I know nit-pickable isn't a word. But I like the sound of it and so yeah, it's staying in that title. Also it makes sense to make up such a word when it comes to George Lucas, because Star Wars is surely the most nitpicked, perhaps overly analysed film series in existence. It's likely because he's incredibly creative, and knows how to establish a compelling story, more or less with all the right beats, but falters when it comes to some of the more technical details. Certain minor aspects sometimes come across as cheesy, or forced, and characters aren hardly ever "deep."
I think what I'm trying to get at is that much of what is wrong with Star Wars could also be complained about in regards to Willow. But, at the same time, both also contain a lot of good. I think a person's enjoyment of Willow will depend on how willing they are to take the good with the bad. I'm not saying to switch your brain off entirely, because that's not what I did either (if I had, maybe I'd consider this more than a pretty good 7/10). But it's quite focused at kids, and also unabashedly fantasy- and specifically, it belongs to that particular genre of fantasy that's most concerned with magic, heroes, fights, witches, monsters, and adventures.
So before we gloss over the negatives, we should probably address them. The story is stupendously simple, and the constant action and excitement is surely there to make you forget just how barebones the plot is. Honestly, this strategy worked most of the time, as the film takes you on a ride that's well-shot, for the most part breezily paced, and filled with lots of chases, fights, and special effects. The last of those is both a strength and a weakness- some of the visual effects have aged well, some look fair for their time, and maybe only a few spots here and there look a bit lousy. Not sure it's aged as well as the early Star Wars movies on that front, but they're not absolutely perfect by today's standards either (if we're being honest with ourselves).
I'm also mixed on Warwick Davis' performance. I don't think he's a technically great actor, and he also looks too young here to play a father of two, but he has a very likeable screen presence, has charisma, and it's honestly really cool to see a fantasy film with him as the main character, because usually someone of his size would be the dwarf sidekick to somebody like Val Kilmer's character. Speaking of: Val Kilmer is really good here, and brings a lot of humour, and force to the film's action scenes, but he really shouldn't have got top billing. I know how huge of an star he was back then, but come on: this is Davis' movie, and it's named after his character for crying out loud.
The humour doesn't always work, particularly in regards to the two tiny men that accompany our heroes for much of their journey. I have vague memories of seeing this movie as a very young child, and I probably really liked those characters back then, but as an adult they're grating more often than they're not. Of course, in eleven years Lucas would create a much more annoying comedic sidekick, but that's a topic that's been discussed to absolute death and also isn't relevant here.
Ron Howard's always been a solid director of big movies, and he does a very good job here. It's shot very confidently, moves well, and many of the colours and landscapes are honestly very pretty. At the end of the day, he and Lucas worked together to create a charming and entertaining, albeit very flawed in parts fantasy film. It's perfect for kids, or maybe was... not sure how much current day kids would enjoy it, but it has that spirit that I think makes it appealing to both the young and the young at heart. Even as an adult, there's a decent amount to enjoy and appreciate here. Don't go in expecting Lord of the Rings, and I think there's a decent chance you'll have a good time.
I think what I'm trying to get at is that much of what is wrong with Star Wars could also be complained about in regards to Willow. But, at the same time, both also contain a lot of good. I think a person's enjoyment of Willow will depend on how willing they are to take the good with the bad. I'm not saying to switch your brain off entirely, because that's not what I did either (if I had, maybe I'd consider this more than a pretty good 7/10). But it's quite focused at kids, and also unabashedly fantasy- and specifically, it belongs to that particular genre of fantasy that's most concerned with magic, heroes, fights, witches, monsters, and adventures.
So before we gloss over the negatives, we should probably address them. The story is stupendously simple, and the constant action and excitement is surely there to make you forget just how barebones the plot is. Honestly, this strategy worked most of the time, as the film takes you on a ride that's well-shot, for the most part breezily paced, and filled with lots of chases, fights, and special effects. The last of those is both a strength and a weakness- some of the visual effects have aged well, some look fair for their time, and maybe only a few spots here and there look a bit lousy. Not sure it's aged as well as the early Star Wars movies on that front, but they're not absolutely perfect by today's standards either (if we're being honest with ourselves).
I'm also mixed on Warwick Davis' performance. I don't think he's a technically great actor, and he also looks too young here to play a father of two, but he has a very likeable screen presence, has charisma, and it's honestly really cool to see a fantasy film with him as the main character, because usually someone of his size would be the dwarf sidekick to somebody like Val Kilmer's character. Speaking of: Val Kilmer is really good here, and brings a lot of humour, and force to the film's action scenes, but he really shouldn't have got top billing. I know how huge of an star he was back then, but come on: this is Davis' movie, and it's named after his character for crying out loud.
The humour doesn't always work, particularly in regards to the two tiny men that accompany our heroes for much of their journey. I have vague memories of seeing this movie as a very young child, and I probably really liked those characters back then, but as an adult they're grating more often than they're not. Of course, in eleven years Lucas would create a much more annoying comedic sidekick, but that's a topic that's been discussed to absolute death and also isn't relevant here.
Ron Howard's always been a solid director of big movies, and he does a very good job here. It's shot very confidently, moves well, and many of the colours and landscapes are honestly very pretty. At the end of the day, he and Lucas worked together to create a charming and entertaining, albeit very flawed in parts fantasy film. It's perfect for kids, or maybe was... not sure how much current day kids would enjoy it, but it has that spirit that I think makes it appealing to both the young and the young at heart. Even as an adult, there's a decent amount to enjoy and appreciate here. Don't go in expecting Lord of the Rings, and I think there's a decent chance you'll have a good time.