Weeping Over ‘Willow’

Main theme running through early reviews of “Willow,” the George Lucas fantasy that opened Friday: lack of originality.

Some samples:

The Orange County Register’s Jim Emerson: “The pastiche fantasy land is made up of elements borrowed from so many places that for any viewer remotely tuned into the popular myth of the last several centuries, the picture rapidly turns into a movie theater parlor game of ‘Spot That Reference.’ ”

Newsweek’s David Ansen called Lucas “the Great Regurgitator of pop culture.” (Headline: “The Raider of Lost Art.”)

Time’s Richard Corliss echoed: “A ‘Star Wars’ without star quality, an ‘Indiana Jones’ adventure with the heart ripped out. . . .”

The Her-Ex’s Peter Rainer: “Two hours’ worth of cliche-ridden scriptwriting and lackluster special effects. . . . An unholy alliance of ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘thirty-something.’ ”

Daily Variety’s Jane Galbraith: “Medieval mishmash--a sort of 10th-Century ‘Star Wars’ tossed together with a plethora of elements taken from numerous classic fables.” (She did add that “kids will probably love it.”)

Cinefantastique editor/publisher Frederick S. Clarke minced no words: “Next to this, ‘Howard the Duck’ looks like a minor miscalculation. . . . The film just falls apart as the George Lucas story begins to inject its more overt fantasy motifs with cartoony special effects. . . .”

But not everyone reviled “Willow.” Our Sheila Benson gave it a lukewarm reception: “A perfectly agreeable tale.”

And KABC-TV’s Gary Franklin gave the film a 9 1/2 on the Franklin Scale, calling it “a charming, extremely well-made film. The performances (are excellent) . . . superb photography and editing. And of course, the best of special effects. A fine bit of escapist entertainment for all ages.”