rate the last movie you saw

[Paul MacLean]

Dune (6/10)

I couldn't say any better than Andy did last year...

Villeneuve's movie simply doesn't feel “alive” – the performances, the tone, the dialogue...all of it has the somnolent mood of his previous work, yet the lifelessness also extends to the movie's production design. This is a shockingly barren looking world that doesn't feel “inhabited” – the art direction often resembles conceptual drawings with Villeneuve placing his characters around the widescreen frame opposite mostly blank walls and sparsely decorated sets, making this futuristic society look more like “The Flintstones.” The end result is just as drab and dull to look at as the wordy, tedious film is to listen to – despite my best efforts, it took several viewings just to finish the movie, as its emotional flatline gives you little incentive to connect to its characters.

The film also draws heavy-handed, stilted comparisons between this distant-future scenario and Western "colonization" of the Middle East. While Herbert's book is obviously influenced (at least in part) by the exploits of T.E. Lawrence, Dune over-emphasizes these parallels to a didactic extent.

Hans Zimmer's anemic score is mostly comprised of the the usual assortment of chords and various wails. I actually started laughing in the scene where the Emperor's forces invade Arakis and Zimmer brings in the bagpipes (I half-expected William Wallace to show-up)!

[AndyDursin]

WHO DONE IT: THE 'CLUE' DOCUMENTARY
6/10

Not a documentary about the popular Parker Brothers board game but rather – yes – the 1985 movie based upon it.

Who knew there were that many fans of “Clue,” which mined slapstick laughs in a period setting thanks to its talented ensemble cast led by Tim Curry -- yet the film underperformed at the box-office and was badly reviewed. That didn't deter producer-director-host Jeff C. Smith, who opted to spend the better part of five-plus years tirelessly tracking down surviving cast and crew for this genial if overlong doc. The latter included director Jonathan Lynn and cast members Michael McKean, Lesley Ann Warren, Colleen Camp and Lee Ving among others, recounting the production of the movie as a John Landis project before moving onto the future director of “My Cousin Vinny.”

The documentary is straightforward and relaxed, providing fans with answers to every question they possibly could’ve ask about the film – though the last half-hour feels overly extended, venturing into “fan territory” that touches upon the movie’s soundtrack releases and LBGT screenings among other topics which have nothing to do with the film’s actual production. ETR’s Blu-Ray (1080p, 2.0) includes a podcast interview with Smith, additional interview footage and more.

[Paul MacLean]

The Magnificent Seven (2016) (7/10)

Everything is here for this to be a great movie -- a great cast, a talented director, and of course first-rate source material -- but the film never really rises above the level of an average time-passer. The characters are all interesting, but the film doesn't provide insight into each of the "Magnificent Seven" (Kurosawa managed to do so, but he had three hours to allot to this). Denzel Washington is fantastic, as is Chris Pratt, and for me Ethan Hawk's performance here is his best. But the other actors / characters get the short shrift -- the Asian knife-thrower, the Native American, the Mexican, etc. are all potentially interesting, but never really developed. I also felt the big, climatic battle went on twice as long as it needed to (gun fights get boring fairly quickly). The final scene of the film is heavily CGI-enhanced (if not entirely CGI-rendered) and looks unbelievably phony.

The score is a little disappointing as well -- apparently James Horner wrote several themes / demos based on the screenplay before he died, and Horner's friend Simon Franglan wrote the dramatic score incorporating those themes. But, in all honesty, they sound likes bits of bobs from previous Horner scores -- the tooting panpipes from Patriot Games, the echoplexed trumpet fanfare from Battle Beyond the Stars (which was a knock-off of Goldsmith's Patton in the first place), etc. The end titles open with Elmer Bernstein's original Magnificent Seven theme, which is a nice touch however.

Overall it is a solid picture, with some very good moments (and for me, and more energetic than the John Sturges film), but still something of a disappointment.

[Eric Paddon]

Clash Of The Titans (1981) 5 of 10

-The last time I saw this was when my 8th grade English class had us watch large chunks of it over two days because we were reading a lot of Greek myths. Even though I've enjoyed so many Harryhausen films I never made time for this one again and after seeing it, I doubt I'm going to revisit it again anytime soon. The film is basically another version of "Jason And The Argonauts" but doesn't even come close to it IMO for entertainment. Part of the problem is I don't find the main storyline interesting or compelling and the other problem is that Harryhausen's work in the early part of the film doesn't look convincing. In fact it wasn't until the scene with Medusa that finally I saw the old Harryhausen quality surfacing once again. Until that point this seemed like a film out of place in 1981 cinema.

The actors I don't think are that compelling. All the big names as the Olympians are just there for the quick paycheck. Harry Hamlin isn't a great lead (he did improve as an actor obviously over time as he demonstrated on "L.A. Law"). Burgess Meredith livens things up and fares best. But for later Harryhausen, I prefer "Golden Voyage Of Sinbad" to this.

[AndyDursin]

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (2016)
5/10

Paul's review above -- which I only skimmed because I hadn't actually watched the film yet -- is somewhat generous, I feel, for this 2016 remake. Honestly I found this to be a shockingly ponderous, downright boring film that really needed a script rewrite or two -- surprising because of the cast, director Antoine Fuqua and star Denzel Washington, who have given us other, and much better, films across multiple genres.

None of the characters or their predicaments were appealing -- and sure, Washington is fine, as was Ethan Hawke (Chris Pratt I found miscast) -- but there's just so much time expended on the set-up. The first hour is nearly bereft of action as the team is assembled, all of it eating up run time before the lengthy, sprawling action set-piece that concludes the film. And yet even with "character building" scenes, you never really care about the people involved, much less the poor townsfolk being slaughtered by the evil white man (this movie's politics are also undeniable as all the caucasians get killed on both sides at the end, but that's another matter).

Really, I found it a struggle to even make it through this movie as it provides such a limited amount of human engagement -- it's as if the collective hearts of the talents involved weren't in it, because there's just no emotional pull to the film. Even the concluding minutes barely register a pulse, plus are undone by a godawful final CGI animated shot that must've been thrown in because they forgot to shoot it on location (Paul referenced it above I just saw!).

A dreary film on a number of levels, and a major creative disappointment (and for me vastly inferior to the 1960 picture, which I just watched on UHD. It may not be a classic but it's a lot more entertaining than this one).

[Eric Paddon]

The China Syndrome (1979) 5 of 10

-Now that I've been making my peace with some of the other 70s government conspiracy films I'd never seen before, I decided to see this film that I'd shunned ever since it came out since I knew all about its propaganda reputation and how combined with Three Mile Island one month later had a devastating impact on America's ability to achieve energy independence.

-Looking at it as a film, does it work? Not completely. Fonda reminds me of how even on a soapbox she is one of the most beautiful women to grace a movie screen and she is reaching her peak sexy period at this stage IMO. She's actually better in the film than Michael Douglas who is annoyingly self-righteous from the get-go and contributes to the heavy-handed propaganda side of the film BEFORE things go wrong. But in the end, the film just gets too shallow and one-dimensional because the idea that Lemmon alone is the only person there who is going to realize there's a problem and that EVERY rank and file employee is going to march like a robot and ignore him or try to have him silenced is just ludicrous. Plus, the whole post-Woodward and Bernstein aura of self-congratulation about the media really has aged badly now that we know just how manipulative they are and are more than willing to jump in bed with corporate type interests so long as its for the agenda they favor.

-That said, I would have given the film an 8 of 10 if it had the guts to give us a "Bedford Incident" style ending and show us a special F/X laden meltdown and scenes of destruction after Lemmon is dealt with. Instead they go for a nauseatingly hokey ending of crusading Jane getting Wilford Brimley (I had NEVER seen him look this young before. Two years later in "Absence of Malice" he had already perfected his "older" look) to crack on-air that just had me rolling my eyes. If you want to make your point about destruction then let's go all the way and hold nothing back! (and that kind of ending sure would have worked in a movie with no music score and dead silence over the end credits).

[AndyDursin]

EVIL DEAD RISE
6/10

A low-budget, murky-looking if reasonably well-executed recycling of familiar "Evil Dead" tropes, shot in New Zealand with a no-name Australian cast that continuously struggles with their American accents. The plot, meanwhile, is straightforward as a California single Mom and her 3 kids -- plus her wayward younger sister -- come in contact with the Book of the Dead and predictable possession shenanigans ensue in their dilapidated high rise.

Irish director Lee Cronin's staging of the material mostly works but make no mistake -- this is a grizzly, claustrophobic (the building, while affording an atypical-for-the-series urban setting, is still mostly deserted) horror film with ample gore and buckets of blood, treated seriously with one change from its predecessors -- a lot of the tension is supposed to be served by kids being the ones who are put into jeopardy here. That part of the film, especially the youngest girl constantly being tossed around, I grew tired of, since it felt like a cheap scare gimmick, and Cronin's film, while well-made, really isn't much fun as a whole. Even Fede Alvarez's 2013 remake had a higher overall "fun factor," generating an emotional release for its heroine that was earned and packed a satisfying punch. We keep waiting in EVIL DEAD RISE for that kind of moment, and while there is a climax that delivers the goods (and the lead, Lily Sullivan, is fairly fetching), it's rather mundane in its design and is promptly undone by an unnecessary bookending sequence that just leaves the door open for more sequels.

Overall I'll be surprised if this HBO Max production that was funneled to theaters instead really makes a big dent at the box-office, as I prefer my Deadites served up with more gusto and humor to spare. That said, if you prefer the original 1983 EVIL DEAD to EVIL DEAD 2, this one's probably going to be for you.

Edit - Bumped it up a half point to a 6. But the lack of humor was a turnoff for me.

[Paul MacLean]

Blade Runner (original 1982 US cut) (10/10)

I've been meaning to revisit Blade Runner for some time (in fact I don't think I've watched the film -- in any form -- in about ten years). However, this time I thought I'd go back and re-sample the original 1982 version.

This is actually the cut I've seen the most -- at least five times on the big screen (it was shown every year or two at the local campus cinema near my home as a teenager -- my friend Ben was an usher and used to get me in for free!).

Blade Runner remains a captivating, even mesmerizing experience over forty years on. The full effect of Ridley Scott's interpretation of Phillip K. Dick's story and dystopian scenario is hard to articulate. Perhaps I am over-imbuing the significance of the film, but it invokes feelings in me I can't describe, and didn't even know were there. I wouldn't call it an "entertaining" movie, but it is so immersive, so enthralling, so original and unique, I can't really describe its effect on me.


As far as the elements that are specific to the 1982 cut...

As much as I understand Scott has his preferred vision of Blade Runner, I am not sure the "Final Cut" is superior to the original theatrical version. Deckard's narration, though a bit "on the nose" in places, does help clarify things.

I never felt the unicorn footage added anything to the story. Yes, it gives a context to Gaff's origami unicorn at the end, but as such it imposes the "Deckard is a replicant" inference on the film, which doesn't really fit into the narrative -- and ruins Deckard's character arc (despite what Ridley Scott thinks).

The "happy ending" is not implausible or a cop out. Los Angeles is a sprawling metropolis -- but the wilderness is less than ten miles from its city limits. It's not unreasonable to assume wildernesses will exist in the future (even in 2019!). Besides, the film does not address the state of the Earth's other regions (or borders -- for all we know Deckard and Rachel are driving through Siberia).

And what's wrong with allowing Deckard and Rachel to "live happily ever after" -- especially in the wake of what they've just been through? (That said, watching the film this time, I got the sense Deckard was lying to Rachel when he said he didn't look at the life expectancy figures for her prototype -- suggesting she too is short-lived.)


I'm only just now appreciating the phenomenal performances in this film. Harrison Ford may have been frustrated by Scott’s direction (or lack of it) but you’d never guess, as his work in the role of Deckard is among his best. I almost literally feel Deckard’s pain as Zhora strangles him, and in that cringey moment when he has to reset his broken fingers. And while there was on-set tension between Ford and Sean Young, that actually helps their scenes together, as the anguish expressed by both characters is palpable.

Kudos also to Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah (in her finest performance) for their edgy mannerisms and off-kilter tics, which convincingly express the mindset of people unused to emotions, all while facing their "expiration dates" -- while simultaneously on the run from Blade Runners.

Although overall a gumshoe character study, Blade Runner nevertheless boasts two of the greatest action sequences ever -- Deckard's pursuit of Zhora in the crowded red light district, and the visceral climax in the Bradbury building. It is almost redundant to mention Blade Runner's hugely imaginative art direction and photography -- but this film is a masterwork of imagery, and remains the most visually-arresting picture ever made (thanks not only to Scott, but also collaborators Douglas Trumbull, and Syd Mead).

Vangelis' score is without a doubt his best effort (for films or otherwise). It is not only melodically-inspired and dramatically potent, but also an astonishing collage of timbre. Many electronic musicians merely try to mimic the intonation of acoustic instruments, but Vangelis exploits the medium to an unprecedented extent, and I marvel at how he came up with such an extraordinary sonic landscape. There is no question his music enhances and elevates the film considerably. I also think it was a stroke of good luck for Blade Runner that Chariots of Fire was such a successful album; had it not been, I could see the financiers pressuring Scott to "dump that weird music" and re-score the film orchestrally.

Blade Runner is an indisputable classic. I rate it the greatest science fiction film ever made, and it is certainly among most aesthetically prescient. It predicted -- and in many ways created -- the style of 1980s music videos, commercials, and TV shows like Max Headroom. Its blend of future technology and the look of the past was mimicked in Brazil and Batman (and a lot of post-80s movies like The Fifth Element, Judge Dread and Watchmen). Vangelis' Blade Runner music (along with Chariots of Fire) ushered-in the vogue of electronic scoring (which was a mixed blessing, it must be said). And no one -- not even Ridley Scott himself -- has ever managed to equal the surpassing visual imagination and complexity of this, his finest effort.





Postscript:

After watching the 1982 cut, I decided to put on the "workprint" cut, to look at a couple of sequences.

As gorgeous as Vangelis' love theme is, I honestly prefer the more melancholy, fatalistic cue he wrote for the love scene originally.

But the final act of the workprint -- unscored by Vangelis -- is an absolute musical mess. Terry Rawlings was a great editor, but the notion that he had a talent for creating appropriate and effective temp tracks is utterly dispelled when viewing the workprint. Roy Batty gazes ruefully at Pris' dead body -- to the strains of Jerry Goldsmith's "The Revelation" from Planet of the Apes, while Deckard clings to the Bradbury building exterior as Planet of the Apes' "The Search" is heard. The remainder of the sequence is accompanied by James Horner's Humanoids from the Deep -- which is laughably overblown in the scene when Deckard jump across to the adjacent building. Seriously, Rawlings expected Vangelis was going to provide something that sounds like those scores?

[mkaroly]

Couldn't agree more Paul - great write up! I used to advocate for the Deckard is a Replicant ending...but many years ago I changed my tune.

For me BLADE RUNNER is an emotionally powerful and moving film. Roy's "Tears in the Rain" speech at the end makes me cry every time I watch the film...it is a brilliant moment that gives the viewer a moment to reflect on the film's philosophical reflections on life and death, the created and its relationship to and questions for the Creator, the value of life, etc. It is a profound film that, as you point out so well, is a visual and technical masterpiece that has no equal. In all these ways (including Vangelis' score), the film is simply perfect. It is never boring and there is no filler - just perfect and profound (I am overlooking the "tennis shoe" continuity error during Zhora's death scene...lol...).

[AndyDursin]

Wonderful review Paul, it covers how I feel about the film perfectly.

I need to go back and watch the workprint again -- it's really the only other version of the film I am interested in outside the theatrical cut, which remains for me the strongest, most emotionally satisfying edition of the picture. It's too bad Scott only made "The Final Cut" for 4K but even with its enhanced visuals, the theatrical cut is the definitive edit of the film for me. The narration was always intended to be part of the film, without it the movie feels "blank," and making "Deckart is a replicant!" the core element of his later cuts (the 1992 Director's Edition plus the "Final Cut") has always made less sense, and also makes for a far less emotional arc for Deckard. The story wasn't constructed that way, Ford's performance wasn't played as if he was a robot -- in fact Ford HATED the very notion. So what's there is Scott attempting to ram home a thematic element only hinted at in post-production, like he "found what the movie was about" after he made it. It just doesn't work for me. I'll take the flatline narration -- which does inform and assist the viewer in plot elements -- and "happy ending" anytime.

The one thing I am always struck by Scott's movies is how "modern" they are. ALIEN was released in 1979 but it feels totally contemporary when viewed today. BLADE RUNNER has its own visual style and language, years ahead of Hollywood's usual "future movies" and never duplicated just for how profoundly realized it was -- not only in terms of special effects but also its production design, art direction, cinematography, and on and on. Every little part of that world was realized by Scott and the crew, in a way just "making movies with CGI" in the modern sense can't duplicate (and neither could Villeneuve with BLADE RUNNER 2049, which doesn't feel like a sequel so much as a "companion piece" without the original's visual style). The original BLADE RUNNER team thought through what was there, and why, and the movie says it all through its environment and surroundings. Few films are as articulated in their visual sense as BLADE RUNNER is and it's why it's always one of my all-time favorites, a visual feast that brings you into its world and surroundings like really no other movie ever has, before or since.

[Eric Paddon]

Firefox (1982) 8.5 of 10

-A seriously underrated Cold War thriller that IMO got a bum rap from critics because after a decade of "moral equivalence" movies regarding the Cold War or detente movies in which KGB directors were lovable teddy bears (Walter Gotell in the Bond films), here was a film that returned to the idea of the Soviet Union as a repressive society and that you could give us a straight-ahead good guys vs. bad guys storlyine. The first half is spy thriller in which Clint Eastwood is told to get into Russia to steal the most advanced plane ever built that would give the Soviets a gigantic advantage that can't be allowed. Along the way he is helped by dissidents whose contempt for the Soviet system and its repression is so great they're willing to die to help Eastwood fulfill his objective. The first part of the spy story shows we didn't need any of the usual cliches of a beautiful glamorous female helping out to give us a romance along the way. It's just straight ahead get to the heart of the mission and then in the second half once Eastwood has been able to steal the Firefox plane, it becomes an air chase drama with special F/X that admittedly haven't worn too well over time but are still okay story wise.

-Eastwood's performance isn't that great. He's playing an amateur thrust into this because of his pilot skills and because he's the only one who can fit the uniform of the pilot he's taking the place of (but foolishly he refuses to kill him when he has a chance which gives him a chance to chase Eastwood down in the second prototype of the plane). Much of the time Eastwood's awkwardness can be forgiven because of the character he's playing but there's no consistency in when the characters speak Russian or English. We have to assume at various times that when Eastwood is speaking English it's really Russian etc. but then in other instances he speaks Russian and this gets a bit maddening. That can probably be blamed on Eastwood the director more than the actor.

-Supporting cast is good. In between ESB and ROTJ, Kenneth Colley (Admiral Piett in those two films) gets a bigger part as KGB Colonel Kontarsky who tries to track Eastwood down before he steals the plane and ultimately fails. The two Nazi baddies from Raiders, Ronald Lacey and Wolf Kahler also return. Lacey as one of the dissident Soviet scientists helping Eastwood, Kahler in the small part of KGB director Yuri Andropov. The screenwriters apparently didn't realize that Andropov was a real character who was much older and who later that year succeeded Leonid Brezhnev as Soviet leader. John Ratzenberger in what was probably his last work before "Cheers" appears as a sub officer aiding the refueling of the Firefox before the final climax.

-To me the film holds up better because of its simple good vs. bad approach that better reflects the Cold War than all the silly detente and moral equivalence films that became the norm in Hollywood from the late 60s to the end of the 80s.

[Paul MacLean]

Jesus Revolution (8.5/10)

I have never cared for "Christian movies". I've found them to be embarrassingly sanctimonious, as they are invariably ministry tools first (and cinema a distant second). They are always populated by flawless, goody-two-shoes types -- because the filmmakers (and people funding these movies) are afraid to let the world see that religious believers are (horrors!) sometimes less than perfect.

Jesus Revolution goes refreshingly against this grain. Co-directed by Jon Erwin and Brent McCorkle, it is an outstanding, dramatically robust adaptation of Greg Laurie's book (of the same title), which chronicles his experiences in the "Jesus Movement" of the early 1970s, when thousands of California hippies, jaded by drugs and free love, found faith in Jesus Christ.

This movie could have gone wrong in a myriad of ways. It might have been another sanitized "faith based" flick, or it could have been a one-sided, simplistic story where the hippies show those "squares" how hypocritical (and worse, how "uncool") they were. (The trailer suggested a Christianized blend of Across the Universe and I Love You, Alice B. Toklas!)

Instead Jesus Revolution tells an honest (often brutally honest) story, depicting Laurie's extraordinary -- and rocky -- discovery of his faith, and calling. Performances are top-tier. Joel Courtney (Super8) brings a brings a believable sincerity to the part of Greg Laurie, while Kelsey Grammer deserves an Oscar for playing Chuck Smith. Casting Jonathan Roumie as street preacher Lonnie Frisbee is arguably "stunt casting" (as Frisbee is best known for playing Jesus in The Chosen) but he convincingly inhabits the role of a contradictory man, who did incalculable good -- despite severe character flaws. Kudos also to cinematographer Akis Konstantakopoulos, who convincingly mimics the quality of early 1970s film stocks, and creates a convincing look of the time and place.

Fully apart from the fact I endorse its essential message, I think Jesus Revolution one of the best films I've seen in years. Rather than preaching to the audience, it is content simply to tell a great story. It is sensitively directed, phenomenally well-acted, touching, compelling and a powerful depiction of faith.

[AndyDursin]

Continuing on a religious theme!

GODSPELL (1973)
8/10

Theo was in the school play of "Godspell Jr." and I confess I had never seen the movie nor heard the many cast recording(s) of Stephen Schwartz's off-Broadway hit before. The "Jr" version was predictably a bit rough because it's not an easy show for grade schoolers, but watching the movie after the fact was really refreshing, as the source material, its treatment, and the score come together in a satisfying way I was not expecting.

In fact, as "hippie musicals" of its era go, I liked this a lot better than "Jesus Christ Superstar," with great use of NYC locations -- the shots on top of the then-unfinished World Trade Center actually made me queasy -- as director David Greene impressively staged scenes on somehow empty streets and in places that give off a real sense of the era. The fragmented "Gospel According to Today" plot isn't always easy to follow, but Schwartz's score has some lovely moments that are all enhanced in the movie by a larger budget that enabled the music to benefit from strings and additional soloists, including standout session performers like future Letterman band leader Paul Shaffer. The recording has a more polished and lyrical tone absent from, say, its previous original cast album.

Overall Theo, who gravitates towards religious and spiritual stories anyway, had a great time in the show and sung along with the movie -- but he was upset his favorite song from the show itself was cut from the film! A complaint of a true Aisle Seater

[Paul MacLean]

Overall Theo, who gravitates towards religious and spiritual stories anyway, had a great time in the show and sung along with the movie -- but he was upset his favorite song from the show itself was cut from the film! A complaint of a true Aisle Seater

I saw Godspell on TV when I was 10...but don't remember much about it (I was 10!). Agreed tho, it is better than Jesus Christ Superstar, which always struck me as a passive-aggressive attempt to affront people of faith -- whereas Godspell was just putting a then-contemporary spin on the material.

I also find in interesting the Jesus character wears a Superman shirt -- as Superman has oft-been interpreted as a pop culture "Christ figure".

[Paul MacLean]

Willow (6.5/10)

I've seen this film numerous times over the years. And while my latest viewing has altered my perception of it in some ways, it remains a frustratingly uneven film.

When Willow is working, it's great. When Willow is not working, it's pretty bad.

First the good. The characters of Willow and Madmartegan (and the respective performances by Warwick Davis and Val Kilmer) have genuine chemistry together and this film really works on the "buddy movie" level. Davis is particularly impressive, and really carries film -- which is amazing considering what an inexperienced actor he was at the time. Joanne Whalley is also both impressive and fetching as the feisty Sorsha.

Willow also makes the best use of locations of any fantasy film to date, with dramatic New Zealand scenery blending seamlessly with that of England and Wales. There are also some great action sequences -- particularly the mountain top sequence (those were the days when a huge film unit would actually trudge to the summit of a snowy mountain in New Zealand to get the right look).

On the other hand, the film has tedious stretches. The "Tir Asleen" sequence is redundant and overkill coming so soon after the mountaintop scenes. Jean Marsh is hammy and over-the-top as the evil queen Bavmorda. General Kael is just Darth Vader, the two pixies are annoying, the two kids playing Willow's children can't act to save their lives, and the whole climactic castle siege just feels perfunctory (and becomes silly as Bavmorda and Rozelle's battle degenerates into a fistfight). (Also, why do Madmartegan and the other warriors need to defeat Bavmorda's army when the real fight is taking place in one of the castle towers -- and nothing either army does will affect that outcome?)

James Horner's score, like the film, is wonderful in places, and not-so-great in others. His cues for the wagon chase and mountain fight are superb, his theme for the protagonist is touching and sincere, and his love theme is bursting with beauty and passion. But I don't care for that piercing shakuhachi and the silly "peasant dance" music (and why on Earth did he use that dance music to open the end titles?).

So, it is a watchable film, and I admire the effort that went into it, but from my perspective Willow is ultimately much too inconsistent in tone (and quality) to be a satisfying experience.