The Fantasy Hall of Fame

I’ll be watching and reviewing The Dark Crystal tonight

Thanks for the update. I only have my own nom and a couple of rewatches before finalizing my list. I've been pretty busy the last few days, but I should be done within a week or two.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

I’ll have The Dark Crystal review up sometime tomorrow. I still think the puppetry is amazing even after all this time.

The Dark Crystal


Jim Henson’s wonderful and often dark fantasy film is a treat for the eyes. This was before CGI became so rampant (and often times lazily used).
The story is a simple one. A gelfing, named Jen is given a task. The story is thin, and simple. But that’s not the point. The special effects is what matters here.
Henson has created a literal, breathing and vibrant world. Full of wondrous creatures and strange flora and fauna. You can see the care and love put into it to create them. Perhaps a bit too much, at that. At times it seems almost distracting from the film. Especially when he pauses on some creature in the foreground before breaking to Jen.
At times the pacing is a bit slow as well.
But none of those detract from a good film. The characters, and their respective races, the skeksis, Gauthim, Mystics and crystal bats, are all a great to look at.
It’s an achievement that seemed almost impossible to consider without resorting to CGI.
But that’s perhaps a testament to the imagination of Henson.
Good pick. Been way too many years since I last saw this child hood favorite.

Gonna watch Tideland today as well.

Tideland



Well this was.....interesting. It would be very easy for me to slam this whole movie and trash it to pieces but there actually we're a lot of decent things to it. First I found Jodelle Ferland's performance pretty admirable, especially for someone who was around 10-11 years old when this movie was actually filmed. I don't think I've seen any of her works besides this movie. And of course seeing Jeff Bridges if even in a super limited role was really cool here. I thought the film looked really good too, a very dark imaginative setting made by Gilliam.

For the extreme hate is the performance of Brendan Fletcher who was both horrendous and in a way gross. Kind of acted like a mental Forrest Gump if that makes sense. And those little puppets were pretty damn annoying too. I wonder if the film would have worked really well without these two things going against it, but then also that makes it a completely different film.

Still, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least entertained by the majority of the film, save for a bunch of parts that had no place in the film in my opinion.

-

Planning on renting a few films this weekend to help knock these out.
Probably go for Excalibur, Kiki and Beauty and the Beast first.

DragonHeart

Draco: Such deception hardly befits a knight of the Old Code.
Bowen: Ha! Fleecing Einon's lackeys, that's a service to mankind.
Draco: Is it? When you squeeze the nobility, it's the peasants who feel the pinch.

Borrowing from Arthurian Legend regarding the "Knights of the Old Code" we have the groundwork for a fantastical story of Honor and, always the counterpart; Betrayal. Giving us the arc of lost faith and the eventual return of Hope. Though not entirely grand in the more poetic scope. It is merely the focus of the main characters, Bowen (Dennis Quaid) and Draco (voiced by Sean Connery) and the cause of venomous despise by David Thewlis' Einon. Mix in a little tongue in cheek and you get a fun, enjoyable romp into the Sword & Dragon Fantasy Realm.
While the secondary tier of actors; Julie Christie, Dina Meyer and Pete Postlethwaite are all enjoyable to watch, for me, the above three bring forth the full parameter of this story/film. All fitting their roles extremely well. Connery's voice brings the romantic gravitas to Draco and Quaid does a splendid job of the old knight who has lost his faith and as become a mercenary killer of dragons. And so far as contemptible Kings are concerned, Thewlis makes his devious/cruel Einon stand above the usual grind of despots that habitat fantasy realms.

This is not an epic or a familiar tale revised, this is the comfort of said familiar tale that brings a smile to us who enjoy its telling.

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

Lord of the Rings; Fellowship of the Ring

Sam: This is it.
Frodo: This is what?
Sam: If I take one more step, it'll be the farthest away from home I've ever been.
Frodo: Come on, Sam. Remember what Bilbo used to say: "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to."

Of the trilogy this is my favorite. While the following two are epic in their battles and struggles, this is the introduction to it all. To Middle Earth. The One Ring. The Shire. Gandalf. All of it. This was the film that gave me a relaxed sigh realizing that Peter Jackson was The Guy to bring JRR Tolkien's world to celluloid.
Because a lot of us fantasy geeks wasn't sure it was going to be possible. We knew it wasn't going to be an exact duplication of the books, but d@mn if he didn't show serious love and attention to detail when it came to the world and the characters that Tolkien inspired so many of us as we read his works.
Now, of course, the nitpickers DID have their day complaining about the "size comparison" of everyone, which, considering the amazing work of not only tackling one of the most renown fantasy works of the twentieth century, but then doing such an incredible job recreating it with all its splendor, was and is, in my eyes, a tad petty.

On this recent watch I made absolutely sure to sit back in a recliner at home and watch on a large TV screen for a more full appreciation and I found myself recollecting to a number of Fantasy artists from when I was a young geek as I revisited one beautiful background to the next. Specifically the Hildebrandt Brothers, which I am assuming, along with the core material, Jackson was combing through theirs and others like them when it came to composition.

Much like The Godfather is the epitome of Gangster films, this is for Fantasy/ Sword & Sorcery films.
F@CKIN BRAVO @rauldc14!!

How do you feel about his subsequent Hobbit films? Do you think he failed to capture the same magic he did for Lord of the Rings, or were you just as impressed with those?

__________________

For QUITE a while I couldn't watch 'em without getting aggravated because of how MUCH he changed the story to make it more of a prequel than what it originally was -- a stand-alone story that equals one film and not 3. Jamming every bit of Lord of Rings references like a drunken hostess overstuffing a turkey for a bigger guest list. It drove me crazy.
Then my roommate gave me a simple perspective to look at it as fan fiction.
That helped. I still had to prepare myself with that mantra: "It's fan fiction. It's fan fiction. Ed, it's just fan fiction. . ."
It'll take another watch or two to appreciate the magic WITHOUT the grumbling.

Well, Kiki’s delivery service is currently rented by another, but due today, so I’ll just grab it tomorrow.
I did however pick up Excalibur and Beauty and the Beast.

Heh, as usual....Ed and I are behind.
*fistbump*

Rest assured, I will finish these by the dead line. Work has lessened and I’ve been given off for today, so I plan on watching a few of these over the weekend.

Excalibur

I’m starting with this one because I have a healthy respect for Citizens nominations. It was the one film that caught my eye when nominations were first anounced.

John Boorman weaves a tale about the legend of King Arthur without the glamour. He replaces it with the mud and blood that so often, and accurately, permeated these legends.
Arthur was born of a tryst of a King, under the guise of another, aided by Merlin, and of Ygraine, the wife of a rival King.
The first 15 minutes or so depicting these scenes are riveting. Somehow, the films falters a bit once Arthur is grown. The dialogue is clunky at times, although nowhere near as atrocious as I have read it was supposed to be.
The films also is too brisk as we move in and out of scenes without really getting a full chance to appreciate them. Lancelot’s introduction feels rushed for example. As does The scene where Guinevere and Lancelot finally give into temptation.
But it’s shot magnificently, as Boorman is able to capture the battle scenes without getting lost in the crowd, instead focusing on the individual matches. And the scenes with mountains covered in snow, fog or rain are amazing to look at. And especially the scenes where a rejuvenated Arthur rides through the forest as it blooms healthy again. And that final battle between Arthur and Modred, withe red sun between them in the horizon.
As for the acting, other then Helen Mirren, Patrick Stewart and Nicol Williamson , it’s mostly forgettable. Not terrible mind you, but wooden in some approaches. Indeed, Nigel Terry as Arthur is the most disappointing. But whatever failings he has is more then made up for by Williamson as Merlin, always skulking in the back ground, an ominous presence watching and waiting. Always answering with cryptic riddles. He has the best lines and the best scenes.
But isn’t not quite enough to make this among the best films for me. It’s close, but it suffers from the previous issues as well as a badly paced search for Holy Grail. It drags on and the film only recovers once Arthur is rejuvenated.
Still, it is a good film.

Late to the party, even later to leave
*fistbump*

I think Excalibur is the film that I was most disappointed with in this HoF, but that's mainly because it's also the film that I had the highest hopes for too. It just felt like the movie had so much potential, but it just missed the mark for me.

I tried rewatching Tideland, but sadly, it didn't change my opinion of the movie. I just can't get past the annoying and disgusting characters to care about anyone in the movie.

I can understand from the explanations here about the comparisons with Alice in Wonderland, but I just don't see it when I watch the movie. Alice in Wonderland is a wonderful story about a young girl who falls into a rabbit hole and has a fun and amazing adventure, but Tideland is a story about a young girl who loses her parents and just ends up in a creepy world.

Alice in Wonderland is by far better than Tideland. However Tideland was amusing even of I didn't care for it all too much.