Willow (1988) is an interesting movie to me because I am interested in cinema history, and, at least for me, it represents the end of an era in that history.
That era perhaps began in 1981 with the release of Jon Boorman's Excalibur, and continued with Conan the Barbarian (1982) and its various imitations. By the time Willow was released, audiences at the time were well-acquainted (perhaps even a little overly familiar) with sword-and-sorcery movies.
Recently I rented this movie through Netflix because I could not remember if I had ever seen it. After watching it, I have to be honest and admit that I am not sure that I ever saw it before, even as a child.
I only remembered it at all because I believe in my childhood I had a Willow action figure, the evil queen's guard, if I remember correctly. I lost the toy a long time ago, but I figured I might as well watch the movie.
If I had seen this movie as a child, I might perhaps have liked it better than I do as an adult. Watching it as an adult, what struck me most about the movie is that it is a surprisingly big production for a 1988 fantasy movie.
Audiences today, accustomed to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and other epic-scale fantasies with computer-generated effects, might not be impressed by Willow. But I am old enough to remember the 1980s, and I can safely say that this movie has everything that money could buy in 1988.
Since George Lucas produced this movie, the scale of the production should perhaps not be a surprise. He also had the advantage of producing this movie after several years of sword-and-sorcery movies, which enabled him to see what other filmmakers had done and make a bigger, more elaborate fantasy than any of the previous ones.
Bigger, however, does not necessarily mean better. Ironically, the main flaw with Willow, in my opinion, is that it has too much of everything: lots of chases, lots of monsters, lots of special effects, lots of sword-fights, as though George Lucas wanted to wear out the audience.
It almost seems pointless to discuss performances in a movie like this, which depends so much upon special effects. But as far as acting goes, my favorite performance in the movie was by Val Kilmer, as the rogue who helps Willow on his quest. He even survives the indignity of having to dress in drag for an extended sequence. It is easy to see why he went on to other things.
Warwick Davis, as Willow, grew on me as the movie progressed. My only objection is that, at times, it is difficult to watch a little person in so many dangerous situations, and being insulted by almost everyone he encounters (obviously that is the movie's point, that Willow perseveres despite the prejudice against him, but it is still hard to watch at times).
Fantasy movies are not noted for their terrific screenplays, and Willow unfortunately is not an exception. As I watched it, I could not help by notice where all the ideas were coming from—the Book of Exodus, Gulliver's Travels, the Lord of the Rings, The Wizard of Oz, etc. Since it lacks the literary origins of most of the best movie fantasies like Lord of the Rings, I also cannot think of any memorable lines from Willow.
I do not watch fantasy movies for their acting and writing, however. What interests me most about fantasy movies are their production design, and their visual ideas.
For example, I liked the sequence in which Willow and Kilmer escaped from the enemy camp by using a shield as a sled. It reminded me of a similar escape sequence in The Living Daylights (1987). I also liked the scene in which a troll, after being struck by Willow's magic wand, fell into a castle moat and emerged as a two-headed fire-breathing dragon. And I liked some of the unique design ideas, such as the wolves that are made up to look like giant rats.
James Horner's musical score is beautiful and suits the movie perfectly. I also have to commend Ron Howard's direction, as he finds just the right tone for this material. Back when this movie was released film critic Leonard Maltin wrote that it was too intense for its target audience of children, but at least it is not overly condescending and juvenile like so many fantasy movies of the 1980s.
For all of its fine ingredients, however, after watching Willow it is easy to see why movie audiences in the late 1980s were willing to forget about fantasy movies for a while. Audience tastes were changing, and in any case nothing more could be achieved with the special effects available at that time.
While it would be incorrect to say that no fantasy movies were produced between Willow in 1988 and the first Lord of the Rings movie in 2001 (Dragonheart, released in 1996, comes to mind) I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this movie marks the end of an era.
When the first Lord of the Rings movie was released in 2001, it not only added computer-generated effects but was more adult in tone than any of the fantasy movies of decades past. The era of Willow, with its old-fashioned special effects and relatively simple storyline, is genuinely gone.
That era perhaps began in 1981 with the release of Jon Boorman's Excalibur, and continued with Conan the Barbarian (1982) and its various imitations. By the time Willow was released, audiences at the time were well-acquainted (perhaps even a little overly familiar) with sword-and-sorcery movies.
Recently I rented this movie through Netflix because I could not remember if I had ever seen it. After watching it, I have to be honest and admit that I am not sure that I ever saw it before, even as a child.
I only remembered it at all because I believe in my childhood I had a Willow action figure, the evil queen's guard, if I remember correctly. I lost the toy a long time ago, but I figured I might as well watch the movie.
If I had seen this movie as a child, I might perhaps have liked it better than I do as an adult. Watching it as an adult, what struck me most about the movie is that it is a surprisingly big production for a 1988 fantasy movie.
Audiences today, accustomed to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and other epic-scale fantasies with computer-generated effects, might not be impressed by Willow. But I am old enough to remember the 1980s, and I can safely say that this movie has everything that money could buy in 1988.
Since George Lucas produced this movie, the scale of the production should perhaps not be a surprise. He also had the advantage of producing this movie after several years of sword-and-sorcery movies, which enabled him to see what other filmmakers had done and make a bigger, more elaborate fantasy than any of the previous ones.
Bigger, however, does not necessarily mean better. Ironically, the main flaw with Willow, in my opinion, is that it has too much of everything: lots of chases, lots of monsters, lots of special effects, lots of sword-fights, as though George Lucas wanted to wear out the audience.
It almost seems pointless to discuss performances in a movie like this, which depends so much upon special effects. But as far as acting goes, my favorite performance in the movie was by Val Kilmer, as the rogue who helps Willow on his quest. He even survives the indignity of having to dress in drag for an extended sequence. It is easy to see why he went on to other things.
Warwick Davis, as Willow, grew on me as the movie progressed. My only objection is that, at times, it is difficult to watch a little person in so many dangerous situations, and being insulted by almost everyone he encounters (obviously that is the movie's point, that Willow perseveres despite the prejudice against him, but it is still hard to watch at times).
Fantasy movies are not noted for their terrific screenplays, and Willow unfortunately is not an exception. As I watched it, I could not help by notice where all the ideas were coming from—the Book of Exodus, Gulliver's Travels, the Lord of the Rings, The Wizard of Oz, etc. Since it lacks the literary origins of most of the best movie fantasies like Lord of the Rings, I also cannot think of any memorable lines from Willow.
I do not watch fantasy movies for their acting and writing, however. What interests me most about fantasy movies are their production design, and their visual ideas.
For example, I liked the sequence in which Willow and Kilmer escaped from the enemy camp by using a shield as a sled. It reminded me of a similar escape sequence in The Living Daylights (1987). I also liked the scene in which a troll, after being struck by Willow's magic wand, fell into a castle moat and emerged as a two-headed fire-breathing dragon. And I liked some of the unique design ideas, such as the wolves that are made up to look like giant rats.
James Horner's musical score is beautiful and suits the movie perfectly. I also have to commend Ron Howard's direction, as he finds just the right tone for this material. Back when this movie was released film critic Leonard Maltin wrote that it was too intense for its target audience of children, but at least it is not overly condescending and juvenile like so many fantasy movies of the 1980s.
For all of its fine ingredients, however, after watching Willow it is easy to see why movie audiences in the late 1980s were willing to forget about fantasy movies for a while. Audience tastes were changing, and in any case nothing more could be achieved with the special effects available at that time.
While it would be incorrect to say that no fantasy movies were produced between Willow in 1988 and the first Lord of the Rings movie in 2001 (Dragonheart, released in 1996, comes to mind) I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this movie marks the end of an era.
When the first Lord of the Rings movie was released in 2001, it not only added computer-generated effects but was more adult in tone than any of the fantasy movies of decades past. The era of Willow, with its old-fashioned special effects and relatively simple storyline, is genuinely gone.