| A producer and a pharaoh find a baby on a raft in the
Nile. "What an ugly kid," the pharaoh says. "That's funny,"
says the producer. "He looked great in the rushes." - Old movie
joke "Willow" is a fearsomely ambitious movie, but it is not
fearsome, and it is not wondrous, and it is about a journey too far down
a road too well-traveled by other movies. It's a fantasy about the quest
of a lovable little person and his heroic newfound friend to return a lost
baby to where she belongs and to outsmart a wicked queen and kill a two-headed
dragon in the process. In other words, standard stuff. What was supposed
to make "Willow" special was the quality of the production. This
is a sword-and-sorcery epic produced by George Lucas, whose "Star
Wars" portrayed the same kind of material in outer space, and directed
by Ron Howard, whose human touch made "Cocoon" one of the best
recent science-fiction movies. The special effects are by Lucas's company,
Industrial Light and Magic, which has set the standard in such matters.
The budget was umpteen million dollars, and Hollywood has been hoping that
the Force was definitely with this film. Alas, even the largest budgets
and the most meticulous special effects are only dead weight unless they
have a story to make them move. And at the story level, "Willow"
is turgid and relentlessly predictable. Not much really happens, and when
it does, its pace is slowed by special effects set pieces that run on too
long and seem to be recycled out of earlier movies.
|
Great joke, yeah right. Scuse me, but who
are you Mr. Ebert to say what is fearsome and what is ambitious? Your review
is below standard stuff, not this movie!
At least he does not criticize the effects, or does he? Hold
on...Not much really happens? Excuuuse me? Lucas got two whole full scale
battle scenes in, a great romance, wonderful sorcery, and great friendships
into one awesome movie, and not much happens?
Special effects that run on too long and seem to be recycled
out of earlier movies? Where has this guy been to have seen special effects
above those in Willow? If he is criticizing the stop-motion animation then
he has some problems: true, stop-motion animation is not the most advanced
effect possible but that dragon sure looked real-as real as any cgi effect
around. Okay Mr. Ebert, so what would be a good
storyline? If nothing ever really happens in his movie then show me a movie
where something really does happen.
|
| The story: Willow, citizen of the Nelwyns, a race of
little people, is chosen by his community to take a baby to a far-off crossroads
where she can be found by her people, the Daikinis. The baby was carried
to Willow's land on a crude raft that was swept along by river waters,
but what Willow does not know is that the baby was placed on the raft by
her desperate mother. That was to save her from a decree of death dealt
out to all girl children by Bavmorda, the vicious queen and sorcerer, who
fears her successor has been born. So already we have the story of Moses,
cross-pollinated with "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." Lucas
has a reputation as a student of old legends and folklore, but there is
a thin line between that and simply being a student of old movies. One
of the crucial problems in "Willow" is that we see so much of
this baby. She is dragged from one end of the known world to the other,
usually with a plucky smile on her face. And whenever something interesting
happens, we get an appropriate reaction shot from the baby. Hey, I like
kids, but even Baby Leroy couldn't have saved this character. Willow (Warwick
Davis) sets off with the baby in arms, and at the crossroads he meets Madmartigan
(Val Kilmer), a warrior who has been imprisoned in a cage. Madmartigan
convinces Willow to free him, using much too much dialogue in the process,
and then they team up to continue their quest, which leads eventually to
Bavmorda's fortress, guarded by a two-headed, fire-breathing dragon.
|
If I would criticize Willow I would talk about
the exact opposite of what Ebert said: too much happens for one movie.
There are a lot of unexpected events, I can not imagine what Ebert is talking
about.Okay, onto the story: Our friend here compares it to Moses and Snow
White...the most pitiful comparisons around. Yes, one of the scenes shows
the baby floating down the river, but are we to say that from now on any
movie with any baby floating down a river is a ripoff from the story of
Moses? And that if any queen wants to kill any baby that it is a copy of
Snow White? I don't think so!
Now he goes on to criticize the baby, that it was shown too
many times. Let's see, the baby was shown...for about 3 minutes and 20
seconds in the whole movie. If that is too much than I can not imagine
what is just right...30 seconds maybe?
|
| So, OK, the dragon is well done. All
of the special effects are competent, but they
do not breathe with the fire of life because they are not motivated by
a strong story we really care about. The characters in "Willow"
are shallow and unexciting, and the story is a plod through recycled legend.
Therefore even the battle with the dragon is a foregone conclusion. There
can be no true suspense in a movie where even the characters seem to be
inspired by other movies.
|
Now even he has to admit that the effects were good.
I like it when he contradicts himself. Okay, here he goes with his "used
storyline" argument again. Tell me then, can there be a fantasy story
without a dragon? No, so why is the dragon scene ripped out of other movies?
If every scene that has been remotely used in any other movie makes for
an unusable scene, then we have run out of stories and there is no point
in making any new movies since they would only be repeats of other movies.
Sure Ebert
|
| "Willow" is certainly not a breakthrough film
to a mass audience, but is it at least a successful children's picture?
I dunno. Its pacing is too deliberate, and it doesn't have a light heart.
That's revealed in the handling of some characters named the Brownies,
represented by a couple of men who are about 9 inches tall and fight all
the time. Maybe Lucas thought these guys would work like R2-D2 and C-3PO
did in "Star Wars." But they have no depth, no personalities,
no dimension; they're simply an irritant at the edge of the frame. Touches
like that will only confuse kids who know that good dreams do not have
to be clever, or consistent, or expensive, but that they should never,
ever, make you want to wake up.
|
Okay, so he calls Willow unfit for a kids' movie.
That's his opinion which I sure don't share. He is right, Willow is not
a happy-happy joy-joy film. But that is not bad, that is good. That makes
Willow a quality film. I guess Ebert was looking for a Fantasy film with
Barney in it-sorry, but I never liked Barney. In the end he criticizes
the brownies, that they have no depth. Sorry Ebert, but they do. They are
the two funniest characters I've seen in any movie yet!
In the end Ebert either had a really bad day when he watched
this movie or he has no imagination, no sense of humor, and no enjoyment
of fantasy.
|
