Who doesn’t like a bit of emphatic contrast now and then?
Attack of the 50-Foot Woman (1958), in which a good stomping is ever so much more cathartic than a mere divorce…
The Giant Behemoth (1958), in which Eugene Lourie makes that dinosaur movie of his again…
Time Bandits (1981), in which there’s no way in hell I can adequately sum it all up in one sentence…
and…
Willow (1988), in which George Lucas stripmines the high fantasy genre every bit as thoroughly as he once stripmined sci-fi, but fails to achieve quite the same impact on pop culture at large.
#1 by Elizabeth the Ferret on May 31, 2011 - 2:09 am
Quote
I’ve been having a pretty crummy month, but seeing that Willow was being reviewed for this roundtable made me squeal with glee and made everything better. It was one of my favorite movies when I was a little girl, and I’m still pretty fond of it today.
#2 by DamonD on May 31, 2011 - 3:57 am
Quote
Haven’t seen Willow for many a year, but I do remember it being a mixed (yet watchable) bag. Always fun to see Jean Marsh doing her evil queen act again too.
I think you’re also absolutely right with the last paragraph too; one strong mark in favour, and Davis gives the part everything he’s got.
#3 by Blake on May 31, 2011 - 5:09 am
Quote
I have a soft spot for “The Giant Behemoth.” When I watched it for the first time in the 3rd/4th grade, the scenes of people running around with radiation burns on them scared me quite a bit. And no matter how derivative the film is, any movie about a stop-motion dinosaur attacking a city needs to be recognized and embraced, no matter how shoddy the FX may occasionally be.
#4 by Doc on May 31, 2011 - 8:31 am
Quote
It seems my friend and I watched Willow or Krull every other month in high school as much for James Horner’s music as for our fantasy kick–only now Willow is just the origin movie for Horner’s evil four-note motif he continues to use in it seems every movie since then, from Mask of Zorro to Troy to Avatar. Nice review, it took me a long time to finish laughing!
There’s something about Ralph Richardson’s Supreme Being that is infinitely approachable–his teacher/father/mentor figure is nearly on the same level as the same year’s Dragonslayer, and there’s a hint at great calm and patience about both characters that makes me hope he’s taken on a counseling position in the afterlife’s transit terminal.
Can’t wait to finally catch The Giant Behemoth this month on TCM.
#5 by Naomi on May 31, 2011 - 9:01 am
Quote
I’m positive I’ve seen Attack of the 50-Foot Woman (and, unfortunately, the early ’90’s remake), but the only part I can remember is the giant rubber hand attacking the bar. It’s one of those special effects that’s so slipshod and visually wrong, it loops back around to being scary.
#6 by El Santo on May 31, 2011 - 9:45 am
Quote
The giant rubber hand loops back around again when it gets used to represent the alien. They glued a bunch of hair onto it to distinguish it from Nancy’s hand, which turns out to be just one detail too far.
#7 by Jen S on May 31, 2011 - 12:29 pm
Quote
I love the title The Giant Behemoth because–well, doesn’t Behemoth pretty much mean big? Really big? I guess Giant Behemoth is a better title than “The Really Big Huge Thing!”
#8 by fish eye no miko on May 31, 2011 - 4:15 pm
Quote
Big McLargeHuge!
#9 by The Rev. on May 31, 2011 - 1:34 pm
Quote
It may have benefited from my seeing it before The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, but I also rather like TGB. (It also led to my thinking the former had ripped off the latter until I checked the dates. It’s TNT’s fault for playing them in that order.) I didn’t find myself bored when the monster wasn’t on, and rather liked the monster itself. I will admit that I do prefer Beast, a large part due to Harryhausen’s ability to give his creations such personality. I do like when TGB knocks the wall onto the cowering crowd, though. And, hey — atomic death ray! We know I like that in my monsters…
#10 by fish eye no miko on May 31, 2011 - 4:14 pm
Quote
I loved Willow as a kid, and reading the review, I found all the names and plot points feeling wonderfully familiar. I really should rent it soon.
And I totally agree with your last paragraph, El Santo. I’ve always loved that Willow is indeed the hero and POV character of the movie, and that they actually cast a little person in the role. And Davis plays the role well, never treating the character as a joke (nor does anyone else after they start working with him.. Madmartigan goofs on him at first, but that’s just part of his character).
Man… thanks so much for the blast from the past, El Santo!
#11 by Prankster on June 5, 2011 - 7:58 pm
Quote
Interestingly, we’ve got another fantasy epic that treats little people respectfully, right now, in the TV series Game of Thrones–and in that show, the little person in question is very much a little person, which is to say, a human being and not a Hobbit, Nelwyn, or Munchkin. You’d think fantasy would be the LAST genre you’d turn to to see a respectful portrayal of dwarves.
Side note, Santo: *is* the prophecy actually wrong? It’s been a long time since I saw the movie, but I remember Bavmorda’s downfall being some kind of transportation to limbo, rather than outright death, thereby leaving the door open for a sequel in which a presumably older Elora could actually kill her. That’s how I read it as a kid, anyway. Obviously the movie’s so-so box office prevented that from happening, but I’ll bet good money that Lucas was planning this as his next big trilogy.
#12 by El Santo on June 5, 2011 - 10:39 pm
Quote
Transportation to limbo, yes– but the limbo she accidentally transported herself to was supposed to be one from which neither reincarnation nor influence upon events in the material world were possible. That’s the whole reason why she wanted to send Elora Danan there in the first place.
#13 by PB210 on May 31, 2011 - 4:37 pm
Quote
Your comment about magic actually fully working in Willow reminds me; we deal with George Lucas here. Lucas had actual magic in the Indiana Jones films, even though those take place during the 1930’s.
Anyone correct me if I have this wrong, but not even Doc Savage encountered actual magic in his 1930’s and 1940’s published adventures, right? I find it interesting that all of the Indiana Jones movies involved the paranormal, since injecting that into an adventure story that takes place in an industrialized 20th (or 21st) century often seems to many people silly and childish.
#14 by fish eye no miko on May 31, 2011 - 6:33 pm
Quote
Well, I think it’s a bit more complicated than, “The Indy films feature magic”… I’ve only seen one and three, but they both deal with Christian religious artifacts, and all the “magic” ion those two movies pertain specifically to said artifacts. I’m sure there’s a good many people who find the idea of Christian religious artifacts preforming supernatural feats in a slightly different category than, say, the magic in the Harry Potter films.
#15 by Elizabeth the Ferret on May 31, 2011 - 6:52 pm
Quote
The second one – which is my favorite though most people hate it – deals with magic rocks. Though even those have religious significance. It’s just not Christian. There are also voodoo dolls, though I guess that’s not the right term since there’s no actual voodoo practitioners in the movie.
#16 by Thomas on June 1, 2011 - 7:43 pm
Quote
I think Finn Raziel may be a possum, at first. Apparently Bavmorda was extremely well-travelled.
I want to put in a good word for the trolls – they scared the hell out of me as a kid, and I still think they’re one of the more effectively grotesque monkey-man designs.
#17 by Elizabeth the Ferret on June 6, 2011 - 12:49 am
Quote
I’m actually in the middle of watching Willow right now with my wife, who has never seen it. Just thought I’d point out that the woman who takes the baby at the beginning is a midwife, not a cleaning lady. Since the baby needs to survive long enough for the ritual, it makes sense to have a midwife. The basket of cloth is for cleaning the babies and swaddling.
#18 by Read MacGuirtose on July 27, 2011 - 2:19 pm
Quote
Tried to Google it, but disturbingly many sites just take it for granted that if Madmartigan calls her a muskrat, he must be right. But yeah, pretty sure she’s actually a possum. (Which means even Wikipedia is wrong, since it just calls her a “rodent”, and possums aren’t rodents… in fact, I’m going to fix that now myself.)
#19 by maggiesmith on July 6, 2022 - 10:50 am
Quote
I wish they had chosen a different name for the baby in Willow. Elora Danan is too similar to the name of a once famous silent movie actress called Leora Dana. I’m probably the only person on earth who was bothered by this fact, of course.
#20 by maggiesmith on April 14, 2024 - 11:54 am
Quote
I just found out that Warwick Davies was only seventeen years old when he starred in Willow.