Willow.

Review #1085: Willow.

Cast: 
Warwick Davis (Willow Ufgood), Val Kilmer (Madmartigan), Joanne Whalley (Sorsha), Jean Marsh (Queen Bavmorda), Patricia Hayes (Fin Raziel), Billy Barty (The High Aldwin), Pat Roach (General Kael), Gavan O'Herlihy (Airk Thaughbaer), Maria Holvöe (Cherlindrea), with Kevin Pollak and Rick Overton (Rool and Franjean), and Kate & Ruth Greenfield and Rebecca Bearman (Elora Danan) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man)

Review: 
It is strange to see this film 30 years after it came out, a high fantasy movie that certainly has its fans and detractors after all this time. The story was done by George Lucas, notable for his work on the original Star Wars trilogy, with the screenplay being done by Bob Dolman, who had done work in television such as SCTV Network 90 (for which he won two Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Writing for a Variety Series). In any case, the idea for the movie was conceived by Lucas in the 1970s that had mythical qualities that was in some of the same vein as had been done with Star Wars, with Lucas once stating, "It was an idea that came to me in reading a lot of mythology and a lot of fairy tales and I realized that there hadn’t been very many feature films in that genre of just pure fantasy."

In any case, it is evident that there was a great deal of effort to really try to make something worthwhile as entertainment with this movie, but I don't think that it quite succeeds in its pursuit. By the time that this film came out, there had been numerous fantasy films that came and went in the decade, and I have covered a few of those in other reviews, such as Clash of the Titans, Conan the Barbarian, and Krull, but I think that the problem with this movie is that it isn't particularly on the level of either of those films in terms of adventure. There isn't much in its story elements that hasn't been done in other movies, such as its quest and prophecy elements, but I will admit that it isn't an excruciating adventure, just one that isn't as fun as it thinks it is. Davis does a fine job with this title role, giving it some passion and usefulness that helps keep the movie on some sort of track. Kilmer, in a role that likely reminds viewers of other films with rogues, does a decent job with what he's given, having a few moments of amusement and action that come off convincing enough times. Whalley leaves a faint impression, but nothing too particularly inspiring. Marsh does an okay job as the villain, but it isn't anything too particularly notable. The others are alright, although Pollak and Overton's characters prove to a bit grating at times. The film's best highlight might be its effects, done by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), with the most notable one being when Hayes' character is changed from being an animal to human, done by digital morphing. It's an interesting effect to see the gradual change to the end result (aided by computer programs) that has a fine payoff. The film certainly has a decent look and cinematography (as done by Adrian Biddle), but I find that there just isn't enough in what the movie is trying to push in its action or its story to really make big entertainment. It feels a bit slow at times, such as in its middle portion, punctuated by its 126-minute run-time and a story that feels a bit by the numbers at times. It isn't anything too unique, but it also isn't anything that merits much passion beyond a mild interest. I can understand its cult status and why some may find it enjoyable, but I can't particularly give it a ringing endorsement. Take it for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Frenzy.

Review #977: Frenzy.

Cast: 
Jon Finch (Richard Ian "Dick" Blaney), Alec McCowen (Chief Inspector Oxford), Barry Foster (Robert "Bob" Rusk), Billie Whitelaw (Hetty Porter), Anna Massey (Barbara Jane "Babs" Milligan), Barbara Leigh-Hunt (Brenda Margaret Blaney), Bernard Cribbins (Felix Forsythe), Vivien Merchant (Mrs. Oxford), Michael Bates (Sergeant Spearman), and Jean Marsh (Monica Barling) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, and #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith)

Review: 
Frenzy was Alfred Hitchcock's 52nd feature film, along with being his penultimate film, with Family Plot (1976) being released four years later. This was adapted from the novel Goodbye Piccadilly, Farewell Leicester Square by Arthur La Bern. He later wrote a letter in a newspaper that described it as a "painful experience", citing the screenplay by Anthony Shaffer. If you've seen enough Hitchcock films/thrillers (or have heard about him already), there are quite a few familiar aspects present, such as the wrong man motif, and a macabre attitude at times, with more thrills than mystery present (seeing as you know who the killer is by the first hour), but it doesn't make the film any less interesting in its plunge into the dark (depending on how much you can stomach, anyway). The tracking sequence involving the killer taking his next victim is executed finely enough, and the potato truck sequence invokes a bit of nausea along with interest in where it will end up. This was Hitchcock's third British film since he had moved to Hollywood in 1939 (with the other two being Under Capricorn (1949) and Stage Fright (1950), although he shot some exterior shots in England for The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)), and this also happened to be his first (and only) ever film rated R upon theatrical release, with the violence and imagery shown on screen showing more of the ugly nature of death than previous Hitchcock films had done - for better or for worse. If you can stomach the film's macabre aspects, you likely can stomach the film as a whole just fine.

Finch is a fair main lead, being brutally blunt and fitting as the man in the wrong circumstances while not merely just an innocent lamb, which is somewhat refreshing although it may be a turnoff for others. McCowen does fine, being fairly crucial towards the climax. The humor is quite sharp and welcome, with the scenes between McCowen and Merchant feeling like the right sort of contrast in a film with a man who kills people with neckties (I happen to have no biases toward this fact, seeing as I wear zip ties); the scene with the men discussing the details of the murder in a pub is also a strange highlight. Foster has a sort of ease to his performance that is fairly off-putting and quite effective; his scene with Leigh-Hunt is haunting along with lurid. The rest of the cast are quite interesting in their supporting roles, such as Massey and Cribbins, each having a certain pull factor that works in their own way; the locations used (such as Covent Garden) is also pretty helpful in making for a unique atmosphere for the film to take place, with some of the location having changed since the film's release. The climax of the film is fairly engaging and typical for a Hitchcock movie (which isn't a criticism), having a satisfactory end - for a movie like this, anyway. It is easy to say this is not one of Hitchcock's best films, but it is at least a fair piece of entertainment that happens to fall in the middle behind genuine classics that he had made prior. Love it or hate it, it is clear that Hitchcock still seemed to know what he was doing even at the age of 73, and this is a fairly decent representation of that.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Changeling.

Review #722: The Changeling.

Cast
George C. Scott (John Russell), Melvyn Douglas (Sen. Joseph Carmichael), Trish Van Devere (Claire Norman), Eric Christmas (Albert Harmon), John Colicos (De Witt), Jean Marsh (Joanna Russell), and Roberta Maxwell (Eva Lingstrom) Directed by Peter Medak.

Review
As Canada Day slowly ended today, I decided to celebrate Canada once again with this film mainly because it sounded too interesting not to. While the movie is set in Seattle, it was mostly filmed in Canada, more specifically Vancouver, incorporating shots of some Seattle landmarks and Vancouver landscape. In fact, the house featured in the movie was actually a modern house with a Victorian facade added on. As for the movie itself, it's pretty good. The atmosphere of the movie is well-maintained and helps contribute to an interesting movie that is both engaging and chilling. Scott has a commanding presence that keeps the movie on track, and he has a good rapport with Van Devere and Douglas. It's a movie that develops itself surely and steadily, making for good mystery while also having good thrills as well, especially at the end. I like the set they used for the house, and I also like the shots of both Vancouver and Seattle, which look nice. It's a good movie that has some scares while also being engaging. The movie runs well and never seems to drag on while also managing to keep a consistent tone and never waver. Ultimately, it's a good gem of horror. I hoped you enjoyed your Canada Day, and if you're not Canadian (like me), at least listen to O Canada once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

edit-2026: revised image

Movie Night: Return to Oz.

Review #393: Return to Oz.

Cast
Fairuza Balk (Dorothy Gale), Brian Henson (Jack Pumpkinhead), Sean Barrett (Tik-Tok), Nicol Williamson (Dr. Worley/Nome King), Jean Marsh (Head Nurse Wilson/Mombi), Denise Bryer (Billina), Lyle Conway (The Gump), Pons Maar (Lead Wheeler), Emma Ridley (Ozma), Piper Laurie (Aunt Em), Matt Clark (Uncle Henry), and Justin Case (The Scarecrow) Directed by Walter Murch.

Review
Released 46 years after the classic The Wizard of Oz (#159) (though there have been several films based on Oz in that span), and 234 reviews after I did my take on the film, I decided to review this, and why not considering summer's around the corner, so it's like a "return" for me. I don't like doing puns that much though...Anyway, this film has been called "dark", "depressing", and "cult classic". Are any of those words true? It is all a matter of opinion. But frankly, I like this film. Dark? Sure, but the Wizard of Oz had its moments of terror as well, what with the Flying Monkeys and all, so that criticism is on a slippery slope to begin with, but then again I like some dark elements, and it works allright in a land of Oz such as this. It is somewhat depressing...in the beginning. If the film had been less dark, it would be called out for being too similar to the 1939 film, and because it went dark, it gets called out for being too much not like the 1939 film, so it can't win either way with some people. It isn't as bleak as it could be because at least there is a sense of determination, a sense that these characters are worthy to be invested in, and while the Wheelers could be terrifying for young kids, it won't be as much for older ones, so that criticism doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Plus, the Nome King effects are really good in my mind, and it shows a level of creativity, and the character is wicked enough to be a good villain, not Wicked Witch wicked, but oh well. The acting is good, even from a young child actor such as Fairuza Balk, a good choice for Dorothy. The five (Balk, Henson, Barrett, Bryer, Conway) are not exactly as great a group as the original, but at least they come close enough. This may have its oddities, but that doesn't mean it should be forgotten, as it is indeed a cult classic. Take it for what it's worth. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.