source: OzLand

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.?

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.

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.

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....

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.