Willow

The first time I saw Willow it scared me to death.  I was only 6 or 7 years old, and watching men being turned into pigs, with their skin morphing, and their hands changing into feet just freaked me out.  So I never had the desire to watch it again.  It took me almost twenty years to come back around to it.  I'm glad that I did.

It is prophesied that a child would be born that could overthrow the evil Queen Bavmorda (Jean Marsh), when the dwarvish children of Willow Ufgood (Warwick Davis) find a baby floating in a basket by the side of the river.  Willow is tasked with returning the baby to the large people, leaving it with the first one that he meets.  Who just happens to be Madmartigan (Val Kilmer), the "world's greatest swordsman" and current prisoner.  The two of them, along with the baby, are soon setting out on an epic journey to help the baby fulfill her destiny.

Rewatching the film after so many years I was surprised how many of the details I could clearly remember.  It must have made quite the impression on my younger self.  Which is something that I wish I could say about my adult self.  Instead I ultimately found myself somewhat disappointed.

This isn't to say that the film was bad, or that I didn't enjoy it.  It was a perfectly good film, one of the better entries in the epic fantasy genre, but it isn't particularly unique, or memorable.  If I hadn't seen it as a child I can't say that it would have made too much of an impression.

Warwick Davis gives a fine performance, carrying the film pretty much on his own, for most of the running time.  It's a shame that there aren't more opportunities for him to show off his acting ability.  Val Kilmer is likable, and charming in a role that's mostly comic relief.  Nobody else really stands out, in parts that are pretty over the top and one note.  There's not a lot of character development going on in the supporting roles (imagine that, the story was originally conceived by George Lucas).

Out of everything in the film, what's probably the most amazing is the effects.  The morphing shots between different characters and creatures were groundbreaking, and ahead of their time (in 1988).  It's these scenes that were the most memorable to me as a child, and are still the ones that stand out as an adult.  You really get the idea that Ron Howard really relished working with this technology, and takes full advantage of it to tell his story.

There's a lot to like about Willow, but I wouldn't ever call it a great film.  It ends ups being just an above average epic fantasy film that without nostalgic associations will be fairly unmemorable.

Grade: B

Angels & Demons

Just a word of warning: there are spoilers in this review, so if you're actually worried about having Angels & Demons spoiled, then you should see it first.  As a spoiler-free blurb, it was really dumb, but very mildly entertaining.

I think that if I were to give Angels & Demons a subtitle I'd call it, the Adventures of Captain Exposition and Friends as They Run Through Rome.  Which would be a fairly accurate synopsis of a film where nothing particularly interesting happens, and the main character exists solely to give exposition.

Picking up a few years after the events of The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demonsshows the Catholic Church coming to Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) for help in foiling a plot against the church. An ancient group of intellectuals and scientists, the Illuminati, are taking advantage of the church's temporary weakness during the time when the old Pope has died, and a new one has not been elected, to threaten the Vatican with destruction.  The instrument of this destruction is a vial of stolen antimatter that can supposedly destroy an entire city.  The acting head of the Vatican (Ewan McGregor) and his security team bring Langdon and a physicist from the lab where the antimatter was stolen (Ayelet Zurer) in to help find the Illuminati and stop the plot.

This is just a stupid, stupid, movie.  Everything about it ranges from the mildly dumb to the downright idiotic.  To get even a mild amount of entertainment from the film, you'd have to completly shut off your brain.  Even then, you'll notice how stupid some things about it are.  Maybe if you got a full frontal lobotomy you'd think it was a good movie.

First things first, let's talk about the ridiculous science surrounding the idea of an antimatter bomb.  No lab in the world has been able to generate the quantities of antimatter discussed here.  Even if they had, it isn't nearly as destructive as the film would have it appear.  Oh, and it would take electromagnets the size of a room to contain it.  Not exactly the little portable container that the film portrays.  Which would be all well and good, if it were the only idiocy I was forced to accept to watch the film.  A little stupid science is pretty much to be expected in a big summer blockbuster.

What's even worse is the basic plot.  I could go along with the idea that the Catholic church has been infiltrated by, and is under attack by, a secret organization of vengeful scientists and atheists.  It's ridiculous, but in the world of stupid thrillers wouldn't be too out of the ordinary.  What throws the film off the rails is the idea that the Camerlengo (McGregor) would have been the mastermind behind this ludicrous plot as a way to bolster the Catholic faith.  The very idea is crazy, and the execution is even worse.  Could he have made the plot more complicated if he tried?  I'm not sure that he could.  Instead of some straightforward, foolproof, plan he somehow decided that the best way to go about things involved stealing the antimatter, kidnapping and killing the four Cardinals that were the leading choices to become Pope, and having Langdon figure out just enough of the plot so that the Camerlengo could stop it just in time, without anyone finding out he planned it in the first place.  Honestly?  That's the plan?  What if Langdon is a little slow, and doesn't find the antimatter in time?  Or what if he's too fast and figures out the entire plan?  Seriously.  It makes less than no sense.

Even stupider is the resolution to the entire antimatter plotline.  When, by what must be a miracle, they find the antimatter, there isn't enough time to change the battery on the canister.  So the Camerlengo grabs it, runs up to the waiting helicopter, flies it straight up, jumps out in a parachute just in time, and crashes into St. Peter's square just in time to save himself.  Sounds credible, right?  No? But that was his plan all along.  I wouldn't call it exactly foolproof.

Good thing he had Langdon, aka Captain Exposition, to unwittingly help him out with his plan.  That's really the sum and total of Langdon's character.  We don't really know anything about him, and he doesn't appear to have much of a personality.  The only reason he exists is to tell us the facts that help move the story along.  Which might be all fun, and educational, if any of the facts were real, instead of just made up as a story device.  I guess I would rather be Captain Exposition than be Person for Captain Exposition to explain things to, which is the only reason Vittoria (Zurer) is in the film.

The writing isn't the only thing wrong with the film though, even if it's the major problem.  For a film that cost around $150 million to make it sure looks terrible.  Since they couldn't get permission to actually shoot at the Vatican, they decided to just shoot in front of a green screen and put in a CGI Vatican.  Which didn't exactly work out well.  Everything looks fake and like it was created by a less than great graphics team.  It'd have been better to just build sets, or I'd have even taken matte paintings, over this crap.  It just looks awful.

But at least Angels & Demons is an improvement over The Da Vinci Code.  Instead of being stupid, overlong, and really, really, slow, it's just stupid and overlong.  The pace was upped significantly (an exception being an interminably long scene of Tom Hanks swimming, which seemed to last forever), which makes the film very mildly entertaining.  If you can look past the idiocy that is.

Hanks and director Ron Howard are obviously slumming with this film.  I'm not sure how hard they're even trying.  Or at least I hope that they're not trying too hard.  It'd be sad.  Let's just say that I don't recommend the film, but if you happen to catch it late at night on cable or something, you might not have to change the channel right away.  Just the sort of thing you expect from a couple Oscar winners.

Grade: D+