So the SciFi Channel is doing a miniseries called Tin Man. It is being described as "a modern re-imagining of L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."

Looks pretty fun to me. Plus its got Zooey Deschanel as DG (aka Dorthy Gale).

I just saw a preview for it tonight during Flash Gordon. It does look interesting. SciFi's miniseries are usually better than their original movies.

This sounds intriguing.  With the combination of Zooey Deschanel (oh, that's who Anna Friel reminds me of!), Alan Cumming, & Richard Dreyfuss, it should be most interesting.

I'll watch most nearly anything with Zooey Deschanel!

I'll second that! Yes, Anna Friel does look remarkably similar to Zooey.

It starts tonight. I'm definitely going to tune in. Some of the reviews from television critics that got an early peek are already rolling in:

The Watcher:

Quoted Text

But perhaps "Tin Man's" greatest asset is its brevity. As "Heroes" and "Lost" have learned, it's difficult to keep a fantasy narrative going for long (there's a reason you probably haven't read all of Baum's sequels).

Alan Sepinwall:

Quoted Text

[S]olid acting and monkeys flying out of, um, someplace aren't enough to justify spending six hours over three nights on a labored attempt to make a classic children's story seem grown-up and cool.

SciFi did something right with their aggressive promotional campaign surrounding Tin Man. The ratings for the first part of the Tin Man miniseries were off the chart. It brought in more viewers than any series, miniseries, or movie SciFi's ever broadcast.

I've watched the first part now. The two reviews I posted are pretty accurate. The acting is nothing less than amazing. Zooey Deschanel could make any movie better just by starring in it. And the reimagining of the core characters (Dorothy Gale, or as she's known here DG, the Tin Man/Cain, Scarecrow/Glitch, and the Lion/Raw) seem much more realistic and much less caricatures.

Unfortunately, the story is not quite as inspiring as the acting or characters. It starts with a solid concept, but the execution is lacking. Maybe it's the TV movie budget look. It has steampunk leanings, but the sets and props are mostly unfascinating. It looks like they may have even borrowed some of the low budget sets from Flash Gordon. Whereas Pushing Daisies proves that the fantastic can be funny and refreshing, Tin Man relies on cliche dark fantasy imagery, tedious layers of mythology, and occasionally throws in horror trappings.

Now, if Tin Man had dived deeper into the horror imagery it occasionally used, it might actually have worked. The story would have been effective as a dark, bone chilling tale. Instead, the moments that truly could have been scary end up being less so because of low budget, distracting effects or possibly they were forced to tone them down to make them appropriate for prime time.

Tin Man really is based around a fascinating concept, so I'm looking forward to the next two parts and hope they are executed a little better than the introductory chapter. I think it is worth watching for the interesting take on the beloved mythos...and, well, for Zooey Deschanel. In the end, how many viewers tune back in for parts two and three after the phenomenal numbers the first part got will show how well SciFi did in retelling this classic story and if they were able to capture a new generation's attention with it.

Part two avoids the slump usually inherent to being the middle of a three-part story, and I think it is better than the first part for two reasons: (1) it is scarier, and (2) our characters are finally given a goal/objective to accomplish.

Two things that didn't work for me: (1) the travelly filler reminiscent of Lord of the Ring's middle, and (2) the incessant flashbacks. I know flashbacks are supposed to be a great storytelling device on film, but I have seen very few movies or TV shows that utilized flashbacks in a way I found interesting or engaging (a notable exception: How I Met Your Mother).