kanjeep Is it the greatest movie, no. But it is fun for the whole family. Great story, well written and directed and the acting was decent. Worth a watch!

Leofwine_draca The epitome of the '80s cheesy sword and sorcery movie, packed with special effects and action but with little brain or originality behind it. The man responsible for the film's fluid direction is Ron Howard, before he took a break and made decent films instead; the producer and writer is one George Lucas, who seems intent on creating a whole new STAR WARS-style saga for the kids who remained unborn ten years previously. WILLOW is certainly a film that enthralled me as a kid (born in 1981, I was exactly the right age when I saw this) but which has lost a lot of its charm seeing it years later as an adult. What once seemed profound and moving now seems cheesy and ridiculous, especially the dollopy layers of sentimentality forever thrust down our throats by Lucas, Howard, and co. with a baby in a silly wig occupying most of the screen time.Not that the film is totally without magic. It's easy enough viewing, with lots of brainless action to take your mind off the threadbare plot and ill-defined characters. The stunts are good and the special effects highly enjoyable. Incidentally the film is the first to make use of the Industrial Light & Magic morphing effects now common in the movies (they turned up again in THE ABYSS the following year). The defining moment I remember from childhood (where it scared and scarred me in equal measure) is the appearance of the two-headed monster from the moat, which looks like it has been drafted in from RETURN OF THE JEDI. A great moment in a not-so great movie. Unfortunately Lucas is intent on bringing us some bumbling comic relief in the style of C3P0 and R2-D2 and so creates the characters of two utterly repulsive 'brownies', who spoil all of their scenes with kiddie humour. Great for the children but completely annoying for adults – these tiny menaces are ten times worse than Jar-Jar Binks despite their diminutive size.The casting is one element this film has just right. Finally, after years spent sweating it out in rubbery costumes, Warwick Davis is given a chance to shine in a leading role without his mask and Ewok body suit. Davis makes for an unlikely heroic lead but he performs admirably well in everything Howard requests of him. Taking the barely-disguised-Han Solo-alike role is a young Val Kilmer, before he went weird, and surprise, surprise he puts in a halfway decent performance as well. Kudos to Joanne Whalley as the beautiful and feisty female warrior and to the two aged British ladies at the centre of the good vs. evil battle, Patricia Hayes standing in for the good guys and Jean Marsh going over the top for the bad. Watch out for the imposing Pat Roach and Gavan O'Herlihy as armour-clad soldiers. All in all an enjoyable family viewing experience if you are kind to it, a dated and silly rerun of all the old staples if you are not.

Miguel Neto Willow one of the classic films of the fantasy genre already done, one of the favorite films of the 80s, the film hits the tone, the picture is excellent, not to mention that the film is a bit like The Lord of the Rings Tolkien in some places such as home to Willow, reminiscent of the county of Hobbits, the cast is great, Val Kilmer, Warwick Davis, Billy Barty, etc., all are well, the battle scenes are very good, the look of Castle are excellent without speaking of the creatures of the movie is very good, the direction of Ron Howard is need and very good, the script is good, Willow is one of the best already fantasy films made, highly recommended, especially for their good characters and their excellent visual. Note 8.6

bowmanblue Willow copies Lord of the Rings. Or at least that is the general consensus. From epic space battles in a galaxy far, far away, George Lucas turned his screen-writing pen to a time of 'sword and sorcery.' Despite the film predating Peter Jackson's (now classic) Lord of the Rings franchise by about thirteen years, it was possible that George read the books a while ago and was heavily influenced.Is that a problem? In my opinion, not really.Willow is set in a time of magic and monsters and follows a dwarf (I forget the technical term for 'little people' they use in the film) called Willow, who finds a human baby washed up on the shores of his village. He is then tasked with protecting the baby on a journey to return it to its own kind. For this is no ordinary baby, but the princess who will later grow up and overthrow the evil queen. Did I mention an evil queen rules the land? No? Okay, well she does. She's evil, powerful and everyone lives in fear of her (actually, that's more Snow White territory than Lord of the Rings, but anyway...).Expect the usual characters to pop up along the way - elves, pixies, heroic knights, sorceresses, two-headed monsters and so on. It's like an early version of Lord of the Rings, only they're on a quest to drop a baby off (as opposed to throw their precious cargo into a fiery pit).I think there are only two groups of people who would appreciate Willow nowadays. One is me, who grew up with films like this in the eighties and looks on it with a sense of nostalgia. The other is very small children, who haven't seen The Lord of the Rings. I think if you showed it to anyone in between (dare I say those dreaded teenagers?) they would see it as cheap, low budget and generally a bit dull. And perhaps they're right? Lord of the Rings captured, on a grand scale, the depth of an entire world and even managed to throw in a good deal of human emotion into the bargain. But was it a fun movie? Could you laugh and cheer at it? Probably not. However, with Willow you can.Yes, Willow is not as well written. Yes, it's cheesy. Yes, the effects now look very dated. But if you're bored on a wet Saturday afternoon and happen to stumble on it, sit there and give it a go (taking every battle with a larger pinch of salt than the last).http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/