OzLand (2014) User Reviews

I wanted to like this movie more but...

[faradaygrean · 4/10 · 3 April 2016]

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.

Fallout your Oz

[trank-16201 · 6/10 · 18 March 2021]

Really strange why that twho stayed alife..... this part = weak part of Plot IMHO

Good plot, poor execution

[sarah-m · 3/10 · 23 November 2015]

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....

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

[scaredsblood · 2/10 · 17 November 2015]

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!

Vote up for cash!

[markleachsa-1 · 2/10 · 18 November 2015]

I got this on the strength of the IMDb rating and then realised that it was simply yet another Australian film with paid reviewers slamming in the tens for it. I'm actually not sure any of the other reviewers who rated it so highly have actually even seen it.

But there you are. You make an independent film in Australia and part of the budget has to go to pay reviewers so that other unsuspecting people will watch it. That money would have been so much better used if it had actually been put into the production.

A tip: the more the reviewer mentions who directed it, starred in it, did the effects in it, or any other name in it, the more you know it's a put-up job. Tired of these people and will make sure not to watch anything else from Australia that doesn't appear in my local cinema.

No real plot, or anything else that would make someone watch it

[karate_goat · 1/10 · 1 March 2016]

I watched this the other day, and frankly wished that I had not. Here's the whole movie. 2 guys, seemingly post-apocalyptic world, and they're walking. The two characters seem to have a relationship like Lenny and George from "Of Mice and Men", one a pragmatist and the other slightly askew. The similarities end there though. There is no background for either of these characters, which besides being annoying, makes it where you have no real connection to them which in turn gives you no real reason to care what they are doing (especially considering the length of this tripe); to keep this brief I'll just say the world that was created for this movie was incredibly flawed, and could have been (with some thought) much more developed(as could its characters) than it was. It seems like a guy just went, "Let me make some cool shots of you guys!" and then tried to stitch them together to make a movie.

A very cool post apocalyptic dose of magic realism.

[funfun-81092 · 8/10 · 12 April 2017]

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.

Waste of a wasteland

[sustownsend · 2/10 · 24 January 2018]

I love post apocalyptic movies, so I was looking forward to watching this even despite the mixed reviews. I don't know if the director intended for Lief to come across as mentally challenged but that is what it seemed like to me, and if that is not what he was going for, it was a bit distracting. There was an idea in this movie, perhaps not a good one, but a new one. If they had fleshed it out a bit more it might have been something, but as it was, it just came up short. The only reason I gave this movie 2 stars is because I liked a lot of the settings they used. They found some pretty cool abandoned locations to use, and if nothing else in this contrived lump of garbage, at least there was something sort of cool to look at. Oh, and the ending? Really? Just wow, unbelievably dull, and (SPOILERS AHEAD) I kind of wish Emery would have found Lief's body hanging out of a tree or scattered around.

Indie budget triumph of symbolism and allegory for todays world ! ! !

[cekadah · 10/10 · 15 November 2015]

First I must thank Director, writer, producer, editor, special effects, designer, etc.: Michael Williams, for this 'thinking persons' film! OZLAND is loaded with so much allegorical symbolism, and cryptic messages that true cinema buffs can discuss this plot line all night and for days afterwords.

The plot shows two men, Emri and Leif, walking westward in an unidentified setting at an undefined time. There are no other humans to be seen as they travel through the decaying remains of small towns, villages, and farms. Something devastating has occurred and Emri & Leif seem to be the only two humans around. We find out through their conversation that they were born into this post apocalyptic world and have no memory of civilization outside of what their parents have told them. How they met is also not explained.

The story opens with them walking and searching for water as the environment is very dry. Along their way Leif happens upon a copy of the famous Frank L. Baum's book 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'. Leif can read, Emri has trouble reading. As they travel west Leif reads aloud and to himself. Leif, being the quixotic one, is very taken with this story and decides it must be true. Emri, being the realist, has serious doubts there is anything real about the story. During their journey they come upon items and imagery that could possibly attest to the reality of the very characters in the book! With each discovery Leif becomes more certain that 'OZLAND' exist while Emri holds on to his intuitive notion that its all a coincidence and OZLAND does not exist. Emri's doubting and questioning and Leif's belief in the existence of OZLAND eventually causes a fracture in their friendship.

What I find so symbolic and allegorical in this story is the believer and the non-believer! Leif takes the book, which here symbolizes the sacred text of every religion (here Christianity due to the crosses they come upon), and grasp upon it as fact and then finds items and images that he believes make the characters in OZ true therefore the story is true. Emri on the other hand has serious doubts there is any fact to the book but lacks the evidence to prove he's right. Leif has 'the book' and the imagery they have found to prove OZ is real but the items and imagery are only real proof because he believes they are proof. And isn't this the story of ourselves in todays world? The believers verses the nonbelievers.

There is a pivotal scene in the movie that deserves close attention. As they are walking down a road they notice something out in a field. They walk over to it and discover it is a cross with a crucified corpse still attached, now dried out and mummified. Attached to the cross, just above the head of the corpse, is the word 'TERRORIST' scratched into a wooden board. Lief ask Emri "what is terrorist"? Emri tells him terror is like being scared. Leif takes it as someone who scares others! To him this corpse must be the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Just what is the message here? To me it means that Jesus actually brought fear into the lives of others. He preached through faith you will be saved. We spend our lives seeking faith yet we cannot prove our faith will save us, there is no proof. Each and every person comes to the same end - death. Is there heaven? We will never know but we assume faith in Christian text makes heaven true. This is the dilemma Leif finds himself in. He so believes the OZ story this dried crucified corpse is proof enough that the scarecrow was real. Emri takes it for what it is - a dried out crucified corpse - nothing else.

There is a serious flaw in the story that relates directly to the cross in the field scene. Later in their journey they head for a place in which they are certain there will be other people. Upon reaching this destination they find three graves, each with a Christian cross. Leif and Emri have no knowledge of Christian belief as it is never referred to throughout the film. I am wondering just what is the message Michael Williams is relating here? For both Leif and Emri's only reference to a cross is to someone that brought fear into the lives of others.

At movies end Leif is given the opportunity to find his OZLAND. Emri begs him not to do what he wants to do. Leif convinces Emri he must for surely OZLAND is his home. Emri seeks shelter down into the darkness of the ground. Leif stays above ground. Eventually Emri emerges from the safety he sought to discover Leif has gone. Here again the symbolism is overwhelming. Emri rises from below, think grave, into the light to discover his only companion gone. We know he's dead and I believe Emri also knows this. But what does this say about Leif?

Hard to find a redeeming quality

[petermcinto · 3/10 · 21 November 2015]

Ouch. Two very Australian words for this - B..... awful! It got as high as a three for effort only. Clunky script, embarrassing acting and a complete lack of any redeeming qualities, apart from the occasional "arty" shot. Overall, a painful experience. The reviewer who made the comment that most of the glowing reviews must have been paid for seems spot on. No serious film lover could overlook the dreadful script and cringe worthy acting, no matter what the storyline. I sought reviews after seeing it and specifically signed up here to save others the drudgery of sitting through Ozland! Save yourself the time and the money.

Would have been better with no dialog

[Hajimoto0625 · 3/10 · 30 November 2019]

I love post-apocalyptic movies. Especially those that feature characters wandering and rummaging through abandoned places for supplies. I don't know why, I just do. So the short write up on this was appealing. So I watched it, and here's what I found:

THE GOOD: 1) The soundtrack was great. It fit the mood of the landscape perfectly.

2) The locations were really great. From what I could tell, this movie took place maybe 20-25 years after the apocalypse. So the level of the decay in the locations seemed spot on.

3) The cinematography was excellent. Unlike other movies like this, it was not gray and lifeless. There was a lot of color, the shots were beautifully constructed, and even the decaying, dusty buildings had a beauty to them.

THE BAD: 1) This movie is B-O-R-I-N-G. It was really quite a chore to get through it all.

2) The script was terrible. I get the concept for the story, but it never really developed. All in all the story was weak and disjointed.

3) The acting was not very good. I wasn't sure if Lief was supposed to be mentally challenged, or if he was just an annoying character. Overall, the best actor was the robot.

4) Speaking of the robot, WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT? It didn't fit with this film at all. I wish that the script had given some sort of clue as to what caused the apocalypse, and why there may be a random robot walking around. was it a war? An invasion from aliens? A virus? People dropping dead from watching boring movies?

Do I recommend it? Absolutely not. Unless you have it on in the background while you do something else. You can listen to the music and catch random glimpses of the cinematography. But don't invest an hour and 44 minutes of your time on this one. It's an investment that does not pay off.

I give it 3 stars for the music, locations, and cinematography...and that's it.

Great movie to sleep to

[ebonyskyy · 2/10 · 14 September 2018]

If you want to take a nap or love falling asleep with the the TV on then Ozland is the perfect for just that, it will have you snoozing in no time.

Don't ask any 'why' questions.

[lewisworrall-50685 · 3/10 · 14 December 2015]

I'm actually quite a fan of post-apocalyptic movies and TV shows, and really enjoy some of latest offerings.

However you really need some kind of background narrative. How did we end up here? What was the disaster? Nuclear holocaust? Environmental degradation? Disease? These answers are never only hinted at and not properly explored.

The need is to reinvent a kind of post-apocalypse version of 'Gone with the Wind' despite any other logical considerations. They seemed to go to a great deal of trouble to give us a sort of 20-30 year old dilapidation, then there were recent track marks on dirt tracks, road lines painted within the last 5 years, aircraft con-trails and haircuts done with electric hair-clippers. I was also left wondering, why no old cars? No horse and cart or at least bicycles instead of all the walking?

In the end I felt the whole movie was just all a homage to GWtW, but the post-Apocalypse was just a poorly written with poor continuity for a backdrop.

Could have been much more, probably wasn't supposed to be, but should have been.

A post Apocalyptic Oz

[jencollins56 · 10/10 · 19 November 2015]

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.

A real gem

[griffineyrie · 10/10 · 5 May 2015]

I saw this movie at the Premier in Columbus, Mississippi. I was not really sure what to expect, as the only thing I knew was the film was post apocalyptic and had something to do with the book, the Wizard of Oz. I couldn't really wrap my mind on how those 2 things were going to work together. But they did! Writer, producer, and director, Michael Williams, took the concept of 2 guys wandering through the world alone, looking for others and then finding hope through a copy of the Wizard of Oz that was found. The film portrays 2 people who look to each other for survival, as well as companionship. Parts of the book are read throughout the film. At some point, you begin to feel like there really might be an Ozland out there. To find out if the 2 companions, found Ozland, you must watch the end of the movie. The end really makes you think on several different levels. The scenery was realistic, with a feel of mid-western dusty, lonely, stretches of nothing but emptiness. The actors were convincing in their emotions and conversations, and they were realistic in their overall look and costumes. Overall, Williams has created a real gem using The Wizard of Oz as a catalyst for hope in an otherwise desolate world.

Highly Recommended

[ajsiii2002 · 10/10 · 1 February 2015]

OzLand is a locally produced independent film with impressive cinematography, strong acting, and very high production values. Capable of multiple interpretations, the film follows two men on a journey of survival, discovery, and enlightenment in a post-apocalyptic world in which they may be the last surviving humans. The production uses occasional splashes of color to punctuate a drab and desolate environment filled with allusions to the familiar story and characters of Oz. Creative camera angles lead to stunning imagery that lingers in the mind after the screen goes dark. While clearly not intended for children, there is no nudity or harsh language in the film. There is very brief mild violence.

Beautiful cinematography

[therats-98827 · 8/10 · 22 November 2015]

I have viewed this film a few times now and continue to be amazed at the locations that were used for this film. It gives it such an apocalyptic feel through the entire movie. It enhances the believability that the wayfaring strangers, Leif and Emri, find each other among the solitude and choose to travel as partners. The characters are alone and searching. Zack and Glenn's very well done performances allow the viewer to feel for their internal struggles as well as external. Michael Williams, the director and writer of the film is so talented. After watching the film with others it was extremely interesting to hear what thought provoking dialogue it brought up as a discussion among the viewers. Not only were we critiquing the film, but discussing beliefs and feelings that the film generated.

Amazing filmmaking achievement

[lascreenwriter-492-69559 · 10/10 · 12 February 2016]

Visually stunning with a provocative storyline! Writer/Director/Producer/Cinematographer Michael Williams is definitely a filmmaker with a bright future ahead of him. The cinematography is the first thing you notice. The selection of light and focus adds another character element to the film. Not to mention the landscapes. The actors are both very talented. Solid performances. I'm sure we'll be seeing them in other films. Very rare to see one person take on four major crew roles, much less do it as well as Michael Williams has done here. This film held my interest throughout. Will definitely be on the lookout for his next film.

Odyssean Journey, a trek of wonder...

[voz-340-604606 · 10/10 · 18 April 2015]

Hello Creatives:

I went to Tupelo Film Festival this weekend to view some nice films, and was blown away by Oz Land... Well written, excellent acting, beautiful cinematography, evocative soundtrack.

Two young men on a journey, finding ravished buildings, abandoned dwellings, roaming hauntingly picturesque landscapes. An odyssean seeking, a search for place, discovery a desire to return home, a need to find what once was and might be.

With a book and map to chart their course, these two trek onward, struggling to survive, caring for each other as they wander and wonder on their quest for Oz Land…

Peace vOz

An original spin on an old story....beautiful.

[clrwatson · 10/10 · 20 October 2015]

As an independent and foreign film lover, I highly recommend OzLand. It is beautiful from beginning to end. Cinematography, directing, acting, mood, and score (which, in my opinion, makes or breaks a film) were all stellar. Glenn Payne and Zack Ratkoich were perfectly cast. Michael Williams was able to accomplish feats that even critically acclaimed and well known directors have not: To write and direct an original, smart, and layered story that is rich in meaning and substance. Through his complex characters he demonstrates human struggle, resilience, and the intrinsic need to believe in something greater than ourselves. Such a poignant, redemptive, and well told story. And not at all contrived, nor does it assume ignorance of the viewer. It shows us a story and allows us to make use of our own intellect to make connections and interpretations. In a time when most blockbuster movies assume an asinine audience, spoon feeding us clichés and content, this film is a refreshing contrast. Well done!

Make sure to give it a watch!

[artistgp · 9/10 · 29 October 2015]

OzLand is a great example of how passion, creativity and determination can make up for anything lost by having a smaller budget. The film pushes itself in every department in an attempt to set new standards for what can be done by independent filmmakers.

On top of a high production value in general, the film makes great use of practical effects. Scenes that, if handled incorrectly, could have brought the movie down, instead elevate the film's story as well as its entertainment factor.

Director Michael Williams and the entire team should be very proud of what they accomplished. I can't wait to see what comes next!

Brilliant Visual Film

[oakiwan · 8/10 · 7 March 2017]

I bought this and watched it. I was not expecting much from a $10,000 film. Wow, was I wrong. The cinematography is brilliant. Simply beautiful to experience. The locations used are simply...delicious to look at. Yes, I know that is an odd description but it is true. Even the settings with want, rot or decay are stunningly realistic and incredibly interesting. A Hollywood movie would build a FAKE set and hire people to make it look decayed. And then they would add such FAKE lighting that it would look so unconvincing. I would bet that a lot of the locations used in OZLAND were places of actual neglect or decay...and they are brilliantly used.

The camera angles are very professional, the movie contains lots of nice wide shots. The colors chosen are rich and immediately give the movie huge bang for the visual buck.

The movie focuses on two characters and luckily the acting is legit.

I WILL say that the screenplay, because it focuses on two characters had its work cut out for it because a movie is NOT a stage play. I can honestly say that although OZLAND packs its movie thick with words that it does give moments of pause and silence to help with chewing, swallowing and digesting the movie.

I do wish (being honest) that there was a subplot. The settings used and cinematography were so strong that it deserved a subplot.

The movie felt like THE ROAD. And I kept thinking that as I watched. This is a compliment. I wanted the characters to face exterior threats instead of just hints from a story. But, that is because the potential of what was presented was so strong. Had there been a subplot it might be wise to make those scenes completely without dialogue. This way the weight of the dialogue of the two speaking characters' scenes would feel less heavily worded.

I am also wondering if it would have been better to have started off the two characters as separated. In the Wizard of Oz Dorothy discovers the other characters one by one as she journeys. I think having the younger character walking about for a while all alone would have made the arrival of the other main character a little more effective. He could have provided the younger one (as he did) with water to aid him.

All in all this film is a MUST SEE for anyone looking to create Indie Films. Well set, well filmed, well written, well acted.

I recommend it! I expect MUCH success from the brilliant minds behind this movie. They have super great potential!

a book in a movie!!

[slimanehenni1980 · 9/10 · 8 March 2016]

A film like no other. A marriage of more unexpected. The post apocalyptic and the wizard of oz. I'm a fan of the second and therefore very critical regarding this item. And it is a surprise that I had. The film plays with childish codes, a children's book, in an adult world. And it is this contradiction in a post apocalyptic world that offers the magic of oz this film.  And not only that. this relationship between the two characters is an ode to the parent-child relationship. in a second reading level, he discusses the progress in life and the acceptance of the choices we can make, or brotherly love. or how in another context, a children's book can become a bible, a survival manual. The director gives with all his heart a bittersweet vision of the human being in his search for happiness in this world devastated without mark. What makes you think about our society is that this research will lead us to? and she will be right.?