Willow

It's fluffy stuff, lovingly made and instantly forgettable. [20 May 1988, p.5]

It's a stunning, dazzling motion picture that somehow, almost unaccountably, has the magnetism of a slab of corned beef. [20 May 1988, p.6]

Built on fantasy stereotypes – friendly little folk, evil witches, misunderstood heroes, guys on horseback with bloody great swords – it nonetheless contains enough epic action, narrative momentum and spit-and-sawdust pre-CGI special effects to hold the attention.

Directed by Ron Howard and produced by George Lucas, the film seems to mark the final paroxysm of a genre-the big-budget fantasy-adventure-that dominated American filmmaking for a decade but has recently been weakened by changing tastes, altered economics and sheer exhaustion. It's less a movie than a collection of morbid symptoms: a labored, arrhythmic narrative; a pathetic dependency on recycled themes and borrowed images; a sour, self-mocking humor that suggests the end is near. [20 May 1988, p.2]

And Willow, a pleasant but bland character, doesn't often inspire much sentiment, so the film lacks an emotional center. In place of this, it relies on so much overstatement and repetition that it's possible to grow tired even of the adorable baby.

Willow is medieval mishmash from George Lucas, a sort of 10th-century "Star Wars" tossed together with a plethora of elements taken from numerous classic fables. Even if Lucas has bastardized his own story with derivative and unoriginal elements, kids probably will love it. For MGM Pictures, b.o. should mean recoupment of its large investment.

Producer-for-Life George Lucas puts his awesome creative machinery to work in Willow, a would-be adventure of little people, big people, good guys and bad. But the fantasy wheels grind to a halt, bogged down in Lucas' flat, derivative story, and not helped in the least by director Ron Howard's clumsy steering.

The first act of Willow is perfect, and while the second act and third act started to have some nit picky here and there and i did feel a bit too long, the rest of Willow is still a fascinating wondrous journey that's been well acted, superbly written in terms of dialogue and story, all likeable convincing characters, incredible set and costume, and great score, comes from the imagination of George Lucas, Willow are just not less wide imaginative than Star Wars, it's a very well directed fantasy film that are entertaining to watch.

Since Willow is very clearly postured as a children's movie, I can't dock too many points if it's overly silly, hokey and naïve. I do, however, suddenly feel quite sorry for dragging my folks out to see it all those summers ago. Simply put, it's not a kid's movies that parents will enjoy nearly as much as their little ones. Val Kilmer and Warwick Davis share a strange sort of charm, shining through the wooden dialogue and dated special effects, and the plot possesses the adventurous, optimistic core of a classic fairy tale, so it's not like there's a total lack of positives. But Willow also borrows liberally from Tolkien, paling by comparison, and it routinely pushes the limits of our disbelief. George Lucas's influence is all over the screen, too, from the excessively playful tone to the heavy-handed wipe transitions and stiff, overly proper reparteé. If you've ever wondered what a Hobbit might look like on Endor, this is your ticket.

Overall, the decade-old picture Legend from the fantasy genre is equally as influential as Willow is now. It laid the way for subsequent fantasy epics and is a more than respectable movie on its own. It's definitely worth a look for any genre enthusiasts.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Willow tries to do for fantasy what Star Wars did for sci-fi, but poor acting and a cheesy script keep it from being anything but a time waster for small children.