry, but I never once bought Kathleen Robertson as the evil sorceress. Her most evil expression was a slightly pouty look that seemed to say "Hey, I broke a nail!" rather than "I'm evil personified." And her dialogue must have come from Evil Supervillains 101.

The biggest problem was that her motivations were never really clear. Okay, here's a spoiler so you might want to stop reading. Why did she keep her mother alive? If she was really possessed by the witch, the witch would have no reason to keep the queen around. Especially once she had the emerald. At one point in the film, they make it look like Azkadellia is cooperating somewhat with the witch that possesses her. But that only occurs one time. Perhaps if the witch had seduced her rather than possessed her against her will, it would have had more impact. If she had agreed to join forces with the witch for some real or imagined slight on the part of her family it would have explained why she kept her mother, father, and sister alive and and why she may have taken some pleasure in them witnessing her victory. Finally, why did the old witch want to make the land dark anyway? Because she's evil? Who knows?

Ultimately, it's not a bad watch but doesn't meet expectations.

Good and bad elements, but it was still fun.

[ACMcC24 · 8/10 · 10 December 2007]

For anyone still wondering, this isn't a remake or a re-imagining. The parallels between the original Dorothy and DG were apparently meant to bring the story full circle, not to copy it. This story is suppose to take place some 400 years after Dorothy landed in OZ, now referred to as the Outer Zone. This little fact, which would have been useful to know from the start, you don't discover until Part 3. I've got to admit, I was lost at first as to how to accept this new O.Z. The Wizard's an addict (played perfectly of course by R. Dreyfuss), the Lion's entire species become mind-readers and empaths, the Tin Man and Scarcrow are no longer literally what they are described (as being tin and straw) but instead are titles for the keepers of justice and the adviser to the Queen (though the name Scarcrow is never addressed in this story). So it would seem that the attributes the actual characters gained in the Wizard of OZ (heart and brain) became their greatest qualities, allowing those with the same qualities to succeed in occupations that put them to good use. Those with heart would be best at keeping the peace while those with a good mind would be used for their intelligence. As for why the lions become mind-readers and empaths still escapes me though. As I said, all of this is difficult to understand at first, but I got use to it.

The acting at times was shaky and the scripting weak at points though the SFX was about par for what you see in the previews. I didn't quite understand the stance Zooey Deschanel (DG) took on her character's personality. She got the curious head tilt down good but the whole anger/fear thing didn't seem to be in her emotional vocabulary. On the positive, she knew how to play charming and innocent when need be. Alan C's and Neal M's performances were the obvious highlights, but I never really expected any different from those two.

Funny enough - regardless of these issues - I actually found myself enjoying the story more and more. Part 1 wasn't bad though it was slow to start. It eventually picked up the pace leaving you with a good cliffhanger. Part 2 was considerably better, faster-paced with a little twist at the end. By the time Part 3 premiered, I was looking forward to watching it. Given the harder edge this OZ has taken, you could either enjoy it or find it ridiculous. Don't expect top quality work like you might have found in the Scifi Channel's previous mini-series "Taken", but it is fun and definitely imaginative.

A mildly interesting Sci-Fi original, worthy of viewing at least once

[someguywithdsl · 7/10 · 13 December 2007]

In some ways, Tin Man is typical Sci-Fi drivel (not nearly up to the standards of the new Battlestar Galactica). Acting and CGI were about on par with the new episodes of Stargate Atlantis.

In other ways, it's interesting. The world ("The O.Z.") and characters presented were intriguing, at least, and I did desire to watch parts 2 and 3 after seeing the first episode. I'd recommend that you catch it on TiVo sometime, if nothing else.

Take The Wizard of Oz, and throw it in a blender with The Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner, and H.G. Wells' The Time Machine. Add in a pound of cheese and let it sit out on the counter for a week ... voilà: Tin Man